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 July, 2009

Steven Crowder goes on a “Stimulus Package Road Trip” to see what you and your kids and grandkids just bought…

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell – People with insurance who oppose Obamacare don’t know what’s good for them…

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

This is priceless, and NBC wonders why people do not trust them. Of course with the billions NBC’s owner General Electric is set to make on this health bill it is no surprise. 

Indiana’s own Mike Pence takes Andrea Mitchel to school on Obamacare

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Mayor Bloomberg shows just how dumb he thinks you are…

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

Spare me mayor… most of the states have laws that encourage responsible concealed carry of handguns, including Indiana. Here in Indiana 1 adult in 12 has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Odds are every time you have gone to a busy restaurant, a store, movie theatre, church, etc etc there were one or more concealed firearms in there with you. The only places that have a big problem with illegal guns are places were guns are banned. Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose gun control, but the elitists in both parties, who go on as if they are our betters, just hate it. Too bad.   

Mayor Bloomberg should stick to making money on Wall Street because he is not much of a mayor.

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

Fed Hands out $553 Billion of your money and they don’t know where it went….

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

This video… is priceless and yet frightening.

Ben Bernanke is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Tammy Bruce: “The chick from L.A. who gets it”

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

Reporter – Governor Palin what are your future plans?

Palin – I think it should be obvious by now…

You may be tempted to skip over this video because I did not produce a saucey headline to reel you in.

This video is a MUST see as it contains a great macro analysis of the politics of the last 10 years that is really eye opening.  

The conversation about Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin and the changing mood of the country is very interesting. While Clinton was one scandal after another, one sexual peccadillo after another, and it was embarrassing for the country, the good thing about Bill Clinton was that he was willing to work with Republicans in the Congress to make real progress when other Democrat leaders were not. For most presidents their first term is when the meaningful work or damage gets done. Bill Clinton’s best term legislatively by far was his second term and he did work with Newt Gingrich and John Kasich very well. What is sad is that Welfare Reform, the piece of legislation Gingrich and Clinton got passed, which was the most popular and effective piece of legislation Clinton signed into law, was mostly undone by Obama and the Democrats with the Porkulus Bill. It wasn’t all roses, national security and nuclear proliferation had more problems under Clinton (save maybe Carter) than any other president in memory.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

SICK: Obama Science Czar said that new born babies aren’t human yet (therefore it is ok to KILL them)

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

His name is John Holdren and it is jokers like this who motivated the late William F. Buckley to state that he would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the phone book than by the faculty at Harvard.

Via CNS News:

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child “will ultimately develop into a human being” if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company.

At the time “Human Ecology” was published, Holdren was a senior research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, “The Population Bomb,” a book The Washington Post said “launched the popular movement for zero population growth.”

“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions” argued that the human race faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.

“Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course with the laws of nature,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “Human beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible. Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even smaller than if everyone is poor.”

The specific passage expressing the authors’ view that a baby “will ultimately develop into a human being” is on page 235 in chapter 8 of the book, which is titled “Population Limitation.”

At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.

Here is where it gets really sick. Holden advocates involuntary means of sterilization or infertility to force people to stop reproducing.

“The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control,” write the Ehrlich and Holdren. “Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

Holdren and Paul Erlich conceived all sorts of doomsday scenarios about what would happen if people did not stop reproducing by certain time estimates. The estimates came and went but the doomsday scenarios never materialized.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

HYPOCRITE: Obama says in 2004 interview that legislation should not be rammed through..

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

Obama took three months to decide on what dog to bring into the White House. These bills have been crammed through in days, with 300 page amendments inserted at 3AM the morning of the vote. The only reason this dreadful piece of health care legislation was stopped is because a group of eight conservative Democrats put the bill on hold.

[Editor’s Note: Obama was also wrong about the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was up for a vote several times before 9/11 and rejected so most people in Congress were familiar with it, or at least had severel chances over an extended period of time to get familiar with it. It was rammed through after 9/11 but it wasn’t as if the members had no idea what was in the bill.]

Remember this ???….

Amazing, the truth is that bills have been written and negotiated in secret, the lobbyists and special interests are writing the bills and inserting their own loopholes like the bonuses for AIG and Fannie Mae using your tax dollars.

The five days rule  was violated starting with HR1 – that’s right the very first bill Obama and the Democrats wanted.

See our Corporatism link for more details and you Can also use the search tool and type in “transparency” for even more.


UPDATE: Here is a more complete clip with NBC’s Chuck Todd talking about how Obama’s Chief of staff wanted multiple bills rammed through so people could not find out what is in them and thus drum up opposition. Chuck Todd comes towards the end of the clip.

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

CBO Gives New House ObamaCare Analysis

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

The Congressional Budget Office after the attempt intimidate them into rose coloring the Health Legislation Bill, came out with a new analysis and it is not pretty.

