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 March, 2011

AARP Making Mega-Millions on Corrupt ObamaCare “Easter Egg”

Posted by iusbvision on March 31, 2011

This is how some corrupt corporations make millions and scam the taxpayers. The AARP is supposed to be non profit. That means that they are not supposed to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, they are not supposed to be engaged in partisan politics and they are not supposed to be engaged in a huge conflict of interest. AARP has done all of this at the expense of their members and employees.

Related:

AARP and Many Others Hiking Premiums or Dumping Coverage Because of ObamaCare

Corrupt AARP Health Care Deal Puts Seniors at Risk

CBO: Obama is wrong, cuts in Medicare will result in benefit cuts. The corrupt AARP angle. UPDATED!

Ethics You Can’t Believe In: Special Interests Dominate Fiscal Responsibility Summit

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Herman Cain: The elite media does not want Barack Obama to have to go toe to toe with Herman Cain as the Republican nominee.

Posted by iusbvision on March 31, 2011

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

ABC’s Jake Tapper Blasts Obama’s Double Standard on Jobs

Posted by iusbvision on March 31, 2011

ABC’s Jake Tapper on the double standard: “What would candidate Obama have said if Bush’s jobs adviser ran a company which outsourced thousands of jobs and paid no taxes on $14 billion in profits?

Jeffery Immelt with Obama

Politico (and Politico is very left friendly folks):

The results of GE’s tight relationship with the Obama administration are starting to show.

The company’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, went from being an Obama ally on green energy to being one of his top outside advisers on the economy in the last two years.

In the process, The New York Times reports, GE had one of its best years in 2010, in part by getting a huge tax benefit from Uncle Sam.

Last year, the company paid nothing to the government. Instead, the government paid GE $3.2 billion in tax breaks.

“Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore,” according to The Times.

Some combination of aggressive lobbying for green energy tax incentives — for which the administration had pushed aggressively in the Recovery Act and in President Obama’s budgets to Congress over the last two year — and strategies run out of its in-house tax department have made GE one of the leading companies in reducing its corporate tax burden.

When Immelt was named the chairman of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in January, he acknowledged that his company has a reputation for running most of its business overseas, the result of more than three decades of reducing its domestic operations to minimize costs.

“I know that despite the fact that 60 percent of GE’s revenues are outside of the United States, I personally and this company share in the responsibly and the accountability to make sure that this is the most competitive and productive country in the world,” Immelt said in January.

But he neglected to mention that GE’s offshore operation also allows it to avoid paying most of its taxes to the federal government.

GE’s spokesman told the Times that reducing its tax burden is part of the company’s “responsibility” to its shareholders.

But it also appears to run contrary to Obama’s rhetoric about slowing the rapid offshoring of American jobs.

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

Stossel: Some beggars make $50 an hour!

Posted by iusbvision on March 30, 2011

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s Libya Speech: I am now for everything I ran against!

Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011

I was writing this long post as I was going through the speech and then I see my friend Scott Ott at PJTV posted a video which totally stole my thunder. Since a video is much more entertaining than a wall of textual analysis I will just post the video with a few observations of my own.

In Iraq we had real national interests. Saddam was giving money and other material support to terror groups including al-Qaeda. He had violated a cease-fire agreement and the diplomatic credibility was being trashed (if you do not think that this is a good reason to go to war than respectfully, you do not understand history, diplomacy or geopolitics worth a darn). There were 25 reasons in the Congressional resolution but a very important one went unspoken; Iraq is among the most cosmopolitan and secular Muslim countries, if we can make Democracy work there the Middle East has a chance, if we cannot we know what we have to prepare for.

There is one problem though. What are our national interests in this operation? Revenge for Pan Am 103 and the bombing in Europe. I can see that but its a little late on that score with all do respect to the families who are understandably crying out for justice. The question of pay back has value, but is it an honest argument by those who are making it?

The easy flow of oil is an interest but Libya doesn’t make a great deal of it when compared to other countries.

We are facing a very likely possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda will fill the power vacuum if Ghadaffi leaves and that is even worse than leaving Ghadaffi intact. If this is indeed the case than removing Ghadaffi goes against our national interests, which Bill Whittle alludes to in his comments below.

There have been some on the right who have had a double standard on this issue, they wanted Obama to go in, and now that he has they are all over him. A few have blatantly flip-flopped, but most are questioning why it took 30 days to make the decision. If it was a priority why not go in three weeks before when the rebels were getting slaughtered?

I refused to support any action there because I feared that whoever took power after Ghadaffi would be worse. In the case of Iraq we stayed to make sure that wouldn’t happen.

[Editor’s Note – You will notice Bill Whittle get a tad emotional in this video. Bill follows every word this president says in detail. He is very aware of how Obama will say that “government needs to live within its means” one day and offer up a budget with $1.6 trillion yearly deficits the next. Or how Obama will brag about how there was not one earmark in the failed Stimulus Bill and days later sign a $411 billion omnibus bill with 8000 earmarks in it. This is the same Obama that took credit for global oil production being up, in spite of the fact that he has instituted an illegal offshore drilling ban that reduced domestic production. The same Obama that blasts the oil industry for having oil leases that are not being drilled upon, while at the same time erecting regulatory hurdles that prevent them from using the leases while his environmental-extremist allies sue at each step of the permit process. So in short Bill has had it with this president, as any informed and sincere person would.]

I thought that the most ironic moment was when President Obama asked if we had to wait for pictures of mass graves before we did anything.

Speaking of mass graves – http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Countless photo’s (warning pics of mass graves) – http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

The interesting thing about irony is that it often brings you to the front door of hypocrisy.

This speech was such a plagiarization of what President Bush said of Iraq that the White House should start sending royalty checks to Texas.

UPDATE – Sarah Palin gives her policy review on this issue (video LINK). In short: Now that we are there if we let Ghadaffi stay in power he will live to seek revenge upon us, if we take him down it seems al-Qeada and/or Muslim Brotherhood may take over. Sound familiar?

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

BUSTED: Democrats taped on phone acting in bad faith, plotting a government shutdown

Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011

Remember when we said that the Democrats are pushing for a government shut down, which is why they keep moving the goal posts in trying to boost deficit spending?  Well here is the proof. It is called acting in bad faith folks.

How could anyone who wants fiscal responsibility ever vote for any of these people again. You heard me. If you take exception to that comment please try and justify what we have just seen in the comments below.

UPDATE: Rand Paul: What Schumer is doing to the country is extreme

Michelle Bachmann responds as well:

Mike Pence: If the Democrats want a shutdown so bad, do it and see what happens…

Boehner/Bachmann: Democrats rooting for a shutdown

Its true too. Every time the Republicans make a compromise the Democrats move the goal post. First it was move spending back to 2008 levels; then it was cut by $100 billion; then it was $61 billion’ then it was, 10.5 or 33 billion dollars depending on what Democrat you were talking to.  How anyone, and I mean anyone who tells you that they are for fiscal responsibility and want to vote Democrat in 2012 is either duped or just lying to you.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Black Activist Calls Out Bill Ayers’ Lies About Charter Schools

Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011

Awesome!

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

Norway to Jews: You’re Not Welcome Here

Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011

You have seen us here at IUSB Vision tell you how antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. We have also informed you about the increase in antisemitism on campus. Prof. Dershowitz provides yet another example of just how bad it has become.  (Artwork via Bob Schneider)

Artwork via Bob Schneider

By Alan M. Dershowitz:

I recently completed a tour of Norwegian universities, where I spoke about international law as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the tour nearly never happened.

Its sponsor, a Norwegian pro-Israel group, offered to have me lecture without any charge to the three major universities. Norwegian universities generally jump at any opportunity to invite lecturers from elsewhere. When my Harvard colleague Stephen Walt, co-author of “The Israel Lobby,” came to Norway, he was immediately invited to present a lecture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. Likewise with Ilan Pappe, a demonizer of Israel who teaches at Oxford.

My hosts expected, therefore, that their offer to have me present a different academic perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be eagerly accepted. I have written half a dozen books on the subject presenting a centrist view in support of the two-state solution. But the universities refused.

The dean of the law faculty at Bergen University said he would be “honored” to have me present a lecture “on the O.J. Simpson case,” as long as I was willing to promise not to mention Israel. An administrator at the Trondheim school said that Israel was too “controversial.”

The University of Oslo simply said “no” without offering an excuse. That led one journalist to wonder whether the Norwegian universities believe that I am “not entirely house-trained.”

Only once before have I been prevented from lecturing at universities in a country. The other country was Apartheid South Africa.

Despite the faculties’ refusals to invite me, I delivered three lectures to packed auditoriums at the invitation of student groups. I received sustained applause both before and after the talks.

It was then that I realized why all this happened. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics. This boycott is directed against Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian land—but the occupation that the boycott supporters have in mind is not of the West Bank but rather of Israel itself. Here is the first line of their petition: “Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land . . .”

The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott.

The first boycott signatory was Trond Adresen, a professor at Trondheim. About Jews, he has written: “There is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews. . . . [They] as a whole, are characterized by this mentality. . . . It is no less legitimate to say such a thing about Jews in 2008-2009 than it was to make the same point about the Germans around 1938.”

This line of talk—directed at Jews, not Israel—is apparently acceptable among many in Norway’s elite. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock’s reaction to President Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first chief of staff: “It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish.” Mr. Willock didn’t know anything about Mr. Emanuel’s views—he based his criticism on the sole fact that Mr. Emanuel is a Jew. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewer than 1,000 Jews live in Norway today.

The country’s foreign minister recently wrote an article justifying his contacts with Hamas. He said that the essential philosophy of Norway is “dialogue.” That dialogue, it turns out, is one-sided. Hamas and its supporters are invited into the dialogue, but supporters of Israel are excluded by an implicit, yet very real, boycott against pro-Israel views.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.

UPDATE – Read this no miss article, especially the second half.  Ynet News –  Something rotten in Norway

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

In 2008 did college students become “Obama Zombies”?

Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011

Just a few hints:

Even The Onion got in on the Obama Zombie theme. “They have proven that their minds can be taken over my empty rhetoric”…

Peggy Joseph:

A group sat outside of the polls and interviewed voters coming out of the polls. This speaks for itself (the energy policy question was prophetic):

 

I have my own personal story about Obama Zombies:

During the 2008 election I was in Dr. Bennion’s 400 level elections class.

Dr. Bennion asked the class, “Who here believes that young people are supporting Obama because they have increased knowledge?” Everyone in the class except myself and the only black male in the class raised their hand.

“Who believes that young people in have been taken in by slick marketing?” The black male and myself raised our hands.

So Dr. Bennion put the onus on me to justify my position. This was easy.

This was shortly after Joe the Plumber had his confrontation with Barack Obama. So I asked the class, “Who here has heard about Joe the Plumber?” Almost everyone raised their hand. “Who has heard that Joe the Plumber is no good because he owned property taxes on a property he used to own? Almost everyone raised their hand again. “Who here heard that Joe doesn’t count because after all he isn’t even a real plumber because he didn’t have his own plumbing license and worked as an apprentice under his boss?” Again almost everyone raised their hand.

Then I dropped the bomb (now keep in mind that this is a room filled with seniors in poli-sci and alleged political junkies). I asked, “OK now who here can name me two of the three employers Barack Obama had before he ran for State Senate?” – Silence.

“This is what I thought. You can tell me minor details about Joe the Plumber and you do not even know the basic employment history of your chosen candidate. You are political science majors. People are going to be counting on you to give a professional analysis. I rest my case.”

Buy Obama Zombies HERE.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Mark Levin on Presidential and Congressional War Powers

Posted by iusbvision on March 28, 2011

Mark Levin served in the Justice Department under Ronald Reagan and is the Head of the Landmark Legal Foundation. He is the author of several best selling books including the best selling book on the Supreme Court of all Time, “Men in Black”.

Mark Levin:

Why didn’t the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress?  If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that?  What of offensive military actions taken to prevent imminent threats?  What of covert operations for that matter, or extended wars fought over decades but mostly through surrogates (such as the Cold War)?  What must be declared and when?

— I repeat, the Congress — has funded every kind of military and covert operation — untold numbers of them — without issuing a formal declaration of war in the vast majority of cases.  What stops it?   It does not need permission or a request from a president to issue a formal proclamation.  It issues proclamations about meaningless things all the time without being asked.    The Constitution says Congress shall have the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water …”

When members of Congress vote to fund these activities, they are giving their formal, official consent to the operations.  More than voting to declare war, they are actually voting to fund war — all kinds of war.  Interestingly, in most of the cases in which Congress has formally declared — which is World War II — there was never any doubt that the president would use all possible military force to protect the nation, and Congress would fund it, even without any declarations.  The declarations were not used as constitutional requisites for war, but to rally the nation and assert our resolve.  But once Congress has funded a military operation, and it funds virtually all of them, it is undoubtedly helping to make war for without the funds there can be no war.  Thus, in each instance, it is declaring war its support for the military actions

What of military operations launched by a president where the president uses funds already appropriated by Congress before the operations began, but which were approved for general national security purposes — that is, where Congress has not actually voted on funding a particular operation?  Without question Congress has the power to withhold appropriations or defund operations, if it can muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto.  Congress rarely does so, although most notably in ending the Vietnam War.  Congress has the power to enforce its decisions by impeaching a president and removing him from office should he continue to prosecute military operations after it has formally acted to end them.  Hence, comparisons between the president and a monarch are ridiculous.  These are very powerful tools, should Congress decide to use them.  However, even now, when the president has directed military operations in Libya, is Congress even considering cutting off funding?  What about the Republican majority in the House?  No.  But there is no question that congressional authority respecting war powers is significant, which distinguishes our system from many, including a monarchy.  But make no mistake, it is not significant enough for the neo-anarchists, who cherry-pick their way through history to promote a dogma.

“But Mark,” asks the outlier professor, “here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever.”

Consulting Congress?  Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject.  I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week.  I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site.  I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons.  In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations.  I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress.  Why would they?  But that was not the issue.  Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war.  So, the outlier professor would be misstating what I said and dodging the issue, apparently something he has been accused of before by another professor, Ronald Radoshhttp://hnn.us/articles/10493.html You don’t have to agree with Professor Radosh’s views, but he raises a serious concern.

Anyway, there you have it folks.  Either you are convinced or you are not.  If not, then you have to conclude, as they do here, that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, monarch, warmonger, or whatever. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html I have to move on, but I am sure the Paulite dead-enders will carry on.

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Obama: I am better than Bush!!

Posted by iusbvision on March 28, 2011

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

My Concerns About the Operation in Libya & Egypt

Posted by iusbvision on March 27, 2011

I have had this column in my head for over a month, but I resisted posting it because I was using history as a guide along with my knowledge of the Middle East and the Obama Administration to make a trajectory. I had little evidence to go on but my instincts were strong. I ended up being correct and it was a valuable lesson in trusting oneself as a columnist and a person who does his homework.

While I support the idea of the international community stopping a mad dictator from orchestrating a mass slaughter of his own people when able, we have only seen uprisings in Arab countries where the governments are not associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no freedom in Gaza or in Lebanon since Hezbollah took over and yet there are no democracy, peace and love protests. This did not look spontaneous to me.

On the English web sites of the Muslim Brotherhood they spoke of “peace, love, democracy, and social justice”, while watchdogs reported that on the Arabic web sites, sub groups were saying to get ready to deal with the Christians, infidels and Jews.

The Muslim Brotherhood is making moves to take power in Egypt and the elite media is keeping that pretty hushed in spite of the fact that it was in the NYT. If the Muslim Brotherhood does take over Egypt and Libya, it would mean that the United States under the Obama Administration helped them to do it.

Prof. Niall Ferguson spoke of this very concern on MSNBC – be sure to watch the ENTIRE video:  

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist whose family was close to the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood agrees – LINK

Now we have learned that the rebel commander in Libya fought against the United States in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda is fighting alongside the rebels – LINK. Imagine a Muslim Brotherhood with al-Qaeda that have oil revenue at their disposal.

We have been fooled before. Jimmy Carter actively helped the Mullah’s in Iran take over the country and they too spoke of “peace, love, democracy and social justice”. When they took over the killings, rapes,  stonings and suppression of freedoms began. The United States pressured Lebanon to show the Islamists tolerance. As their numbers grew by immigration and they used our Western tolerance as a weapon against them.  Then the violence began. Now Hezbollah has taken over the country and freedom in Lebanon is fast coming to an end. They did so using the exact same tactics the Mullah’s used in Iran and the same tactics that Islamists are using in European countries now.

Traditional conservatives like myself have said that we believed that Obama would be the second administration of Jimmy Carter, it seems that we were even more correct than we feared. If the Muslim Brotherhood and its splinter groups like al-Qaeda manage to take over Egypt and Libya with our assistance this could prove to be the biggest disaster since we helped the Iranian regime come to power in 1979.

Why didn’t I say this so directly before? I have been concerned since I noticed the almost simultaneous rumblings of uprisings starting in mid to late January only happening in countries with governments opposed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated factions. Other than my noticing that particular coincidence I had no strong evidence to go on to bring to you here at IUSB Vision. I was not confident enough to make a declaration based on my gut feelings and the tiny craps of information I had.

Even after I saw that Prof. Ferguson and Walid Shoebat suspected as I did, at the time it was still a prediction, a suspicion of what they believed might come. After the chaos was over, the largest organized force in these countries is the Muslim Brotherhood. Now the evidence is coming in and it seems we have a real problem.

So lets examine the path we are going down.

Remember when the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) said that the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular organization? – LINK. The DNI was mocked my many including Niall Ferguson for this preposterous testimony. It is like he swallowed the propaganda on the Brotherhood’s English web site and regurgitated it as gospel.

Then Obama came out and said that the Muslim Brotherhood should be a part of the new Egyptian Government.

LA Times:

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said. But by even setting conditions for the involvement of such nonsecular groups, the administration took a surprise step in the midst of the crisis that has enveloped Egypt for the last week.

/facepalm Iran II here we come…

So Thursday, after the train has left the station here comes the New York Times to play catch up:

CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”

There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins. [Yup real democratic – Iran & Lebanon here we come – Editor] Then, a few hours later, the public prosecutor announced that the former interior minister and other security officials would be charged in the killings of hundreds during the protests.

Egyptians are searching for signs of clarity in such declarations, hoping to discern the direction of a state led by a secretive military council brought to power by a revolution based on demands for democracy, rule of law and an end to corruption.

“We are all worried,” said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone.”

Suckers.

