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 June 9th, 2011

Restaurant touted by Obama as beneficiary of government action closes

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

Anyone surprised?

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) – An Ohio restaurant mentioned last week by President Barack Obama as an indirect beneficiary of the government’s Chrysler bailout will go out of business Sunday after a more than 70-year history.

Co-owner Richard Lawrence of New Chet’s Restaurant in Toledo says business has fallen victim to the economy and the workplace smoking ban approved by Ohio voters in 2006. He told The Blade newspaper of Toledo on Wednesday that auto industry cutbacks also hurt.

Lawrence says he used to deliver up to $300 in food per week to Chrysler Group LLC’s Jeep plant in Toledo, but now that’s down to about $100 worth.

Obama visited the plant on Friday and told workers that without them, who would eat at Chet’s or patronize other local businesses?

Information from: The Blade, http://www.toledoblade.com/

Advertisements

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

The complete and updated documentary.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn | Leave a Comment »

When libs (or libertarians) strike, here is a concise economic argument for the GOP program.

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

The title as well as some of the commentary below is from Dr. Robert Schneider. 

Schneider has been an important figure in American foreign policy and global security during the Reagan and Bush 41 years. Dr. Schneider and myself enjoyed a great conversation about the following article with another CEO/economist from out West. [I have not yet obtained permission to name the Western CEO as of yet but he is described as having an “Obscene IQ” as I am confident his clients will attest to.] 

Normally I do not share such conversations, but this one is such a valuable exploration of current public policy I made an exception. Keep in mind that what you are about to read is a conversation that is completely spontaneous. What you are about to read is an intellectual feast. Enjoy!

*******

Dr. Schneider: I find most the folks on here trying to use “logic” to make arguments, without understanding the fundamental principles underpinning the Ryan plan.  The dems argue we have to have stimulation (not Anthony Weiner’s type) to get the economy going again.  Here is the argument which the other side can’t counter. Of course, the Ronulans wouldn’t know an economic argument from a sack of worms, but it might be fun to watch their heads explode as you lay this article on them.   It is the knockout punch.

For our arguments to win the day against liberals, and others who may think it’s ok to bash Ryan, these arguments are key to getting us back to a prosperous nation, and out of our economic gloom.

 

Ugly Modeling: Will spending cuts ruin or improve America’s economy?
By Veronique de Rugy

From Reason Magazine

In February, the Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips predicted on ABCNews.com that a Republican proposal in the House of Representatives to cut $61 billion from the federal budget in fiscal year 2011, would, if enacted, shave two full percentage points off America’s gross domestic product in the second and third quarters of this year. A few days later, The Washington Post described a new study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and an architect of the 2009 stimulus package, a.k.a. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Zandi’s amazing verdict: The spending cuts would destroy 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012.

After every newspaper had published the gloomy predictions, Goldman Sachs issued a “clarification” of Phillips’ analysis. Phillips now says he was misunderstood by journalists eager to spread a doom-and-gloom message and predicts the impact of spending cuts probably will be mild and temporary. Perhaps he was influenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who testified in March at the Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee that Goldman’s numbers were incorrect.

Yet even this correction implicitly assumes that government spending is the source of all recovery. The logic, as with Bernanke’s and Zandi’s analyses, is that government spending cuts reduce overall demand in the economy, which affects growth and then employment. This argument ignores the fact that the government has to take its money out of the economy by raising taxes, borrowing from investors, or printing dollars. Each of these options can shrink the economy.

All these analysts also systematically ignore the fact that GDP numbers include government spending. When the federal government pumps trillions of dollars into the economy, it looks as if GDP is growing. When government cuts spending—even cuts within the most inefficient programs—aggregate GDP shrinks.

But that’s misleading. If Washington spends $1 a year on a bureaucrat’s salary, for example, GDP numbers will register growth of exactly $1, whether or not the employee has produced any value for that money. By contrast, if a firm pays an engineer $1, that $1 only shows up in the GDP if the engineer produces $1 worth of stuff to sell. This distinction biases GDP numbers—and the policies based on them—toward ever-increasing government spending.

Furthermore, GDP does not capture changes in personal investment portfolios or changes in private research and development spending. In the last two years, corporate cuts in the latter area have been large but unaccounted for. Also not included in GDP: pension benefits and the U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts balance-sheet information from the Federal Reserve Board. That means that when it comes to GDP, states’ grossly underfunded pensions are off the books, along with the loans and purchases conducted under TARP.

Another problem with these analyses: Economists of all persuasions have proven to be really bad at predicting the future, especially when it comes to jobs. Take the stimulus. Forecasters at the White House and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the stimulus package would create more than 3 million jobs. And in August 2010, the CBO estimated that the stimulus had indeed created between 1.4 million and 3.6 million extra jobs, thrilling supporters of economic intervention. But unemployment stubbornly remained around 10 percent.

What was wrong with the CBO’s numbers? “When the upper limit of your estimate is almost three times the lower limit, you know it is not a very precise estimate,” the George Mason University economist Russ Roberts pointed out in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending in February.

The truth is that there is no way to know the real number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. For that, the CBO would have had to collect data on output and employment while holding other factors constant. But the CBO didn’t do that because that’s different from its job of “scoring” the possible results of proposed legislation. As the CBO explained in a November 2009 report, “Isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about [the law’s] impact.” In other words, CBO number crunchers gave it their best guess before the stimulus and arrived at their subsequent numbers by applying their original prediction model. If the model is wrong, so are the numbers.

No one knows what economic output would have been without the stimulus, and no models can tell us the answer. As Roberts testified, “The economy is too complex. Too many other variables change at the same time.”

Also, the Zandi and Phillips models are based on the Keynesian view that government spending produces recovery. According to that theory, $1 in government spending produces substantially more than $1 in growth, a phenomenon known as the “multiplier effect.” The Goldman Sachs study assumes a multiplier greater than three—i.e., more than $3 in additional GDP for each dollar of government spending. But a review of the empirical literature reveals that in most cases a dollar in government spending produces less than a dollar in economic growth. And these findings often don’t even take into account the impact of paying for that government dollar via increased taxes.

The Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimate that the multiplier for stimulus spending is between 0.4 and 0.7. In another study, the Stanford economists John Taylor and John Cogan concluded that the stimulus package couldn’t have had a multiplier much greater than zero. Even the multipliers used by Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden, in their January 2009 paper “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” ranged from 1.05 to 1.55 for the output effect of government purchases. More recently, the Dartmouth economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, who supported the stimulus, acknowledged that it didn’t boost the economy nearly as much as the administration models claimed it would.

The use of these outdated models and unrealistic multipliers explains why Zandi was wrong about how many jobs the stimulus would create. He claimed “the country will have 4 million more jobs by the end of 2010” if the stimulus passed. In truth, by the end of 2010 total payroll jobs had fallen by 3.3 million, and the unemployment rate had risen from 7.8 percent to 9.4 percent. The administration’s post-facto claim is that unemployment would have risen even more without the stimulus. To argue this, they again must pretend that they know what would have happened in the absence of a stimulus.

Now what? Many economists and many members of the business community argue that recent policy changes have hampered investment, making a bad situation worse. The prospect of endless future deficits and accumulating debt raises the threats of increased taxes and of government borrowing crowding out capital markets, diverting resources that could be used more productively. As a result, U.S. companies are less likely to build new plants, conduct research, and hire people.

We have tried spending a lot of money to jump-start the economy, and it has failed. Now we need to cut spending and lift the uncertainty paralyzing economic activity. That approach will not just be more fiscally responsible. It will also empower individuals and entrepreneurs. And they are the only ones who can bring on a real recovery.

Ms. de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu), a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes a monthly economics column for reason.

 

 

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton: This article above is a VERY good argument, but even so I would add just a couple of minor points (and thoughts).

The Keynesian GDP formula also assumes that government spending is better than consumer or even capital investment spending because people in the private economy will save some of their money and not spend it. Keynes calls this “leakage”.

This concept almost completely ignores the fact that savings have a positive impact on the economy in several ways. If you save the money in a CD the banks have more depositors’ money that can be used for loans and it helps to ease the credit market. Money saved in the form of bonds or stocks or other investing has obvious positive effects that are not measured PROPERLY in the Keynes GDP formula as it is only a dollar per GDP measurement and investment dollars for production have a much larger impact – this is literally where the creation of wealth comes from.

The other impact that savings have in an economy is psychological. Are you more likely to buy a car, or a durable good, or take a risk with an investment if you have more savings? The impact of “confidence” on the economy is difficult to overstate.

The economist Art Okun describes what he called “Okun’s Leaky Bucket” when it comes to government spending. When government spends or redistributes wealth, some of the money just goes poof. It is more than the decreasing incentive for the productive to work when they are punished or the money that is eaten up by the bureaucracy; government spending is just less efficient period for a number of reasons, so the Keynesian dollar per GDP formula critiqued in Bob’s posted article is even worse than the article explains.

When you (or a business) use a dollar it is spent on the greatest need or want. In the macro this results in great efficiency because dollars are going where they are needed/wanted the most. Government spends money for political reasons, corruption, and “make work” central planning. Those dollars are not spent to “produce with maximum efficiency and impact”, they are spent in the hopes that some of it returns in the form of campaign contributions.

When money is used for production to actually make things, especially capital goods, the velocity of those dollars expands greatly, and while it is doing the maximum good in creating wealth, those dollars are taxed more times as they move through various hands and government revenue increases. It is a win/win.

The Keynesian GDP formula assumes that government spending is equal to or better than capital investment spending and such a notion is laughable on its face.

Assume for a moment that we have an economy of 1000 men making widgets. Just to pick a round number lets say they have a GDP of 1000 units. The GDP is equal to the combined productive output within nation’s borders in a year. Enter “The Bernanke” who prints up 100 units and enter “The Pelosi” who spends those 100 units. Congratulations! Now on paper your production just went up to 1100 units of GDP. See how much MORE productive we are!

In reality you still just have 1000 widgets. The increase in GDP is a fantasy. A new GDP formula is needed.

 

 

Western CEO/Economist: 100% of the time government stimulus has failed to truly stimulate. Sure, buying a ton of office supplies helps out International Paper, Staples, etc. however it is a $1 gov spends does NOT turn into a $1 in taxation, usually less than 20%.

However, that same $1 in the private sector the velocity of money is accelerated. Also, it is not money spent by government that it has, it must borrow it and that is in essence $2 dollars. Dollar spent and dollar borrowed.

Art Laffer, Milton Friedman, etc have proved that reduced tax rates has a much better stimulative effect on real GDP than any other single measure and it is a LASTING measure. Bush tax cuts took us IMMEDIATELY out of the Clinton (fairly cyclical) recession.

Another thought: the way to have REAL GDP growth is in building: Homes, offices, cars, ships, etc. Without real construction growth (not possible with frozen credit markets) you cannot have sustained GDP growth. Money Supply is growing at 12% or higher with GDP at maybe 1.5%. That is financial suicide.

I am NOT afraid of the border, Al Qaeda, etc, I AM afraid of this massive debt.

Chuck Norton is dead on. Fellow economist? Keynes was uber bright for the TIMES. HE is dated, just like the Austrian boys Hayek and von Mises, both uber bright but not for a truly global world.

 

 

Dr. Schneider: V= nQ/M some things you just never forget.

 

 

CEO/economist: Most econ theory is just that, theory. Milton taught us to THINK. Free markets ALWAYS chose the right winner. It is when gov makes winners and losers that the tax payer pays and pays…….

Phil Donahue interview of Milton Friedman:

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal distribution of wealth the desperate plight of millions of people around the world in under developed countries. When you so few haves and so many have not’s when you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Milton: Well first of all, tell me is there some society that you know of that doesn’t run on greed? Do you think Russia doesn’t run on greed? Do you think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; it is always the other fellow that is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus! Einstein did not construct his under order from a government bureaucrat! Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history, is where they have had capitalism and largely free trade! If you want to know where the masses are worse off is in the exact society’s that depart from that [sic] free trade and capitalism. So that the record of history is absolutely clear that there is NO alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

Milton: And what does reward virtue? Do you think that the communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue. Pardon me, but do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? I think that you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?….

 

 

Dr. Schneider: Markets are smarter than people.

 

 

Chuck Norton: I have to tell you guys this funny story in light of Bob’s last comment “Markets are smarter than people”.

I got into an argument with a Marxist prof who was all about central planning and not leaving people’s livelihoods to chance (the market) and insisted that a more rational top down approach was safer and fairer.

So I said to the prof, OK, let’s make a society of 10 million people and you can pick the ten smartest people through all of recent history to plan this economy. Assume that you are in a place with adequate resources to serve the population reasonably. Please pick your 10.

She picked her ten. They were all men with names many would know. I answered, OK now tell me which one of these men will be the central planner in charge of tampons and maxi pads (Laughter). [Markets are smarter than central planners with good intentions, or bad ones – Editor]

 

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Thomas E. Woods’ Video: The Depression of 1920 and Why You Have Never Heard of It.

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

This is a 49 minute lecture that is  a very good lesson in economics and how propagandized our schools are.

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

Sleaze: Far Left Union Protesters Disrupt Special Olympics Ceremony

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

These are your government unions in action folks. This includes unionized public school teachers. This is how good their judgment is.

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

Palin Bashers in the GOP Should Think Twice

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.

It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.

The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.

Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.

You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.

You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.

Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.

Palin Bashing Republican #1:

No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.

You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:

I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:

She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.

She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.

She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.

Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…

Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.

She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!

Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?

And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:

Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.

According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….

Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!

As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.

GOP Palin Basher #2:

Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.

Again I went back to the facts:

[Editor’s Note – A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony “ethics complaint”, each requires an investigation and a ruling – the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor’s staff’s time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]

Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.

Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?

Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.

Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:

And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.

Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.

My Response:

NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.

Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.

Words of Wisdom

Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail – www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-sarah-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/  so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin has posted detailed policy positions on almost very issue imaginable. Most of the others do not.

This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.

Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.

Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.

Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.

If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.

So why has IUSB Vision always been so invested in Sarah Palin?

The simple truth is that we aren’t. The number one goal of this publication and blog, be it under Editor Chamberlain, Brigham, or Norton, has been to introduce people to points of view they will not commonly see on a college campus or in the elite media/Democrat media complex. We believe that the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt.

There is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. We take interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Craig Chamberlin, Jarrod Brigham, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

The Washington Post and New York Times ask for volunteers to go through Sarah Palin’s emails.

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

The Washington Post and the NYT are asking for 100 volunteers to go through Palin’s emails. Funny, I don’t recall them asking for help to read the 2000+ page ObamaCare bill. If they had perhaps they may have found the three multi-billion dollars slush funds that were hidden in it.

When CBS refused to release the video of Obama calling certain federal workers “scrubs” where was the NYT and WashPo to protest?

Our friend Nick Anderson says, “Maybe they should be reading Cong. Weiner’s email. I bet they would find more crimes in there.”

Related:

Republicans Find Multi-Billion Dollar Slush Funds Hidden in ObamaCare Bill – UPDATE: PolitiFact, FactCheck, WashPo Fact Checker, Heritage say Bachmann is Right

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