(Hat Tip

There is the report. Ed Morrissey pulls out two direct quotes that are pretty indicative:

The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the 10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year-budget window.

The 239 billion dollar estimate of new deficits in the first decade is the GOOD news…

As long as overall spending for health care continued to expand as a share of the economy, people’s share of insurance costs would continue to rise faster than their income, or the government’s subsidy costs would continue to rise faster than the tax base, or both. The proposal limits the share of income that eligible people would have to pay when they purchased coverage in the insurance exchanges, and that share of income would not change over time. In addition, insurance plans offered through the exchanges would be required to pay a specified share of costs for covered services (on average), and that share also would not change over time. Combining those provisions, increases in health care spending in excess of the rate of growth in income would be borne entirely by the federal government in the form of higher subsidy payments—because those payments would have to cover the entire difference between the total premium for insurance coverage and the capped amount that enrollees would pay.

Keep in mind that while this is the Democrats own appointed CBO, if it is the usual faire when it coems to the CBO the defuicits will likely be up to 1/3rd worse.

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

Washington Examiner: We Read the Bill – What Will Happen to Your Health Insurance Coverage?

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

A MUST read from the Washington Examiner. A great explanation of what will happen to your insurance coverage if these bills in Congress become law.


Most insured Americans get their health coverage through an employer. But a minority of about 6 to 8 percent — mostly the self-employed, students, and others who lack a generous employee benefits package — carry individual policies.

Individual plans tend to cost more. Although they lack the tax deductability of the group market, they do have the advantage of portability. Affordable, high-deductible plans can usually be found and paired with Health Savings Accounts, for some tax advantages, and the self-employed often have no other choice.

So what happens to people with individual policies after ObamaCare begins? It depends.

In the Senate Democrats’ bill, individual policyholders can keep their coverage, but they will be penalized under the individual mandate as though they did not have any coverage at all. That would be the death-knell of individual policies, says the Heritage Foundation’s Ed Haislmaier. Insurers, he says, “could exit the market entirely.” (The Senate bill is similarly merciless when it comes to employer-based plans that don’t conform with the rules for the planned government-run exchanges. In other words, the Senate bill, unless changed, will force your employer to change your coverage — maybe just a little bit, but perhaps dramatically.)

House Democrats’ bill, on the other hand, would grandfather individual policy-holders. They could keep their coverage and even add dependents over time. But no new individual policies could be sold as of the first year ObamaCare begins.

Under the best-case scenario, grandfathered individual policies would continue to exist until all of their holders die. But in all likelihood, economic and regulatory forces would conspire against them. The worst case would be a collapse of private insurers, but it doesn’t have to get that bad for individual policies to disappear. For example, if enough individual policy-holders are lured away by the subsidies that will be available for policies in the government-run insurance exchanges, insurers might find that they don’t have a viable risk-pool in the dwindling individual market anymore. They could drop out of the individual market, and they will feel more pressure to do so as patients age.

The bottom line: Under ObamaCare, your individual insurance policy is probably doomed, even if it is grandfathered. You might be eligible for a subsidized exchange plan, but if your income is too high, you will have to pay premiums that are inflated by other people’s subsidies.

For a good example of how the world can go wrong without a viable private individual market for health insurance, look to Maine. will not sell policies to anyone with a Maine zip code because individual insurers left the state years ago. They were mostly driven away by unreasonable state coverage mandates (marriage counseling must be covered by all policies, for example) and the requirement that every applicant be approved, no matter how sick they already are.

The only individual health insurer in Maine today is the one that runs Dirigo Choice, the state’s unique “public option” plan. Dirigo’s employer-based small business and self-employed plans closed enrollment in 2007 because the program has proven fiscally unsustainable. Its individual policy has become unaffordable — premiums have nearly doubled to $1,489 per month for a family plan.

As a result, coverage is nearly impossible to obtain for those who are self-employed and have too much income for Medicaid — in Maine, that’s about $45,000 for a family of four (which partly explains why 23 percent of the state is on Medicaid). Only the employer-based group plans have survived, because they are covered under federal benefit laws that pre-empt Maine’s laws.

Dirigo Choice executives compare their program to what Congress is attempting with its public option proposal. To be fair, the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare differ from Maine’s approach in several ways. Yet both plans are similar in that no one can figure out yet how to make them fiscally sustainable. The great danger is that, with new coverage mandates and rules requiring approval of all applicants, the insurance exchange plans that President Obama envisions could begin to look like Maine, with reduced benefits and skyrocketing premiums. If that happens, the self-employed could be without any reasonable options.

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

Democrat Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2009

Not only do the members not read them, they don’t write them; lobbyists, activist groups, unions, and those industries who give money back to the party do.

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

More Obama Administration Ethics issues – White House Lowers Lobbying Restrictions – Breaking Campaign Promise Again

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2009

Obama ran on reducing the influence of lobbyists, he ran commercials criticizing McCain for having former lobbyists working for him campaign while having active lobbyists working on his own (LINK).

The following numbered links are just a sample of the lobbying coverage we have delivered about it’s influence on this administration: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18].

The Hill Magazine:

In a significant change, the Obama administration will now allow lobbyists to meet and have telephonic discussions with government officials regarding economic recovery projects.

The lifting of the ban comes after K Street has cried foul for months and has challenged the White House on its restrictions. …

Now, the just-revised rules will allow government personnel to accept meetings and calls from federally registered lobbyists on the implementation of stimulus projects. The head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued a new guidance late Friday regarding the administration’s communications with registered lobbyists about economic recovery funds.

This administration is six months old and Michelle Malkin already had enough info to write a 400 page book about the kickbacks and corruption that has gone on.

Michelle Malkin:

Bully boys: A brief history of White House thuggery

Just finished up on the Today Show, where I had a quick chance to briefly expose the Culture of Corruptionin the age of Obama. My syndicated column today adds to the dossier with a round-up of fresh Bully Boy moments.

It’s the Chicago way.

Six months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the Today Show that he had met with CBO director Douglas Elmendorf – just as the number-crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral score-keeper – not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health care savings claims, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.

Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.” Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

President Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health care press conference. “Keep up the heat” translated into Organizing for America/Democrat National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against Obamacare’s high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

Looks like there won’t be a health care beer summit any time soon.

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors generals targeted by Team Obama goons. Gerald Walpin, the former Americorps inspector general was slimed as mentally incompetent (“confused” and “disoriented”) after blowing the whistle on several cases of community service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson. As I’ve reported previously, Johnson’s the NBA star-turned-Sacramento Democrat mayor who ran a federally-funded non-profit group employing AmeriCorps volunteers that were exploited to perform campaign work for Johnson and provided personal services (car washes, errands) to Johnson and his staff.

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back – and to defend the integrity and independence of inspector generals system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where First Lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth service program insiders.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, top Obama officials muzzled veteran researcher Alan Carlin, who dared to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. The economist with a physics degree was trashed as a non-scientist know-nothing.

Be sure to follow the link and read the rest of her latest column.

Posted in 2012, Big Bizz Loves Big Govt, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Michael Savage: The left has abondoned the principle of free speech

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2009

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Pundits Sound off Palin Farewell Speech: Blasts Elite Media that “Makes Things Up”

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2009

Pollster Frank Luntz, Palin is going to hammer the elite media :

Media Relations Strategist Andrea Tantaros “Palin accomplished as governor what Obama promised and failed to deliver upon.” :

Limbaugh “Is  there another national leader talking this way?” :

O’Reilly on the elite media’s continuing ridiculous attacks on Palin: …Most successful presidents have been former governors just like Sarah Palin, but unlike most of those governors she accomplished her legislative agenda for reform in Alaska in two and a half years.

Washington Post’s Dan Balz:

She exited office in classic Palin style, with folksy picnics at which she bade farewell to her constituents, and with a running series of Twitter reports as she traversed the vast state. In one posted Saturday en route to Fairbanks, she wrote, “We remember all of AK is big/wild/good life; feel freedom here.”

It may be that, after 11 difficult months in the spotlight, Palin longs to feel some of that freedom she wrote about Saturday. But does she have a second act in her repertoire?

“Palin Year One was the introduction of a persona, and the construction (and destruction) of legend around it,” Tucker Eskew, a senior adviser to the Republican during her 2008 vice presidential bid, wrote in an e-mail Sunday. “I think she believes in an America of limitless possibility, so let’s see. Year Two and beyond will be defined by her capacity for reinvention.

“Substantive second acts in American politics are reserved for those who stake a claim and defend it,” Eskew added. “By resigning, she limits her chances for public office and expands her chances for personal good fortune. Somewhere in between public office and personal standing lies her apparent — but elusive — goal of influence.”

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Democrats moving to tax everything and anything..

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2009

From taxing your health benefits, to new tobacco and alcohol taxes, raising income taxes, a national energy tax, and even proposals to tax you for every mile you drive and track you using GPS (LINK); here is the latest cockamamie idea from the Democrats, tax bo-tox, teeth whitening and plastic surgery.

National Journal:

Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, according to sources familiar with the Senate talks.

The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes. The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some “interesting,” “creative,” and “kind of fun” ideas.

The tax, which has not been officially scored, would plug some of the revenue gap senators are seeking to fill to keep on schedule for a markup the week of Aug. 3. It would target procedures prohibited under Section 213 of the tax code, which deals with itemized deductions for medical expenses not covered by health insurance.

… nose jobs, liposuction, teeth-whitening procedures and Botox injections to smooth wrinkles would be prohibited under Sec. 213 and subject to the new tax.

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

Jews Protesting Against Obama for Interfering in Domestic Policy. Say Obama is Racist Against Jews

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2009

Via WND:

JERUSALEM – President Obama’s policies against Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank were slammed as “racist” today by participants in a rally drawing about 2,000 Israelis in front of the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem.

“George Mitchell go home!” yelled protestors in front of the U.S. government building.

Mitchell, Obama’s envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is here discussing the American administration’s call for a halt to all Jewish settlement activity, including natural growth or accommodating the needs of existing Jewish populations in the areas in question.

“Obama should not be pressing Israel to compromise and freeze building in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem,” protest organizer Yaacov Steinberg told WND.

Israel already done for? Read Aaron Klein’s “The Late Great State of Israel”

“All these steps in the past just brought more Palestinian terror and showed Israeli weakness,” said Steinberg, director of a coalition of West Bank Jewish organizations.


“People tell us that it is impossible to stand up against American pressure; there is no bigger lie,” yelled out Dani Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, which helped to organize the event. It was timed to coincide with US envoy George Mitchell’s visit to Israel.

Netanyahu’s government should be concerned with its election promises to support the settlements, rather than with its obligations to the US, Dayan said. This government has an obligation to return Israel to the Zionist path of settling the land, he said.

Prior to the rally Dayan told The Jerusalem Post he hoped “Netanyahu will learn lessons from those who preceded him.”

And this gets down to what this is really all about. The Obama administration was not pleased that Netanyahu won the election so they are pressuring Israel to attempt to force them to break a key Netanyahu campaign promise.

Didn’t Joe Biden promise that this administration would be the most pro-Israel ever? I doubted it when the administration began hiring several very serious anti-semites to work in the administration.  See our “ISRAEL” category to learn more.

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

RINO “House Conservative” at the NYT David Brooks reveals himself…

Posted by iusbvision on July 26, 2009


Almost every week at the New York Times, house “conservative” David Brooks and liberal columnist Gail Collins have a public conversation. This week Brooks made a startling admission in The Conversation which really wasn’t so surprising when one actually reads his columns. Here is the money quote:

At the moment, I feel politically closer to Barack Obama than to House Minority Leader John Boehner (and that’s even while being greatly exercised about the current health care bills). 

What a shocker (/sarcasm)… that the New York Times’ house conservative who is relied upon to attack every conservative and/or mover and shaker in the Republican Party ha srevealed that he is closer to the most far left president in our lifetime than who all consider to be a main stream conservative and popular House GOP leader John Boehner.

There is little doubt that David Brooks voted for Obama, just as the previous “house conservative” at the NYT, William Safire, voted for Bill Clinton.

Is anyone even the slightest bit surprised?

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Obama-Cambridge Police. How Glenn Beck and David Horowitz got it wrong. – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on July 24, 2009

First of all I want to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for David Horowitz and Glenn Beck, but even IF everything that they said here is an absolute reality they are still wrong so please allow me to explain why.

Massachusetts law makes it clear that disorderly conduct is illegal disruptive behavior IN PUBLIC and with the intent of causing illegal disruptive and violent behavior of others. The professor was on his own property (NOT OUT IN PUBLIC) and this happened after the professor showed legal ID proving that he was in his own residence. The officer asked the professor to step outside for the purpose of arresting him.

The bottom line is this, there is nothing illegal about acting like a fool, or calling a police officer a racist while on your own property.

A good police officer, who behaves as a servant to the people, de-escalates a situation. As soon as he saw the ID and saw the professor was legit he should have just turned and left the premises. A bad police officer who has an attitude as if he is the people’s master and/or wears a cloak of infallibility (and there are lots of these out there I have seen first hand) is someone who escalates a situation.

I do not believe that this was about race, I believe that this was an escalation attitude by the police who simply did not follow the law. Once Prof. Gates showed his ID it should have been over no matter what foolish things Gates may or may not have been saying. Prof. Gates was arrested because of what he was saying to a police officer. One does not win an argument with a pair of hand cuffs. The arrest was illegal because the legal definition of disorderly conduct was not met which is why the charges were dropped almost immediately.

If I were Prof. Gates, I would sue the Cambridge PD not because the officer was a racist, but because they made an illegal arrest for the wrong reasons.

I know that some of you may be shocked, but I am siding with the professor on this one for all the right legal reasons.

Also I am not at all convinced that the police report is accurate. We have catalogued many cases of police brutality and misconduct where police did not tell the whole truth [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] and most of these incidents of bad police behavior are generated by law enforcement who seem to have convinced themselves that they can do no wrong. I am not saying that the police officer is a liar, but what I am saying is that just because something is in a police report doesn’t mean it is the whole truth.

The link below tells the story of a police officer with a cloak of infallibility whose attitude resulted in some rather grim consequences for his victim and himself.  –

UPDATE– Just because all parties in this event acted stupidly doesn’t mean that Prof. Gates is not a nutty very far left black liberation theology conspiracy theorist with hate issues, because he most certainly is judging by the video clip that Glenn Beck found of gates giving a speech. Beck also asks, if the president is not a racist, how come he surrounded himself with overt racists like Farrahkan, Kahlidi, Rev. Wright, and the other overt anti-semites that he has brought into the administration as we have outlined in our “Israel” category? 

Keep in mind that Gates is considered a MODERATE among far left black studies professors… and THAT says something important as well.

UPDATE II– Legendary writer Chris Hitchens has the same take we have on this story; Gates’ arrest was wrong and illegal.  Hitchens:

A Man’s Home Is His Constitutional Castle

Henry Louis Gates Jr. should have taken his stand on the Bill of Rights, not on his epidermis or that of the arresting officer.

Moreover, whatever he said to the cop was in the privacy of his own home. It is monstrous in the extreme that he should in that home be handcuffed, and then taken downtown, after it had been plainly established that he was indeed the householder.

Absolutely a must read article, especially for college students who by and large are constitutionally inept due to the state of public education today.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Other Links | 4 Comments »

The New York Times was excited to try and disqualify McCain over birth issue. – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on July 24, 2009

Elements on the left were all excited about Goldwater, Romney and McCain on this issue.   

So why is Obama and the DNC spending literally over a million dollars in courts to keep from producing a real birth certificate? And before you say it in comments, the “certificate of live birth” that Obama has produced is not a birth certificate. It is a document that is often given to immigrants who have no way of coming up with a certified and original birth certificate.

I would like to know, whats the big deal, produce the document for crying out loud. I am also distressed that judges in some courts are making decisions on this that are totally political by making nonsense rulings like “no American citizen has standing in court on this issue” etc to avoid just ordering that the document be produced. 

Obama very well may be a real citizen and I am inclined to believe he is, but obviously there is something on that document that they don’t want out in the general public. Why spend millions to keep from releasing it? I wasn’t particularly interested in this issue until they started spending huge money on a team of lawyers trying to keep it from being released. What also generated interest is when the Army Major said that he would not deploy to Afghanistan till Obama proved he was constitutionally qualified to be commander in chief and filed a lawsuit. The Army completely caved and told the major that he did not have to deploy and pulled his orders so he would not have standing in court.

Let there be no doubt, the way that Obama’s lawyers, a few bad courts and the media have totally mishandled this situation is what has kept this story a growing one. It is almost as if it is they who are working to keep this story alive.

In the clip below, notice how the guy representing the “Obama” point of view tries to yell over everyone else to keep them from making their points and how he tries to make it about “your nuts if you ask for a birth certificate” with an almost frothing at the mouth zeal instead of just dealing with the issue square on.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post, in a surprise move called for the releasing of Obama’s origibal birth certificate. The state of hawaii says that they have it on file and cant release it because the president himself said no. HuffPo asks, “Why not just release the thing and be done with it?” – LINK

Bernard Goldberg of CBS fame take sthe same reaction that we do, why is it that it is the White House that keeps this story alive?

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

Clinton Political Strategist: Obama’s Health Care Claims “Orwellian”

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2009

Political Strategist and best selling author Dick Morris:



Published in the New York Post on July 23, 2009

President Obama’s rhetoric last night summoned the memory of “1984,” George Orwell’s novel of a nightmarish future — where the slogan of the rulers is “War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”

The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending. . .by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.

He says that “health-care decisions will not be made by government”. . .while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.

Obama told the media, “I will free doctors to make good health-care decisions”. . .by telling the physicians what to do.

When the president says he guarantees the “same coverage” to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the protocols and instructions the government hands down to them — not that we’ll have our current freedom of decision-making.

When he blandly assures us that we will “stop paying for things that don’t make us healthier,” he really means that his Federal Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best judgment in your treatment.

The president will “get the politics out of health care” by putting it under government control.

Obama says that he will not “add to the deficit” to fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.

The president says that he’ll identify savings that will reduce the need for more taxes — even though the Congressional Budget Office refuses to say that his “savings” will actually work and warns that the bill will really be added to the deficit.

He repeatedly tells us that he’ll cut health-care spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors’ incomes and will turn down patients — particularly the elderly — when they seek medical care that his bureaucrats disapprove of.

And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.

The president opines that he will replace the most “expensive care” with the “best care” by empowering government officials who have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has examined you thoroughly.

When Obama laments that “14,000 people lose their insurance every day,” he is referring to the job losses that his own failed efforts to end the recession have permitted.

He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay — yet the plans he backs would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide insurance to their workers.

The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care — but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of doctors who might provide it.

The stimulus package, in the Gospel According to Barack, was “designed” to work over the next two years. But at the time, he demanded immediate passage to “jump-start the economy” — something that clearly did not happen.

Medicare and Medicaid are “driving the deficit” even as he increased the amount of red ink by at least $800 billion in six months with little, if any, increase in the cost of either program.

He says he “expects” banks to repay their TARP money. In fact, they’re lining up around the block to do so — but the Treasury will only permit a handful of them to do so.

In summary, Obama’s health program will promote “lower cost and more choice” by increasing spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they’re permitted to have, and limiting their access to quality care.

Orwell’s heirs should sue for violation of copyright.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Democrats vote NO on applying their healthcare “public option” to themselves…

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2009

Wall Street Journal:

In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the “public option” — a new federal insurance program like Medicare — but if it’s good enough for the middle class, then surely it’s good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats — with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy — voted nay.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Governor Jindal on healthcare reform

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2009

The Governor has two pieces in the Wall Street Journal HERE and HERE with his vision for some possible cost saving solutions:

The Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come.

Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.

•Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.

•Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.

•Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.

•Pooling for small businesses, the self-employed, and others. All consumers should have equal opportunity to buy the lowest-cost, highest-quality insurance available. Individuals should benefit from the economies of scale currently available to those working for large employers. They should be free to purchase their health coverage without tax penalty through their employer, church, union, etc.

•Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.

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

Indiana’s Own Dave McIntosh: Vote no on Sotomayor

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2009

Wall Street Journal:


As Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing began last week, many commentators predicted that she would portray herself as a moderate judge committed to judicial restraint. True to these expectations, Judge Sotomayor described her judicial philosophy as quite simple: “fidelity to the law.” Yet the judge’s history on the Second Circuit—not to mention her earlier speeches—suggest that she believes judges can go beyond the law to make policy decisions. For this reason, a vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor is almost certainly a vote in favor of restricting Second Amendment protections and property rights, upholding racial preferences, and providing unlimited abortion on demand.

During last week’s hearing, several senators sought to determine whether Judge Sotomayor supports the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. In particular, they asked whether this right should be enforced against state governments. Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) praised the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which it held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Feingold pressed Judge Sotomayor about her Second Circuit panel decision in Maloney v. Cuomo (2009), where she and her colleagues rejected the argument that the right to keep and bear arms should be enforced against the states, stating that “the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” That’s like saying you have the right to free speech in Washington, D.C., but not in Arkansas, Indiana or California.

In response to Mr. Feingold’s inquiry, Judge Sotomayor defended the Second Circuit’s decision in Maloney. She refused to acknowledge that her court could have enforced the right to bear arms against the states. Judge Sotomayor’s involvement in this decision does not bode well for a ruling in favor of Second Amendment rights if she is confirmed to the Court.

Judge Sotomayor also revealed a troubling approach to property rights in Didden v. Village of Port Chester (2006). Sitting on another Second Circuit panel, Judge Sotomayor voted to uphold the condemnation of the plaintiffs’ private property despite the obvious corruption surrounding the case. The plaintiffs’ only faced condemnation because they refused to pay off a politically connected developer. When they refused to pay, the city then condemned the land, declaring it for “public use.”

The court’s decision in Didden weakened protections for property owners even further than the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) and indicates that Judge Sotomayor would likely exercise a similar approach on the Supreme Court.

Senators should also be concerned by Judge Sotomayor’s support of racial hiring preferences. In the now famous Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) firefighter case, a Second Circuit panel of judges, including Judge Sotomayor, upheld the city’s decision to disregard the results of a promotion examination because too few racial minorities passed. On June 29, the Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling, a vote of no-confidence in Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning in Ricci.

In addition, from 1980-92 Judge Sotomayor served on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a prominent legal defense and education group organized in part to support unlimited abortion rights. During this period, the fund filed briefs in several prominent abortion cases that expressed unqualified support for a woman’s right to obtain an abortion and opposition to any limits on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973). Judge Sotomayor’s willingness to play an active role in the fund’s activities is telling.

When you look at Judge Sotomayor’s long, activist legal career, it is hard to square with her new, modest claim of “fidelity to the law.” She herself has said the Supreme Court sets policy. On that standard, Republican and moderate Democratic senators—particularly those in red and purple states—should vote against confirming Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Mr. McIntosh, a former Republican congressman from Indiana, served as special assistant to President Reagan for domestic affairs and was a co-founder of the Federalist Society.

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

Canadain Health System tells Shona that she had to wait 6 months to see a doctor for her brain tumor, in 6 months she would have been dead.

Posted by iusbvision on July 22, 2009

Listen to her story… I dare you.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ROFL: Obama Chief of Staff Claims “We rescued the economy”

Posted by iusbvision on July 22, 2009

John Boehner of course had a good time with this one…

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ObamaCare budget trick uses the expansion of state medicaid to hide expenses.

Posted by iusbvision on July 22, 2009

New York Times:

Governors Fear Medicaid Costs in Health Plan

The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care plan emerging from Congress, fearing that Washington was about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without money to pay for them.

The role of the states in a restructured health care system dominated the summer meeting of the National Governors Association here this weekend — with bipartisan animosity voiced against the plan during a closed-door luncheon on Saturday and in a private meeting on Sunday with the health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.

“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.”

Ed Morrissey at comments:

In fact, the Times reports that this message was unanimous.  Every one of the versions of ObamaCare in Congress at the moment expands Medicaid eligibility as a means to get to universal health care.  The budgeting for these bills only reflect the federal responsibilities for this expansion, but it carries hefty costs for the states as well.  Unless Obama wants to fund these mandates, the governors will universally oppose the reform, which gives opponents a powerful force in stopping it.  And if Obama does absorb the costs to expand Medicaid, it will explode the federal deficit.

This exposes the shell game Obama has played with ObamaCare.  He wants to argue that the de facto nationalization of the health-care industry will contain costs while expanding coverage and maintaining access, but that only can happen if the plan either rations services or shifts the costs elsewhere.  The use of Medicaid instead of Medicare to cover the currently uninsured puts those costs on the backs of the states, which will have to find revenues to pay for their end of ObamaCare.  In most cases, that will require state tax increases across a broad swath of the citizenry on top of the 5.4% surtax on the wealthy that Charlie Rangel proposes.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Crowder: My cousin in Canada lost vision in one eye because of the massive wait lists in Canada

Posted by iusbvision on July 20, 2009

Three years to get a family doctor, one lady needed surgery for a circulatory problem, had to wait so long that she lost both legs, his cousin loses function in one eye because of the wait etc.

Of course, here Crowder goes back to Canada with hidden cameras to see just how bad the waits are.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Stimulus disaster! Wasteful and crony lined spending becoming public.

Posted by iusbvision on July 20, 2009

It is like we said before, government stimulus does not work well because the momey is spent for political reasons and not economic ones. Also the ones who get the most money out of government money are government employees who do not create wealth and as far as the economy is concerned are unproductive workers.

Via Matt Drudge from


Agriculture Sec. Vilsack: ‘Purchased 760,000 Lbs of ham at cost of approximately $1.50 per pound’…
FOOD LION: $.79 Lb…

FDA can’t predict its own budget:

GAO: FDA can’t estimate its own budget needs

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Food and Drug Administration—which has struggled to fulfill its mission of regulating food, drugs and other consumer goods that make up nearly a quarter of the U.S. economy—does not have the expertise to forecast its own budget needs, according to congressional investigators.

While many lawmakers and consumer advocates have long complained that the agency lacks the staff and equipment to accomplish its mission, the Government Accountability Office says the agency doesn’t even have “the data to develop a complete and reliable estimate of the resources it needs.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

New York Times makes up quote from Palin hairdresser in hit piece

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2009

Her name is Jessica Steele and she owns “The Beehive” in Wasilla Alaska. Steele found a “quote” from her on page one…

Via C4P and Jessica Steele’s twitter feed:

In a July 12th hit piece published on the front page of the New York Times, reporters Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski (assisted by Kim Severson and William Yardley in Alaska) made the following claim:

Friends worried that she appeared anxious and underweight. Her hair had thinned to the point where she needed emergency help from her hairdresser and close friend, Jessica Steele.

“Honestly, I think all of it just broke her heart,” Ms. Steele said in an interview at her beauty parlor in Wasilla, the Beehive.

This tidbit was seized upon and has bounced through the Internet and blogosphere — a Google search for “Palin hair thinned” now returns nearly 400,000 hits. Lefties such as Eleanor Clift seized on it as some kind of meme that Palin can’t handle stress.

One problem. Steele was never interviewed by anyone, never said these things and is venting her fury on her twitter feed:

I am Sarah Palin’s hairdresser in Alaska! The media is saying Sarah’s hair is thinning this is a lie!!! I never said this and it’s not true!
about 12 hours ago from Tweetie

@aktiff08 yes, this is what they are saying!!! They say it was an exclusive from her hairdresser! Makes me sick!
about 12 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to aktiff08

Inside Edition contacted me about an interview,I said no because the whole “story” was a lie! Sarah Palin’s hair is not thinning!
about 9 hours ago from Tweetie

I have never spoken 2 Inside Edition or told any reporter at the NYTs that Sarah Palin’s hair was thinning to the point of emergency! Liars!
about 9 hours ago from Tweetie

I will continue 2 tell people: I never said Sarah Palin’s hair is thinning! The Left is desperate to attack Sarah Palin with stupid lies!!!
about 9 hours ago from Tweetie

Media is so desperate to attack Sarah Palin they are saying lies about her hair! I am her HAIRDRESSER!! U will not use me in a LIE media!!!!
about 8 hours ago from Tweetie

@Adrienne2012 it’s so werid to hear & read about things that I “said” that are not true! Never said her hair needed emergency attention!
about 8 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to Adrienne2012

@aktiff08 at this point I am realizing that the truth doesn’t matter, only the perception of the truth is real any more it’s makes me so mad
about 8 hours ago from
Tweetie in reply to aktiff08

I’ve got to say Sarah Palin is very strong! I’m pissed off about these stupid lies about her hair, can’t image dealing wth this stuff daily!
about 8 hours ago from

If u think about it saying Sarah’s Palins hair is thinning is the dumbest lie the New York Times and inside Edition can come up with yet!
about 8 hours ago from

All uhave 2 do is look at Sarah Palin’s hair 2 see that it’s not thinning it’s gorgeous I work with it all the time she’s fabulous! Luv SP
about 8 hours ago from Tweetie

No less than FOUR NYT reporters were in on this story and line editors also have a job to call sources and verify quotes on important stories. Of course anyone who examines our “Palin Truth Squad” category can see that newspapers making things up about Palin is nothing new [start from the oldest posts in the category and move forward – Editor].

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Palin Truth Squad | 3 Comments »

Obama Commerce Secretary: U.S. taxpayer should pay for Chinese Carbon Emissions…

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2009

Are they nuts???

Wall Street Journal:

With the U.S. secretaries of energy and commerce in China this week, much of the attention focused on the standoff over emissions reductions or small breakthroughs in clean-tech cooperation.

But yesterday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said something amazing—U.S. consumers should pay for part of Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions. From Reuters:

Gary Locke Obama Commerce Sec“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

Oh my gawd…. Apparently Secretary Locke doesn’t believe that China gets enough of our money so here is his plan for giving them more. Not only should we pay carbon taxes on what we produce, but since we buy and consume so many products from China, we should pay their would be carbon taxes for them too. How is that “hope & change” working out for you?

Says the Wall Street Journal, “China of course loves the idea.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

“A Criminal Enterprise” Goldman Sachs getting rich off of taxpayer credit card, Obama, Bush.

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2009

See this important update to this story HERE and HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama vs. Obama on the stimulus bill…

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2009

This is a popular tactic among the left. It is called “moving the bar”.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck: What is health care like in Europe? – UPDATE!:Steven Crowder goes to Canada with hidden cameras to test health service.

Posted by iusbvision on July 18, 2009

UPDATE – Steven Crowder goes to Canada with hidden cameras to test health service – chilling:

Part I:

Part II: If you had food insurance would you care what the food costs at the grocery store?

Hannan: “Nationalized healthcare has made us iller”

This is a brilliant and accurate explanation of the causes of the current crisis and the solutions are hurting us more.

Hannan with heavy sarcasm:

Just what we need to stimulate growth then, eh? More dirigisme, more red tape, more state control, more centralisation. And the markets have risen. Will you never learn, boys?

Recent history in Europe and the US has shown that doing nothing would have been better than what we have done, but smart people came up with ideas such as lowering the corporate income tax, buying up bad mortgage loans to renegotiate them with home owners, forgiving one years worth of student loan payments, forgiving the federal income tax for 9 months etc. These are ideas that would have injected big cash into the economy now. Only 23% of the stimulus was even designed to be spent before the end of 2010. The government spends money for political reasons, whereas citizens and families spend money and pay off debt for economic reasons.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 3 Comments »

Financial Analyst Charles Payne: Obama dislikes rich and wants to dissuade others from becoming rich

Posted by iusbvision on July 18, 2009

But wait Obama is a millionaire….oh ya I understand..that’s different

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Washington Post: If Palin ran for re-election she would win.

Posted by iusbvision on July 18, 2009

Washington Post:

As for those who argued that Palin decided to leave office for fear she would lose in 2010, this poll, which was in the field from June 14-18 suggests otherwise. Palin led Berkowitz 56 percent to 36 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup and carried a solid 56 percent/35 percent favorable to unfavorable score.

The survey was conducted by Global Strategy Group.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

CBO: The federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Obamacare Bill won’t lower costs.

Posted by iusbvision on July 18, 2009


Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.

CBO says the health care bill will just continue to escalate costs:

Congress’ budget watchdog warned Thursday that Democrats’ health care bills would not lower skyrocketing costs and would drive up government spending, undermining one of President Obama’s chief arguments for the overhaul.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.

The New York Times thought that this wasn’t news. See for yourself HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »