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 2nd, 2009

Wall Street Journal: How Al Franken Stole the Election

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

Democrats, ACORN vote fraud and stealing elections…

In a nutshell the election boards in Democrat districts were allowed to use different standards for tainted ballots than other districts…which is exactly the illegal double standard what the Supreme Court put a stop to in Bush v. Gore.  In our view Coleman should have went to federal court. State courts are often too partisan and too close to the results  to play with an election after the fact. Not that Coleman was a very good Senator, because he wasn’t.

Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat’s strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team’s real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman’s lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel’s findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn’t demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn’t lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact.

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire’s team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn’t been counted, setting off a hunt for “new” Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she’d discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don’t end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

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

Sotomayor’s racial quota reasoning in Ricci was opposed 9-0 by the Supreme Court

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

UPDATE – Sotomayor had a conflict of interest in the Ricci case – LINK.

In spite of what some people may think of Ann Coulter’s social and political commentary, she is a very good lawyer.  Her analysis of the Ricci decision really cut to the quick as to how wrong headed Obama’s next appointment for the Supreme Court is. Even Justice Ginsburg who is the farthest left rejected Sotomayor’s view on a very key issue.


Obama’s Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion — the judicial equivalent of “talk to the hand.” She upheld the city’s race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city — and by Sotomayor’s opinion — as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks who were not promoted.

That’s a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong — whatever “wrong” means in any given context of professions, populations, applicants, workers, etc. — is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under Sotomayor’s ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There’s no question but that abortion clinics have a “disparate impact” on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor’s endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor’s holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the dissent clearly stated that “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone.”

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor’s talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice Ginsburg’s prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from having to explain why quotas aren’t quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 17 Comments »

Washington Post selling access to Obama officials. All new Definition of “in the tank”

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

In a yet another shocking breech of journalistic ethics from the elite media, this is perhaps the greatest of all. The Washington Post is selling access to Obama officials to lobbyists and others for cash.

Talk about having a financial interest in keeping the administration happy. Why would anyone trust anything in the Washington Post ever again?


For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

UPDATE – Watchdog journalist Michelle Malkin was on FNC today talking about this new scandal:

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

John Ziegler Destroys Politico’s Mike Allen over bogus Sarah Palin coverage and comments.

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

File this under awesome. This is why talk radio is the number one rated electronic media venue.

Thanks to John Ziegler.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, John Ziegler, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Democrats move against company who gave testimony they didn’t like in Congressional hearing.

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

The Hill (excerpt):

GOP lawmakers may charge Democrat Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.) with violating House ethics rules for “intimidating a witness” who testified before his committee, officials tell The Hill.

House GOP leaders and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have not “ruled out the option” of forcing a vote in the lower chamber to investigate the possible ethics violations, accusing the senior Democrat “retaliating and bullying” a witness who appeared last Tuesday before Markey’s subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, where the CEO of a major energy company told members that the White House-backed cap-and-trade bill would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions while driving up energy costs.

In that letter, they explained their complaint that while David L. Sokol, CEO of MidAmerican Energy Holding Co. (of which Warren Buffett is the largest stakeholder), told Markey’s subcommittee panel that his cap-and-trade legislation would be ineffective and expensive, the chairman sent a formal request to regulators for an investigation into past statements made by Sokol and Buffett and actions taken by the company.

“Mr. Sokol and his company became the focus of apparent intimidation when Chairman Markey by letter dated the day of the hearing, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to answer specific questions about investment and transmission-related activist of MidAmerican Energy and its partner, investor Warren Buffett,” they wrote in the letter signed by all GOP members of the committee.

They demanded that the top Democrat “take whatever actions necessary to make sure that witnesses are not “subjected to sanction, retribution and vengeance simply because the facts and opinions they offer do not square with those of the Committee’s members.”

Republican lawmakers contend that Markey’s letter to FERC was an example of a wider effort on the part of Democrats to intimidate individuals who have different viewpoints than “what the Majority wants to hear,” citing reports that the Senate Finance Committee Chairman “just this week … instructed Democrat health care lobbyists not to meet with Republicans.”

“There’s systematic intimidation going on, and bullying of individuals by a party that preaches tolerance and it must stop,” Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) told The Hill.

How much will it cost that company to fend off a federal investigation? How come the elitre media isnt all over this abuse of power? If a republican had domne this the media would make sure thate veryone knew his name.

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

Federal Commission wants to track & tax your every move with GPS in your car.

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2009

The first time we wrote of this it was when the state of Oregon proposed such a program (LINK) and Betsy Imholt of the Oregon state government responded to our piece and hid under her desk after our response.

Here is an excerpt of our response to Imholt:


I appreciate you writing but the problem with the program is a fundamental issue of trust and common sense and it is of little surprise to me that a bureaucrat like yourself just doesn’t get it.

People who have lost their jobs drive less; others are driving more fuel efficient cars to use less gas for economic as well as national security reasons as everyone has been talking about. So now that people are conserving more here comes the bureaucrat to punish them for it.

Everyone is getting by with less…. well not everyone… everyone except you. Here is a novel idea Betsy, everyone is getting by with less, so government should too.


There are also privacy issues and the idea of “big brother”. Bureaucrats are famous for making sure that they are not held accountable for when things go wrong. Betsy, would you be willing to accept a provision in the law that would mandate 20 years in prison without possibility of parole, for you and your staff if these devices are ever used to track someone’s whereabouts. You won’t do it because if one thing is always consistent, it is that government breaks any and all promises when it comes to limiting its own power and influence.

Be sure to follow the link above and enjoy the rest.

Enter the feds…… Kansas City Star:

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles’ gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.

The idea of shifting to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the “best path forward” to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.

The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group’s chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission’s work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.

“If you’re committed to the system being improved then it was a no-brainer,” he said.

Agreed, these government types have no brains. Are the American people going to tolerate this crap?

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