Fool me once shame on you (Iran). Fool me twice shame on me (Lebanon). Fool me three times and you’re a far left Democrat (Egypt). Fool me four times and you’re a progressive secular leftist who writes for the Washington Post. That’s right folks, even after all we have seen, the far left in the media are still fooled (or shall I say duplicitous). The Washington Post had a piece today saying that we should do the same in Syria – LINK. I see talking heads on the news say that we are supporting lawful democratic governments to take over. What nonsense.  The ties between the radical left and Islamists are no secret, especially on campus.

On a side note, Joe Biden once said that if President Bush took us to war without consulting Congress he would move to impeach him. Of course the Senate cannot impeach, another gaffe the elite media ignored, but now his administration has done just that in Libya.

UPDATE I – Let us be very clear just who it is that we are likely helping to take over a country.  This LINK will take you to a video of members of a different islamic sect being stoned and brutally murdered by a large group of Indonesian Islamists shouting Allah Akbar. This was done under police supervision according to the up-loader. I have the video cloned in case it is removed. The video is horrible and is not for the timid. Consider yourself warned.

UPDATE II Amnesty International:

EGYPTIAN WOMEN PROTESTERS FORCED TO TAKE ‘VIRGINITY TESTS’

23 March 2011

Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.

After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on 9 March, at least 18 women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.

‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.

“Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women,” said Amnesty International. “All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called ‘tests’.”

20-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window.  During the strip search, Salwa Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.

The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.

According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.

“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International.

“The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”

Journalist Rasha Azeb was also detained in Tahrir Square and told Amnesty International that she was handcuffed, beaten and insulted.

Following their arrest, the 18 women were initially taken to a Cairo Museum annex where they were reportedly handcuffed, beaten with sticks and hoses, given electric shocks in the chest and legs, and called “prostitutes”.

Rasha Azeb could see and hear the other detained women being tortured by being given electric shocks throughout their detention at the museum. She was released several hours later with four other men who were also journalists, but 17 other women were transferred to the military prison in Heikstep

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

Communist Party: We have never seen Democrat politicians so radical

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

When the communists are calling you radical, you know you have done something special….

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

Obama denies knowing about ATF engineering the funneling of illegal guns to Mexican cartels, yet he is illegally blocking Congress from investigating.

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

Related:

ATF Whistle-blower: My bosses ordered me to allow illegal guns to flow to Mexican cartels

Obama illegally firing watchdogs and whistle-blowers. Replacing them with unqualified political cronies.

 

Obama says that he will let the IG (Inspector general) investigate this, but as well all know Obama has been firing IG’s and replacing them with political cronies.

Laura Ingraham with Senator Chuck Grassley:

You heard it right, legal and licence gun sellers were telling the ATF about what was going on and the ATF told them it was OK. ATF employees went to superiors and told them what was going and on that it was illegal, those employees were threatened with termination and told that they would end up as jailers in some county somewhere if they didn’t be quiet.

Those guns were used to kill U.S. federal agents.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

DOJ to white male bullying victims: Tough luck

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

This is a pattern with this administration. The Voting Rights Act doesn’t apply to white victims, laws against economic terrorism do not apply to the radical left etc. .

So much for equal justice under the law.

Washington Times:

The viral video sensation showing a bullying incident at an Australian school has brought the issue of bullying back into the spotlight. Here in the United States, the Obama administration has made school bullying a federal issue. Last week, President Barack Obama addressed an anti-bullying conference with First Lady Michelle Obama at his side. The administration’s anti-bullying campaign has been ongoing since the beginning of Mr. Obama’s term.  The Department of Justice announced in December 2010 its intention to hold liable school districts that fail to protect students that are bullied.

DOJ’s website states:

The Civil Rights Division and the entire Justice Department are committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools, and the video highlights the Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

The statement later says:

The enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in school districts is a top priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information is available at the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section website at http://www.justice.gov/crt/edo/.

Here is the catch. DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. In essence, only discrimination against a victim’s race, sex, national origin, disability, or religion will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department.

Apparently, the Justice Department is going by George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm ending: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

“We can only take action where we have legal authority,” wrote DOJ spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa in a December 2010 e-mail to The Washington Times Water Cooler. She continues:

“As stated in the website below, we are statutorily authorized to initiate suits under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, and under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act. More information on the Civil Rights Act, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and the ADA can be found here:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/edo/faq.php#3

The Justice Department’s anti-bullying initiative is tantamount to bringing hate crime legislation to the public school system. Obviously, not only is the heterosexual white male student out of luck but  inner city minority students lose out in this deal too.

If a schoolyard bully is a straight black male and his target is another straight black male where does that leave the victim in the eyes of Attorney General Eric Holder? What about two female students of the same sexual orientation and race?  Is the victim in the latter situation considered to be less equal in the eyes of Obama’s Justice Department than a minority student who is picked on by a heterosexual white male student with no disabilities?

Unfortunately, the Justice Department is politicizing its priorities yet again. One must wonder why the administration believes it should be micro managing local school districts’ bullying problems. When the Justice Department is more interested in making ideological statements through seemingly sugar coated campaigns, no one should feel protected.

 

 

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

Obama refuses Congressional request on Obama meetings with lobbyists, mega corporations, interest groups and drug companies

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

Dick Cheney met with those oil guys in the Energy Task Force before they proposed legislation to drill that would have moved us closer to independence and lower gas prices. Democrats filibustered that legislation in the Senate to stop it. Don’t you wish they hadn’t today?

The left created all of these conspiracy theories about the meeting, demanded transcripts etc etc.

Well now the shoe is on the other foot and the left and the elite media are like this:

AP/Yahoo:

Obama tells GOP: Nice try on health care records

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now.

Republican congressional investigators got the brush-off this past week after pressing for details of meetings between White House officials and interest groups, including drug companies and hospitals that provided critical backing for Obama’s health insurance expansion.

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking” and could “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests,” White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

It’s one more roadblock for Republicans who tapped into widespread anxiety about the scope and costs of the new health care law to regain control of the House in last fall’s elections.

So far, they’ve been unable to repeal the landmark legislation they dismiss as “Obamacare.” GOP efforts to deny administration agencies the money to carry out the law are running into unintended consequences, not to mention the sheer difficulty of tracking those dollars. Now it looks like oversight isn’t going to be easy either.

“We are both concerned and disappointed by your response,” the committee chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., wrote back to Bauer. “The American public deserves the information we have requested. The secret meetings conducted by (White House officials) are a perfect example of why transparency in government is so important.”

 

So much for the most transparent White House in history as Obama promised so many times.

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

Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

BMI:

Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed.

On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.”

The event is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new ‘multilateral system,” or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.

More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks “the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat” is taking no chances.

Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that’s with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros’s warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it’s not.

Wait till you see who else on on the attendee’s list. Find out HERE.

George Soros is the number one money man of the radical left and the Democratic Party.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism | Leave a Comment »

Video: Here are your Planned Parenthood activists in action.

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

I appreciate their candor, even it if is a tad revolting.

Bottom line, they want to engage in all of the irresponsible behavior they want and they believe they have the RIGHT to make you pay for the consequences. Many of them also have some serious hate issues as you will see.

This is just something that has got to be seen to be believed.

By the way, Planned Parenthood engages in institutional violations of the law. This is merely one of these videos we could post: 

Planned Parenthood “We can make sure that your donation aborts black babies only…” no joke folks: 

Black community leaders speak out: 

Planned Parenthood apologized for the phone calls, but there is one little problem. Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to use abortion, segregation, sterilization, birth control both voluntary and involuntary, to create a master race. According to Sanger if we have to “clear the weeds” to “cultivate the garden” so be it and should be used to solve “the negro problem”:  

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

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

Education Dept. Investigates Complaint of Anti-Semitism at UC-Santa Cruz

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

Anti Israeli-ism and anti-Zionism often goes too far on campus. This is no secret. When you have professors who are PLO/Hamas sympathizers and professors who are so outrageously biased that they use Jimmy Carter’s mistake ridden anti-Israeli screed as a textbook it creates a hostile environment for Jews and supporters of Israel’s right to exist. And when I was in student government I got complaints from Jewish students about these professors but none would go on the record out of fear of grade retaliation.

So what to do? Campus Watch does a great job of outing bigoted academics, but many academics are very comfortable in their bigotry. This is also about academic freedom. Many bigots use academic freedom as a shield for bigoted indoctrination and harassment of Jews. Antisemitism is quite fashionable among the far left so many academics and administrators provide cover for each other. The excuse is always the same “You just oppose any critique of Israel”. Of course this is a canard because those who say that provide nothing even close to a balanced view of the issue and only make a token gesture at it when investigated.

The course could be taught from the Hamas perspective for half a semester and from the Israeli perspective the other half. Or it could be a two semester course.

Eventually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) came out with a policy that very imbalanced anti-Israeli-ism is antisemitism and is actionable. While freedom of speech and academic freedom issues should prevent close cases from being acted upon, which is a good thing because one should tilt the scales toward freedom, this policy could be effective at going after the more egregious cases, which is long over due.

The Chronicle:

The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has announced plans to investigate the University of California at Santa Cruz for anti-Semitism, based on a lecturer’s complaint that administrators there had turned a deaf ear to her concerns that critics of Israel were creating a hostile climate for Jewish people on the campus.

The case marks the first major investigation of anti-Semitism on a college campus by the civil-rights office, known as OCR, since its decision last fall to step up its efforts against such discrimination in a manner that some civil-rights experts saw as likely to pull the agency into debates over campus speech critical of Israel or Zionism. The University of California system is now defending itself against allegations of anti-Semitism on several fronts, as its Irvine campus remains the subject of a separate OCR investigation, undertaken in 2008, and its Berkeley campus and system administration were named in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a Jewish student this month.

Kenneth L. Marcus, who was the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights from 2002 to 2004 and now directs the Institute for Jewish and Community Research’s efforts to fight anti-Semitism, said on Tuesday that the investigation of Santa Cruz “would have been a nonstarter” if the OCR had not adopted the harder line against anti-Semitism urged by his organization and other Jewish groups.

Under the agency’s changed approach toward such complaints, announced in October as part of a broader effort to crack down on forms of student bullying and harassment seen as violating antidiscrimination laws, the OCR made clear that it intends to investigate charges of anti-Semitism where the discrimination might be based partly on ethnicity, and will be less likely to assume that anti-Semitic incidents are the result of religious discrimination, which falls outside its purview.

The Santa Cruz investigation “is a really important signal from OCR that they may be taking their new approach to anti-Semitism as seriously as we wanted them to,” Mr. Marcus said. “There is still a big question as to how vigorously they will pursue cases that involve a mix of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. This suggests a willingness to go forward.”

‘Harassment and Intimidation’

The new investigation is in response to a June 2009 complaint sent to the OCR by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew on the campus. In her letter, she describes several incidents in recent years in which administrators there rejected demands that the university drop its sponsorship of events focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that she regarded as one-sided attacks on Israel and Zionism. In some cases, she said, all that resulted from such complaints was that the people who brought them were villified by faculty members as threatening academic freedom.

“The anti-Israel discourse and behavior in classrooms and at departmentally and college-sponsored events at [Santa Cruz] is tantamount to institutional discrimination against Jewish students, which has resulted in their intellectual and emotional harassment and intimidation, and has adversely affected their educational experience at the university,” Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’ letter said. [This is exactly the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored chapters of the MSA and their far left allies – Editor]

In a letter sent to Ms. Rossman-Benjamin on March 7, Arthur Zeidman, director of the OCR’s enforcement office in San Francisco, said his agency would investigate whether the university had failed to fufill its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to respond to her concerns. He noted that the OCR’s decision to open such an investigation “in no way implies” that it has made a determination as to the merits of her complaint to the agency.

In a written statement, Santa Cruz’s campus counsel, Carole Rossi, said the university would “fully cooperate” with the OCR’s investigation.

The separate lawsuit against the University of California system was filed in U.S. District Court this month by Jessica Felber, a former Berkeley student who now works as a campus liaison for Hasbara Fellowships, an organization established by the Jewish organization Aish International. It argues that the university tolerated an anti-Semitic climate on the campus and failed to deal with complaints of “campus terrrorist incitements” by two student groups, the Muslim Students Union and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The lawsuit accuses the university of failing to have provided Ms. Felber with adequate protection against anti-Semitic violence in a March 2010 incident in which a student involved with Students for Justice in Palestine “intentionally rammed” a shopping cart into her on the campus, causing her an injury for which she received medical attention.

The Berkelely campus on Tuesday issued a statement that said it “is committed to maintaining an inclusive and respectful campus environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone, without regard to religion, race, ethnicity, or ideology,” and rejects “any allegation or implication that bias or prejudice plays any role” in how the administration deals with students or student groups.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Israel, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

You can look at the 2010 Budget Chart Book HERE. Just click on the tabs near the top of the web page for the categories and then you will see sub-categories allowing you to examine almost any meaningful statistic imaginable.

Be sure to look at this chart right HERE to find out just who it is that have been paying taxes and you will see that the top 10% of wage earners paid 71% of federal income tax. But there are two very important thing you should know about this stat.

Starting in 2008 and more so today, this number is going down and more tax burden is being transferred away from the wealthy and investor and production classes. Why? because when you have a government that is this active and when you have this level of economic and regulatory and fiscal uncertainty those who can invest or take risk park their money so it is not taxed or they invest it in a safe place like China, where the leaders have some economic common sense. As a result the tax burden is transfered to the middle class, working poor and small businesses.

To understand how this works in detail please see the following link – Video: How Tax Cuts Work in Our Tax System

The other thing you should know is that for the super rich and the very well connected it does not matter what the wage earner (small business) tax rate is, because they have loopholes in the 6o,000 page tax code made for them and in the case of those like John and Teresa Kerry, or George Soros,  much of their income is defined as either non taxable or not taxable at the wage earner rate. Now what party has been saying that we need to have a flatter and more simple tax code to help avoid this problem?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101 | Leave a Comment »

Factory Orders Drop; New Home Sales Drop 16.9%; Elite Media Shocked (again)

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

Big Government:

Once again, the headline on a financial story reads: unexpectedly. At what point do we conclude the economists relied upon for these projections are worthless, as they never appear to expect what’s going to happen?

US factory orders drop unexpectedly

Lower demand for machinery and defense equipment prompted a fall in US factory orders in February, the Commerce Department said Thursday, dashing hopes for a rebound after start-of-year blizzards.
New orders for big-ticket items — such as planes, computers and cars — fell 0.9 percent during the month, led by a 4.2 percent drop in machinery orders.

That shocked economists, who had expected orders to rise.

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Indeed. According to the elite media “most economists” were surprised by month after month after month of unexpectedunexpectedunexpectedunexpected, unexpected bad economic news for the last two years. Of course to those who were paying attention it wasn’t unexpected at all.]

Hotair.com nailing Reuters on the not so “unexpected”:

Despite the very obvious red flag from last week’s announcement, today’s announcement managed to catch Reuters by surprise … again:

New single-family home sales unexpectedly fell in February to hit a record low and prices were the lowest since December 2003, showing the housing market slide was deepening.

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday sales dropped 16.9 percent to a seasonally adjusted 250,000 unit annual rate, the lowest since records began in 1963, after an upwardly revised 301,000-unit pace in January.

Sales plunged to all-time lows in three of the four regions last month. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales edging up to a 290,000-unit pace last month from a previously reported 284,000 unit rate.

What were they expecting?  The big drop in starts announced last week had to mean that new-home sales had stalled, and that capital for new starts had been choked off as a result.  Last week’s announcement even referenced the climbing inventory in new single-family homes.  If inventory grew and new starts fell, should the math on this equation really be that difficult?

m

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101 | Leave a Comment »

EPA Using Tax Dollars for Partisan Advertising

Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011

Welcome to Chicago style corruption, just what we warned you about before the election. Just what you on the left denied would happen, is happening.

Via some great reporting at Big Government.com:

Your tax dollars at work…
The EPA is now paying the American Lung Association to attack Republicans:

[Editor’s Note – This is a billboard just a few miles north of where I live attacking Fred Upton. In a crazy ruling by the court, they handed the EPA the power to regulate CO2 as if it were a pollutant. The Constitution says that all lawmaking power rests with the Congress. It is with this “authority” under color of law (fake law) that Obama has instructed the EPA to create a Cap & Trade scheme against the will of Congress and the American people. This is profoundly and expressly unconstitutional and a complete violation of Separation of Powers.

So the Republicans are moving to take this power away. This billboard is Obama’s response. The dishonest narrative is “Republicans want to poison the air and kill this child “. CO2 is what we breath out and what trees and plants breath in, without it we would all starve. Almost any economic activity creates some CO2 so this is an “excuse” to regulate anything and everything by using unelected bureaucrats and ignoring Congress altogether.

This is abuse of power on its face, Democrats know this but just don’t care, and some Republicans are afraid of being accused of wanting to poison the girl on the billboard. The only way to put an end to this is to vote for bold conservative candidates overwhelmingly.]

The ALA put up four billboards like this one near Rep. Fred Upton’s office in Michigan. Upton is the House Energy and Commerce Chairman. (PlowShareGroup)

The Environmental Protection Agency is paying the American Lung Association to run attack ads against Republican members of Congress.

JunkScience.com reported:

“The American Lung Association has targeted House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton for his efforts to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions by placing billboards within sight of his district offices linking climate change with increased childhood asthma,” reports E&E News PM.

But as we reported last week in “EPA owns the American Lung Association,” the EPA has paid the American Lung Association over $20 million in the last ten years, and has paid the ALA many more millions in a symbiotic relationship going back to at least 1990.

The EPA-ALA relationship works something like this: EPA pays the ALA and, in return, the ALA agitates for more stringent EPA air quality regulation, including by lawsuit. Now it’s billboards.

In addition to defunding National Public Radio, the House GOP should look at the EPA’s funding of American Lung Association.

It doesn’t matter that the EPA policies will cause your

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Trashing the Constitution | Leave a Comment »

Parents complain to NYC school because child had no idea what the Pledge of Allegiance is…

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Via The Blaze:

Imagine, for a moment, you’re sitting next to your child and video of a class reciting the Pledge of Allegiance flashes across the TV. Your child tugs on your shirt and innocently asks, “Mom, what are they doing? What are they saying?” Shocking, you might say. It would never happen. Guess what? It happened in New York City.

Joe and Winnie Fleischer of Brooklyn, NY were flabbergasted when they realized recently their daughter Brianna, 8, had no idea what the Pledge of Allegiance was. They thought it was common knowledge, especially in the classroom.

“I was shocked that she didn’t know the pledge,” Joe, a NYC firefighter, told the New York Daily News. “I thought she’d been doing it in school.”

They thought wrong.

So they went to the school, PS29, to change that. After spirited meetings with parents, teachers, and an “educational unit for kids,” the principal agreed to have the Pledge broadcast over the school’s loud speaker “for the first time in years.”

But here‘s what’s interesting. In New York, reciting the Pledge daily in schools is the law. The principal, then, isn’t doing anything revolutionary — she‘s just complying with what’s been mandated since just after 9/11.

 

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Obama illegally firing watchdogs and whistle-blowers. Replacing them with unqualified political cronies.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

This has been going on repeatedly in this administration. To see the complete story and back ground, be sure to check out this great piece by Michelle Malkin.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Do Academics Hate Your Religious Parents?

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Public School Teacher: We hate you. Now give us your kids so that we can turn them against you.

That is what it is like for many schools. Every few days I have to sit down with my child and undo the damage that is done in public school. I have to undo the union propaganda they push on my child in class, the one sided politicking, the slanted history education, and the eco-extremism.

 

David French via National Review:

Over at the Alliance Defense Fund’s Academic Freedom File, my colleague Jeff Shafer has written a fascinating blog post analyzing the intellectual roots of academic efforts to stigmatize Christianity and divorce kids from their religious upbringing. It begins:

The late American philosopher Richard Rorty (d. 2007) in describing his assessment of the role of university professor wrote:  “When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures.  Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.”  The re-education imperative is one that he, “like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”  Rorty explains to the “fundamentalist” parents of his students:  “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”  He helpfully explains that “I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”

In fact, some of our student clients have heard simplified versions of this very sentiment, and I can distinctly remember my own southern, religious upbringing being venomously caricatured during my law-school days. The fact that my father was a math professor who earned his Ph.D. (a real-life Good Will Hunting) in a mere ten months was irrelevant compared with his status as an elder in a very conservative evangelical church. I had to be “rescued” from my own heritage.

I stubbornly resisted rescue, but many students — eager for acceptance and feeling isolated — give up, surrendering to the dominant culture and feeding an academic beast that demands conformity, in speech and belief.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Some Democrats will support the Balanced Budget Amendment knowing it will lose to claim “budget hawk” status.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Gregory Hilton previously served as Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Fund; Director of Public Affairs for the National Republican Congressional Committee; and as the Republican National Committee’s liaison to the White House Political Affairs Office during the Reagan Administration. Hilton also wrote a full-page political column for the conservative weekly Human Events. Hilton served as Executive Director of the American Security Council for 23 years and has helped to raise $100 million for non-profit organizations.

Gregory Hilton:

PREDICTION – As part of a debt ceiling deal, my guess is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow a vote on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. It came within one vote of passing in 1997. Under the best case scenario, it would still fail by one vote, and it would allow vulnerable Democrats to claim they are deficit hawks. Some current supporters would flip-flop it it appears the amendment would pass.

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks | Leave a Comment »

Video: A liberal on the difference between Libya and Iraq…

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

“So Obama is killing civilians in a preemptive, unfunded, undeclared war for oil promoted by the dictators of the Arab League and the UN in support of some unidentified rebels he has never met with, and you are fine with that?”

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Senator Lautenberg at Planned Parenthood Rally: Republicans don’t deserve Constitutional Rights

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

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

Wilson Research Strategies: Is Palin Really “Losing Ground”? (Democrats Wish)

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

In short, at this point in the last election Giuliani was the big favorite, Reagan was down early as well, the establishment didn’t like Reagan and said he was dumb and uneducated etc and now sing his praises (George Will, Charles Krauthammer). Palin has numbers where it counts and has lots of time to reverse her negatives.

Pundits often act as if they can pick the nominee and control public opinion. Anyone who tries to call the election this early is either ignorant, or propagandizing for their agenda.

Wilson Research:

Is Palin Really “Losing Ground”?

Recent interpretations of national polling data have suggested that former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is “losing ground” based on movements in her image rating among all self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents.  But what are we really looking at?

–          FACT: The recent Washington Post/ABC news poll that is the basis the “losing ground” comments still shows Palin on the right side of the favorable/unfavorable scale with 58% having a favorable impression and 37% with an unfavorable impression.

–          FACT: When a national survey asks self-identified Republicans “For whom would you vote for in the Republican primary,” the field is wide open.  When the leader is polling south of 20%, no one is even come close to locking this up.

–          FACT: The “self identified Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents” are very different from the actual caucus goers and Republican primary voters who will determine the Republican Presidential nomination.  Fewer than five percent of these voters will actually be Iowa caucus participants or vote in one of the three or four early primaries that will be critical in deciding the next Republican nominee.

–          FACT: At this time in 2007, the same national polls showed Rudy Giuliani as the prohibitive favorite for the Republican nomination and they continued to show him with sizeable leads even as it became increasingly clear he had no chance to become the nominee.

So where is Palin, a candidate who still has a favorable image among all Republicans and Republican-leaners and an even stronger one among just Republican primary voters, “losing ground?”  Apparently it is among the inside-the-beltway opinion journalist set and the “conservative elite” (which translates to inside-the-beltway conservatives who have major newspaper columns and hobnob with journalists).

Consider the recent Politico story that highlighted the fear that these “conservative elite” intellectuals have of a new bloc of voters injecting an “intellectually empty brand of populism” into the conservative movement.  These elites seem to believe that candidates like Palin and movements like the Tea Party are bad for conservatism because they reach instinctively the conclusions that the elites spend so much time defending with complex logical arguments.

If you spend enough time in Washington, everything begins to sound familiar.  If the story about Sarah Palin and her gleeful detractors both in the mainstream press and among the “conservative elite” or Washington sounds like something our readers may have heard before, maybe it is.

There was a time, not too long ago, when leading anti-communists, supply-side thinkers, and other intellectual stars of conservatism were similarly disdainful of a newly-elected President who had been Governor of a western state.  They felt that this President “didn’t get it” and was “too simplistic” in his analysis and proposals.  It’s hard to find these statements today because they’ve been buried under thirty-years of self-editing and revisionism; but if you look hard enough, you might just find some of the same “conservative elites” who are attacking Sarah Palin today saying eerily similar things about Ronald Reagan in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.

Is this to say that Sarah Palin is the 2nd coming of Reagan?  Of course not.  But those that compare her to Al Sharpton are missing her appeal and casting a completely unfair assessment of the former Governor.

In the recent past these “conservative elites” have been important in how conservative voters evaluate candidates.  So far their attacks on Palin aren’t having as much of an effect as one would think.  And her image, especially among strong conservative voters, remains very positive.

There is a reason that every Republican candidate in the country is begging for the coveted Sarah Palin endorsement – she has appeal to a large bloc of voters that are tired of business as usual and see her as someone that they can identify with on a personal level. While there’s a significant number of people in traditional Republican circles that cringe at seeing her succeed, her greatest asset is that she can appeal to the same large voting blocs of middle class conservatives who elected conservatives in primary and general elections in 2010 and when she gets a chance to speak to increasing numbers of voters on her terms, it wouldn’t surprise anyone to see her number shoot right back up.

 

 

 

 

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

VP Joe Biden drunk on video. Hilarious.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s Favorite CEO: GE Paid No Taxes in 2010 Despite Making $14.2 Billion in Profits

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Obama ally Google paid 2.4% federal tax earlier and threw gala events for Democrats.

All this while Obama blasted the Chamber of Commerce as greedy for not wanting small businesses to pay a 39.9% tax.

Weekly Standard:

General Electric paid no American taxes in 2010, the New York Times reports:

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

G.E.’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is considered Barack Obama’s favorite businessman and serves as the head of the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Fred Barnes wrote about Immelt here.

Related:

Big Business Buying Influence With Democrats: Google Pays 2.4% Federal Taxes

Google Comes Under Fire for ‘Secret’ Relationship with NSA. Cozy with Administration.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism | 2 Comments »

Target suing “gay rights” group for harassing customers – A PR lesson.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

This is a lesson that everyone should learn. You cannot placate or satisfy the radical left. If you give in to them just a little, they will move the goal post continually and as long as demonizing you yields results they will continue to do so.

The radical leftist group objects because Target gave a pro-business lobby a small donation, that lobby gives some money to Republicans, some of which oppose gay marriage. The homosexual angle is just that, an angle. These people are anti-capitalist and will keep up their harassment until forced to stop, Target closes, or they realize it is not in their interests to stay.

Target first started giving in by making new “pro-gay” policies etc etc. Look at what it has gotten them. This isn’t about gay policy, this is about money and anti-capitalism. So now Target has crossed its “Amy Grant” customer base that it had courted for many years and still the gay leftist group trashes them.

[Editor’s Note – Valuable Lesson: Once you are targeted in the culture war, or you participate in it as Target did with their Amy Grant ads, you had better stake out your territory, stick to it and not waffle or you WILL lose support with all sides. If Target had made it clear that this pressure group would receive no quarter they could appeal to its cultural advertising base for support and would have gotten it. Now Target has put off both sides. Target’s old cultural ad base now believes Target’s traditional cultural appeal was just an insincere gimmick.]

The best way to deal with groups like this is to make them talk to the hand, and if they use union thug tactics you have to go on the offense.

When Jesse Jackson, CAIR and other leftist shakedown artists targeted radio stations to try and silence talk radio, talk host Jim Quinn had a very effective strategy. No meetings, keep them off your property and don’t respond to them. Pretend that they do not exist other than occasionally saying on the air that you know what these groups are all about. Several groups and companies have used this tactic and it works. It works because Jesse Jackson, CAIR and other pressure groups do not want it known that they are ineffective. So in cases when they are ineffective they go away quietly after a time.

Target is getting no quarter because they showed signs of giving in and actually communicated with these people in an attempt to placate them. These pressure groups on the left are predatory. Once they get blood they will keep coming back for more.

I suggest that every PR director or information officer read the book SHAKEDOWN by Ken Timmerman (a man who I have had the pleasure of meeting).

Speaking of Jesse Jackson, Benton Harbor, Michigan had riot trouble a few years ago and Jackson was able to calm the situation down. Do you know why he calmed it instead of fanning the flames for the press? Jesse Jackson went to Whirlpool Corp and made it very clear that he would use those crowds and march against Whirlpool if they did not present his group “Rainbow Push” a nice fat six figure check. Jackson was aware that Whirlpool was outsourcing and flying in foreign workers to replace local Americans in a town that had the highest unemployment in Michigan. It would not have gone over well for Whirlpool if they had resisted. I know this because I worked at Whirlpool at the time and had regular access to many of the top people there (and for the record I thought their employment practices were offensive too).

Via AP/The Blaze:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

Rights advocates say the trial between Target and Canvass For A Cause that begins Friday could further strain relations with the gay and lesbian community after controversy over its $150,000 donation to a business group backing a Minnesota Republican candidate opposed to gay marriage.

Minnesota-based Target insists it remains committed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its lawsuit has nothing to do with the political agenda of the organization.

“Our legal action was in no way related to the cause of the organization and was done so to be consistent with our long-standing policy of providing a by not permitting solicitors at our stores,” the company said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

Target says it has taken similar action against a number of organizations representing a variety of causes. It alleges in the lawsuit that the San Diego group‘s activists harass customers by cornering them near its stores’ front entrances and debating with them about their views on gay marriage.

The group says it canvasses at shopping malls, college campus and stores like Target to collect signatures and donations in support of gay marriage.

The corporation says at least eight Target stores in the area have reported receiving more than a dozen complaints daily since canvassers started working outside their stores in October 2010. Target says the activists have refused to leave when asked politely and shown the company’s policy prohibiting “expressive activity” on its property.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Unions | Leave a Comment »

Viral Bully Kisses Concrete Video Shows “Peace Through Strength” Works

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

The administrators do not want to admit that there is bullying going on in their school, so it is easier to deny it is happening, or blame the victim or ignore it because the victim is already likely isolated. This answers the following question: Where were the zero tolerance policies on violence when the big boned kid was getting kicked, punched, tripped and in one case tied to a pole?

For the first time the chubby kid’s life is his own.

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

Obama’s Preacher: Black Liberation Theology, socialism and Marxism sound the same. Capitalism is a demon. Beck, Palin, Tea Party, Christians, all racist for supporting Israel.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

We told you this guy was radical and Obama sat in his church for 20 years, sent his kids to Sunday school with this man, and had his children baptized with him.

Via The Blaze:

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

Nurse tells her story: How I went from an Obama voter to Tea Party activist.

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2011

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Health Law | Leave a Comment »