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 ‘Leftist Hate in Action’ Category

Elite Media and Democrats Using Japan Crisis and Lies to Advocate More Deficit Spending

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2011

The Media Research Center exposes the lies.

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies | Leave a Comment »

Leftist civility on display

Posted by iusbvision on March 22, 2011

LEFT HATE SPEECH: ‘NAZI’ ‘RACIST’ LA RAZA PROTESTERS SHOUT DOWN POLITICAL OPPOSITION, STOP ARIZONA

Racist far left La Raza (The Race) protesters out to stop AZ Attorney General form participating in interview with reporter.

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

Huffington Post Blasts Elite Media: Ignoring Death Threats to Wisconsin Politicians Is Media Bias

Posted by iusbvision on March 18, 2011

Well I never thought I would see the day.

Of course most of the nutty commenters are siding with the people making the death threats and condemning the author for just telling the truth, that conservative bloggers got the story right. There have been dozens of death threats in recent weeks, and violence (LINK1, LINK2) and the elite media ignores it all. Of course Fox is the only one with the guts to report it.

Wisconsin Democrat Gordon Hintz to Female Republican Michelle Litjens After Budget Vote: “You Are F*cking Dead!

HuffPo:

Three questions for you.

  1. Do you think of Republicans and the Tea Party as dangerous, violent extremists?
  2. Do you think the Wisconsin protests over GOP Governor Scott Walker’s move to strip public sector employees of collective bargaining were peaceful?
  3. Do you scoff at the right wing notion that mainstream media like the New York Times, the TV networks and NPR have a liberal media bias against the conservatives?

If you answered ‘yes’ to all three of those questions, then let me ask you one more…

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren’t considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn’t just been one death threat, but a number of them.

Here’s an example and it’s real…..

 

So of course the post went viral. I have been watching it on and off for hours the moderates came in and cleaned up the comments … LOL

 

Jim Treacher asks: What’s with all the death threats libs?

Somebody just sent James O’Keefe this lovely message on Twitter. [WARNING: Rude, moronic, violent language]

I’m going to assume this guy’s name is Mike Clark, and his Twitter bio says he’s in Memphis, TN. Sending somebody a death threat is dumb to begin with, but doing so via a Twitter account with your name and location on it? That takes a special brand of stupid.

Ann Althouse just received a direct threat to her person as well. Like O’Keefe, Althouse has raised the ire of the left by videotaping them in action. Tell the truth and they call it lies. Make your point nonviolently and they threaten you. It’s like clockwork.

And it doesn’t stop there. John Nolte at Big Government has put together a compilation of the last three weeks of left-wing threats and bullying in Wisconsin. It’s getting so bad that honest liberals (no, it’s not an oxymoron) like Lee Stranahan are fed up with the media ignoring these threats. “Don’t retreat, reload” is considered violent rhetoric if a conservative says it, but “I’m going to kill you” isn’t considered violent rhetoric if a liberal says it. I keep trying not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but are all these big-brained reporters really that inept?

By the way, if you want to bug me about this supposed “debunking” of O’Keefe’s video that I’m supposed to care about, read thisthisthis, and this. And then, if you still want to whine about how a “discredited” guy like James O’Keefe keeps making fools of you, go bug NPR. If you can convince them it’s all just a lie, maybe those poor NPR execs will get their jobs back.

Good luck.

P.S. And this.

P.P.S. James Taranto: ‘Civility’ Was Always Dead.

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

The Nation Magazine Doctors David Horowitz Video in Smear Attempt

Posted by iusbvision on March 18, 2011

This is what Marxists do folks…

Frontpage Magazine:

There is a large fifth column of Americans who sympathize with our jihadist enemies and wish our nation ill. These are the people who seek to block every inquiry into Islamic terror, and every attempt to refer to “Islamic terror,” with cries of “McCarthyism” and “witch-hunt.” These attacks are designed to demonize the inquirers as “Islamophobes” and bigots who want to “lynch all Muslims.” This attempt by leftists and jihadists to conflate all Muslims with terrorists is merely the latest in a long history of radical attempts to hide their terrorist fish in the “ocean of the people.”

This very accusation was actually leveled at me at Brooklyn College the other night, after an hour-long talk I gave detailing the hate-filled, genocidal agendas of Hizbollah, Hamas, the rulers of Iran and the terrorist agents of the Palestinian Authority. [To see the full talk, Click Here] During my talk, I provided chapter and verse documentation of the bloody-thirsty intentions openly proclaimed by leaders of the Palestinian cause and supported by their campus sympathizers across America. The chants shouted during “Israel Apartheid Week” this spring demand a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.” A Palestine stretching from the Jordan River, Israel’s eastern boundary, to the Mediterranean sea, its boundary to the West, would obliterate the Jewish state, wiping it from the map. Which is precisely what these hate weeks against the Jews on college campuses are intended to bring about.

The Hamas supporters of the Palestine Club (sponsors of the hate week against the Jews on the Brooklyn campus) who came to hear my speech could only respond to the evidence I presented with this retort: “you want to lynch all Muslims.” They had no other response because there is no other response. The indisputable fact is that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority openly proclaim that Israel should not exist. Their supporters from the Muslim Students Association to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is an actual spin-off of Hamas, agree. Hence the only course open to them is to turn the aggressors into victims, and the victims into bigots.

No sooner was the video of my speech posted on the Internet than Philip Weiss who runs a blog for the Nation put up a version of the video, which had been edited with a hatchet. It is called “Horowitz Spews Hatred at Brooklyn College.”  Weiss’s employer, theNation magazine, has a long history of supporting America’s enemies and their genocidal activities — from the Communists in Russia to the Communists in Cambodia and Vietnam. It came as no surprise to me, therefore, that the Nation’s leftists would be enablers of the Islamic jihad against the democracies of the West and of the war against the Jews. But even I was taken aback by the ham-fisted dishonesty of the cut that Philip Weiss had tossed off without even a note to the unsuspecting that the video had been doctored.

In Weiss’s video I am seen accusing Palestinian terrorists of being Nazis and Palestinians of having sunk to a moral low unequalled in history. But the reasons for these judgments were consigned to the cutting room floor, so they appear to be merely the kind of bilious venom that the left itself is so adept at. Here are statements I read to the audience (which can be viewed on the uncut video of my speech) from two Palestinian leaders – one the founder of Hamas, and the other the chairman of the Gaza parliament – expressing their intentions towards Israel’s Jews – and, indeed, towards all Jews:

“There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world.  You are headed to annihilation.” — Mahmoud Al-Zahar

“Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”  – Ahmad Bahar

If these are not the sentiments of Nazis, then what is?

The other statement I made, that the Palestinians are morally sick and have sunk to a moral depth unrivalled by any other people in history, was a conclusion anyone might draw from what are indisputable facts. For while ethnic groups and races have been oppressed from the beginning of time, no other people in history has strapped bombs to its own children and sent them to blow themselves up in order to kill other children, telling them that if they committed these murders they would go to heaven and become saints and, if they were lucky enough to be males, would receive 72 virgins as a reward. If this isn’t morally sick, I don’t know what is.

So for blurting out the impolitic truth I am tarred now as an anti-Muslim bigot by supporters of Jew-hatred and terror at the Nation Institute, and by their mindless cohorts on the political left, and by the supporters of Hamas among the members of the Palestine Club and the Muslim Students Association and their campus allies. I can live with that. But don’t think for a moment that this is my personal problem. It is the problem faced by everyone and anyone who will stand up to the enemies among us, who hate our freedoms, and are working within our institutions and our homeland to take those freedoms away.

 

 

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

Nine Army officers reprimanded for failing to spot signs of radicalism in Fort Hood shooter – Elite Media Silent

Posted by iusbvision on March 13, 2011

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Even though I agree with the reprimands (a letter of reprimand (LOR) is a slap on the wrist), I also understand that these officers were put between a rock and a hard place. If they would have moved against Hasan he would have made a stink. Social Actions in the Army likely would have sided with him. How do I know this? I know this because I served two tours in the military and have seen Social Actions at work. If you are accused you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Even in basic training the Military Training Instructors (Drill Sergeants) feared the female recruits. The officers who feared speaking out were right to. Odds are it would have been bad for their careers. As far as giving Hasan an undeserved good performance review, it is no secret that in the military, your performance review is about anything and everything before your actual performance.

The military, just like the Federal Government, does not treat whistle-blowers well and that goes double if the whistle-blower is right.  That is also something I have seen first hand.

Here is the rub, an LOR is MUCH preferred over a Social Actions investigation or an accusation of bigotry against what is perceived as a far left, PC protected group. So just giving these officers an LOR will encourage other officers faced with a similar circumstance another reason to behave exactly the same way. There are several levels of LOR. The “counciling letter”, “admonition letter” and the standard “LOR”. Each is considered more serious than the other and can be removed by a serviceman’s sitting commander. For officers they can get a letter of censure which is still more serious and usually comes as a directive above that officer’s immediate commander. A letter of censure sometimes means that future commands or promotions will be slower coming or not available. ]


We have just searched the ABC News, NBC News, CNN, and CBS News  web sites. There is no mention of this story.

The Daily Mail UK:

Nine Army officers are being reprimanded for failing to spot signs of radicalism in the gunman who went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 and injured 29 in the massacre at the Texas military base on November 5, 2009, and had a track record of mental instability as he moved along his medical career.

Saying that although no single event directly led to the tragedy, Army Secretary John McHugh found that certain officers failed to meet expected standards, an Army statement said yesterday.

The officers – all lieutenant or above – will receive punishments ranging from an oral reprimand to the far more serious written letter of censure that is considered a career-ender.

A Pentagon review last year found that 40-year-old Hasan’s supervisors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre where he worked expressed serious concerns about his questionable behaviour and poor judgement but failed to heed their own warnings.

It said the Army psychiatrist’s supervisors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving up through the ranks despite worries about his strident views on Islam and worries about his competence.

In one episode, Hasan reportedly gave a class presentation questioning whether the U.S.-led war on terror was actually a war on Islam.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

If George W Bush were torturing Bradley Manning like Obama is would the Left rollover the way they do for Obama

Posted by iusbvision on March 12, 2011

A good question from MSNBC talker Dylan Ratigan and from all of the information I have been able to gather Ratigan has this story correct and Manning is being treated this badly.

MSNBC is so often so brutishly anti-journalism and anti-intellectual that just ignoring them seems best, but when they get it right we have no fear of saying so.

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

Congressman King vs Wash Post’s Eugene Washington on Islamic Radicalization Hearings. King Wins.

Posted by iusbvision on March 12, 2011

I am not going to hold back here. Eugene Robinson is the quintessential example of what is wrong with journalism today. His arguments amount to emotionalism, fear mongering and demagoguery, which he uses to try to hide that fact that he rarely does his homework.

We have talked about the way the far left argues. The first argument is S.I.N. and the last argument is an attempt to paint you as a monster to shut you up. This is all that is in the far left play-book. You can see that Cong. King pummels Robinson with fact after fact while Robinson just sits there and shakes his head. The far left typically ignored most facts that threaten their narrative. You will see this pattern perfectly in this video.

When Joe Lieberman and Snow had similar hearings some years ago why did the left not call Lieberman a McCarthy or a bigot? This is all politics folks and Eugene Robinson once again shows himself to be a naked partisan hit man.

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

Daily Caller: Dems at radicalization hearings recite Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group’s talking points

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

I am not surprised I am sorry to say.

Ted Kennedy reached out to Russia to undermine Reagan.

Democrats opposed Reagan’s efforts to end the Cold War.

Democrats favored Daniel Ortega when he aligned with the Soviets in the 80’s

NPR was just caught expressing a willingness to funnel illegal terrorist funds from the Muslim Brotherhood to itself.

On college campus around the country the progressive secular left and the MSA, which is a part of the Muslim Bortherhood, collude to harass Christians and Jews and to stifle free speech.

The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller has acquired the talking points that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, supplied to its supporters as an aid in attacking the Muslim radicalization hearing New York Republican Rep. Peter King held Thursday. Save for Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s incoherent ramblings on Thursday, Democrats’ statements and testimony against King’s hearing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, largely mirrored MPAC’s talking points.

MPAC recommended that its supporters accuse King of “pure political posturing,” and told them to say, “these hearings appear little more than a political circus with Rep. King as the ringleader.” MPAC also recommended supporters say that the “hearings hurt our national security” because of their “narrow scope.” Finally, it said supporters should say that the hearings were unnecessary because “active” partnerships between law enforcement and the American Muslim community already exist.

California Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson hit on the “pure political posturing” point in the MPAC memo. She compared King’s hearings to those of the McCarthy era.

Rep. Al Green, Texas Democrat, asked why King wasn’t investigating the Ku Klux Klan, something that plays right into the MPAC “suggested message” that the “hearings hurt our national security” because of a “narrow scope.”

“I think that all criminals should be prosecuted. I think that all terrorists should be investigated which is why I said we ought to investigate all of them and that would include the KKK,” Green said. “Over a hundred years of terrorism why not investigate them too. They are rooted in a religion as well. Check their website out. You’ll see.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison regurgitated all the MPAC talking points in his testimony at the beginning of the hearing.

“Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure,” Ellison said. “Targeting the Muslim American community for the actions of a few is unjust. Actually all of us–all communities–are responsible for combating violent extremism. Singling out one community focuses our analysis in the wrong direction.”

A spokesman for Ellison told TheDC that the congressman didn’t receive the MPAC talking points and “wrote his testimony himself.” Spokespeople for Green and Richardson did not immediately respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

The MPAC’s talking points aren’t something that surprise Ben Lerner of the Center for Security Policy. He said they are just another example of a self-described “rights” group shifting the debate away from the issues at hand and onto whatever they want to talk about.

“Serious people are trying to raise serious questions about the issue of homegrown terrorism and radicalization in the Muslim community,” Lerner said in a phone interview. “A lot of what these ‘so-called mainstream’ Muslim organizations are doing is throwing out insults and labels to anyone who has tried to delve into this. They’re not offering any serious, substantive responses to the concerns that are being raised by Congress.”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

CAIR gets on TV with Robert Spencer

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

It is rare when CAIR will get on the same air with Robert Spencer and you just saw why.

Robert Spencer is perhaps the worlds foremost expert on the Jihadist Movement. I have read one of his books. Spencer, like Walid Shoebat (Palestinian former Muslim Brotherhood member), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Somalia), and Brigitte Gabriel (Lebanon) believe that Islam itself is a militant cultural theo-politic. According to all of my study of the Koran, Hadith and Sharia this is correct.

Pamela Gellar is correct when she reminds people that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. Islam has rules for culture, criminal law, family law, taxes, finance and banking, war, courts etc.

Of course these people will also be the first to tell you that 70% or more of the worlds Muslims do not practice Islam much beyond saying the prayers. However polls in England for example have shown that 28% of Muslims polled were willing to tell a pollster that they were sympathetic of or supportive of the 9/11 hijackers and the subway bombers. Hardly a tiny minority. In fact this very writer has been threatened by a Jihadist student face to face right here at IUSB.

Right now the far left and the domestic smiley face of Jihad (CAIR) are having a cow over hearings into domestic terror and Islam. The far left and their friends in the elite media are playing up the “McCarthy” or “racist!” propaganda angle. The truth is that Joe Lieberman had over a dozen hearings on this very subject and no one had a cow. But you see the new head of the committee is a Christian and not a committed Jew such as Joe Lieberman so people can criticize Chairman King without being called an antisemite. Of course since King is a Republican the double standard in coverage applies automatically.

This writer has great sympathy for non-militant Muslims. They are in between a rock and a hard place. If they speak out someone in their family may be offended and they usually keep in mind that militant Muslims have no qualms about killing dissenters.

Related:

AWESOME VIDEO: CAIR Activist Confronts Allen West and ……

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

AIM: American Tax Dollars for Al-Jazeera-inspired Terrorism

Posted by iusbvision on March 10, 2011

Amazing. Your money being used to fund enemy propaganda, but Democrats say we cannot cut funds for this nonsense.

AIM:

An analysis of the propaganda campaign to get Al-Jazeera carried by more cable and satellite systems reveals an interesting fact. The terrorist TV channel is already available through something called MHz Networks. And it turns out that the MHz Networks is supported by the American taxpayers at the federal and state levels.

MHz Networks is a division of Commonwealth Public Broadcasting and receives over $2 million a year from federal and state governments. In this case, because Commonwealth is based in Virginia, the culprit is the state of Virginia. However, Governor Robert F. McDonnell has proposed eliminating state funding of public broadcasting by cutting $2 million in fiscal 2012 and $2 million in fiscal 2013. Even if state legislators go along with this proposal, that still leaves the federal subsidies for Commonwealth and MHz Networks.

According to figures supplied by Joseph H. Koch, Commonwealth Public Broadcasting Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, $1.4 million of that $2 million came from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is funded by Congress. The CPB distributes taxpayer money to public broadcasting stations and entities.

Since Al-Jazeera is totally owned, run, and paid for by the Emir of Qatar, officially known as “His Highness,” this means that American tax dollars are paying for foreign propaganda in the U.S.

Not only that, but American taxpayers are being fleeced on behalf of an Arab dictator with billions of oil dollars. The Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, is number 8 on the Forbes list of the “richest royals,” with an estimated net worth of $2.4 billion. His channel has been labeled “the greatest Arab media organization” by the Muslim Brotherhood, which has spawned various terrorist organizations and is now poised to take power in Egypt and perhaps other countries.

MHz distributes Al-Jazeera, as well as the Moscow-funded Russia Today channel, under the rubric of “Programming for globally-minded people.”

 

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

Columbia Journalism Review is a Smear Outfit. MSNBC Lefty Talker Admits Hiring Actors as Callers.

Posted by iusbvision on March 9, 2011

Too many journalists like to smear, too may far left activists like to smear, too may far left academics like to smear. Put it all together and you get Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).

An example is this story that came out accusing Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck of secretly hiring actors to call in.

FM “Morning Zoo” shows often use a service to have an actor call in with a crazy story everyone can laugh at. Anyone who has worked in radio knows this. FM “zoo” shows have to because those people who they call up for those great laughs have to be actors due to FCC rules. You see it is illegal to put someone on the air unless you can be reasonably sure they know who they are talking to.

So a CJR “reporter” decided to take such a known service and accuse them of calling political news/talk shows with no evidence whatsoever. Said reporter never even called the company who has the service for comment, nor did the reporter call Limbaugh or Hannity to even ask the question. Instead the reporter just made the allegation.

The story gets worse, the story is from Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), allegedly from the finest teaching journalism professors in the country. Journalism teachers who cannot follow the basic ethics rules found in any j-school textbook. CJR is partially funded by George Soros.

UPDATE – MSNBC lefty talker Ed Schultz admits he used hired actors coached by Congressional Democrats as callers. (H/T The Blaze)

His excuse is lame. When my radio show started we had nothing and I built it up with hard work and talent to beat the competition. I never used staged ringers as callers. A good host should be ready to go an entire show filled with great content and never have to take a call. The most obvious reason why is that at times technical difficulties will prevent you form taking calls. People do not listen to a show to hear callers so quite frankly callers are not that important. That is why I never took very many calls on my show.

What will CJR have to say now?

I will have much more on CJR in my upcoming book.

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

AOL News Op-Ed: Elite Media Whitewashing Wisconsin’s Protests

Posted by iusbvision on March 9, 2011

AOL News:

For the past two weeks, the news media have been swarming over Madison, Wis., covering every detail of the public-sector union protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget cuts, as well as other similar protests around the country.

If you’ve followed the mainstream press, you’ve seen lots of civil protests, lots of interviews with reasonable teachers, pictures of signs about the need for quality education.

But have they been giving viewers and readers the whole story? Not quite.

Here’s a sampling of what you likely missed:

Uncivil language

  • During the protests, there have been signs comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mubarak, even Satan. Some signs featured Walker’s face in crosshairs with the words “Don’t Retreat, Reload: Repeal Walker.” Another held a sign saying “Political Death to Tyrants.”Click here to see a gallery of signs(caution, several signs contain adult language).
  • On Feb. 22 in Boston, Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., fired up a union crowd in front of the statehouse: “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail to get you going. Every once [in] a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
  • In Rhode Island, a union supporter called a cameraman a derogatory term for a homosexual and threatened to have anal sex with him.
  • In Ohio, a union activist called tea party members “corporate butt-lickers” and Nazis.

Violence

  • Tabitha Hale of FreedomWorks was filming a union protest outside their offices in the nation’s capital Feb. 23 and was shoved to the ground by a middle-aged male activist wearing a T-shirt of the Communications Workers of America.
  • Fox News correspondent Mike Tobin said he was hit by pro-union protesters in Wisconsin amidst cries of “Fox News lies” from the crowd, which also tried to block the cameraman’s view of Tobin.

Not one of those outrages was apparently worthy of much in the way of news coverage.

For example, a Media Research Center study of 53 Wisconsin stories on ABC, CBS and NBC found that only eight stories visually featured signs comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin, or Mubarak, or Satan. More incredibly, not a single network anchor or reporter addressed whether that kind of signage was civil or appropriate. And only Fox covered Capuano’s “get a little bloody” remark.

Now, compare this to how tea party protests have been covered, and you can see a glaring double standard at work.

These same media outlets spent two years obsessing over every over-the-top tea party sign and mere accusation of uncivil behavior.

Do you remember the claims that tea party activists intentionally spit on Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (a charge he backed away from) and that tea partyers yelled the N-word at black congressmen (which no one could produce on video)? The mere accusation, the mere suggestion was enough for blanket network coverage.

Do you recall the endless parade of anti-tea-party stories after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson? All of them uniformly denounced Sarah Palin as if she encouraged the shooting. Palin put crosshairs on a congressional district, on the Internet. The Wisconsin protesters put Walker’s head in the crosshairs on posters. But Palin was the evil one, and the Wisconsin protesters got a free pass: No one denounced them.

Well, one uncivil action did break through the media blackout — when blogger Ian Murphy of the “Buffalo Beast” made a crank call to Gov. Walker pretending to be billionaire conservative philanthropist David Koch. But he was celebrated by the press.

On “The Early Show,” CBS reporter Dean Reynolds talked about how gullible the governor was. NBC News correspondent Michael Isikoff asserted that Murphy proved the union conspiracy theorists were right. CNN named Murphy “The Most Intriguing Person of the Day.”

None of these networks, it’s worth pointing out, mentioned that Murphy’s article on this prank call was titled “Koch Whore,” or that he’d in the past written such things as “If Rove is Bush’s brain, may the 43rd president be lobotomized before we string him up.”

Why would they, since that apparently wouldn’t fit the media’s preferred narrative that the pro-union protesters are, unlike tea partyers, champions of civility?

L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies, True Talking Points, Unions, Violence | Leave a Comment »

Lara Logan – Where are the “Elite Media” and the “Feminists” now?

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

If Lara Logan had been merely touched at a Tea Party event the Elite Media would STILL be talking about it. But apparently the Elite Media & the feminist groups hate Western Civilization so much that they are willing to gloss over the mass sexual assault of Logan all because the left and the Islamists both have a common ideological foe – Western Civilization.

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

Kathleen Parker ousted from CNN for the same reason she was hired.

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

 

I was tossing and turning in my mind if I should write this article or not. It is the same old story with so called “conservatives” who have little intellectual substance who, in an act of desperation for attention, start attacking conservatives of substance with with name calling or unsupported accusations to get “instant stardom” by the leftist elite media; just ask Davids Brooks and Frum who now only have traction within New York City. Ask John McCain who used to say that the elite media was his constituency till he ran against The One. The day after McCain won the primary, the love affair was cut off, the elite media turned on him in unison, the NYT falsely accused him of having an affair and for the first time refused to publish his letters to the paper.

As a former radio talk show host myself if I switched sides and attacked there is little doubt that I would get offers from leftist media and or newspapers to work. It is a story that has happened a dozen times. What a conservative says is not “newsworthy” to the elite media until said conservative attacks a Republican candidate with something “saucy”.

The elite media makes its news decisions based of leftist dogma. Conservatives know that and when they want to cash in they know what to do to get attention. However that success is very limited and such so called “conservatives” cannot draw in a wider audience because they lose credibility with conservatives, traditionalists and independents.  I did not watch the show more than a few times because it was boring and neither of the people on had much substance in their views. Besides who wants to watch a “crossfire”  like show with a liberal Republican sellout and a leftist politician who likes prostitutes? There just isn’t enough substantive conflict to make the show interesting.

Imagine if you will, “CROSSFIRE” with David Frum & Joe Lieberman. They would agree 70% of the time and it would be a snoozer. But at least Joe is an honest man who I can respect.

With that said there is NO chemistry between these two. Let us say the obvious. Parker finds Spitzer revolting because he is. He is dismissive of her and talks over her in a way that is misogynistic and she is trying too hard to be liked by CNN’s small audience.  This does not make for good TV.

I am way behind in my writing anyway so I was going to just blow this off, but then John Ziegler wrote the article I would have written, but included a dimension to it that only he could deliver.

John Ziegler:

But the primary reason why the program couldn’t work is also the very reason Parker got the gig in the first place [Emphasis ours  – IUSB Vision Editor]. She was clearly hired because she was perceived as a “conservative” who was willing to vigorously attack Palin, while not holding any particularly strong conservative opinions which might offend the largely liberal CNN audience. It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna HuffingtonPeggy NoonanDavid BrooksDavid FrumMichael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).

Criticizing Palin (along with endorsing Obama) has quickly become the most reliable path to instant notoriety/credibility for ambitious “conservatives,” and Parker became the poster child for this phenomenon. When I went on CNN during my film’s first release, I was actually asked to respond to a Parker quote about Palin. This was especially absurd because Parker had no special knowledge of Palin and was virtually unknown before she “led” Palin’s “assassination.” Had Parker praised Palin, CNN would never have found the quote remotely newsworthy.

However, there is apparently a downside side to getting a show this way. Much like a guy who spends all his cash to get the girl and has nothing left to keep her, Parker had no capital with which to make the show a ratings success. Conservatives, most of whom don’t trust CNN to begin with, had no reason to tune in, and she was such a soft and colorless “conservative” that she didn’t even make for a fun punching bag for the liberal audience, or her overrated co-host (based on my experience Spitzer is actually quite dumb). The sad reality of cable news television today is that you must be polarizing to “succeed.” Moderation or wimpiness simply won’t work, especially when such a temperament is clearly contrived, and not backed up with any real talent.

With no spark, no friction, no talent, and no audience base, Parker brought nothing to the table, and the show was clearly doomed. In the end, she got the fate that she clearly deserved, only probably better.

There is also an interesting secondary element to Parker’s demise which might make media pundits a little more hesitant to attack Sarah Palin. Since the 2008 election, many of her biggest media critics have found themselves out of a job. Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, David Shuster, Alan Colmes, Campbell Brown, John Roberts, Larry King, Harry Smith and Parker are all prominently mentioned in my documentary and all of them have been let go from TV jobs since Obama got elected.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Democrats passed rules on federal government unions that are far more restrictive than what Wisconsin is proposing

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Leftist Hate in Action, Unions | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Walter E. Williams: Secondary benefits of private property rights

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2011

This is Dr. Walter Williams. He was the chair of the economics department at George Mason University. Recently an economics professor was fired for showing students material from this man so I thought that some of you might want to see what he has to say.

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

Andrew Klavan: Stop Right Wing Hate!

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2011

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

Pinhead Academic: Ban ROTC from Campus

Posted by iusbvision on February 18, 2011

Normally I do not like name-calling or mocking someone unless one has tried to use substance and genuine argument first. There are some cases where what is spoken by some far left academics is so painfully dumb and foolish in the worst extreme, that it does not merit serious refutation (although we are going to give you some). This is such a case.

Parents and student’s need to know that pin-heads like this guy are praised on campus. They are given access to your kids without any attempt to balance the conversation in almost all cases.

Allow me to introduce you to Colman McCarthy. The Washington Post describes him thusly:

Colman McCarthy, a former Post columnist, directs the Center for Teaching Peace in Washington and teaches courses on nonviolence at four area universities and two high schools.

Frightening.

Here is a sample of McCarthy’s work:

I sat down with Theodore Hesburgh, the priest who had retired two years earlier after serving 35 years as the university’s president. Graciously, he invited me to lunch at the campus inn. During our discussion, he took modest pride at having raised more than a billion dollars for Notre Dame, and expressed similar feelings about the university’s ROTC program. More than 700 student-cadets were in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Few universities, public or private, had a larger percentage of students in uniform then. The school could have been renamed Fort Hesburgh.

When I suggested that Notre Dame’s hosting of ROTC was a large negative among the school’s many positives, Hesburgh disagreed. Notre Dame was a model of patriotism, he said, by training future officers who were churchgoers, who had taken courses in ethics, and who loved God and country. Notre Dame’s ROTC program was a way to “Christianize the military,” he stated firmly.

I asked if he actually believed there could be a Christian method of slaughtering people in combat, or a Christian way of firebombing cities, or a way to kill civilians in the name of Jesus. Did he think that if enough Notre Dame graduates became soldiers that the military would eventually embrace Christ’s teaching of loving one’s enemies?

It gets worse, he proceeds to tell how soldiers are dumb and academically sub-standard. Of course this has been proved incorrect as the military on average has higher  education than the public at large.

Colman McCarthy obviously knows little about Christianity as well. There is such a thing as a just war doctrine. It is a neighborly thing to rescue people from a brutal dictator and if he had read his prophecy he would know that Jesus is returning with a sword and its no more Mr. Nice Savior:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

And

American King James Version
Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Jesus does not advocate violence, but recognizes that at times it is necessary. Jesus said that if you live by the sword you die by the sword, but also said that it is better to be naked than unarmed, defenseless. Clearly Jesus is making the just use of violence clear, self-defense, just war, bearing arms as a deterrent are justified. Brutality makes right is not.

In case you are not convinced, Jonah Goldberg and master historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson provide the scholarly take-down.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

MSNBC host labels Congressman a “Tax Criminal” for sleeping in his office…

Posted by iusbvision on February 17, 2011

See the video HERE.

 

 

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

So Much for Social Justice: AOL buys Huffington Post for $315 million. Shares nothing with writers/contributors.

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2011

Posted in China, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies | Leave a Comment »

Far-Left Brands O’Reilly’s Obama Interview Racist

Posted by iusbvision on February 15, 2011

So typical. This is why so many people pay no mind to the elite media any longer.

This one is taken right out of the liberal play-book.

 

Posted in 2012, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy”

Posted by iusbvision on February 15, 2011

Via The Blaze:

I’ve got to hand it to the folks at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. They‘ve come up with a creative new way to expose the scientific ignorance of many of today’s climate change fanatics.

In a Penn & Teller-style prank, CFACT asked attendees of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico, to sign two different petitions. The first asked participants to support the purposeful destabilization of the United States economy:

The first project, entitled “Petition to Set a Global Standard” sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation’s economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

And to prove that some people will sign anything that has the right buzz words — think “global effort,“ ”international community,“ and ”planetary” — COP 16 participants were asked to sign in support of a ban on a dangerous chemical compound: water.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

 

The video experiment helps us draw one of two conclusions: a) these people are absolutely clueless, or b) they really do hate water.  Either way, who really thinks these people should be considered “experts” when it comes to science?

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin & The Leftist Psyche

Posted by iusbvision on February 8, 2011

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

Protesters with Former Obama Advisor Van Jones: “String Up Clarence Thomas” – “Revolution Now Like in Egypt”

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011

The elite media likes to tell you that the Tea Party are hateful racists, in spite of the fact that there is no good evidence to demonstrate that. However getting people to say these types of things at almost any left of center protest is easy (especially on most any college campus where there are plenty of unhinged Marxist professors and indoctrinated students in one place). I have seen it first hand as a former counter protester myself. What are the odds of seeing this on NBC News?

This group is called “Common Cause” and do I really have to state the obvious?… Yes they get money from George Soros.

Thanks to Andrew Brietbart for the footage.

The Kicker:

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.
The IRS considers them a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity because they are “non-partisan” (non partisan my ear…), so yes indeed being tax exempt means that YOU help subsidize them.

//

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

Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy

Posted by iusbvision on February 1, 2011

 

Via the Media Research Center:

Special Report. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy”

Below is the Executive Summary for a special report posted today on the MRC’s Web site, “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy,” posted with 103 quotes enhanced by 22 videos clips with accompanying audio.

This week the celebrations begin for the “Reagan Centennial.” This report, compiled by Rich Noyes with video rendering help from Kyle Drennen and fresh quotes text and quotes added by Tim Graham, is a reminder about the disdain, disgust and disrespect the news media displayed toward Ronald Reagan in office and in the years since.

For the Executive Summary online: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ExecSumm.aspx

The text below includes links to the seven specific sections:
“Reagan the Man,” “The Reaganomics Recovery,” “Reagan and National Defense,” “Reagan and Race,” “The Reagan Legacy” and “Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities.”

For the PDF sans video clips, but in a great format for printing and with a colorful cover created by the MRC’s Melanie Selmer:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/Reagan2011.pdf

Now the Executive Summary for the January 31 report:

Rewriting Ronald Reagan
How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy

As the nation prepares to pay tribute to former President Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth, it is amazing to consider that his success at turning the U.S. away from 1960s-style liberalism was accomplished in the face of a daily wave of news media hostility. The media’s first draft of history was more myth than reality: that Reagan only brought the nation poverty, ignorance, bankruptcy, and a dangerously imbalanced foreign and defense policy.

The Media Research Center has assembled a report documenting the “objective” national media’s most biased takes on President Reagan, his record and his times, including 22 video clips and matching MP3 audio:

I. Reagan the Man: Reporters often agonized over why the American public liked Reagan, that they couldn’t see through the White House spell and see Reagan in the contemptuous light that the media did. Go to: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Man.aspx

II. The Reaganomics Recovery: Reagan’s policies caused a dramatic economic turn-around from high inflation and unemployment to steady growth, but the good news was obscured by bad news of trade deficits, greedy excesses of the rich, and supposedly booming homelessness. See:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Reaganomics.aspx

III. Reagan and National Defense: Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War, but to the media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to the poor and hungry, and was somehow the only spending responsible for “bankrupting” the country. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Defense.aspx

IV. Reagan and Race: Using their definition of “civil rights” — anything which adds government-mandated advantages for racial minorities is “civil rights” progress — liberal journalists suggested that somehow Ronald Reagan was against liberty for minorities. Go to:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Race.aspx

V. The Reagan Legacy: The media painted the Reagan era as a horrific time of low ethics, class warfare on the poor, and crushing government debt. Examples:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ReaganLegacy.aspx

EXTRA: Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities. Ronald Reagan’s long Hollywood career earned him no credit among celebrities, who ridiculed him and even inserted anti-Reagan jokes into everyday entertainment programming. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Celebrities.aspx

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

Reagan vs. Obama

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

Related:  Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy

 

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/

For those of you who are too young to know. The media glowingly comparing Obama to Reagan is revisionist history. The media loves Obama, hates the Tea Party and while they laud Reagan now, it just goes to show that success has many fathers. The truth is that the elite media hated Reagan. They slandered him and Nancy regularly. For several years after Reagan gave his farewell address the elite media and the left blatantly tried to rewrite history of the greatest presidency of the 20th century. The same can be said of the first Gulf war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The left, along with their lackey’s in the elite media, insisted that it was a war designed to steal Iraq and Kuwait’s oil. Of course none of that happened and now the left claims credit for it.

American Thinker gets the story correct:

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the former president has been in the news once again. One way he has been used is to boost the image of Barack Obama.

Some presidents have been used to degrade the image of others. Herbert Hoover was a convenient whipping boy to tar various Republicans through the years. Nixon was the epitome of evil in the White House. The fate of Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, has been a curious one. The punditry that savaged him before, during, and after his years in office are now trying to burnish Barack Obama’s image by comparing the two presidents.

This is just the latest gambit to try to boost the appeal of Barack Obama. He has gone through many image makeovers over the last couple of years. He has been Lincolnesque (an image he stoked by making his presidential announcement in Springfield), and then TIME Magazine morphed his image into the image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and now the latest incarnation in a sense compares him with Ronald Reagan. They are paired together with a friendly Ronald Reagan placing his hand on the shoulder of Barack Obama.

The comparison alone is a not-too-subtle way to enhance Obama’s appeal. The man has gone through as many shape shifts as has the man in the new Old Spice campaign.

How did the pundits treat the man they now pair with Barack Obama?

Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

Clark Clifford, advisor to a string of Democratic Presidents and a major league elite, called Reagan “an amiable dunce.”

The Chicago Tribune called Reagan ignorant and said his “air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limits of tolerance and have become an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace.”

Washington Post columnist David Broder (still on the beat and front and center in the Obama cheering section) said the job of Reagan’s staff is to water “the desert between Ronald Reagan’s ears.”

Henry Kissinger said that when you meet Reagan, you wonder: how did it ever occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less president?’

Jimmy Breslin, the columnist, said Reagan was senile and then insulted his supporters by saying they were proof that senility was a communicable disease. For good measure, he called Reagan “shockingly dumb.”

Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift said that “greed in this country is associated with Ronald Reagan.” Joining in this common slur was USA Today’s White House reporter Sarah McClendon, who said that “it will take a hundred years to get the government back into place after Ronald Reagan. He hurt people: the disabled, women, nursing mothers, the homeless.”

Lesley Stahl of CBS News (and now “60 Minutes”) said, “I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man.”

Hollywood director John Huston (not a pundit as such, but illustrative of a mindset in Hollywood — a major source of Democratic donors) said Reagan was a “bore,” with a “low order of intelligence,” who is “egotistical.”

Tip O’ Neill (the powerful Speaker of the House) said Reagan’s mind was “an absolute and total disgrace” and that it was “sinful that this man is President of the United States.” Steven Hayward reminds us in his recent “Reagan Reclaimed” column that O’Neill said that “the evil is on the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

John Osborne in the New Republic magazine wrote that “Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus.”

After his election, columnist William Greider said, “[M]y God, they’ve elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown.”

The Nation warned “he is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency” and that “he is a menace to the human race.”

When, in his first term, the country faced some economic weakness and Reagan’s poll numbers turned down, pundits were celebrating as they wrote his political obituary. Kevin Phillips, political pundit, wrote that “it didn’t take a genius to predict on Inauguration Day that Reagan would unravel” and that it was foolish to think that Reagan could solve the nation’s economic problems with policies based on “maxims out of McGuffey’s Reader and Calvin Coolidge.”

The New York Times joined in: “the stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House.”

When Reagan delivered his famous “evil empire” speech (that, by the way, also was critical of America’s own historical failings), New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was apoplectic, deriding it as “simplistic,” “sectarian,” “terribly dangerous,” “outrageous,” and in conclusion, “primitive…the only word for it” (then why did he use all the other words, one might ask — a little overkill goes a long way).

I could go on with more examples of the invective and personal insults hurled at Reagan by the chattering classes and opinion-makers over the years. Even when he died after a long struggle with Alzheimer’s, the derogation continued; he could not escape the obloquy even in death.

When Reagan was still alive, he brushed it all off with aplomb and good cheer. He was known as the Teflon President for the best of reasons. He did not stoop to the level of his critics, but instead stood above them.

He did not let them divert him from what he saw as his role: restore our sense of pride and spirit after Jimmy Carter had ground them down and boost the economy (despite some waves, he stayed the course and allowed “supply-side” economics to work its “magic”).

But he did more, much more.

For years, Reagan felt sorrow and anger that hundreds of millions of people suffered under Communism. While experts counseled détente and working with the Soviets, Reagan saw the immorality of accepting the “status quo” that deprived those enslaved by Communism of their freedoms and liberty. He thought it was shameful that such an abominable system persisted. Many were content with the Cold War. Reagan was not. He told Richard Allen, his National Security Advisor, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose. What do you think of that?” I suppose the likes of Anthony Lewis might characterize that goal as simplistic or primitive.

But after decades of Soviet slavery and expansionism, Reagan not only contained the Soviet Union, but brought it to its knees — giving the Russian people themselves the opportunity to deliver the coup de grâce. He beseeched Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but all the walls crumbled. Those revisionists who refuse to give Reagan his due and credit Mikhail Gorbachev with the mercy-killing of Communism are wrong. They would do well — as would we all — to read about the detailed and multifaceted strategy Reagan designed and promoted to implode the Soviet Union. The story is superbly told in Paul Kengor’s The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Reagan was a hero to the people being smothered by the Iron Curtain — to Russians such as Natan Sharansky, imprisoned because he wanted freedom, and to Polish laborers who tore his black-and-white photo out of a newspaper and used it to rally protesters. He earned a Nobel Prize for Peace — and, of course, was denied one.

Despite all that he accomplished, the pundits and media mavens slandered and insulted Reagan — time and time again.

And now the pundits have the temerity to resurrect him to help Barack Obama’s political future?

Haven’t they spent the last three(-plus) years extolling Barack Obama — from the “sort of God” comment by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to the “tingle up the leg” thrill he gave MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to the New York Times columnist David Brooks, who succumbed to the Obama cult and wrote of Obama that “I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I’m thinking a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president”? I could go on and on regarding how often Obama has been described as an intellectual giant with God-given talents, so brilliant that he is bored by the rest of us yahoos. Obama even joked that all of the White House correspondents voted for him. They were his cheerleaders. They had “the vapors” for Barack Obama.

The media has been biased in favor of Barack Obama for years. He got rock-star treatment as a candidate (the obsequiousness was even satirized on “Saturday Night Live”) and has had the media fawning and fainting in the newsroom for most of his term.

However, Obama has not been completely immune from some criticism. The economy is still weak, with millions unemployed. His poll numbers started falling in 2009 and took a nosedive in 2010. The Democrats took a shellacking in November that some pundits pin on Obama and his policies.

How does Obama deal with criticism? Does he have the character and strength of Ronald Reagan and let it roll off him? Need one ask? He takes it personally.

Reagan had Teflon coating; Obama has thin skin.

Reagan laughed off criticism — it came with the job. Eugene McCarthy, a liberal icon whose 1968 run for the presidency was eclipsed when Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsed Ronald Reagan for the presidency. When he was asked why, he answered, “It’s because he is the only man since Harry Truman who won’t confuse the job with the man.”

Reagan was focused not on himself, but on the rest of America — and the world. That was the “rest of him,” and it mattered far more than the abuse heaped on him.

Does Obama respond with the same graceful equanimity? Or is he more focused on himself and his ego? (He is addicted to the word “I,” said he has a “gift” when it comes to oratory, said he would make a better political director than his political director, and on and on.)

Barack Obama whines about being “talked about like a dog” (whatever that means). His peevishness towards the press and the punditry has emerged as one of his least attractive qualities. He won’t listen to criticism and does not want us to hear it, either.

He has all but counseled us to ignore Fox News and the internet, he has cast unjustified and blatantly false aspersions regarding foreign money and the Chamber of Commerce political ads that took him to task for his policies and performance, and he has called for less incendiary language in political discourse (this from the guy who can’t take it but can sure dish it out — as in “get in their face,” “bring a gun to a knife fight,” “fat cats,” “sit in the back,” “punish our enemies and reward our friends” — that is some heated rhetoric for a Nobel Peace Prize winner).

The media spin job that Barack Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan — that Ron and Barack would be pals, that Barack Obama can hold a candle to Ronald Reagan — not only misses the mark, but willfully ignores how unfairly and disgracefully the media treated Ronald Reagan when he was alive. To use him now that he is dead compounds the insult.

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

Glenn Beck Destroys Chris “Balloon Head” Matthews

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2011

Chris Mathews, pushes the anti-American Marxist lie about the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution. The truth is that if not for the 3/5th compromise the progress at restricting and reducing slavery till the Civil War would not have happened. The entire purpose of the 3/5 compromise was to reduce the Southern States influence in Congress and to punish them in representation for not recognizing the full rights of black people.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

What would it take to be adored by the ‘in’ crowd….

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

If I wished to be cheered by the hateful, adored by those who hold the truth in contempt, and praised for my tolerance and civility in the elite media, all I would have to do is accuse Sarah Palin of being an accessory to murder. – Chuck Norton

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

Cong. Debbie Schultz: We need to continue to deficit spend like crazy so we can compete with China….

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

This is the new spin, if we don’t spend like mad and continue to grow government and debt we wont be competitive…

The left puts Cong. Schultz out there because she has a cute and innocent smile and seems harmless so hopefully those big bad Republican meanies won’t blast her outrageous dishonesty and risk looking bad on TV. Do not be fooled. Schultz uses Alinsky style propaganda techniques and lies with the best of them. I have seen her roll out a dozen half-truths in a 15 second statement. You know how the old saying goes that you know a politician is lying because his lips are moving; Debbie Schultz is the poster child of that stereotype. In the video she repeats the lie that repealing ObamaCare will increase the deficit when Obama’s own Medicare Actuary numbers show the opposite. As a last resort she pulls out the “Children with cancer card”. Gimme a break…

By all means Debbie, burden us with outrageous levels of deficit spending which is now 10 times higher than what it was in 2007 because it has to be done for the children. Have you had enough of this nonsense already?

“Forget moral or ethical considerations… The end is what you want, the means is how you get it” – Saul Alinsky

What keeps us from being competitive is the highest corporate tax in the industrialized world (Japan and Canada just cut theirs). What keeps us from being competitive is that a full third of every dollar the government takes in goes to just paying the interest on the debt. What keeps us from being competitive is that our private sector is burdened with supporting a government that costs $4 trillion a year. What keeps us from being competitive is unions that over reach, public sector unions that not only over reach, but have stopped the needed reforms in public education. What keeps us from being competitive is a mountain of regulations, tax laws that no one can follow, taxes on everything that nickel and dime us, fear of bureaucrats that behave arbitrarily and all of the uncertainly these problems have caused.

 

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

Bernard Goldberg discusses elite media corruption of MSNBC coverage

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

The reporters who engaged in the blood libel over the last two weeks are now boldly exposed as untruthful.

If you didn’t know hat a complete failure that MSNBC’s model was you are about to find out.

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

Washington Post publishes stereotype laden, hate filled screed against the people of Arizona

Posted by iusbvision on January 17, 2011

This illustrates the chasm between radicalized elite media and normal people.  If a Republican had dared to write a stereotype packed hate screed like this it would be national news.

 

Some excerpts from Amy Silverman in the Washington Post:

And the truth is that few places are as exclusionary as Arizona, where butt-kicking cowboys and Barry Goldwater politics still rule the day, where anyone of Mexican descent better follow the speed limit, or risk getting pulled over and grilled over their right to be here. We are libertarians. Stay out of our big green back yards irrigated with water we can ill afford to use. Don’t even come close. And don’t you dare ask for help.

 

Live here awhile, and you might realize that you haven’t met your neighbors. I’ve lived in the same house for 13 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been invited into a neighbor’s house. And I don’t even live in an area with particularly high walls or in a gated community.

You don’t see people sit out on the porch much. Kids certainly don’t play in the street anymore. And when we do venture outside, we climb in our cars, crank the A/C and the radio, pick up the cell and don’t even bother to honk our horns. That’s how isolated we are. [Or maybe it’s YOU Amy…. – Editor]

The sunsets are beautiful, sure. But living here can be incredibly depressing. Particularly for the people who’ve earned Arizona the nickname “the do-over state.” This is the land of fresh starts. Get divorced, move to Arizona. Lose your job, move to Arizona. Get out of jail, move to Arizona.

 

The Washington Post ads:

Amy Silverman is the managing editor of Phoenix New Times. She has covered Arizona for 20 years.

 

…. Oh really – and now for the rest of the story…..

 

A Washington contact tells me:

I had assumed, as I suspect many of the Post’s readership did, that Ms Silverman’s newspaper was a leading newspaper in Phoenix.

Wrong assumption! It’s essentially a flimsy free hand-out.

Wikipedia notes her newspaper was originated in 1970 by members of the Students for Democratic Society [SDS]; as some will recall, that was a radical Leftist organization of the 1960s, an outgrowth of the “Intercollegiate Socialist Society”, which published its political manifesto as the “Port Huron Statement” [drafted by none other than Tom Hayden.
“Without being Marxist or pro-communism, they denounced anti-communism as being a social problem and an obstruction to democracy.“

Amy’s newspaper touts these accomplishments

In 2004, published the home address of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Arpaio is famous for his law and order campaign, and rigid, and very effective outdoor prison in which inmates must wear pink.]

In 2007, published “secret Grand Jury” information.

In 2008, she was invited to spend the day with the John McCain family to write about him and his campaign. Her story’s major emphasis was his “nervously wringing his hands during his radio interview.”
[She later learned that the hand-wringing relieved the pain in his arms which resulted from being tortured as a POW.]

Amy is a commentator for NPR, via KJZZ in Phoenix.

Thanks to the Washington Post for giving Amy national visibility so we could learn more about her and her political philosophy – and her role with NPR. We also hope to learn more about the early political affiliations of the WP editorial staff.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 3 Comments »

Bill Press on the Joy Behar Show. What could go wrong?

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2011

To quote Dennis Miller: The whistles on these trains of thought are barely audible.

We could have 20 posts with the most painful examples dumb and dumber from these two, but together their intellect might just reach a prime number. Bill Press has the same problem that all too many in the elite media have in that he has convinced himself that he is a real Oppenheimer. If you don’t believe me just ask him. I am sure he will tell you.

Of course, the word privacy appears no where in the Constitution. It is considered in the penumbra of the First Amendment Freedom of Conscience, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

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

Ellen Weiss at NPR is out after internal review of Juan Williams firing

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2011

Just as we have been demonstrating in our Academic Misconduct category, like many universities, most elite media news rooms are creatures of ideological group think. It is just as Juan Williams says, at NPR if you don’t tow the bosses political line you are out. Then they start to suggest that you need a shrink.

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

Lee Doren on Stupid Comments on YouTube/Blogs

Posted by iusbvision on January 5, 2011

When I saw this video I knew that I had to post it. Watch the video first before you read on.

I get this very same thing on my YouTube channel which as now gotten nearly 1.7 million views (I stopped posting video’s on there some months ago as I am using DailyMotion and Eyeblast.tv now).

While it is true that some people do not read carefully and simply skim a couple of lines and post. For some of the commenters who behave as the video describes there is a method or reasoning behind it.

Some design a program such as a “script kiddie” to search for key words on blogs and post the same propaganda comment all over the blogosphere.

Some are those who know darn well that half of the people browsing to the bog will not read the entire post (or video) carefully, so they post their misleading or straw-man argument/comment in hopes that people will just read the short comments and accept them as true because they didn’t read the article.

Some others are ideologues who have so much zeal, that they do not accept and cannot process arguments they cannot defeat; their minds have to convert the argument into something else (create a straw-man to knock down) or they experience cognitive dissonance so the argument they cannot deal with doesn’t register and goes ignored as if it were never presented. This type of commenter simply is not capable of thinking passed their predetermined narrative. These kind of people are also known as “moonbats”, “Kool-Aide drinkers” (their side is so good in their mind that if told to drink the Jim Jones Kool-Aide they will do it), or have what we call “Palin Derangement Syndrome”.

Of course there are also the kind of commenters who are just “trolls”. Trolls knowingly and willingly lie about what is in the original post, make straw-man arguments and do it for the sole reason of trying to upset people and/or to get a rise out of them.

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

Famed Economist Dr. John Lott dissects fraudulent University of Maryland “study” on Fox News

Posted by iusbvision on January 5, 2011

See our previous post where we dissected it HERE. The link also has a great video from our friend Lee Doren of  How the World Works who also dissects the study.

While Doren and myself are well versed in economics, we are not famed PhD’s in the field so it is great to have a man of Dr. Lott’s stature to not only verify our critiques, but add more substance and detail to them in only the way he can.

I encourage all students and faculty to read this piece.

Dr. Lott:

Does watching Fox News rot your brain? According to a report released last month by WorldPublicOpinion.org at the University of Maryland, “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” the more people watch Fox News, the more they are “misinformed.”

The allegation rapidly became a favorite topic for leading mainstream news outlets including The New York TimesU.S. News and World ReportCBS NewsSlateThe Atlantic. Even major newspapers in Canada and the U.K.covered the report. Of course, left-wing websites — the Talking Point Memo, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos — reveled in the findings.

The report asserted that Fox News viewers getting political survey questions wrong was not just the result of already wrongheaded Republicans watching Fox News: “The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.”

But the researchers themselves were clearly misinformed and frequently picked incorrect or left-wing biased answers as the “correct” ones, something the uncritical mainstream media apparently never examined. Take the first four questions of the eleven the report focused on.

Question # 1: “Is it your impression that most ECONOMISTS who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation caused job losses, saved or created a few jobs, or saved or created several million jobs?” (emphasis is in the original). The WorldPublicOpinion.org claims that the stimulus “saved or created several million jobs,” citing a report from the Democratically controlled Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that said the increase in jobs was at least 2 million. Any other answer give put the viewer as being “misinformed.”

To back up their claim that “most economists” agreed with this statement, they referenced a March 2010 Wall Street Journal survey: 38 of 54 forecasting economists thought that the stimulus helped. Nonetheless, the University of Maryland researchers — intentionally or unintentionally — exaggerated the claim: the average economist in the survey estimated that the stimulus reduced the unemployment rate in February from 10.4 to 9.7 percent, about one million jobs, not “several million jobs.”

In addition, they avoided acknowledging that there were other surveys where the majority of economists dramatically disagree. One such survey was by the National Association of Business Economics, with 50 of 68 economists concluding that the stimulus had no beneficial impact of the recovery.

Question # 2: “What effect do you think the health reform law will have on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years?” The “correct” answer was that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, and the report cites a March estimate by the CBO that the health care savings would be $124 billion. But this is an old, vastly optimistic left-wing prediction touted by the CBO to get Obamacare passed. Even the Obama administration now admits that their plan will add to the deficit. The CBO itself now acknowledges that they double-counted projected Medicare spending cuts. Correcting that error adds $89 billion to the health care costs over the decade. Another CBO error also underestimated discretionary spending in the new health care law by $60 billion. These errors by themselves, not even counting other problems, flips the math around and shows that Obamacare will increase the deficit.

Question #3: “Do you think that now the American economy is still getting worse or starting to recover?” This question, like the others in the survey, were asked from November 6th to 15th.

The “right” answer was supposed to be that the economy was “starting to recover.” But whether things were getting “worse” depends a lot on what numbers were considered, and the question failed to make it clear precisely what numbers were being refereed to.

In terms of GDP growth, the recession did end in June 2009. Yet, since June 2009, unemployment kept on rising from 9.5 to 9.8 percent. Four million more Americans became unemployed or simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. Furthermore, with uncertainty over the future rising, temporary jobs have started replacing permanent jobs, with 561,000 permanent jobs disappearing since the recovery started.

Question #4: “Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?” (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org’s report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims.

Still other questions were fraught with problems. For instance, “Since January 2009 have your Federal income taxes gone down, stayed the same, or gone up?” That was not a smart formulation when the researchers intended an answer for overall tax rates rather than for each individual’s taxes. And then there are problems with their question about the TARP financial bailout, where the researchers ask about whether most Congressional Republicans supported it. But they can’t even add up the total votes in the House or Senate on the bill which shows that Republicans were literally split 50-50, while 75 percent of Democrats supported it. On their own, House Republicans would never have supported the bill.

The WorldPublicOpinion.org survey is a mess. At best, the survey shows that liberals who conducted the survey simply were not smart or careful enough. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that those who watched Fox News almost every day had not fallen for left-wing myths to the same extent as other Americans.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »