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 the ‘2012 Primary’ Category

IUSB Vision proved correct once again – IAC: Previous IPCC Reports failed to meet basic academic standards; Participants “too political”

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2012

I have been waiting for this for a long time. When I was in college finishing my latest degree here at IUSB I was making many of these very same claims about global warming alarmist nonsense as the IAC report below. Leftist students and faculty pretty much told me that I was nuts, and I wasn’t a climate scientist so how would I know? Well it looks like I knew. It was easy. First of all it doesn’t take a genius to see when the scientific method is being ignored and second of all, what I am an expert on is politics and I know a political movement when I see one.

At the bottom of the article I posted a list of links that I wrote starting in 2007 saying many of the same things the IAC has pointed out below. I have reactivated IUSB Vision just for the purpose of posting this story. All of you PhD. laden academics who doubted me and called me all of those names behind my back should ask yourselves; why was a mere undergrad like me spot on and all of you who are supposed to be teachers wrong? And this isn’t this first time that happened is it? – Chuck Norton

President of the Heartland Institute Joseph L. Bast:

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

Alternative views not considered, claims not properly peer reviewed

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

No formal criteria for selecting IPCC authors

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

Too political…

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Phony estimates of certainty

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

IPCC participants had conflicts of interest

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

IPCC critics vindicated

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?

Related from this old college blog:

Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask – February 18, 2007 – LINK

Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming – October 22, 2007 – LINK

Global Cooling Continues; Global Warming Alarmists Still Issuing Death Threats – December 28, 2008 – LINK

UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – December 28, 2008 – LINK

National Climatic Data Center: Cooling in Last 10 Years – January 10, 2009 – LINK

The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly – March 27, 2009 – LINK

Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government – July 11, 2009 – LINK

EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct – October 23, 2009 – LINK

New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station… – October 27, 2009 – LINK

Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics! – November 19, 2009 – LINK

National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed! – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism. – December 6, 2009 – LINK

The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds. – February 23, 2010 – LINK

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits… – April 23, 2010 – LINK

UN IPCC Co-chair: climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth – November 18, 2010 – LINK

More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science – December 6, 2010 – LINK

ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying – December 6, 2010 – LINK

More ClimateGate One Year Later – December 7, 2010 – LINK

IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: Most global warming models are exaggerated, many scientists in it for the grant money or treat it like a religion – December 7, 2010 – LINK

How Global Warming Propaganda Works – December 8, 2010 – LINK

NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data – December 10, 2010 – LINK

Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Halt economic growth, start government rationing. Global Warming Alarmists Party Fat in Cancun – December 21, 2010 – LINK

Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy” – February 15, 2011 – LINK

Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day – Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart: No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

AAUP Seeks to Limit Transparency Over Climate Science – September 19, 2011 – LINK

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Academic Misconduct, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Regulatory Abuse, True Talking Points | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The best moments of the September 7, 2011 presidential debate at the Reagan Library

Posted by iusbvision on September 8, 2011

The Reagan Library

Newt treated the press as they should have been treated, as trying to generate drama, hype and ratings instead of being the 4th branch. His way of dealing with them is the same style I advocate for my political clients. The elite media will never be your friend, they are out to further their own careers by destroying yours no matter what damage it does to the country.

Obama says that “Rick Perry doesn’t believe in Social Security”. Rick Perry has made it clear several times as I have that we both believe in Social Security, we believe that big government types spent the money and wrecked the system and are now desperate for someone else to blame.

Rick Perry praises Obama on the few things he has done for the country such as keeping GITMO open and killing Osama . Then he adds, “Keynesian policy is now done. We will never have to have that experiment on America again.”

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amgVRv-VrCY&feature=feedu]

It is no secret that IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton is no fan of Ron Paul, but when he gets it right he deserves credit just as anyone else. Representative Paul knocked the TSA question out of the park. The TSA is abusive and recently an agent raped a prominent blogger by penetrating her vulva four times, and then threatened to sue her for speaking out about it.  The TSA is ineffective which has been proved time and time again by the GSA whose inspectors are able to sneak guns, bombs, and other weapons on planes in over 80% of attempts.  Ron Paul is correct that it is government who set up the stage for the 9-11 hijackings by telling people not to resist and by preventing pilots from having deadly force training and guns.

 

The entire debate video:

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

Gov. Christie on Leadership: People Want A President Who Will Lead, Take Risks

Posted by iusbvision on August 16, 2011

Leadership is never a political strategy, it is a moral one.

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Selectively Edits Video To Make Perry Look Racist

Posted by iusbvision on August 16, 2011

Catch the video at the following link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/16/msnbcs_ed_schultz_selectively_edits_video_to_make_perry_look_racist.html

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

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews is a Dirty Liar

Posted by iusbvision on August 11, 2011

This is how far the left has gone folks. Once again they have resorted to just making stuff up out of thin air. Mathews claimed on his show that Rush Limbaugh said that we should reverse the reintegration of the military that happened at the end of WWII. Mathews is lying in the worst form of smear. It is no different when MSNBC made up the false quotes about Limbaugh when he was trying to buy an NFL team.

Audio and transcripts of every Rush Limbaugh show are posted online every day.

Keep in mind it was Democrats led by Woodrow Wilson that re-segregated the military after Republicans had integrated it. The NAACP before it was hijacked by the neo-marxist left, was a solidly Republican organization that formed largely in response to Wilson who was also known as “the first progressive president”.

This is indicative of what we will see in the upcoming campaign.

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies, Limbaugh, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

More on that budget deal: “Moderates vs Conservatives”

Posted by iusbvision on August 2, 2011

Be sure to see our previous post HERE.

It is always painful when people who call themselves conservative buy into the elite media narrative, or want to place party leadership on a pedestal so bad that they make arguments that they would normally never make.

From today’s Drudge Report:

MSNBC Hosts Unanimously Predict Obama’s Re-Election…

Palin, Bachmann rip Biden for calling Tea Partiers ‘terrorists’…

REID: Rise of Tea Party ‘very, very disconcerting’…

Now watch as this Republican parrots some of this same spin.

 

My original comment:

What I find interesting is that any plan that would actually have a real chance of preserving our AAA credit rating was painted as extreme.

We should not let pundits move the Overton Window and decide what is extreme and what is not.

There will be many impacts to losing AAA, including the US Govt having to pay so much more interest on the debt every year that the savings from debt ceiling agreement (to only increase spending by $7.4 trillion over the next ten years instead of the base line $9.5 trillion) will be used up. Losing AAA will also cause more economic suffering for the average person.

Marco Rubio said that his line in the sand is to have a solution that actually fixes the problem. When preserving our AAA credit is considered “extreme” there is something very wrong with someone’s perceptions.

Person suckered in by the elite media spin responds to the above:

Economics trump any & all talking heads & forms my opinion on domestic fiscal policy, in my world. Anything more than 4% in cuts at a time most certainly would cause more recession, possibly depression. [Note: Notice that this is a classic far left Krugman/Keynes position and she doesn't realize it.] The LiberTEArians want one extreme (too many cuts all at once) the Democrats want the polar opposite extreme (NO cuts, more taxes). That’s ‘extreme’ to Center Right America.

Reality:

When the government cut spending drastically under Calvin Coolidge/Warren Harding it helped us out of the depression of 1920. Also when the governmment cut spending by 50% in 1947 from 1945 levels the economy boomed.

Also conversely, look at the 80% increase in federal spending just since FY 2008 and look at the economic performance, and look at the economic performance under the New Deal which was a total fail as non farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the New Deal.

Look at welfare reform and the reductions in spending growth that happened with the John Kasich budgets under Bill Clinton. The economy improved again as well.

Your premise, based on outdated neo-Keynsian theory, is falsified by history.

The reason why government increases in spending do not have the desired Keynesian effect, is the same reason that reductions in govt spending do not have the predicted Keynesian impact; and that is because govt does not spend money for the purpose of economic impact or to aid the market where it needs aid the most. Politicians spend money for the purpose of political impact.

This is why you see things in econ textbooks such as “Okun’s Leaky Bucket Theory” and why government spending tends to result in a very low velocity of money (supporting LINK).

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

Your pedantic tendencies are showing again… I am most certainly not a Keynesian ~ I’m with Paul Ryan & Charles Krauthammer. [NOTE: Paul Ryan & Charles Krauthammer never said that cutting spending would cause a depression; Paul Krugman says it every day.]

Reality:

That is great name calling, but that isn’t an argument. I also support Paul Ryan. For someone who claims not to be a Keynesian, you did a a great job of giving the typical Krugman/Keynes argument.

How many in 2010 got elected on taking the position that we should go back to 2008 spending levels? 2008 spending levels would still increase the yearly deficits by almost half a trillion a year – so that is not a “cut” nor is that even a spending freeze, it is just a reduction in the coming increases. So your entire notion that TEA party candidates or most new freshman argued for massive cuts is also just factually wrong.

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

The fact still remains that TEA’s expectations exceed their ability to make any large meaningful changes with only controlling The House. The Ryan Plan would never have passed in this climate. The Smart Thing to do is get the best deal, that could be passed in a Dem controlled Senate & a Dem controlled WH, live to fight another day, win BIG in 2012, then & only then, can the necessary stepos be taken. LiberTEA’s unrealistic demands & damn the torpedos bravado, are hindering that goal. We can argue about the best next steps forward in January ’13, IF IF IF the LiberTEArians don’t thwart that most important goal with their divisive bullheaded bravado.

Reality:

I think you misunderstand my position in part. Many do not think that we got the best deal. I say that because look at what happened in Minnesota recently with the government shutdown there. It was all doom and gloom, the media said that people blamed Republicans… until the governor caved and the GOP’s poll numbers went up.

I think we should have tried to get a little better of a deal for another reason, if the Dems went passed August 2, and America saw that we would not default and Social Security checks would indeed go out (as the govt brings in almost 200 billion a month on revenue) Obama would have had egg all over his face and his scare tactics would have blown up in his face.

I very much understand that we cannot run the govt from just the House, but we were timid and operating form a position of fear because of what happened in 1998.

I never said “all or nothing, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead”; I am just saying that we could have done better.

My problem is with those who are wiping their feet on this deal to make it look like that the deal is rockin’awesome and that those who wanted more are somehow extreme.

In fact that whole way of looking at it works against us in 2012. We should just admit the truth and say that this was not a very good deal. We should explain how the Democrats insited on 7.4 trillion in NEW spending or they would shut everything down, how they threatened default and social security when it was unnecessary, we should tell people how the Democrats INSISTED on a deal that would NOT preserve AAA – that is a key point. 

What we should not be doing is saying that those who supported a deal that had a chance of preserving AAA are extremists, as that undermines our position in 2012. Paul Krugman is already saying that losing AAA is just fine.

You are trashing people in the Republican base who wanted to save AAA as extreme (some TEA Party people and other conservatives), instead of trashing Democrats whgo deserve to get trashed, and that plays right into Obama’s hands in 2012.

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

At the MOST critical of times, TEA voted with Libertarians & the Democrats, voted AGAINST the GOP… Making them the RINOs they so clamorously hunt. That will not be forgotten by the electorate. This is a Center Right nation. I do not believe their constituents wanted them to risk turning the country against conservatives for advocating default by having completely unrealistic expectations in the political climate we currently find ourselves working within. Bulls in a China shop are never welcome, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from. But, I could be wrong, we’ll see what happens in their reelection bids, I suppose. [Note: How many important votes has the House voted on a bill or against a bill with the support of the entire party?]

Reality:

Hmm lets see Bachmann voted for the Patriot Act, Allen West just supported the budget deal. With that said, look at where that “TEA Party bullheadedness” has gotten us. Just a short time ago we were talking about Bailouts, stimulus, perhaps a stimulus II, massive multi-trillion dollar health care take overs, cap & trade, etc etc. Now the discussion is Balanced Budget Amendment, how much will be cut, entitlement reform and GOP stalwarts such as Haley Barbour are even talking about the ethanol scam and farm subsidy reform in IOWA of all places.

Stacy, the problem with what you are doing, besides that fact that it is helping Obama to get re-elected, is that you have got it in your brain somehow that most TEA Party folks are these Ron Paul loonies. While the Ron Paul loonies would like people to think that, it just isn’t the case, as the big polling outfits have polled them and done demograghics on them demonstrate this clearly.

Rasmussen:

48% Say Their Views Closer to Tea Party Than Congress

http://www.rasmussenreport​s.com/public_content/polit​ics/general_politics/april​_2011/48_say_their_views_c​loser_to_tea_party_than_co​ngress

In the ongoing budget-cutting debate in Washington, some congressional Democrats have accused their Republican opponents of being held captive by the Tea Party movement, but voters like the Tea Party more than Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closest to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

This shows little change from a survey in late March of last year . Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters think the Tea Party movement is good for the country, consistent with findings since May 2010 . Twenty-six percent (26%) disagree and say the grassroots, small government movement is bad for America. Sixteen percent (16%) say neither.

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

That’s not to TEA’s credit. But, I find it fascinating that they are all about wanting to claim credit. As Reagan said, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” Unfortunately, LiberTEA’s all about themselves. 2010 was a national referendum against Failed Liberal Governance. I was happy to have TEA join us in making history, handing the Dems a shellacking, UNTIL they started acting like Libertarians, in deed (voting with them & the Democrats) & in tactics (their constant disparaging of the GOP, RINO Hunting, etc). The LiberTEArians went after both West & Bachmann for those stances, too, I might add… It’s their way or assault. No thank you. [Note: TEA Party groups are cellular in nature and not all of them agree on every issue as to be expected, yet this person takes an elite media report saying that a cell, somewhere is unhappy about a vote and all of the sudden in her mind it is all of them. The fact is that Bachmann and West enjoy broad support.

Rasmussen is laughable. [Note: Notice no supporting evidence.] It is NOT the GOP causing the damage & divide, it is TEA. How many times has the GOP reached out in the spirit of unity to TEA only to draw back a nub? Too many. Still today, credit is being thrown to TEA for helping turn the national debate, etc, yet they still are combative. Again, it is NOT the GOP causing the divide. It is the LiberTEArians, as is their MO, thus far.

Reality:

Than you oppose Charles Krauthammer – because what I just said about how the TEA Party changed the debate is near exact quote from him from two days ago. Feel free to look up the video. [Note: fooled person said earlier that she believed in Charles Krauthammer, but now that Krauthammer is used to debunk her claim that the TEA Partry people deserve credit for changing the debate, as an emotionally charged person would, I predicted that she would dismiss him and it did not take long to have my prediction come to reality.]

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

I repeat, “How many times has the GOP reached out in the spirit of unity to TEA only to draw back a nub? Too many. Still today, credit is being thrown to TEA for helping turn the national debate, etc, yet they still are combative.”

Reality:

Of course they are combative, that is how you change a debate. But hey, I am just sticking with Charles Krauthammer on this one. You really should watch him as he makes some great sense [Zing]. How dare those people who worked so hard to make 2010 happen actually stand up and fight for what they said they believe in such as balanced budgets and a change in the way Washington works. Why the nerve!

Person suckered in by the elite media spin:

I never miss him. And his throwing the LiberTEArian dog a bone was very nice of him. What did it get him? More LiberTEArian teenaged angst. [Note: So Krauthammer wasn't serious he was just throwing them a bone. Mind reading must be her specialty.]

Reality:

How is the constant unsubstantiated name calling at a large portion of the base a plan for victory in 2012? It seems to me that some are TRYING to insult them and smear them to the point where they might consider voting for a third party.

Amazing isn’t it, the zeal to defend the attitude she got from the elite media. It goes to show just how effective elite media attitude change propaganda can be.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Reminder: Reagan Savaged Carter and the Democrats With the Truth

Posted by iusbvision on June 21, 2011

The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. Eight million — eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of this year. Black unemployment at 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War, reaching at times close to 20 percent, lately they’re down to more than 11 percent but now they’ve begun to go up again. Productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in the world.

Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent, while their real income has risen only 20 percent. The Lady standing there in the harbor has never betrayed us once. But this Administration in Washington has betrayed the working men and women of this country.

The President promised that he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people, the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in our nation’s history. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we’re “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions, words, relieve our suffering.

Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition — if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one.  A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.  A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganlibertypark.htm

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

My thoughts on Herman Cain

Posted by iusbvision on June 17, 2011

Herman Cain

Political Analysis by Chuck Norton

I have followed Herman Cain’s career for many years and I am going to tell you up front that I like him. He is a nice man who is very smart and he is a legendary problem solver and economic wiz. He is also a great manager. Cain has a reputation for fixing companies that fall into bad shape and thus save a create jobs. Herman Cain is an easy man to admire.

Cain as a presidential candidate has some problems.

Cain has no foreign policy experience, but in fairness lots of governors and other candidates had no foreign policy experience to speak of either. Some did great (Reagan) and some were so bad that they have resulted in countless lives lost (Carter). Perhaps the key to a successful foreign policy lies in the candidates philosophy. Reagan had a foreign policy philosophy which was very simple, “We Win They Lose”. Cain speaks too frequently about differing to advisers and generals. This excuse will not work much longer. Cain says that he cannot have an opinion on some of these issues because there is information at the White House he must see to have a fully informed opinion. While there is some truth to this, Cain could hire some experts and craft a basic policy strategy. If he doesn’t do that he will be seen as “un-presidential”.

[Editor's Note: Sarah Palin does not have access to the secret information that is available to the White House, what she does have is access to a foreign policy expert in John McCain, and she has hired foreign policy consultants to get her up to speed. She has also been making overseas tours. Palin has a rather detailed policy position on most every issue foreign or domestic - LINK. Sarah Palin is not even a candidate and she has done this; soon Herman Cain will have no excuse. If Cain does not get up to speed we can expect a major foreign policy gaff from him. Newt Gingrich seemed to be watching Cain's back in the first CNN debate, which is interesting.] 

In spite of Cain’s positive attributes and charisma, his candidacy is a longshot at best. Cain has never held office before and very few people are willing to vote for someone with no government experience. Will voters,  after having an unknown quantity like Obama being such a disaster, be willing to vote for another?

Cain’s candidacy has already had missteps. Cain’s presentation seems to indicate that he believes that ALL wisdom is outside of Washington, while this may be the case in many things depending on your point of view, it is certainly not always the case. Cain has made some mistakes in his messaging plan so far that indicate a naivety that concerns me. For Example elite media journalists trip him up and get him off message rather easily. They also bait him into answering certain social hot button issues that are always a lose/lose when you attempt to answer them.

With that said Cain will be an asset in this primary because he explains economics well and he is great at critiquing and explaining President Obama’s bad policy choices. Cain does not have to be the nominee to be effective in helping conservatives win in 2012 as he will be a good asset to who ever the GOP nominee ends up being.

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

And Your CNN Presidential Debate Winner Is……..

Posted by iusbvision on June 14, 2011

Michele Bachmann

By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

I did not expect to be making this post tonight. With that said there is no question that Minnesota Member of Congress Michele Bachmann gained the most from tonight’s debate. I have never seen her more focused and disciplined.

I have met Michele in person and talked with her. I refer to her as Michele because if you ever do meet her you will discover that she loves people, loves life and is one of those “infectiously happy people”. Most anyone can have a conversation with her and she will treat even a near stranger with the warmest hospitality. If you are a thinking person or a person of good spirits Michele has an instant familiarity with you which is very disarming.

It is these same qualities above, which make her such an amazing spirit, why I almost convinced myself that she could never be President of the United States. She is just so sweet and kind and even when she is tough on people like Tony Wiener she still comes off as too nice. I thought that she would “etiquette” herself right out of the primary.

I stand corrected.

Flashback 2007 - CNN Debates: Unbiased and Undecided Voters Turn Out to be Democrat Operatives

I sent this note to her campaign:

Michele, you won tonight and gained the most. Now the knives are going to be pointed at you and there was even a tweet saying “release Bachmann’s emails”. Just to be smart, you should release your school records and slap Obama again. You were focused and disciplined like I have never seen you. Be ready for a good rhetorical fight and do not “etiquette” yourself out of the election as we Republicans sometimes take “being nice” too far. The stakes are very high. Great job tonight.

‎”Mother of all repeal bills” was your moment. Build on it. Explain how there are so many regulations that no one could live long enough to even read them, yet citizens are expected to know and perfectly comply with every one or the might of a leviathan sized federal govt comes down upon us. This has created a crisis in confidence. This economy is not about supply or demand, it is about confidence.

Herman Cain gained much tonight as well and Tim Pawlenty gained some, but not enough to get over his “excitement deficit”. Mitt Romney did well in that he had a couple of good moments, only one weak one, and did not damage himself. Ron Paul had a couple of good moments, but came off a as cantankerous old man. Newt did well enough to stop his free-fall so now he can rebuild.

I live-blogged the debate on FaceBook:

  •  Come on candidates say it “Since when does a group have the right to have a monopoly on the labor the taxpayers buy?”
  • Aren’t monopolies bad?
  • I like Romney’s response, “Why didn’t Obama call me so I could tell him what worked and what didn’t” – Brilliant answer. This is a new angle for Romney, who ever his new communications team is, I have to say they came up with a good one.
  • Bachmann – harder hitting than I have seen her before, I told her team that I was concerned that they would “etiquette” themselves right out of an election. It seems that they have gotten the message.
  • Old school Newt, it is about time.
  • Ron Paul gave a great answer on why Central Planning fails – the R&D question. While the space program and very few others are good govt R&D investments – there is only a very limited collective role for govt. Like or dislike Ron Paul, he hit that one out of the park.
  • Herman Cain gave a solid answer on how TARP was used to pick winners and losers, see my recent note for some of the details on how that hurt the entire country.
  • Ron Paul had a good answer about how the govt housing “rescue” has failed.
  • Newt had a great point re NASA: Govt bureaucracy is way more expensive, slower and less effective than most profitable private businesses.
  • Romney – “We are hearing all sorts of ideas on how to reign in the excesses of govt” we are hearing it from everybody except the president.” Very Nice.
  • Bachmann had a great answer on how not to default. If we default it will be the President and Treasury Sec who are responsible.
  • Pawlenty gave a good answer on the separation of church & state trap question. Santorum had a great line – “If your faith and reason are sound they will bring you to the same place”.
  • Herman Cain had a good answer on creeping Sharia Law.
  • Newt on the Muslim Terrorist - “You are my enemy, I lied” – wow grand slam home run Newt!
  • Mitt Romney had his first weak moment, “ALL are welcome in my administration no matter what their faith, but I will pick people that I know to be in my administration” – See how he is on both sides – I mean how many Muslims were his appointees in Mass?
  • Santorum should not have said “taken the bullets” he should have said “taken the slings and arrows”
  • Bachmann handled the “rape and incest” question very nicely.
  • Someone SAY it – “In a post 9/11 world we need to know who is coming in the country and what their intentions are.” This isn’t about compassion, this is about self-defense.
  • Pawlenty had a great answer on the role of conservative justices on the court.
  • Newt Home Run on Illegal immigration – are you totally opening the border or totally for rounding people up – this is a false choice.
  • ‎”It is time to have a president who really cares about getting america on track to energy security” Romney – Way to go Mitt – Tie the policy to the man – Well Done!
  • Bachmann – Our policy in Libya is fatally flawed. We are the head and not the tail. Obama differed leadership to France, that is all we need to know. Are we helping Al-Qeada in Libya?
  • Pawlenty hit the Palin vs Biden question out of the park.
  • Who gained the most – Bachmann clearly gained the most. She was very disciplined. Herman Cain gained the second most. Pawlenty gained some, but not enough for what he needed.
  • Romney won in a way that he did not slip up and only had one weak moment. Newt stopped his free-fall, now he has to rebuild. Santorum was solid to be sure, but did not stand out in this crowd.
  • Bachmann – the MOTHER of all repeal bills – brilliant. The government is SO big and the regulations are so numerous and unfair that it is ungovernable and stifling.
  • Ron Paul, most of his answers were good and he had a couple of very good moments, but he came off as a cantankerous old man (no personal offense is intended, I am just analyzing).

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

Note to Possible Presidential Candidates on Communications Strategy

Posted by iusbvision on June 13, 2011

If you get into a siege mentality you greatly limit the talent that that can help you and you also give gatekeepers too much power. Leadership isolates. While that is always a problem it becomes a dangerous problem when you are the leader of a group that has a siege mentality.

The siege mentality exacerbates a mass assumption that anything that comes from outside the group cannot possibly be correct. Therefore you must always keep some people around you who are mature enough to be loyal two you while being skeptical of you at the same time; “Yes Boss” doesn’t always serve you well.

When a candidate is under attack by a hostile press, you do not put yourself on a fortress, you put the press inside of a fenced in ring and shoot arrows into the fence when necessary. If your organization does not understand what I just explained you are already in trouble.

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Pawlenty Attacks Romney Calling It “ObamneyCare”… But YouTube Never Forgets…

Posted by iusbvision on June 12, 2011

This is what is viral on the net today.

This is exactly the kind of thing that kills campaigns as the commercials just write themselves. Republicans need to understand and “get” YouTube.

Pawlenty against RomneyCare

Pawlenty for RomneyCare

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

GM CEO: Gas Taxes Should be Raised by $1 a Gallon…

Posted by iusbvision on June 12, 2011

I will never buy another GM vehicle. I currently have three.

Via Heritage:

If General Motors CEO Dan Akerson had anything to say about it, you would be paying a dollar more a gallon for gas. Yes, with $4/gallon prices hitting consumers in a tough economy, Akerson told the Detroit News: “You know what I’d rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas.”

Akerson, 61, was appointed CEO of GM last fall, having previously served as an Obama-appointed member of the board. He has been critical of the Obama Administration on several issues, including fuel economy standards, but now has discovered something in common: a love of high gas prices. He, like President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, believes that higher gas prices will force taxpayers to buy more fuel-efficient (and usually more expensive) vehicles.

In 2008, Secretary Chu said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” And it was President Obama who told CNBC in 2008 that he preferred a “gradual” increase in gas prices. Obama and Chu know that only when matched dollar-for-dollar will Americans choose alternative energy sources that are much more expensive today. Since the already heavily-subsidized alternative energy sources are not getting cheaper, the only solution is to make cheap energy more expensive.

Akerson, Chu and Obama are wrong to embrace high gas prices. Hitting lower-income Americans with a punitive gas tax while unemployment remains near ten percent is a bad idea, regardless of what behavior you are hoping to mandate.

Akerson’s comments came in the context of a larger conversation on energy policy. Akerson correctly stated that the government’s imposed fuel standards are taxing production, which will cost jobs and raise the purchase price of cars. But passing that burden directly to consumers at the gas pump isn’t the solution. The idea that the government must either increase taxes on businesses or struggling taxpayers is a false choice.

High gas prices alone won’t encourage consumers to buy the hugely unpopular Chevy Volt. The Volt isn’t selling because even after substantial tax credits that the government cannot afford, the additional cost in buying a not-ready-for-market Volt, plus the cost of electricity (which isn’t free) is far greater than any potential gas savings.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Christie: Government Union Spent $6 million in TV Ads Motivating People to Hate

Posted by iusbvision on June 12, 2011

Six million in less than three months…

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Leftist Hate in Action, Unions | Leave a Comment »

CNN: Palin’s Email Show Her to be Hard Working Governor

Posted by iusbvision on June 11, 2011

CNN reporter actually tells it like it is. The poor guy is doomed.

But much the rest of the elite media is clipping statements mid sentence and trying to make it as salacious and ridiculous as they can, prompting this response from the guys at Fox, and even earning the scorn of Democrat Party strategist Kirsten Powers:

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | 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 »

Tea Party Express: We Will Not Support Any Third Party Candidate

Posted by iusbvision on June 5, 2011

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

Governor Daniels on WLS – Full Audio

Posted by iusbvision on June 5, 2011

 Gov. Daniels’ appearance on WLS AM 890. Just click the link –   http://tinyurl.com/3s2o5jt

 

 

 

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

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2011

Polling shows that like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s energy policy is going to send him packing in 2012. So what is the new strategy, tell people you are expanding domestic oil production and just not do it.

But expanding leases does nothing because often it is discovered that a lease cannot be trilled upon for technical reasons. Also, the government and environmental groups are not allowing companies to drill on leases they have paid for. The lease is just the first step of a process that takes years and the government can halt it any step of the way, and has as you will see below.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said after he was confirmed by the Senate that we have to find a way to get the price of gas to European levels (around $8 dollars a gallon). Even the new Democrats National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman just went on the record with a repeat of the Democrats energy policy, less domestic production, and more deficit spending for Chinese made solar panels.

Obama’s illegal offshore drilling moratorium explained. This will infuriate you. UPDATE – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confirms: Democrat Energy Policy is To Push For Less Energy and More Deficit Spending

This is a no miss short film explaining how the government can stop all drilling with the stroke of a pen….

On top of that Obama’s energy policy is now threatening to shut down the Alaska pipeline.

Heritage:

Obama Oil Policy Threatens Alaska Pipeline’s Existence

The invaluable Alaskan oil pipeline isn’t doing well these days. A remedy to help fix this precious resource is available but overzealous environmentalists and over-regulatory politicians are standing in the way.  The ever-decreasing amount of oil flowing through the pipeline is disrupting its effective operation — and threatening its very existence.

This problem could easily be solved by opening up more domestic drilling in Alaska. This would allow more oil to flow through the pipeline, maintain the correct temperature (which falls to dangerous levels with insufficient supply). But access to drilling permits has been severely reduced. With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, it is inconceivable that the Obama administration would continue to hinder production and add regulations that could eliminate yet another standard domestic source of oil. Yet that is what is occurring.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Russell Gold writes about the threat to kill the pipeline:

Shell earlier this year canceled plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer because, after five years, it couldn’t get a federal air-emission permit for an offshore drilling rig. Its plans for drilling in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska’s northwest coast are also held up by a legal dispute. Exxon Mobil is also waiting for federal environmental approval, and in February, the federal government denied ConocoPhillips a permit the company had been working on for five years.

…Shutting the pipeline would force refineries to find new and more expensive supplies of crude oil. And President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease oil imports would suffer a major setback.

While opening more drilling in Alaska would help significantly, there are even more places where permits and environmental regulations are causing problems. Heritage’s Nick Loris writes:

We can’t drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earthjustice filed a petition to review the permits, causing the Appeals Board to act.

Environmental activists within the Obama administration are literally halting the much needed domestic oil exploration America needs to improve our economic well being and reduce gas prices for hurting consumers. Saving the pipeline should be top priority right now.

What If Oil Producers Actually Received Subsidies Like Wind Energy Producers? – LINK

Related:

Obama: If you’re complaining about the price of gas get a trade in….

GAO – Government Shut Down Yucca Facility for Political Reasons, Not Scientific Ones

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

The latest lie from the left: Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive – UPDATED!

Sarah Palin: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promises aid to Brazil to help drill. While at home imposes drilling ban.

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Now Russia, along with Mexico, Spain, Cuba, and China are building oil wells just miles off our shores while Obama keeps Americans out. UPDATE – Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes.

If You Ever Needed Proof that Democrats Want Higher Gas Prices…

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Dirty Tricks, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama back to old tricks: Pushing banks to give high risk loans again…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

… all because this policy worked out so well the last time right?

[LINK - start at the bottom of the linked page and start reading to get a great education on the mortgage crisis. It started with the abuse and deliberate misapplication of redlining regulations to accomplish political goals and economic social engineering. When the OFHEO regulator tried to warn Congress Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that the regulator was lying and even used the race card against them, of course the worst economy since the Great Depression has shown us that everything wasn't fine - Editor]

Via Weasel Zappers and Business Week:

(Business Week) — Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren’t offering credit to the city’s poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.

Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group’s targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis’s predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don’t discriminate, Midwest BankCentre’s latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining. The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. “The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access,” says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

US now borrows 58,000 per second…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet? | Leave a Comment »

Indiana Supreme Court turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

This is one of the bad things about state and local politics and this problem is moving into the federal level more and more, that judgeship’s are becoming more like ambassadorships. No longer are qualified people demanded, or are great legal minds sought out; volunteer, lick some envelopes, make some donations, plan a few fund raisers, attend a few cocktail parties, and book a great guest at the State Barr Assoc. Dinner and whamo your a judge!

Unfortunately several states have courts like this. This will of course make it’s way to the federal courts where it will be overturned …….eventually, but that is not the point.

Here are the Indiana Supreme Court Justices and they must face the voters for a retention election come the end of their terms. While Justices Rucker and Dickson least voted no and are tolerable, the other three need to be made an example of and must be replaced by an upcoming Governor Pence. The governor cannot just pick who he likes, he must pick from a list of people chosen by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission which is made up mostly of the Bar Association. To put people like this up, who would have failed a 4th Amendment Question with this answer if they had taken Constitutional Law with Judge Allen Sharp as I did, tells me that the so called “Missouri Plan Method” of selecting judges has broken down, and either the Indiana Commission is a political body giving the illusion of merit, or it is infected with ideologues. In either case if a majority of judges on the court are this radical, the system is broken. More humiliation for Indiana when one day a federal court will site precedent and reverse this. The 4th amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment, and this also gives the federal courts judicial review over such flawed state court decisions.

What is most painful, is that Justice David who wrote this abomination of a ruling, was just appointed by Governor Daniels, whose primary opponents will have a ball with this. I was just starting to get some guarded enthusiasm about Gov. Daniels possible White House run, this hurts.

Politics is politics, but messing with God-given rights recognized since Magna-Carta is something else. Print out this page and put their names on your refrigerator, when retention election time comes send them packing.

Name Term Start Term Expires Position
Randall Shepard September 6, 1985 September 6, 2015 Chief Justice
Brent Dickson January 6, 1986 January 6, 2016 Associate Justice
Frank Sullivan, Jr. November 1, 1993 November 1, 2013 Associate Justice
Steven H. David October 18, 2010   Associate Justice
Robert Rucker November 19, 1999 November 19, 2009 Associate Justice


Via Hotair.com and Michelle Malkin:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment needs a disclaimer when it comes to officers of the law acting unlawfully (at which point, by definition, wouldn’t they cease to be “officers of the law”?).

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”
I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

There have always been a difference between daytime “knock warrants” and smash and grab “no-knock” warrants. The “no-knock” smash and grab often ends up with the family dog being shot on entry. These kind of rulings encourage the police to use less restraint. With more reports of younger cops getting in trouble because of a lack of restraint (everyone has a camera phone now) if anything we should have more incentive for restraint, not less. These jackanapes on the court for some reason that abandons all logic, cannot understand that. They need to be sent back to private practice.

UPDATE – Apparently judging by what some lay people have sent via messages they completely do not understand this ruling.

If there was probable cause for the police to check on the welfare of the wife (which there may have been) than it was not an illegal entry. The problem is that the judges took it one step further and said, even if it was totally illegal and unjustified it still has our blessing – THAT is the problem. Hence the press coverage.

Essentially the three judges opinion position boils down to this, you have a Fourth Amendment right AFTER the fact. You do not have rights to be presumed presumed innocent, but rather you are presumed guilty, but IF you can afford a big fancy lawyer to take on the govt, and IF that lawyer is up to the task, and IF you can find a lawyer who is willing to sue the police YOU can go to court and if you prove you were innocent and the police invasion was unlawful, and you win you might get a damage award, after whatever damage is done to your family is already done. This takes away the burden of proof away from the state and puts it on the citizen.

What if that citizen does not have the resources to launch such a legal battle, now defacto he has no rights. It gets worse, if you have to sue, the government will defend, so they will do all they can to defeat (smear) you, investigate you up and down, do all they can to discourage you form continuing, and violate you even further because you were “foolish” enough to dare stand for your constitutional rights, but wait, it is not a right if you are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is on you, which is the entire point. So what is the incentive for the police to respect the rights of the people? Oh there is none. Instead of working to protect your rights the government must defend in court and thus work against them. Welcome to King George’s wet dream. The Constitution and the basis for Western Civilization is turned on its head. Jefferson would NOT be amused.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Newt is in!

Posted by iusbvision on May 14, 2011

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

Obama’s Assault on South Carolina Jobs

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Of course this is aside from his assault in Gulf Coast jobs with the illegal offshore drilling ban, the assault on Alaska jobs with the revocation of Shell’s oil rights, the assault on West Virginia jobs with the completely arbitrary revocation of mining permits, the assault on Nevada jobs with the political closing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear facility.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley responds on this blatant show of corruption from the Obama Administration.

[Editor's note - The Democrats used every sex smear in the book trying to defeat this governor in the last election.]

More details from Newt Gingrich in Human Events:

Suspicious Timing

In October 2009, Boeing decided to open a new production facility in North Charleston, SC to meet the growing demand for its 787 Dreamliner airplane.

The decision came after months of negotiations with the machinists union leadership at Boeing’s main production hub in Puget Sound, WA.  Since 1995, there have been five work stoppages in the Puget Sound plant. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

Still, Boeing negotiated in good faith with the union leadership for the Puget Sound facility to try and find a way to open the new factory there.  In exchange, Boeing wanted a ten year moratorium on strikes so the additional capacity upon which the company was about to spend billions of dollars would be a sound investment.

Boeing and the union were unable to reach an agreement so the company looked elsewhere.  They eventually settled on South Carolina, which is one of the twenty two “right-to-work” states in our country where workers cannot be forced to join a union.

The complaint filed last month by the NLRB on behalf of the machinists union alleges that Boeing located the new facility away from Puget Sound in retaliation for the 2008 strike, which is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.  It makes this accusation despite the months Boeing spent negotiating with the union to try and reach a deal to open the new facility in Puget Sound, and despite the fact that there is a clear legal precedent that allows companies to consider the impact of future strikes when deciding where to open new facilities.

It is the timing of NLRB’s complaint, in fact, which seems retaliatory in nature, not Boeing’s business decision.

The complaint comes a full seventeen months after Boeing announced the location of the new facility and thirteen months after the union leadership first asked NLRB to look into the issue.
Boeing has already begun construction of the new facility, hiring over 1000 people in South Carolina and investing $1 billion. This complaint puts all those jobs created and all that money invested at risk.

Unelected, Unconfirmed Bureaucrats Running Wild

This action by the NLRB is even more disturbing when you consider that it is being led by Lafe Solomon, the acting General Counsel for NLRB, who still needs to be approved by the Senate.  He only holds his position because of a recess appointment by President Obama.

The president also used a recess appointment to place Craig Becker on the NLRB after Becker was rejected by a Democratic Senate in 2010.

As a recent Daily Caller article discovered, Becker’s past writings reveal a disturbing socialist bent that bear directly on the Boeing complaint.

Becker has previously written that the federal government should control and constrain the freedom of companies to direct their capital and resources as they please in order to rig labor negotiations in favor of unions.   Becker has also written that the NLRB possesses the power to impose card-check policies on the nation without an act of Congress.

An Assault on the Right to Work

It is clear that President Obama is packing the NLRB board with left wing ideologues as a payoff to his union boss allies, so that the fix is in with regard to this case and others like it.

The move is consistent with an ongoing pattern in the Obama administration, in which they use the apparatus of big government to reward their allies and punish their opponents.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was exactly right when he characterized the complaint as “one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”

If the NLRB is successful in overturning Boeing’s perfectly rational business decision, it puts tens of millions of future jobs in all 22 right-to-work states in jeopardy.  It would make it effectively impossible for U.S. companies to open new facilities in right-to-work states if they are currently located in one that allows forced unionization.

Global Competition Is a Fact, Not a Theory

The Left simply cannot come to grips with the intensity of global economic competition and the demands it places on U.S. economic policies.

This blindness to reality was on display in the reaction to a recent USA Today article showing that Americans paid less taxes in 2009 than any time since the 1950s.  The article has been used by the Left in recent days as a counter to the conservative case that tax increases would be devastating to any economic recovery, possibly driving us back into recession.

Their argument shows the Left is completely missing the point.  In the new global economy, America is not competing against itself from 1990, 1970 or 1950.

We are competing against Germany, which today has only a 15% federal corporate income tax (and recently hit a 19-year low in its unemployment rate), compared to a 35% corporate tax rate in the U.S., the highest of any central government in the industrialized world.

We are competing against Singapore, which has a capital gains tax of zero, compared to a potential 35% capital gains tax in the United States.

We are competing against Switzerland, which caps the federal personal income tax rate at 11.5%.

We are competing against Canada, which just last week reelected an incumbent Conservative government that has pledged to cut the corporate tax to 15% and lower the personal income tax for families – all while planning to balance its entire budget by 2015.

Consider the case of the New York Stock Exchange.  This icon of American free markets is now owned by a Dutch holding company.

That $10.2 billion takeover was driven by simple economic reality. As Walter Gavin, Vice President of Emerson, explains, the Netherlands has a tax code which makes it more profitable for the NYSE to be owned by a Dutch company than by an American one.  In fact, according to Gavin, the United States lost almost forty companies to Amsterdam in 2010 alone thanks to their more business friendly environment.

This brings us back to President Obama and his union allies’ assault on South Carolina jobs and all twenty two right-to-work states in America.

If the NRLB’s complaint is successful, U.S. companies will simply increase their flight of capital and new facilities to places outside the United States.  In the midst of a struggling economy, it will make it harder for businesses to operate in America, not easier.

The union bosses and their political allies in the White House aren’t going to save union jobs by attacking right-to-work states.  They’ll simply prevent new jobs from being created here in America.

More HERE.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Dirty Tricks, Economics 101, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Human Events: Planned Parenthood Down and Out In Indiana

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Human Events:

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels recently signed a bill that eliminated public funding for Planned Parenthood.  It also banned abortions after 20 weeks, required women considering abortions to receive written information about the procedure and its alternatives, and required doctors to provide ready access to emergency care for women injured during abortion procedures.  The bill makes Indiana the first state to prevent Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood.

In response to complaints that defunding Planned Parenthood would jeopardize the health of women, Governor Daniels “commissioned a careful review of access to services across the state and can confirm that all non-abortion services, whether family planning or basic women’s health, will remain readily available in every one of our 92 counties.”  He promised to “take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before.”  He even allowed that organizations such as Planned Parenthood could get their sweet, sweet taxpayer funding back… provided they stopped performing abortions.

Planned Parenthood didn’t care for this bill, and they weren’t about to shut down that lucrative abortion machine, so they asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to block its implementation.  Today she declined this request, so the new law will go into effect while Planned Parenthood’s legal and constitutional challenges make their way through the courts.

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, the judge “said from the bench that today’s ruling should not be viewed as an indication of how she will rule on the law’s constitutionality.”  She didn’t stop the law from taking effect because she found no danger of “immediate” and “irreversible harm” to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, which has plenty of time to bill its Medicaid expenses, plus a hefty emergency fund.  It will also continue to receive a couple of million dollars per year in federal funding.

In its pending lawsuit, Planned Parenthood argues that defunding them would “void contracts and grants already in effect, violating the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause.”  They also maintain that forcing them to choose between performing abortions, and receiving funds not directly related to abortion, is both unconstitutional and a violation of Medicaid law.

This brings us back to the infinite flexibility of money.  Every dollar taxpayers are compelled to give Planned Parenthood frees up a dollar to be used for any operations it conducts.  It’s absurd to speak of public funding as somehow sanitized because it comes in envelopes that say “DO NOT USE FOR ABORTIONS.”

Ostensibly free Americans are forced to give far too much money to wealthy corporations – a point the Left suddenly loses interest in making, when the corporation in question is Planned Parenthood.  We can at least grant the taxpayers relief from subsidizing activities they consider an outright moral horror.  Then we can work our way back through the stuff they merely regard as stupid.

The Indianapolis Star notes that Governor Daniels’ signature of this bill “has added to speculation that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination.  The move could be viewed as a way to reassure Republican primary voters.  Earlier this year, social conservatives criticized the governor for calling for a truce on social issues.”  I don’t think Planned Parenthood is interested in truces any longer.  Today, they couldn’t even get a cease-fire.

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

The Atlantic Monthly: On Second Thought, Sarah Palin was a Great Governor

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Every once in a while, the elite media (Democrat Media Complex) remembers that they are journalists and when they think they can get away with it they tell the truth or at least get much closer to it. Of course they had to destroy Sarah Palin first with all of their lies, editing chop jobs and other malfeasance, but at least now they can say “hey we reported what a good job she did”.

[Editor's Note - Here is something else you might not know. In the infamous interview Palin had with Katie Couric over those couple of days, Katie would ask Sarah the same questions over and over again. This frustrated Palin and some of her answers became flippant as she was just getting sick of Couric's badgering. The flippant answers are what NBC put on TV. 

This is while Steve Schmidt, (who was hostile to Palin from the beginning because he despises religious conservatives and made that clear in his own writings)  who ran the incompetent McCain communications machine, kept her off talk radio where she had a lot of experience, and wanted Sarah to behave in a way Schmidt wanted, Sarah just could not be herself.

In the infamous interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, ABC cut out many of the substantive parts of her answers to foreign policy questions. Gibson misquoted Palin when he scolded her for saying that Iraq was a "mission from God". Palin never said it in that context as the full quote was selectively edited. Palin's answer about the "Bush Doctrine" was also correct; as there are six "Bush Doctrines" with Sarah naming one and Gibson naming one.

When ABC's Barbara Walters asked Sarah Palin the infamous question again "what do you read" they edited out the books she mentioned about law, philosophy and history such as Liberty & Tyranny by famed attorney and legal scholar Mark Levin.]

This Atlantic  article isn’t perfect, but from a leftist outfit that often just publishes smears and hate that can be debunked in mere moments, it is quite good where it is just explaining the facts and not editorializing for the left.

Sarah Palin did not just “raise taxes” as MSNBC tried to spin this piece, Sarah Palin pushed through an entirely new royalty structure for the oil companies buying oil from the people of Alaska. The old royalty system was not just a good deal for the oil companies, it resulted in a royalty so low that the people of Alaska were being ripped off (details HERE). The Murkowski machine was corrupt and on the take, they were also corrupt in the contract bidding process which Palin also fixed.

As far as I know, this is the first elite media publication to tell the truth that Dick Morris told us way back in mid 2008 (and what we have told you in dozens of articles ever since):

So why do so many of the American people not know this Sarah Palin? Why did the elite media, who knew all of this, not bother to tell you?

Atlantic:

As governor, Palin demonstrated many of the qualities we expect in our best leaders. She set aside private concerns for the greater good, forgoing a focus on social issues to confront the great problem plaguing Alaska, its corrupt oil-and-gas politics. She did this in a way that seems wildly out of character today—by cooperating with Democrats and moderate Republicans to raise taxes on Big Business. And she succeeded to a remarkable extent in settling, at least for a time, what had seemed insoluble problems, in the process putting Alaska on a trajectory to financial well-being. Since 2008, Sarah Palin has influenced her party, and the tenor of its politics, perhaps more than any other Republican, but in a way that is almost the antithesis of what she did in Alaska. Had she stayed true to her record, she might have pointed her party in a very different direction.

Inside the Alaska capitol hangs a framed copy of the front page of the Anchorage Daily News for September 11, 1969, its headline—“Alaska’s Richest Day: $900 Million!”—stretching above a picture of purposeful-looking men in suits carrying large briefcases and about to duck into a car. The briefcases contain a fortune that is being rushed to the airport and on to a bank in San Francisco, so Alaskans will not forgo a single day’s interest. This is the proceeds of the state’s first oil-lease auction since the discovery, a year earlier, of the massive oil deposit at Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope, to this day the largest in North America. The headline captures the euphoria over the massive payout by the world’s leading oil companies—a windfall that transformed the state’s politics, economy, and self-image almost overnight.

Throughout most of its history as a territory and, after 1959, as a state, Alaska was a tenuous proposition, a barren outpost rich in resources yet congenitally poor because the outside interests that extracted them didn’t leave much behind. The main obstacle to statehood was convincing Congress that Alaska wouldn’t immediately go bust. It still relies heavily on aid from Washington, and that, combined with the federal government’s holding title to 60 percent of its land base (the state itself holds 28 percent more), generates a robust resentment of federal power. The colonial mind-set is reinforced by the intensity of the state’s politics, a common attribute of remote settlements like Alaska, as the historian Ken Coates has noted—think Lord of the Flies.

To suddenly strike it rich opens up all sorts of possibilities, but there can be problems too. The legislature exhausted its fortune without meeting Alaskans’ outsize expectations. And although oil brought jobs and revenue, it also ensured that a state long accustomed to economic subservience would be beholden to a powerful new interest. Oil is more important to Alaska than the movie business is to Los Angeles or the auto industry is to Michigan. Stephen Haycox, a professor at the University of Alaska at Anchorage, writes in Frigid Embrace, his history of the state’s political economy, “The oil industry is, for all practical purposes, Alaska’s only private economy.”

This binds the state’s fortunes not just to the price of oil but also to the fate of the three giants that dominate Alaska: BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips. Oil taxes supply almost 90 percent of the general revenue, so oil is the central arena of state politics. The industry is forever trying to coax lower taxes, lighter regulation, and greater public investment by promising jobs and riches—or, on occasion, threatening to withdraw them.

In 1978, the Democratic legislature tried to secure the state’s share of oil profits by establishing a corporate income tax over the bitter opposition of the oil companies, which sued to overturn it. They lost in every venue, including, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court. But the real battle was fought in the statehouse.

The oil industry contributed mainly to Republicans through the 1960s and ’70s, but came to realize that it needed broader alliances, and in the late ’70s began courting Democrats too. The strategy paid off. In 1981, the oil companies, through their allies in the legislature, launched a coup, ousting the speaker of the house and key committee chairmen. Then they revoked the corporate income tax. For the next 25 years, oil interests ruled the state almost uninterruptedly.

Palin’s rise began in 2002, when, term-limited as mayor of Wasilla, she ran for lieutenant governor. Little known and heavily outspent, she beat expectations, losing only narrowly and showing an exceptional ability to win fervent support. Afterward, she campaigned for Frank Murkowski, the four-term Alaska senator come home to run for governor. Palin traveled the state speaking about Murkowski, and making herself better known. When he won, she was short-listed to serve the remainder of his Senate term, and even interviewed for the job. But it went to his daughter Lisa instead. (Palin acidly recounts the patronizing interview with the new governor in her memoir, Going Rogue.) Palin got the low-profile chairmanship of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a regulatory body charged with ensuring that these resources are developed in the public interest.

By the time she arrived, the notion that Alaska’s oil-and-gas policy operated in the public interest was getting hard to maintain. The industry controlled the state, and especially the Republican Party. Other than a modest adjustment to oil taxes that squeezed through in 1989 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the hammerlock held. Alaskans were coming to regard this situation with suspicion and anxiety. The problem wasn’t just that the state was starved of revenue from its most valuable resource. It was also the failure to develop another resource to which the oil companies held title: Alaska’s bountiful supply of natural gas. It’s always been understood that North Slope oil would one day run dry. Someday, perhaps as soon as 2019, there won’t be enough oil left to push through the trans-Alaska pipeline—a catastrophe, unless the state somehow replaces the revenue. For this reason, building a gas pipeline has long been a political priority, and one the oil companies have balked at.

From her spot on the oil-and-gas commission, Palin touched off a storm over these anxieties. One glaring example of the unhealthy commingling of oil interests and Republican politics was her fellow commissioner and Murkowski appointee, Randy Ruedrich, who was also chairman of the state Republican Party. Less than a year into the job, Ruedrich got crosswise with Palin for conducting party business from his office (and, it was later revealed, giving information to a company that the commission oversaw). When he ignored her admonitions to stop, she complained to Murkowski’s staff, but still nothing happened. So Palin laid out her concerns in a letter to the governor and the story leaked to the media. In the ensuing uproar, Palin became a hero and Murkowski was left no choice but to fire Ruedrich from the commission.

Palin got strong support from an unlikely quarter: Democrats. “She had the appearance of someone who was willing to go in a different direction,” Hollis French, a Democratic state senator, told me. “We subsequently learned that she’ll throw anyone under a bus, but that wasn’t apparent at the time. It looked like real moral courage.”

Even so, Palin’s actions were presumed to have ruined her prospects. Murkowski and Ruedrich still ran the party. Breaking with them made her no longer viable as an ordinary Republican or a recipient of oil-company largesse. To continue her rise, she needed to find another path. Palin alone imagined that she could. In this and other ways, she displayed all the traits that would become famous: the intense personalization of politics, the hyper-aggressive score-settling—and the dramatic public gesture, which came next.

Palin was clearly the victor (Ruedrich paid the largest civil fine in state history), but she quit the commission anyway. In Going Rogue, she says only that as a commissioner, she was subject to a gag order that Murkowski refused to lift. But quitting didn’t void the gag order. What it did was thrust her back into the spotlight and reinforce her public image. It also gave her a rationale to challenge Murkowski.

All of this turned out to be shrewd politics, because Murkowski’s governorship proceeded to fall apart, thanks to his brazen sense of entitlement. After failing to persuade the Homeland Security Department to buy him a personal jet (to help “defend, deter or defeat opposition forces”), he ignored the legislature’s objections and bought one with state funds. But it was his handling of matters vital to the state’s future that finally threw open the door for Palin.

Murkowski made up his mind to strike a deal with the major oil producers to finally build a gas pipeline from the North Slope. He cut out the legislature and insisted on negotiating through his own team of experts, out of public sight. This rankled all sorts of people because, beyond his arrogance, Murkowski had distinct views about oil and gas that many others didn’t share.

Alaska’s parties align differently from parties elsewhere—they’re further to the right and principally concerned with resource extraction. The major philosophical divide, especially on oil and gas, is between those who view the state as beholden to the oil companies for its livelihood, and will grant them almost anything to ensure that livelihood, and those who view its position as being like the owner of a public corporation for whom the oil companies’ interests are separate from and subordinate to those of its citizen-shareholders. “Oil and gas cuts a swath right through ordinary partisan politics,” Patrick Galvin, Palin’s revenue commissioner, told me.

Murkowski’s willingness to cater to the oil producers, and his secrecy, caused tensions in his administration that burst into view when he announced his deal, in October 2005. It was a breathtaking giveaway that ceded control of the pipeline to the oil companies and retained only a small stake for Alaskans; established a 30-year regime of low taxes impossible to revoke; indemnified companies against any damages from accidents; and exempted everything from open-records laws. In exchange, the state got an increase in the oil-production tax. (Palin later released a private memo in which Murkowski’s top economic adviser complains that he has “gone completely overboard” and is treating “Alaska as a banana republic in order to secure the gas line.”) The deal conceded so much that Murkowski’s natural-resources commissioner, Tom Irwin, publicly questioned its legality—and was summarily fired. Six of Irwin’s aides quit in protest, and the “Magnificent Seven” became a cause célèbre. In the end, the legislature rejected the gas-line deal. But, in a twist, it agreed to the oil tax—which had been intended as an inducement to pass the rest of the package.

Palin came out hard on the other side of the philosophical divide from Murkowski—and made it personal. She announced she would challenge him for governor. She assailed the “secret gas line deal” and the “multinational oil companies that make mind-boggling profits off resources owned by all Alaskans.” She put an “all-Alaska” pipeline at the center of her campaign. And she declared her intention to hire Tom Irwin to negotiate the deal. “She’s what I call ‘alley-cat smart,’” Tony Knowles, the former Democratic governor, told me. “It’s not about ideology. She knows how to pick her way down the political route that she feels will be the most beneficial to what she wants to do.”

Murkowski’s tax was discredited almost immediately. Just after he signed the new Petroleum Profits Tax, the FBI raided the offices of six legislators, in what became the biggest corruption scandal in state history. During the legislative session, the FBI had hidden a video camera at the Baranof Hotel, in Juneau, in a suite that belonged to Bill Allen, a major power broker and the chief executive of Veco Corporation, an oil-services firm. The tapes showed him discussing bribes with important politicians, and revealed the existence of a group of Republican legislators who called themselves the “Corrupt Bastards Club” and took bribes from Allen and others. (Several were later sent to prison.)

In the Republican primary, Palin crushed Murkowski, delivering one of the worst defeats ever suffered by an incumbent governor anywhere. She went on to have little trouble dispatching Knowles, an oil-friendly Democrat. “A lot of people on the East Coast, when they think of Sarah Palin now,” Cliff Groh, a former state tax lobbyist, told me, “some five-letter words come to mind: Scary. Crazy. Angry. Maybe some others. But the five-letter word that people in Alaska associated with her name was clean.”

You betcha.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

Meet the Favorite Candidate of that “Racist” TEA Party

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Herman Cain

At the beginning of the first GOP Presidential Primary Debate only one person in the Frank Luntz focus group knew who this man was, by the end he had won the debate handily.

Herman Cain has been TEA Party favorite since 2009 and this author has followed his career since 1994. Cain has been speaking a TEA Party and GOP events for a long time and this debate was his national television debut. Cain is also a former Indiana resident.

www.hermancain.com

  • A native and current resident of Atlanta, Georgia. Married for over 40 years with two adult children and three grandchildren
  • Author of four books, Leadership Is Common Sense (1997), Speak As A Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October, 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May, 2005)
  • Graduated from Morehouse College with a B.S. in Mathematics in 1967. Earned his Master’s Degree in Computer Science from Purdue University in 1971
  • Recipient of eight Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Morehouse College, New York City Technical College; Suffolk University, Johnson & Wales University, Creighton University, Purdue University, Tougaloo College and the University of Nebraska
  • Serves on the Boards of Directors of AGCO, Inc., Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Hallmark Cards Inc., Whirlpool, Inc., and Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Member of The National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (1995), chaired by former Republican Vice-presidential candidate, Jack Kemp
  • Former Chairman and President of the Tax Leadership Council, the public educational component of Americans for Fair Taxation
  • Former Chairman of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc. after serving as CEO and President for ten years, 1986 – 1996. In 1988 he bought the company from The Pillsbury Company
  • Past Chairman of the Board of the National Restaurant Association (1994-1995), and former full time CEO and President of the Association (1996-1999)
  • Recipient of a 1996 Horatio Alger Award and the 1991 International Foodservice Manufacturers Association’s Operator of the Year/Gold Plate Award
  • Chief Executive Officer and President of THE New Voice, Inc., a business consulting company, and Head Coach of HITM
  • Past Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
  • At a nationally televised Presidential Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Reform (1994), challenged President Bill Clinton’s health care proposal when he said, “Mr. President, with all due respect, your calculations are incorrect…”
  • Radio Talk Show Host, “The Herman Cain Show”, News Talk 750 WSB – Atlanta, Monday – Friday, 7pm-10pm EST

Herman Cain is incredible in a debate. The Democrats (and their media complex) already know that they do not want to have Obama on the same stage with this man. They will try to ignore him, but when they can ignore him no longer they will attack and smear him. Expect it.

Herman Cain: Stay Informed, Stay Involved, Stay Inspired

Sen. Rick Santorum also gave a very impressive showing at the debate. Here is an interview with Judge Napolitano:

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

Video and News Roundup April 1st

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2011

AWESOME: US and Japanese Forces Rescue Dog Swept to Sea Three Weeks Ago in Japan

Kristi Noem: Democrats are Rooting for a Government Shutdown

“The federal government accumulates more deficit every single day than my home state did in a year.”

Democrats are on retreat after the leadership was caught on tape plotting a government shutdown to increase deficit spending. Rasmussen: 57% prefer government shutdown to current levels of spending – LINK. Former DNC Chair Howard Dean: Democrats should root for a government shutdown – LINK.

Obama Administration Official: GOP Budget Cuts Will Kill 70, 000 Children…

This time both the Democrat and Republic strategist agree; not only is the statement preposterous, but you can say that about anything.

Why do we pay the people in Congress or the federal government or the military? Don’t you know how many lives we could “save” around the world with that money? Do it for the children!

Trump weighs in on the policy debate: If I am President Iran WILL NOT have a nuclear weapon. Iraq needs to pay us back, Saudi needs to pay us for protecting them and keeping them in power. The Arab League asked us to deal with Ghadaffi, they are super rich countries so pay for it! Trump talks China, trade, OPEC, taxes, jobs and more

This is a no miss interview, even if you do not take Trump seriously you should still watch it.

On trade, Trump is right but there will be consequences, a big tariff on China will mean an instant price increase in everything that is made there, which lately seems like most things. So the poor and middle class will take a hit, for a while. But it must be done. Trump is right that we are being sucked dry and we have had leaders who have not looked out for our economic interests (which is obvious).

The problem is that currency manipulation and labor costs are only a part of the problem. The Obama Deficit Commission which the media doesn’t want to talk about much lately is right in that our tax rates are too high, our tax code is too complicated and too hard to comply with, and we have so many regulations (many of which are corrupt to help political cronies) that it is impossible to comply with them all. We have so many regulations no one could even read them all in a lifetime so it is no mystery why investors and job creators do not want to invest here. Trump does hit on these problems, but does not tie it in with his narrative about the Chinese and others that are fleecing us. He should as it really is one problem.

Former CIA “bin-Laden Unit” Head To CNN Anchor: “You’re Just Carrying The Water For Mr. Obama”

Dr. Scheur wrote a “Bush bashing” book. He has also blasted Obama and Clinton for bad “war on terror” tactics/strategy. He was the head of the CIA’s bin-Laden unit. He was one of the sources for the film, “The path to 9/11″. Dr. Scheur almost always has facts that are not disputable, but of course his conclusions are open to debate. Scheur’s opinions are highly informed ones though and have merit even if I do not totally agree with them.

Like Dr. Niall Ferguson, Dr. Scheur has little tolerance for biased, no nothing reporters who are often less informed than his students.

Mexican Cartels Get Heavy Weapons from Central America, U.S. Cables Say

Dick Morris Reports: Wisconsin Reforms In Peril Due To Possible Election Of Radical Judge

Congressman Issa subpoena’s documents after Obama Administration stonewall in project gunrunner case. The administration was actively facilitating American guns going to the Mexican Drug Cartels and got caught. – LINK.

Police Caught On Tape Beating Black Man.

The man is a member of the Nation of Islam and allegedly as he was working at a night club he was taking keys from customers and going to their cars and stealing items such as GPS, computers and he was caught with a stolen firearm. You can see on the tape that he surrendered to police and they beat him for some time and there are multiple police obviously breaking the law so what you see here is an automatic conspiracy by police to break the law and cover it up. After all if there was no tape what would the police report have said? I have an idea, something like “the police were fighting this athletic perp and the police feared for their collective lives and very regrettably the suspect was injured but the police used all possible restraint”. So here is the rub, if the police in this video were capable of this, how can anything they say about the charges against this man be believed? This is why police need to have restraint especially if this man is guilty, because of this tape not only will he walk, but the city will be writing him a big fat check.  – LINK for the video and story.

More Obama Administration Nuttery: American servicewomen “encouraged” to wear “hijab” headscarves in Afghanistan – LINK.

‘Unprecedented’ Political Review of FOIA Requests by Homeland Security Department

So much for transparency – LINK.

Government Pays Failed Fannie Mae Execs Millions (again) – LINK.

Related:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paying $210 million in bonuses with your money and no outrage why…..

Fannie and Freddie Amnesia: Taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 billion, partly because Sen. Obama helped to block reform.

Transparency, Congress & Corruption: AIG and Fannie Mae Bonuses

Rules For The and Not For Me:  Presidential limousine, security vehicles exempt from fed ‘green’ vehicle policy – LINK

Six of top 15 declining cities in California – LINK

Hello, I am from the Communist Party. Would you like to join?…

Evil with a smiley face. Notice how many in the second video are academics?

 

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2011

Related – The latest lie from the left: Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive

 

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a “new energy proposal”; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a “new energy proposal” – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, “There are no quick fixes.” He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any “fixes” from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

 

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

 

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations.  Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

 

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide.  And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

 

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

 

Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t “drill” our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either. We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don’t have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet “green” projects.

 

I have always been in favor of an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence, but “all-of-the-above” means conventional resource development too.  It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

 

- Sarah Palin

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad, Regulatory Abuse | Leave a Comment »

Roundup: Evan Bayh admits ObamaCare doesn’t reduce health costs; Rubio – America Can’t Survive Another Obama Term; Palin – Obama profoundly disappointing, Trump, Herman Cain and more!

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2011

Evan Bayh admits ObamaCare doesn’t reduce health costs. Of course he is on both sides of the issue as you listen to him talk. There is always an escape hatch with politicians like Evan Bayh. What about those three hidden multi-billion dollar slush funds that were in the bill Senator Bayh?

 

Marco Rubio: America Can’t Survive Another Obama Term

 

 

Palin on Obama Libyan Policy. Judging him by his own standards

 

Herman Cain talks to AIM about OPEC and China

 

Donald Trump: The media tries to find everyone doing something wrong – everyone BUT Obama; the birth certificate; the frauds and scams he has seen in his career; Bush and more.

Here is the deal with the birth certificate. It is not so much about where he was born, it is about transparency. How many times did Obama blast the Bush Administration for lack of transparency? Obama’s administration treats transparency with contempt as we and so many other have reported. The hypocrisy is glaring.

 

Rudy Giuliani: This administration doesn’t know what it’s doing. The rebels asked for our help, so we’re entitled to ask them a few questions right?

 

 

Posted in 2012, 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, 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 »

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 »

Sarah Palin: Why Is It That the US Often Tells Israel That They Need to Back Off?

Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011

Indeed.

Terrorists go into Israel and cut the throats of an entire family and the people in Gaza are dancing in the streets.

Hamas is launching rockets against Israeli civilians again.

Hamas set off another bomb in Israel.

Check out the video’s on the web site and at MEMRI.org and you will see Hamas state run TV using kids cartoon dubs and such to teach hate, genocide, killing Jews etc. There is no way to negotiate with people like that.

If Cuba launched rockets at us for 20 minutes, we would make it into the 51st state. They have been launching them at Israel for 20 years and still Israel shows so much restraint that its enemies are not deterred.

The entire interview is here. Sarah goes in-depth into several policy areas here so if that is something you care about be sure to watch:

 

UPDATE – Israel boarded a ship headed for Gaza with 50 tons of weapons, including six Iranian made anti-ship missiles of Chinese design.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Israel, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann on 2012

Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011

Herman Cain on childhood racism:

Sarah Palin on Libya and more with Greta:

Oh just a little reminder. There are SIX Bush Doctrines. http://tiny.cc/ebtgb

Michelle Bachmann forms exploratory committee:

Reminder of the destruction in Japan please give today!:

[Editor's Note - While the elite media has been pushing nuclear dooms day scenarios that were false, in general they have not given proper play to just how bad the disaster is as we have all seen. Conservatives have been pushing for people to donate and have praised the spirit of the Japanese people. Did anyone notice that in Japan there is no looting. The Atlantic Magazine which is a far left outfit that recycles many of the lies from Media Matters and presents it as its own work has said that Conservatives are praising the Japanese because conservatives are racist. No I am not kidding.]

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

The Announcement

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2011

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers