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 ‘True Talking Points’ 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 »

WILD HYPOCRISY: Obama Fund Raiser Sony Corp To Release Pro Obama Film 30 Days Before Election. Flashback: Obama Blasts Supreme Court Over Citizens United Film Decision to Release Anti-Hillary Documentary Before Election

Posted by iusbvision on August 13, 2011

UPDATE – Even MORE Wild Hypocrisy – Remember this photo?

Remember how the left and the elite media had a collective conniption fit saying that Bush was “profiteering” from 9-11 and exploiting the tragedy for political gain (see links below in this update)? President Obama allowed Sony Corp to have exclusive access to the files of the Osama bin-Laden raid for their upcoming movie that they will be releasing 30 days before the election.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/2002/09/06_Bush_911.html

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=282

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-05-14/politics/wh.fundraising.flap_1_gop-plan-fund-raising-bush-and-congressional-republicans?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Fretting Over 9/11 in Bush Ads, Yet Bush “Piker” Compared to FDR 

ABC Runs Kerry’s Point By Point Retort to New Bush TV Ad 

Chicago Trib: Democrats rip use of 9/11 Bush photo as fundraiser

Bill Press of Tribune Media Services wrote: “… Bush’s selling of that third photo, taken on September 11, sets a new, disgusting low in political fund-raising.” – LINK

 

*****Original Story Below*****

 

Remember this… VIDEO: President Blasts Supreme Court Over Citizens United Decision

Remember how President Obama even dressed down the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address over this issue?

Citizens United released a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton’s corrupt political and business dealings. One of those dealings involved ripping off Marvel Comics and film legend Stan Lee. Here is a short clip from that documentary:

The Democrats and the elite media had a collective cow blasting the Supreme Court on their decision to stand up for the First Amendment.

Now Sony Corp, who threw elaborate fund-raisers for Obama, is releasing a pro-Obama film set for release in October 2012, 30 days before the election.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Economic Freedom Countries vs Social Justice Ones.

Posted by iusbvision on August 12, 2011

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, True Talking Points | 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 »

About the debt increase deal…

Posted by iusbvision on August 1, 2011

Please forgive the lack of updates as I described in our previous post we have not been in a position to do a lot of blogging lately. A new web site is coming as well for the editor.

As far as the budget deal we thought we have a few comments.

1 – We were never in danger of a default. The government brings in almost 200 billion a month in tax dollars which is more than enough to service the debt. Anyone who said that the August 2nd date would result in default is just lying straight up. Judging by how the elite media has been repeating this it furthers my personal observation that journalists are lazy and are, as a collective, the most uninformed people I have ever encountered.

2 – These polls that you here about in the news saying that the people want “republicans to compromise” are polls like the CBS News poll that had a sample which included only 25% Republicans, so the sample was rigged. Notice how the Democrats are not asked to compromise in the press? When the people were stone against Obama Care by a 60% margin where was the press pounding the polls than? Where was the compromise when the Democrats would not allow the GOP into the room and would only see the bill a few hours before a vote?

3 – “Reagan increased the debt limit”… Reagan did not have a House controlled by his own party. During that time we had the 24/7 nuclear triangle operating at the pinnacle of the Cold War and a government shut down at such a time would have undermined our efforts to posture and beat the Soviets.

4 – “We need to raise taxes on the rich”. First of all we have been “raising taxes on the rich” for decades now so why is it that John Kerry paid 12.34% on $5,072,000 worth of income? The dirty little secret is that the tax rate that the Democrats are talking about is the wage earner rate which is paid by high-end wage earners such as doctors and engineers, but it is also the rate paid by most small businesses that have employees. Most of the income that the “rich” bring is defined by the tax code as “unearned income”, so you could raise this tax rate to the moon and the multimillionaires and billionaires will laugh as it will not be they who pay it. For more details on why this is follow this LINK.

Using static models as the CBO likes to use the Democrats proposed tax increase would pay for all of 10 days of deficit spending. Of course since people do not operate in a static universe the result would be an impact on job creators and even less revenue growth to the government. Can anyone name a mainstream economic theorist who said to raise taxes during what appears to be a double dip recession?

4 – As far as spending cuts in the “deal”, we must remember base line budgeting. If we froze spending at current levels Washington would consider that to be a $9.5 trillion dollar “cut”, so all we are talking about here is a small reduction in the typical increases in spending. As far as spending cuts are concerned this is not a serious plan as spending under this deal will continue to skyrocket. Democrats and some leftist journalists are calling these “draconian cuts” and are simply engaging in the most dishonest demagoguery imaginable.

5 – But here is the rub, when we lose our AAA credit rating, which now appears unavoidable as both Moodys and S&P have said that neither the Boehner plan nor the Reid plan are serious about getting spending under control, it will cost us more than $100 billion a year in interest alone; when that is factored in there are no reductions even in the increases in spending. It gets worse. When you add the damage to the economy that loss of AAA will bring it makes all of this worse.

The loss of AAA will impact most unsecured credit, it will impact the value of the dollar (inflation), it will impact those who use short-term credit such as farmers who use seasonal loans and import/export businesses. It is going to damage the economy in such a way that most people will feel it. We did not lose AAA even during the great depression. The “deal” which passed is also easy to demagogue because the left will say that this deal IS the “Boehner Plan” (which is largely isn’t any more do to an almost total cave on spending cuts) and HIS plan caused us to lose AAA.

[Note: The first plans that were introduced by the Tea Party/GOP were much more serious and had a real chance of preventing the loss of AAA. While this is indeed a failure of government, is there any doubt that the Democratic Party is intent on blowing up our credit rating? The first proposals from the House had a chance of preserving AAA and the media/Democrats had a conniption fit calling called it extreme. Think about this folks, preserving AAA is now an extreme position according to much of the elite media and a political party. The Constitution does have limits and the GOP cannot run the government from the House. This is why elections matter.] 

6 – The deal also includes a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment to send it to the states. If this amendment resolution passes the Democrat controlled Senate and gets to the states it will be a great tool to begin to get this spending problem under control. If it looks like it will pass the Senate I expect the Democrat leadership will pull some stunt prevent the vote or prevent its passage. Government has a structural institutional incentive to spend more and more, so the only way to curb that is to make a structural change. Aside from a vote on this Amendment, which I will stress has not happened yet, this was not a tough deal or a Herculean compromise by any stretch.

This is a must see exchange between Marco Rubio and John Kerry on the debt limit debate. Be sure to watch every second as this is invaluable.

Kerry will think twice before trying to posture Marco Rubio again. Notice also, even though Rubio did not join the TEA Party Caucus he defends their position, which is to offer a plan that fixes the problem. Rubio uses a most interesting analogy to show why this is so important.

 

UPDATE – The latest version of the deal includes $2.1 Trillion in cuts over 10 years with half planned now and the other half planned by a “budget cut committee later”. Keep in mind that cuts in “Washington Speak” are not cuts, but rather a decrease in the increase in spending. So instead of a planned increase in spending over 10 years of $9.5 Trillion they will plan to increase spending by $7.4 trillion.  The president gets his debt increase limit extended to well passed the campaign, deficit spending shoots up, no entitlement reform, no plan to balance the budget over the next eight years. There are some actual small cuts in discretionary spending, but entitlement spending that is on autopilot. Of course even this is a fraction of the increase in discretionary spending that has gone up since 2008.

 

UPDATE

LARGEST DEBT HIKE IN HISTORY…
$32.4 billion per page?
Borrowing to surge…

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, 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 »

Massive Economic Study: Obama Stimulus Bill Cost 1 Million Private Sector Jobs in Ohio

Posted by iusbvision on June 21, 2011

This is not from any light-weight folks, this is linked on Dr. Greg Mankiw.

Mankiw wrote one of the most respected series of econ college textbooks used in universities today.

Dr. Mankiw:

Tim Conley and Bill Dupor have a new paper on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (that is, the Obama stimulus bill).  Their empirical findings:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

 

Powerline comments:

Earlier this week, they reported their findings in a paper titled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled.” The paper is dense and rather lengthy, and requires considerable study. Here, however, is the bottom line:

Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

So the American people borrowed and spent close to a trillion dollars to destroy a net of more than one-half million jobs. Does President Obama understand this? I very much doubt it. When he expressed puzzlement at the idea that the stimulus money may not have been well-spent, and said that “spending equals stimulus,” he betrayed a shocking level of economic ignorance.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | 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 »

Dr. Walter Williams: Government Lies

Posted by iusbvision on June 12, 2011

Dr. Walter Williams

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

 

More Lies

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

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

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

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

*******

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

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

 

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

From Reason Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Phil Donahue interview of Milton Friedman:

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

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

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

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

 

 

Dr. Schneider: Markets are smarter than people.

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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 »

Do Not Make This Mistake Journalism Students: Washington Post Columnist Insults Intelligence of Readers

Posted by iusbvision on June 7, 2011

Different newspapers can get away with different things depending on where they are and who their audience is.

When you are in Washington D.C. some of the smartest people in the world are going to read your column. It is important to not say things that are so flamboyantly incorrect that many thousands of readers will wince.  It is no different when I was a radio host on AM 1580. I know that Notre Dame Law School is right here. Some of the finest law professors in the world, such as Charlie Rice, are likely in my audience. So I had to be sure that when I spoke on the law that I had it as correct as possible. Here in South Bend there is likely someone in the audience who is a better expert on any given subject than the host, but in Washington D.C. if you try to pull one over on the audience in the fields of basic political history or basic communications strategy the result is ridicule and laughter by a great many.

I know it seems like we have been picking on The Washington Post lately, but only because they have made themselves an easy target.

The Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen engages in spin for the president. In Washington almost everyone spins some and that is to be expected. The trick is to not get laughed at when you go too far.

Quote:

The insane policy would be to ignore the signal lesson of the Great Depression — when Franklin Roosevelt, listening to the John Boehners of his day, cut spending to reduce the deficit. The Depression deepened.

Amazing, this is exactly the opposite of historical reality. Cohen apparently never heard of the “New Deal” where government spending went off the charts. Government spending, over regulation, and redistribution don’t work well and even FDR’s own Treasury Secretary finally said so. Non farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the “New Deal”. The United States did not enjoy full employment in a non-war economy until 1947 when government spending dropped by two third’s.

Henry Morganthau, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary from 1934-1945 , wrote in a letter to Congressional Democrats  May 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”*

* Burton Folsom, Jr., New Deal or Raw Deal? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 2.

Quote:

As with the business community, Obama’s assurances to the pro-Israel community mean little. His precise words are discounted. As with the business community, rumor or anecdote trumps pronouncements …

Ah yes, the old “precise words” defense. This is the oldest political trick in the book. Always include a word or a phrase that acts as an escape hatch so that, if needed, said politician can flip to the other side of the political issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity. [Editor’s Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech]

In the case of Obama’s controversial recent Israeli policy speech the escape hatch phrase was “1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc ? [Note: If you are not aware of the details of the critical geography mentioned see the video HERE]  To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.

With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which had resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use escape hatch language and even made a speech against the use of it:

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Journalism Is Dead, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Rick Perry on the stream of lies from the Obama Administration. Withholding disaster funds for political reasons. – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Talk about a slow response to Katrina, how about no response because you are a Republican.

White House: Gov. Perry disrespected us because he would not greet us when the President flew in.

The Facts: Obama flew into El Paso, a two-hour flight for Gov. Perry and yet just a few hours later Obama was to be in Austin, where Gov. Perry was, for two fund-raisers. “We offered to meet the President here in Austin” says Gov. Perry. President Obama refused to meet with him.

White House: Border counties are safer than ever.

The Facts: The White House bases that number on the number of illegal immigration apprehensions. The apprehensions are down because the economy in the USA is bad and fewer people are coming across, but the drug cartels and border violence are up and some parts of the border have been ceded to the drug cartels and are not under our control.

White House: Gov. Perry is not telling the truth about the fires as the federal government is paying 75% of the bill.

The Facts: The Federal Government is helping with 25 fires out of 9000. [Editor’s Note – By the way, wild fires would not be so bad if the federal government did not have restrictions on forest management such as cutting fire breaks and cleaning underbrush.]

UPDATE – If you want to see the depth of President Obama’s border security lie, the Federal Government through the BLM is posting these signs in Arizona just south of Interstate 8. This is not just on the border as Interstate 8 is THREE COUNTIES inland.

If the border is safer than ever, why are these signs needed now and say not when Reagan was president or even Clinton?

The Arizona TEA Party recently posted this message on one of their web sites:

“Sheriff Dever’s Dept. (Cochise County) and also the Pinal County Sheriff’s Depts (Sheriff Paul Babeu) which are the two counties that are directly on the AZ/Mexican border, are now being sued by Obama and Eric Holder to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws? Mark, this situation has become extremely dangerous now. Not only are thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants crossing our border daily, we have thousands of OTM’s (Other Than Mexican….a-hem, middle-easterners).  Obama and Holder want to stop these Sheriff Depts from apprehending them, and handing them over to ICE for deportation.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper makes a few observations about the president’s border speech. He quotes the increase in border agents from the early Bush Administration, counting the increases authorized by the former president as his own. In short putting up a light fence on a few hundred miles of border when that border is thousands of miles long is hardly securing it, and neither is adding 3000 border agents which is an ounce in the bucket. Obama has hardly secured the border and in fact files harassment suits against local law enforcement to stop serious enforcement of it.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Prof Niall Ferguson: Paul Krugman is a joke, Keynesianism is dead, China is more capitalist than we are, get the debt under control or Western Civilization is done for…

Posted by iusbvision on April 4, 2011

Have you ever heard one of those sports guys on the radio who can tell you the stats of every football and baseball game since 1940 right off the top of their head? Prof. Niall Ferguson is like that, but with history and the history of economics. Prof Niall Ferguson is accepted by a great many academics as the most brilliant historian alive and judging by all I have seen in recent years, I have seen no one who can match his ability and have only seen one man in my lifetime who is in the same ballpark as far as ability is concerned. Take a look at his bio HERE. Ferguson said in another interview that only one time in history has a major power emerged from this kind of debt and survived and that was England after the wars of the 1800’s. It doesn’t look good unless we change course now.

The volume is low on some of the videos so on a couple you will have to crank up the speakers, but it is no miss stuff.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Niall Ferguson, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2011

Read this one carefully folks…

WSJ:

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida’s ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York’s.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That’s less than half of the state’s 1.48 million government employees.

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

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

Posted by iusbvision on April 1, 2011

The talking point: What do you mean drill for more oil, the oil companies do not want to drill for more oil, they bought the leases and just let them sit there so we will pay Brazil to look for oil there.  [Oh by the way who has a huge money stake in Petro-Brazil? Obama money man and buddy George Soros – Editor]

That entire narrative is a complete scam as you will soon see.

AP:

WASHINGTON – An Interior Department report to be released Tuesday says more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting idle.

According to the report, obtained by The Associated Press, those inactive swaths of the Gulf could potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The report also shows that 45 percent of all onshore oil and gas leases are inactive.

President Barack Obama ordered the Interior Department review earlier this month amid pressure to curb rising gas prices. The White House says Obama will address his plans for the country’s energy security during a speech in Washington Wednesday.

The first problem is that the permitting process to actually get the permits to drill on the lease take years.The government puts years worth of roadblocks in the permitting process, this complicated by the fact that in each stage of the permitting process that gets approved by the federal government, eco-extremist groups sue to stop it.

Obama instituted an offshore drilling ban as was widely reported. The ban was illegal and a federal judge ordered him to stop. Obama ignored the court order. Then look at what Obama did to the regulations to have a de facto ban anyways. The film below explains how they did it. It will infuriate you.

So here is the situation, the government charges money for the lease and then works with anti-capitalist and eco-extremist groups to prevent that lease from ever getting the permits.

Related:

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…

UPDATE

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

 

 

UPDATE II – Dick Morris:Obama has zeroed out new drilling permits. The few that are starting now are left over from permits that were approved from the Bush Administration

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Energy & Taxes, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Regulatory Abuse, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Michelle Malkin blasts “no consequences progressives”. Clips from Israeli PM Bibi, Herman Cain, Obama vs reality, and more

Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2011

PM Bibi Netanyahu:  

Presidential Candidate Herman Cain: 

Obama’s statements vs. reality. Oh and by the way he got the national motto wrong. It is “In God We Trust” :  

 

 

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

Chuck DeVore advises Israel on how to use social media to fight the Hamas propaganda offensive.

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2011

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Israel, Journalism Is Dead, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

More Attitude Change Propaganda from the NYT Against Palin

Posted by iusbvision on March 18, 2011

NYT:

Palin’s Successors (Republicans Too) Seek to Dismantle Her Energy Legacy

JUNEAU, Alaska — While every online swipe from former Gov. Sarah Palin still draws national attention and stirs fresh speculation about her political ambitions, back home she is no longer quite so imposing.

Even as she casts herself as an energy expert and is quick to attack the Obama administration on oil and gas issues, the two most prominent energy policies she put in place as governor of Alaska face new challenges less than two years after she left office.

Gov. Sean Parnell, Ms. Palin’s fellow Republican and former lieutenant, has announced that it is his top priority to undo parts of major oil tax increases that Ms. Palin made law. He argues that high state taxes, not just federal regulations, are preventing oil companies from exploring new drilling in Alaska and therefore jeopardizing future state revenues.

“Lower taxes means more competitive,” Mr. Parnell said last week. “It means more jobs.”

Sounds pretty bad doesn’t it? It is intended to. As the article goes on it does not indicate just what Changes Gov Parnell wishes to make. So how do you really know her “legacy” is at stake? The narrative that the NYT wishes you to believe is that even the Republicans thought she was misguided and had no idea what she was doing.

Are you ready for the truth? This is wht the NYT decided you didn’t need to know.

Before Gov. Palin blew the whistle about the bribes to keep the Alaska Oil Royalties down Alaska had nearly the lowest oil royalties in the world. You can examine a chart at the following link – http://www.iraqdividend.com/World_Oil_Tax_Policies.pdf

When she ran for Governor Mrs. Palin promised to make the royalties competitive so that the Alaska citizens were not getting ripped off. In fact, Governor Palin sent much of that money to Alaska residents in the form of checks directly to citizens. On top of that Alaska now has a $12 billion rainy day fund (that Democrats are itching to blow).

So what was Governor Palin’s plan? Here are some highlights of bill:

1 – 20% production tax credits for oil and gas investment in Alaska

2 – 22.5% tax rate on “net” positive cash flow or “Production Tax Value”

3 – Progressivity: A higher tax rate (.25) kicks in when oil sells for more than $55 per barrel.

4 – Requires a report in 2011 about how well all the incentive provisions are working to enhance exploration, development and production in the state.

The taxes the oil companies had to pay on the value of the oil increased by 22% which still puts Alaska at a below average tax rate for oil drilling. This is still a good deal for oil companies, but not one that leaves Alaskan’s short changed.

So what is the problem? As the Alaska Daily News reports, the progressive increases in the tax rate per barrel of oil get pretty high when you see oil going to $120 or $130 mark. ADN points out that most legislators did not foresee such prices as being likely. When the price of a barrel of oil gets rather extreme as it is today that tax goes up too high thus making it more profitable to pull oil resources out of Alaska and place them elsewhere.

Here is an even bigger rub, Governor Palin’s bill accounted for this and as you can see section 4 above demands a report in 2011 to see how the bill’s rates and incentives are working to prevent decreases in oil production and potential job loss. Thanks to OPEC and Obama’s illegal off shore drilling ban this is exactly what we are facing. This mandated report, as well as others, show that production and investment in Alaska has fallen since the 2009 oil price spike and is now getting worse.

As a result Gov. Parnell wishes to adjust the progressive part of the oil tax downward to attract more production and job expansion. Governor Palin would have done exactly what Governor Parnell is doing now. Parnell is not reversing Palin’s legacy, he is reaffirming it.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Palin Truth Squad, True Talking Points | 2 Comments »

Robert Spencer takes down an elite media journalist who is “playing the game”

Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2011

If you are an elite media journalist, this is what will happen to you if you pull the David Gregory style of bogus accusations in the form of a question trick.

Robert Spencer is a remarkably clear thinking man. I have met Mr. Spencer and chatted with him for about five minutes at CPAC. He could not have been more gracious and kind. Do not confuse his willingness to stake out where he stands with boldness as being unkind or nasty.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Israel, Journalism Is Dead, True Talking Points | 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 »

Wisconsin Budget Battle Over. Republicans Win. Chaos in Madison. Updated Continually, Union Violence, Damage to Capitol.

Posted by iusbvision on March 10, 2011

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Sometime down the road. A few months or a couple of years from now, these videos from recent weeks will be replayed in the elite media and attributed to the Tea Party.  I will bet lunch. Any takers? Our previous Wisconsin roundup post is HERE. ]

UPDATE March 28, 2011 – Fleebagger Democrats finally come home. It is about time.

 

 

The leftists react.

Democrats who left the state are having a fit. Just so you have story straight. The Democrats abandoned their constitutional duty to engage in unusual and illegal tactics to reverse the will of an election. So the GOP used a much less unusual and perfectly legal procedural tactic and oh no THAT is unfair the Democrats are claiming.

It seems to me that someone is upset because they got “out tacticaled” (I know it is not really a word but it sounded cute). They got “out-tacticaled” by a bunch of noobsauce Republican freshman.

If the unions are protesting for freedom, why do they want to strip people from having the right to choose to join one? IF they are what “democracy looks like” as they claim, why are unions pushing to take away worker’s right to a secret ballot?

The facts: 22 states and the federal government have far more restrictions on collective bargaining than what Wisconsin is proposing and Indiana has had the same thing since 2005. The world did not burn, the sky did not fall.


More:

Since when does a private organization (union) have a RIGHT to have a monopoly on govt labor/hiring? Aren’t monopolies bad?

When the govt union “negotiates” with a Dem governor it is not adversarial, and as a result “the man” becomes the tax payer. Make no mistake, it IS the taxpayer unions are protesting.

Democrats have promised the govt unions the moon for those big donations and leave a future governor holding the bag to pay the bill.

Gov Christie in New Jersey went to the union halls and told them the truth, [paraphrasing] “The guys before me who promised you all this stuff lied to you, they knew we couldnt afford it. Don’t boo me, I am the first guy who is telling you the truth, but if we reform it now we can get you more than if the system crashes” – Video –

Talk to the voters like adults. really they can take it. You just have to make the case.

UPDATE I – Governor Walker Speaks in WSJ – LINK

While it might be a bold political move, the changes are modest. We ask government workers to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions and a 12.6% contribution to their health-insurance premium, both of which are well below what other workers pay for benefits. Our plan calls for Wisconsin state workers to contribute half of what federal employees pay for their health-insurance premiums. (It’s also worth noting that most federal workers don’t have collective bargaining for wages and benefits.)

For example, my brother works as a banquet manager at a hotel and occasionally works as a bartender. My sister-in-law works at a department store. They have two beautiful kids. They are a typical middle-class Wisconsin family. At the start of this debate, David reminded me that he pays nearly $800 per month for his family’s health-insurance premium and a modest 401(k) contribution. He said most workers in Wisconsin would love a deal like the one we are proposing.

The unions say they are ready to accept concessions, yet their actions speak louder than words. Over the past three weeks, local unions across the state have pursued contracts without new pension or health-insurance contributions. Their rhetoric does not match their record on this issue.

UPDATE II – Wisconsin Lawmakers Get Death Threats – Bomb Threats.  WTMJ:

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes (SIC)
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult (SIC) you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head.

UPDATE III – Gateway Pundit

Protesters have penetrated the inner assembly hallways.  Assemblymen are trapped in their offices with their doors barricaded. Protesters are trying to break into their offices.

The Wisconsin fleebaggers are still hiding out in Illinois.

MORE… John Jagler, spokesman for Jeff Fitzgerald, on phone with Fox. They are trapped in his office.  Had to literally step over protesters outside his office.  Protesters waving signs.  Go limp when police lift them for removal.  They are pounding on glass and doors, jiggling locks.   They are “vowing to hold this ground”.

Wisconsin Capitol police just announced: “Capitol bldg is on lock-down until it is secured”.

UPDATE IV – Capitol is unsafe – LINK

MADISON – State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says the situation at the Capitol is “unsafe.”

Fitzgerald appeared on Newsradio 620 WTMJ’s Wisconsin’s Morning News.  He’s concerned about the ability for business to take place inside the Capitol.

“Law enforcement is doing the best they can, but they’re just undermanned,” Fitzgerald said.

Protesters forced their way into the Capitol following the senate vote Wednesday night.  Fitzgerald says many of those protesters had help getting into the building, claiming “When the Democrat staffers opened the windows for protesters to get in…that’s not how democracy is supposed to work.”

UPDATE VIndiana not Urbana!

Indiana legislators make a new song about fleebagger Democrats. On the left is our friend Tim Wesco. This is the only time you will see him on the left. Our pal Greg Dudeck comments, “Wesco has some good pipes.”

Listen to the lyrics carefully. Hilarious.

UPDATE VI Death threats – 

UPDATE VII – Presidential Candidate Herman Cain on Wisconsin

UPDATE VII – Police escorted legislators out of the capital due to threats.

UPDATE VIIIMegyn Kelly with Jesse Jackson – Democrats lied, Gov Walker did make concessions on expanding collective bargaining in other areas.

Notice how Jackson speaks in platitudes that could not stand 10 minutes of serious examination.

If this was a Tea Party protest Jackson would be saying,  “Awe look at these oppressed white folks. I would say poor but since even after this is passed they still have a sweetheart deal which leaves them paying less than half what others pay for their benefits and with wages that are much higher than the state average. Give me a break.”

UPDATE IXAnn Coulter vs Sean Hannity on how Gov Walker handled the PR Campaign.

Ann is right. If it wasn’t for some debate on Fox, talk radio, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and smarter politicians in other states, the Wisconsin GOP would have been destroyed in the public image much worse. Even if Gov. Walker would have someone of my profession to help him out he would have been much more effective. Heritage provided some great talking points which are accurate, so have many bloggers and yet very few of these are being used. There is no excuse for it. The GOP communications machine lets its constituency down repeatedly. The talking points I wrote would best any argument form the other side.

UPDATE XMore Death Threats Via Boots & Sabers

Found under Glenn Grothman’s office door today:

UPDATE XI – Andrew Klavan: Behold! Your Public Sector Unions at Work.

UPDATE XIIWisconsin House Passes Amended Bill.

UPDATE XIII – Indiana State House Worker Assaulted by Union Thugs

Adventures in the left’s “new civility”.  IndyChannel:

INDIANAPOLIS — A state worker told police she was assaulted by three men during Thursday’s union rally that brought thousands of people to the steps of the Statehouse.

The 33-year-old Department of Child Services employee said she was taking a smoke break at the west end of the Indiana Government Center South building just after 12:15 p.m. when she was approached by three men who asked her to use her electronic pass to let them in the building.

When she refused, directing them toward the public entrance, she said the men pushed her, causing her to fall backward, off the sidewalk, and hit her head.

The woman flagged down a Capitol police officer to report the assault. The officer said the woman had a bump on her head and that her clothes were muddied from where she fell onto the ground.

UPDATE XIV – Speaker Bosma Statement

I sincerely support the right of every Hoosier, and even their out of state colleagues, to appear at the Indiana Statehouse as they did today, and to have their say.  But the misrepresentation of the Republican proposals before the General Assembly – even by our Democrat colleagues – continues to amaze me.

No reasonably informed person can honestly state that our desire to transform public education is an effort to destroy it.  In fact, our hope is just the opposite – to make outstanding education options, whether public or private, available to every Hoosier family regardless of their income or zip code.

Likewise, no reasonably informed observer can honestly state that our proposals are designed to “eliminate the middle class” or drive workers to “the minimum wage for life.”  Our goal is just the opposite – to create high skill high wage jobs for every Hoosier worker, whether those jobs are union supported or non-union supported jobs.

This is the clear agenda House Republicans ran on in November, and this is what we continue to stand for today.  We will continue to advance these proposals at every opportunity, if only our Democrat colleagues will return from Illinois.

UPDATE XVHalf of Indianapolis protesters bussed in from out of state (Via Hoosier Access)

Here are the numbers reported by the Indiana State Police

Here are the states where the buses were from:

60 – Indiana

48 – Illinois

7 – Kentucky

2 – Michigan

1 – Florida

At its peak, law enforcement estimated 8,000 people.

UPDATE XVI – POLITIFACT: The MacIver Institute says average annual salary and benefits for Milwaukee Public Schools teachers tops $100,000 – TRUE!   LINK

UPDATE XVII –  Herman Cain on the courage of governors

[youtrube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-4VazQ3tS8]

UPDATE XVIIIAyn Rand on “Collective Rights”

UPDATE XIVPamela Gorman – When You Watch MSNBC and it looks like there is a huge crowd of protesters…

UPDATE XV – NewsReal: Seven Child Molesters Protected by Teacher’s Unions  LINK

UPDATE XVIWTNJ: Businesses receiving threats from unions LINK.

UPDATE XVII – Iowa passes limits on collective bargainingLINK.

UPDATE XVIII – Conservatives Fight for Taxpayers with New Ad!

UPDATE XIX – O’Reilly Blasts Left for Death Threats & Elite Media for Ignoring It

UPDATE XX – Average Government Union Wages in Wisconsin, Comrades!

By Bob Schneider

The Wisconsin Taxpayers have been raped for a very long time:

2010 Wisconsin Teacher Actual Wages

AVERAGE WAGE AND BENEFITS (remember this is for about 9 months of work)

TEACHERS:

Milwaukee                   $86,297

Elmbrook                     $91,065

Germantown               $83,818

Hartland Arrwhd      $90,285     (highest paid teacher was $122,952-lowest was $64,942)

Men Falls                      $81,099

West Bend                    $82,153

Waukesha                    $92,902

Sussex                          $82,956

Mequon                       $95,297

Kettle Mor                  $87,676

Muskego                      $91,341

STAFF:

Arrowhead – Bus Mng – Kopecky –                                      $169,525

Arrowhead – Principal – Wieczorek –                                 $152,519

Grmtwn –  Asst Princ – Dave Towers –                                $123,222

Elmbrk  –  Burliegh Elemetary – Principal Zahn-           $142,315 (for a primary school!!)

Madison – Asst Principal – McGrath –                                $127,835

UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN STAFF (2009 salary alone):

Michael Knetter – Prof of Bus  –                                      $327,828

Carolyn Martin – Chancellor Mad –                              $437,000

Hector Deluca – Prof of Nutritional Science –          $254,877 (really??)

(source: Madison.com -as the UW removed salaries from being posted online in 2007- why if they are so low?)

How about some other “public servant job” ???  What do they make?

Madison Garbage men (2009 salary only):

Garbageman, Mr. Nelson earned                        $159,258 in 2009, including $109,892 in overtime and other pay.

Garbageman, Greg Tatman, who earned         $125,598

7 Madison garbage men made over                  $100,000

30 Madison garbage men made over               $70,000

MILWAUKEE CITY BUS DRIVERS (salary only):

136 Drivers made more than         $70,000

54 Drivers made more than           $80,000

18 Drivers made more than           $90,000

8 Drivers made more than             $100,000

Top Driver made                                $117,000

(Source WTMJ)

(In contrast, the average private bus driver makes $9 to $13 an hour (about $20,000 yr) with no pension, or healthcare.)

Source of Data:  http://host.madison.com/

UPDATE XXI – The Oppressed Teachers Speak! – Teachers Union Leader Calls WI a Revolution, Wants To Learn From Socialists, Says Republicans Evil.. (See the chart above)

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, True Talking Points, Unions, Violence | 1 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 »

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.

Posted by iusbvision on March 6, 2011

Related:

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

Had enough yet?

Washington Times:

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America’s vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

Drilling is also wildly popular with the public. A Pew Research Center poll from February showed 63 percent support for offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Americans understand the fundamental points: The oil is there, and we need it. If we don’t drill it out, we have to buy it from other countries. Last year, the U.S. government even helped Brazil underwrite offshore drilling in the Tupi oil field near Rio de Janeiro. The current price of oil makes drilling economically feasible, so why not let the private sector go ahead and get our oil?

The Obama administration, however, views energy policy through green eyeshades. Every aspect of its approach to energy is subordinated to radical environmental concerns. This unprecedented lack of balance is placing offshore oil resources off-limits. The O Force would prefer the country shift its energy production to alternative sources, such as nuclear, solar and wind power. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that, in the long run, assuming technology can catch up to demand. But we have not yet reached the green utopia, we won’t get there anytime soon, and America needs more oil now.

 

 

UPDATE Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes…

You need to watch only a few minutes of cable news analysis to realize just how ludicrous our national energy policies have become. As escalating tensions and chaos unfold in Egypt, Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, one energy analyst suggested that if Libyan oil supplies were to fail, the United States would rely on Saudi Arabia for its oil needs. If that statement alone doesn’t put U.S. leaders on red alert, the looming national energy crisis may soon become reality.

The Obama administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster.

Key members of the Obama administration believe this friction abroad underscores the need to move away from oil and gas entirely and shift to boutique forms of alternative energy. Their lack of political will to drill for oil and gas compromises our national security and jeopardizes economic recovery.

It skirts the colossal elephant in the room: Oil and natural gas produced here in the United States are likely to still account for at least 57 percent of domestic energy consumption by 2035. Not to mention that energy production here can relieve the U.S. from the dangerous grip of foreign petro dictators.

Unfortunately, this administration’s Department of the Interior, with the most anti-oil-and-gas record in U.S. history, is sabotaging any real chance of avoiding the pending energy crisis because of its continued hold on deepwater drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

When Interior Secretary Ken Salazar heads before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, Americans — particularly the 9.2 million directly or indirectly working in the oil and gas industry — would be ill served if the question isn’t asked: Are the thousands, and counting, of out-of-work Americans in the Gulf region and beyond a worthwhile consequence of your department’s freeze?

 

 

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Palin Truth Squad, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Sarah Palin takes on O’Reilly and Christie: It is more brave to reign in government and reform when you have a surplus like I did.

Posted by iusbvision on March 6, 2011

Sarah Palin with David Asman:


And with all due respect to Governor Christie, you know he has no choice but to cut budgets because he’s broke, his state is broke. What courage really is, is in the face of having a surplus when you have opportunity to spend spend spend other people’s money, you still choose to reign in government to let the private sector soar. That’s real courage, and by the way that’s what I did as Governor here when I engaged in hiring freezes and reduced earmarks by 86% and vetoed the largest amounts in our state’s history. Despite having a surplus that’s real leadership and that’s courage.

But I do appreciate that Governor Christie is willing to face the reality in his state and that is that they are going bankrupt. So he has to cut, he has no choice.

Gov. Christie had that coming. He started making completely unprovoked backhanded compliments to her and that is a mistake. No one is going to get the GOP nomination without her blessing and that is just a simple reality. Blue collar Republicans love Sarah for one big reason; she says how she is going to govern and does it. There is a huge chunk of voters who are sick and tired of being lied to. Those who pay attention gravitate towards her, those who follow the elite media false narrative don’t.  I have never met a Sarah hater who can tell you much about her governing record. Sarah haters also have another problem, in that they don’t know Obama’s record either.

This was Sarah’s shot across Chris Christie’s bow. Her message seems clear, “Keep dissing me Chris and guess where the next shot goes”. Tammy Bruce believes that Christie is hoping to be a President Mitt Romney’s Attorney General. Tammy would not say that unless she had a source. Tammy’s comments can be seen in the video below.

 

 

Tammy is a brilliant former leftist, former President of NOW and today is a conservative gay woman. What is interesting, and here is a little note to those professors who both loved and hated me, Tammy Bruce as a philosopher has had more influence on me than perhaps anyone.

I like Gov. Christie’s communications style when he is direct and straight, not doing backhanded compliments. I like that he is tough on budgets and is taking on the teachers union that has broken the state and fought tooth and nail to preserve the status quo of failing public schools. But respectfully, where where you Gov. Christie, when Sarah Palin left Alaska to take Obama on and for almost a year was the only national figure doing so? Where where you when Sarah Palin was helping to form, solidify and fund raise for tax payer groups, Tea Party groups, and candidates? Where were you when she was the only major politician with a national presence fighting ObamaCare? Where were you when Sarah Palin took the slings and arrows while turning public opinion against Nancy Pelsosi and the policies of this White House?

2010 would not have happened without Sarah and you would not have been elected if she were not so effective in sounding the alarm and changing the national mood against the Democrat leadership’s far left agenda. Does anyone believe the elite media would have reported that the Democrats increased deficit spending over a factor of six without the coverage Palin got while she sounded the alarm?

So as far as I am concerned, and I know both of your staffs are going to see this on Google Alerts, this spat ends right here right now. There are bigger fish to fry and we do not need a circular firing squad. I likely speak for a great deal of pundits and bloggers when I tell you both to knock it off.

Hey Bill stop interrupting me ….. ouch


Sarah Palin “Unscripted”



Sarah on Judge Jeanine: This is a great interview. 


Sarah on the Bob & Mark Show: Another great interview. 


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

British Student Calls Out Michelle Obama. Defends Sarah Palin.

Posted by iusbvision on March 5, 2011

Meet the lovely and quite brilliant YouTube personality Laurbubble.

I sent Laurbubble the following message:

You have just figured out the American left. They make a “policy” and cry “WERE SAVED!” without any regard for the unintended consequences of their policy. The policy usually makes matters worse as you have so eloquently described. Usually the policies they make for the “public good” increase the stock of one of their contributors, or stick it to those who donate to the other party.

The more the planner’s plans fail the more the planners plan.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Culture War, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Palin Truth Squad, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Donald Rumsfeld’s “Parade of Horribles”

Posted by iusbvision on March 4, 2011

Donald Rumsfeld

I now have a better understanding of why the services of Donald Rumsfeld have always been in great demand.

It is well known that during the the early days of the Iraq War mistakes were made, what is less known is that Donald Rumsfeld predicted most of them. Other elements of the Bush Administration either did not take those warnings as seriously as they could have, or plan as effectively as possible in light of his warnings.

Rumsfeld’s “Parade of Horribles”

Parade of Horribles 10-15-2002 – LINK

Arrest Al Sadr or not 1-7-2004 – LINK

re: Security Update Situation in al-Anbar 2006-10-26 – LINK

re: National Security Council Meeting 10-27-2006 – LINK

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Israel, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Indianapolis School Board gives failed superintendent $1 million retirement.

Posted by iusbvision on March 4, 2011

$900.00 breakfasts and the list goes on….

 

Advance Indiana:

Indianapolis Graduation Rate Second Worst In The Nation

ONLY DETROIT’S GRADUATION RATE IS WORSE

Indianapolis officially scores the designation of having the second worst graduation rate among the nation’s 50 leading cities. “Seventeen of the nation’s 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland, according to a report released Tuesday,” the AP’s Ken Thomas reports. Detroit finished last with a graduation rate of 24.9%. Indianapolis finished 49th with a 30.5% graduation rate, finishing just head of 48th-ranked Cleveland with a 34.1% graduation rate. Oh well, Mark Miles says our chances of winning the 2012 Super Bowl are real good. Why worry about a silly report like this?

 

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, True Talking Points, Unions | Leave a Comment »

Government Union Collective Bargaining 101 – UPDATE O’Reilly: New York Times publishing bogus polls about unions and lying about the budget crisis

Posted by iusbvision on March 4, 2011

How government union collective bargaining works.

What FDR understood and what the left does not want you to figure out is that “The Man” is the taxpayer because with Democrats in charge government unions are essentially negotiating with themselves, it is not adversarial at all, and the politicians are not negotiating to preserve their own money, they are negotiating (wink wink, nod nod) with YOUR money.

More from the Heritage Foundation – HERE.

Rasmussen Poll: 71% Believe Government Workers Get Better Pensions Than Those In Private Sector – LINK.

NPR and PBS execs make more than the President! They are funded by taxpayers! – LINK.

UPDATE – New York Times publishing bogus polls about unions and lying about the budget crisis:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, True Talking Points, Unions | Leave a Comment »

AWESOME! Allen West Video Roundup!

Posted by iusbvision on March 2, 2011

Allen West Stem-winder at CPAC!

Allen West on Multiculturalism w/ Greta: 

Allen West: The liberal left is absolutely terrified of me (and its true).

Allen West Defends the Continuing Resolution/Spending Cuts  with Veteran Reporter Judy Woodruff. This is a no miss interview.  

Allen West on “What is the Tea Party?”

Allen West with Small Business Owner on Obamacare: 

Allen West with Eric Stackelbeck:

Allen West to Congress: Go Bold or Go Home!

Allen West on Israel and Militant Islam 

How Allen West Will heal America 

Allen West: When I win this election I am going to walk up to Nancy Pelosi and say ‘Give Me That Damn Gavel!’ 

Allen West: Liberal Progressive Agenda is Antithesis of Who We Are as a Republic – LINK.

Allen West: PC rules of engagement cost lives. The terrorists are doing what the Quran says – LINK.

Allen West on John Lewis – LINK.

AWESOME VIDEO: CAIR Exec. Confronts Allen West. Wow did he pick the wrong guy to try and pull a fast one on.

The elite media fears West. To say he is rhetorically gifted is an understatement. Having seen West in action in person the best way to describe his rhetorical ability is to mix Ronald Reagan and General Patton.

This is not something I say lightly or easily, but it happens to be the truth. West is so brilliant and so gifted that the White House is his for the taking. I have never said that about anyone before.

CAIR’s executive director Nezar Hamze confronts Allen West thinking he can intimidate and use PC pressure tactics, only to get schooled by Allen West on Islam and its history.

UPDATE – Better video of same incident. The fireworks start a 3:10 –  

UPDATE I – How do you fight an enemy that wants to die for Allah? West: You grant him his wish.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Post 2010, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Reagan’s short stories: Leftist college student vs. capitalist. The story of the Little Red Hen.

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

Lessons every student should know.

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

Lee Doren: Why I changed from a leftist to a conservative after college.

Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011

Lee worked for a leftist environmental lobby. He realized that he was helping to prevent poor people in Africa and other places from getting inexpensive energy. As a result people had to burn what the could find to cook. The result was lung cancers, deaths, bad medical treatment and mass suffering. How would your grandmother live with no electricity or electric heat?

Watch the rest here.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, True Talking Points | 3 Comments »

Obama Administration Hiding Meetings with Lobbyists

Posted by iusbvision on February 26, 2011

Editor’s Note – It is tenacity and vigilance like this that has kept Michelle Malkin the queen of conservative internet news since the invention of the medium. The respect she enjoys is well deserved.

Michelle Malkin

Via the queen of the blogosphere Michelle Malkin:

In Culture of Corruption, I exposed Team Obama’s big lie about its commitment to public disclosure and openness in government.

Liberals balked. “How can you possibly make such a judgment so early on in the presidency?” they squawked.

After the book was published, the White House’s selective transparency and subversion of disclosure rules and regs continued apace.

Democrats played hide-and-seek on the Hill.

President Obama cut endless backroom deals and cut C-SPAN out.

The White House carved out a Coffee House loophole to keep lobbyist meetings off the books.

And, finally, the White House press corps started complaining about lack of access.

Now, this today from Politico:

Caught between their boss’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds – and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.

It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs collected on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.

…Obama’s administration has touted its release of White House visitors logs as a breakthrough in transparency, as the first White House team ever to reveal the comings and goings around the West Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.

The Jackson Place townhouses are a different story.

There are no records of meetings at the row houses just off Lafayette Square that house the White House Conference Center and the Council on Environmental Quality, home to two of the busiest meeting spaces. The White House can’t say who attended meetings there, or how often. The Secret Service doesn’t log in visitors or require a background check the way it does at the main gates of the White House.

…It’s not only Jackson Place. Another favorite off-campus meeting spot is a nearby Caribou Coffee, which, according to the New York Times, has hosted hundreds of meetings among lobbyists and White House staffers since Obama took office.

And administration officials recently asked some lobbyists and others who met with them to sign confidentiality agreements barring them from disclosing what was discussed at meetings with administration officials, in that case a rental policy working group.

Obama lied, transparency died, Part 989.

See, I told you so.

So much for transparency.

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

Gov. Haley Barbour Touches the Other Third Rail of Politics

Posted by iusbvision on February 22, 2011

There is a a great deal of hypocrisy in politics. Too much.

For Democrats the hypocrisy is on more issues than I can list. They are “pro-choice” unless you want to pick what school your child goes to, want choice on forced union membership, want a toilet that holds more water, want to keep buying the Edison light bulb, want to have a powerful car without being punished and the list goes on. Democrats rail about Wall Street, big corporations and the super rich, but what they don’t want you to know is that these groups overwhelmingly fund an support Democrats. The simple truth is that most of the regulations and “social justice” imposed by the left creams small and medium sized domestic business while aiding large and international finance, banks and corporations [See our Corporatism and our Big Bizz Loves Big Govt categories for all the evidence you will ever need if you doubt it – Editor].

For both party’s a big one that sticks out is agricultural corporate welfare (this includes ethanol). For Republicans this type of corporate welfare runs into the face of the Republican brand. While natural disasters and other extreme shocks are a problem that government subsidies can deal with and it can be argued should, everyone knows that farm subsidies are out of control and go to those who for the most part do not need them.

The problem is that speaking this truth has always been considered political suicide in many farm states like Iowa and Indiana. Republicans are learning that the Tea Party, which enjoys support form women, Hispanics and cross pressured independents,  is here to stay and they are serious. Many believe that Americans are ready to have an adult conversation about these third rails. Democrats still consider government union over reach a third rail. Democrats are going to pay another price in ’12 by walking out to protect government unions that over reach, often get overpaid, often perform their duties poorly, are corrupt, and have gold plated benefits which they contribute little or nothing for.

Soon more Democrats are going to stand up for the taxpayers who are being fleeced by these government unions because Independents who are getting more and more informed are not going to have it any longer. The Republicans are noticing this too.

So Haley Barbour came out and told it to Iowans faces saying that the program “can’t be off limits” from reductions. This is a startling act of political courage and the fact that he isn’t already doomed to be ousted from politics is yet another indication that even farmers get it and are willing to have an adult conversation about these programs. We just cannot afford them.

We should not cut these programs off cold turkey as that would be an economic shock, but with the exception of the program to aid farmers who suffer natural disasters and other economic shocks, these programs need to be slowly but surely scaled back so that the industry can adjust.

[Editor’s Note – Tucker Carlson’s “The Daily Caller” has been on a roll lately. While the left might dismiss DC as partisan, the truth is that DC has never been afraid to point out GOP hypocrisy and dirty laundry. DC will not demean the conservative/traditional point of view like the elite media does and is willing to blatantly lie to do so. The DC is center/right but so are the American people. The journalism here is first rate and the article below is an example of it.]

The Daily Caller:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour generally opposes government involvement in the economy, but like other potential Republican presidential candidates, he’s willing to make an exception when it comes to farm subsidies.

The federal government doled out about $20 billion to farmers last year, including some with net worth in the millions. Barbour made a trip to Iowa this week where he said he could support some kind of cut in those subsidies, but in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, the seven-year governor said he’s in favor of keeping the Depression-era welfare programs going.

“Some of them are very important,” Barbour told TheDC when asked if he supported taxpayer subsidies for farmers. “What we want to have in the United States is abundant food at a responsibly low price. To do that, we have to have an appropriately large supply of agricultural products. When sales volumes are good, prices are reasonable, there shouldn’t be any farm subsidies. But for natural reasons, nature, or what other countries are doing in terms of how they’re handling their markets, sometimes it is appropriate to have farm subsidies.”

Dating back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,  farm subsidies guarantee farmers a bottom line price on their goods — a taxpayer-funded luxury many other industries lack.

The idea that the government should step into a marketplace to ensure prices are “reasonable” is anathema to the orthodox conservative view that markets work best left free from government interference. Republicans often tout a free, or lightly regulated market as the best method to distribute goods and services, but for Barbour, that principle does not apply to agriculture, which he says needs the government interference to function properly.

“What you want is to have policies that lead to ample supply and prices that yield good prices for the person at the grocery store but profits for the farmers,” Barbour said.

Barbour is not alone in straying from free market philosophy when discussing agribusiness. The Republican House budget bill passed last week that cut about $62 billion from current spending levels did not lay a finger on farm spending. Other candidates hinting at runs for the White House, including former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorumformer Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also support the flow of money to the nation’s farmers.

Many Republicans not only support the subsidies, they also benefit from them.

Perhaps most famously, Congressional Tea Party Caucus founder Rep. Michele Bachmann’s family farm received more than $250,000 in government subsidies over 11 years.

Barbour, however, has gone further than others toward support for cutting farm spending, saying in Iowa this week that the program “can’t be off limits” from reductions.

The reasons Republicans have trouble prying themselves away from government welfare programs for farming are varied. For starters, farming interests have a major footprint in the world of Washington lobbying. The American Farm Bureau has spent more than $60 million on lobbyists since 2000, and the farming interest groups donate mightily to both parties in each election cycle. Many of the most conservative members of the Republican House and Senate represent agriculture states, and bring in millions of federal dollars for their state in subsidies.

The state of Iowa, which plays a starring role in the presidential primary election each cycle because of its early primary schedule and relies heavily on federal subsidies, also makes it difficult for candidates like Barbour to come out against them.

But the support for the programs doesn’t stop candidates like Barbour from railing against government involvement in the economy.

“Every American knows that the last two years the government’s growth should have been on economic growth and job creation. It hasn’t been. The Obama stimulus bill stimulated more government, not more jobs in the private sector,” Barbour told TheDC. “We gotta understand, a bigger government means a smaller economy.”

Barbour added that he’s “thinking” of running for president and will make his decision sometime in April.

MM

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