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 November 5th, 2010

AARP and Many Others Hiking Premiums or Dumping Coverage Because of ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

BREAKING – November 1, 2010 It has happened: ObamaCare results in local lay-offs

Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.


AARP raising premiums, citing ObamaCare, but said when they were pushing it that this wouldn’t happen…

White House on Health Care: ‘Nothing’ From Election Suggests People Want Repeal

IBD – 3M cites ObamaCare – Forced to drop care for 23,000 retirees:

Here’s a Post-it note for ObamaCare supporters and opponents: Over the weekend 3M (MMM), the maker of the ubiquitous sticky message pads, along with electronics, optics and more, decided to end its retirees’ access to its health care plan beginning in 2013. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“health care reform has made it more difficult for employers like 3M to provide a plan that will remain competitive,” (3M said in a) memo. The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law.

The company didn’t specify how many workers would be impacted. It currently has 23,000 U.S. retirees.

Americans become eligible for the Medicare insurance program at age 65. Starting in 2015, 3M retirees too young to qualify for Medicare will receive financial support through what the company called a “health reimbursement arrangement” and won’t be able to enroll in the company’s group insurance plan. The company described that as an account retirees can use to purchase individual insurance through exchanges that the health law will create in 2014. 3M didn’t provide details on the financial contributions. [Grats that taxpayer subsidized so WE pay for it – Editor]

Or, as opponents of ObamaCare predicted, they’re finding it cheaper to dump their retirees onto the exchange.

That comes on the heels of a report Thursday that McDonald’s was considering dropping its “mini-med” plan for its employees because those plans may run afoul of the forthcoming medical-loss ratio regulations.

Also on Thursday, the Principal Financial Group (PFG) announced it would stop selling health insurance, which means 840,000 employees who receive Principal coverage through their employers will have to look elsewhere. Just the day before, President Obama said, “So there’s nothing in the bill that says you have to change the health insurance that you’ve got right now.” And he’s right: the bill doesn’t say it; it just causes it.

Indeed, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care was giving the lie to Obama’s statement as he was making it. Harvard Pilgrim announced that it would end its Medicare Advantage plans at the end of the year, leaving its 22,000 Advantage customers scrambling for coverage.

A week before that, a number of health plans including Anthem (WLP), Aetna (AET), Cigna (CI), Humana (HUM), CoventryOne (CVH) and some Blue Cross Blue Shield companies decided that they would stop selling coverage in the child-only market. It makes sense, given that under the new ObamaCare regulations, no child can be denied health insurance for a pre-existing condition and insurers can no longer vary premiums based on health status. Thus, the cagey parent will now wait until his or her child is sick before getting insurance. This is known as adverse selection: The healthy drop out, and those remaining in the insurance pool tend to be sicker. As insurers found out when a number of states tried this in early 1990s, it doesn’t make for a very viable business plan.

Of course, the evidence of what happened when these reforms were tried on the state level was available in a short, easy-to-read format for all of the so-called reformers. But, as IBD has noted before, since when has health care reform been about evidence? It has always been about power — the power politicians have over insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and, ultimately, patients.

Remember we were told the bill would lower premiums?

The Promises

August 6, 2008

OBAMA: A system where we’re gonna work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

October 4, 2008

OBAMA: We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.

September 6, 2008

OBAMA: Here’s what change is saying to people who already have health insurance and the employers who are providing it: We’ll work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

May 3, 2008

OBAMA: I also have a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums.

January 3, 2008

OBAMA: And if you already have health care, then we’re gonna reduce costs an average of $2,500 per family on premiums.

October 7, 2008

OBAMA: We’re gonna work with your employer to lower the costs of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

Campaign Ad

OBAMA: And we’ll cut the costs of a typical family’s health care by up to $2,500 per year.

March 14, 2008

OBAMA: And if you’ve got health care, we’re gonna work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

February 23, 2008

OBAMA: And we will lower premiums for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

June 17, 2007

OBAMA: And cut the cost of health care by up to $2,500 per family.

August 17, 2008

OBAMA: And if you already have health care, then we’re gonna work with your employer to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

Campaign Ad

EVAN BAYH: Barack’s policies will provide health care cost reductions of about $2,500 for the typical family.

June 27, 2008

OBAMA: It’s time to bring down the typical family’s premium by about $2,500. And it’s time to bring down the costs for the entire country.

February 19, 2008

OBAMA: And if you already have health insurance, we will lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

April 22, 2008

OBAMA: We’re gonna work with your employer through a catastrophic reinsurance plan to lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

October 15, 2008

OBAMA: The only thing we’re gonna try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed on to you. And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 a year.

March 1, 2008

OBAMA: We’ll work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year.

Campaign Ad

NARRATOR: Barack Obama will provide rural America with affordable health care, and save the typical American family $2,500 a year.

May 30, 2008

OBAMA: And reduces every family’s premiums by as much as $2,500.

April 20, 2008

OBAMA: If your employer does offer you health care, then we’re gonna work with your employer to lower premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

March 13, 2008

OBAMA: And cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Post 2010 | 1 Comment »

Eleven Minority GOP Candidates Make History

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

And here are two of them

Others include Governor Elect Nikki Haley (from India), Senator Elect Marco Rubio (Cuban) etc etc.. All Tea Party approved.

The man in the center is Lt. Col. Allen West who in Iraq was put in a “Jack Bauer moment” made his prisoner talk and stopped an ambush that would have killed the men under his command. West has a powerful rhetorical and intellectual ability that I can best describe as a cross between Sam Adams and Frederick Douglass. His speeches are amazing.

Steve Malzberg interviews Allen West [West talks about how Democrats smeared his family, mailed out copies of private documents etc]

Michael Savage interviews Allen West [awesome interview you don’t want to miss]

Posted in Chuck Norton, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Unhinghed School Employee Sends Out Anti-Tea Party E-Mail – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

What is it with public schools, universities and news rooms that attracts these radicalized, unhinged, uninformed loons?   [… OK the answer to that is obvious but it is fun to pose the question – Editor]

Fox News:

A Florida school official is taking heat for sending an e-mail calling Tea Partiers “dangerous, radical hate mongers” who want to take the nation back to the days of the Ku Klux Klan.

“These people hate Blacks,” the e-mail says. “They hate Latinos. They hate Gays. They hate Muslims and have made many anti-Semitic statements.”

The writer also urged people to vote Democratic, stating, “The Republican Party has been hijacked by dangerous, radical hate mongers called the ‘Tea Party.’”

Click here to read the entire email.

A spokeswoman for the Duval County School District in Jacksonville, Fla., confirmed to Fox News Radio that the e-mail was sent by Cynthia Jones-Humphrey, a school employee. She is listed on a district directory as a technical manager in the community and family engagement department.

The spokeswoman said Jones-Humphrey was not the author of the e-mail but forwarded it to individuals on her distribution list from a school computer.


UPDATE – Megyn Kelly –

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Post 2010 | 2 Comments »

Republican election surge hits U.S. state houses.

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

That is 18 state legislative chambers so far.

Now keep in mind that many of these new candidates won in gerrymandered districts that were designed so that a Republican could never win, just like Indiana 2 as half of Elkhart and other parts of our community were gerrymandered out by Democrats. Many other new Tea Party candidates barely lost by 1-2%.

Come February that little problem will be fixed by new GOP legislators.

In 2012 the Tea Party/Republicans may very well enjoy overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate in Washington D.C..

Bottom line, even a mediocre candidate will beat Joe Donnelly in 2012 and he knows it.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Oklahoma Voters Forbid Judges from Using Sharia Law for Rulings – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.

I am all for it. I say we start making amendments that forbid using foreign law as well.

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has been accused of being a happy faced front for violent Islamic extremism, is suiug claiming discrimination.

My first thought was:

And banning communism is discrimination against people of Russian dissent, so under nondiscrimination will will use the 14th Amendment to make the Constitution unconstitutional!!

Sharia is a system of law affiliated with a religion, Islam, just as western law is based on Christian Scholasticism. No one has a right to impose a system of law on you. If a judge is stupid enough to buy the bogus 1st/14th Amendment argument CAIR is certain to use  then Jews will sue saying that we have to enforce Levitical Law or we are antisemitic. Of course under both kinds of law gays could be in serious trouble….

Any judge who tries to turn the Constitution into a pretzel by buying such a preposterous argument is going to get the wrath of the American people and Congress that they so richly deserve. The only place where this ruling would have a chance at the appeals level is the 9th Circus. This will just give the GOP more ammunition to eliminate the 9th with a new Judicial Act in 2013. I hate to say it, but if a lower court activist abandons all law and common sense and upholds CAIR’s argument politically it will do wonders for Republicans and Tea Party candidates.

American Muslim Association praises new Amendment:

PHOENIX (November 5, 2010) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) issued the following statement regarding the passage of Oklahoma’s State Question 755.

“As Muslims dedicated to modernity, reform and our one law system in the west and in the United States, AIFD applauds the people of Oklahoma for passing State Question 755 and making “the legal precepts of other nations or cultures” off-limits to Oklahoma courts and specifically denying the use of Sharia Law.

The issue is simple. As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. SQ755 reaffirms the First amendment to the Constitution and prevents the Establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific shariah legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western shariah courts seen in places like Britain.

By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a sharia law system. They are using the American cover of religious freedom to try and knock down a simple law that prohibits the domination of one religion over others.

SQ755 is not about religious freedom or minority rights. It is about the inviolable sanctity of the U.S. constitution and our country’s foundational belief in a legal system based in one law that is based in reason and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The law has no impact on the personal practice of Islam or the personal interpretation of “shariah” (God’s law to a Muslim), but rather SQ755 focuses on shariah as a total legal system that the people of Oklahoma wanted to make clear shall not be used or respected systemically in deciding law in Oklahoma. CAIR’s assertion that it is akin to France’s ban of the hijab or personal head covering for women is absurd. There is no evidence that this law prevents any of the personal manifestation of the practice of Islam or the use of personal religious principles in arguing law based in reason in state or federal court. Shariah as a legal system can just not be used as prima facie evidence in court.

SQ755 also thus prevents the establishment of separate shariah or Islamic courts in Oklahoma. As we have seen in Britain, Islamists have transformed the British arbitration system to the point that they are operating upwards of 85 shariah courts now. These courts are mostly operated out of mosques in Britain. While they claim that the courts are voluntary, as Canadians voiced loudly in their rejection of shariah courts, these groups exploit tribal pressures and coercion within Muslim communities in order to circumvent the one law and one legal system of Britain and western nations. It is naïve and ignorant to believe that such courts are purely “voluntary”. Just ask many of the women who get pressured through them and pressured to stay “out of western un-Islamic courts.”

CAIR’s lawsuit proves that they are part of an Islamist establishment in America that do not and will not believe in the separation of mosque and state and that they promote the ideology of political Islam. This ideology is based in a belief in the supremacy of Islamic legal systems and is often a conveyer belt toward radicalization. CAIR shows once again that they are part of the problem not the solution.

UPDATE II – It didn’t take long for a federal Clinton appointee to put the Oklahoma Constitution on hold:

Via our friends at The Daily Caller:

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down the order after an Oklahoma man filed a lawsuit claiming the amendment stigmatized his religion and would invalidate his will, which he said is partially based on Islamic Law, also known as Sharia Law.

“My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.”

The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in the Nov. 2 general election. The judge’s order prevents the state Election Board from certifying the results of that vote, which it had planned to do Tuesday afternoon.

Our take:

Clinton appointee – shocker. It violates his rights because it makes him feel bad. The point here is not discrimination it is Popular Sovereignty. The American people have a right to chose the system of law they live under. We could pass an Amendment preventing judges from using the Russian Constitution as a basis for rulings, does that mean we have to use the Russian Constitution and graft it into our Constitution just so Russians wont feel bad or feel discriminated against?

The problem with too many of these judges is simple, they are not legal minds, they are hacks who make rulings based on politics and personal whims. They do not respect popular sovereignty or the limits of their office.

I am sure there are several leftist judges who would be willing to rule that it is the intent of the Founders and the Constitution for our judges to make case law based on Sharia. Of course this undermines legitimacy. Our system of law should be reasonably predictable, if courts can rule not on the Constitution but rather anything goes, people will have no faith in the law or reason to believe justice can be had in the courts (do women get justice under Sharia?). Those of us political science scholars know where that leads us.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild, Israel, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Democrat Leader Harry Reid Determined to Continue Regulatory Uncertainty at Any Cost: Willing to Listen on Tax Cuts – But Making Them Permanent “Won’t Happen”

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

Next to the phrase “tone deaf” in the dictionary is a picture of Harry Reid.

Harry Reid

Is it any wonder why this guy has an 11% approval rating (and the unions still re-elected him – speaks volumes).

Fox News:

After a noon conference call with his caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fresh off his own hard-fought re-election, told reporters, “The one thing that we are focused on like a laser is that we are going to cut taxes for the middle class. Now, I would hope that the Republicans will not block that.”

But Republicans have repeatedly said that is not good enough and have introduced legislation to make all of the tax cuts permanent, saying a recession is no time in which to raise taxes.

It seems everything old is new again. This is the exact same rhetoric and fight we heard before the election.

This is the  exact same rhetoric that the Democrats just got shellacked on, even in liberal Washington State.  If you don’t know what your taxes will be down the road how does that encourage you to hire again? Politically this is a gift for Republicans and Tea Party activists as they have a poster child to pin this rejected thinking on who has an 11% approval rating AND looks bad on TV..

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Post 2010, Stuck on Stupid | 1 Comment »

Washington State overwhelmingly votes down new tax on wealthy

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

Even Microsoft opposed it. Gotta love the irony.

The mega rich guys who supported this are big time hypocrite. As 5% means nothing to them and since much of their income is not in the form of taxable wages they would have been exempted from most of it anyways. The producer class though would have gotten soaked.

The truth is we need wealth. Wealth goes where it is treated well and in case you haven’t noticed it is being treated well in China. We have lost 14,000 factories in the last 10 years. We want wealth to come to our communities, not drive them away.

Al Reuters:

The plan devised by the father of the Microsoft Corp co-founder to slap a 5 percent tax on earnings over $200,000 — Initiative Measure 1098 — was rejected by 65 percent of voters, with almost two-thirds of precincts reported.

The result is a boon for the anti-tax Tea Party movement and suggests Americans may be in the mood to extend tax cuts introduced by former President George W. Bush even for the wealthiest citizens. It also signals that Americans are unwilling to accept higher taxes as a way of balancing state budgets ravaged by the recession.

It is a stinging defeat for Bill Gates senior, who put $600,000 of his own money behind the campaign and also for his son, the world’s second richest person, who let it be known he would vote for the measure.

The vote is the fourth failure to introduce a state tax in Washington in the last 70 years and leaves the state as one of only seven without one.

Although the new tax would have affected fewer than 70,000 people out of the state’s 6.7 million residents, an opposition campaign run by an organization called Defeat 1098 persuaded voters that the tax on the wealthy would be extended to lower earners.

Major backers of Defeat 1098 include Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, who contributed $425,000 to the campaign, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

Microsoft, Boeing and Alaska Airlines, all major employers in the state, also contributed to the opposition campaign, fearing that a tax on high-earners would hurt their ability to lure talented workers to the state.

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently seized on the issue to invite top businesses in Washington state to relocate to Texas, which does not have an income tax.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Post 2010 | 1 Comment »

Hate Mail of the Day

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

Anyone who is in the public eye, even your humble blogger gets hate mail, threats and all that jazz. Most of the time I blow it off but for fun I post one from time to time.

The following is from Dana Kincaid of Indianapolis, Indiana… and yes she sent her his? picture along with the comment… but upon further examination and a little investigating … the real Dana is the picture below… :

Not Dana Kincaid

“I get a thrill when I think of peeing on your head. LOL LOL LOL”

At first I wasn’t sure if this was some kind of fetish sexual come on or what (sorry Dana I am just not into that), then I saw that she he? is a fan of Rachel Maddow and and I concluded that it may be hate mail. I am glad that she could amuse herself with her brilliant comment.

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

Voters Toss Iowa Justices For Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

This is what happens when judges and others refuse to accept the limits of their office and/or the Constitution. There is simply no way that the Founders intended to create a right to gay marriage with the 14th Amendment or any other. There is no right to heterosexual marraige so how can there be a right to homosexual marraige? To put it simply, if I have a right to get married and no one will marry me my rights are violated under this thinking. This is why rights apply to individuals not groups.

If you support gay marraige or not is not the issue, this is a matter of law and popular sovereignty. If  the states wish to have gay marraige people are just going to have to vote on it.

Notice the absolutely pinheaded comment Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal. I hate to put it this way, but some academics are so painfully dumb it makes me cringe at the thought that such a person has access to our kids.

Via Volokh:

Three Iowa Supreme Court Justices were tossed as a result of their votes mandating that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.  They are the first Justices who failed to be retained since 1962, when the current system was implemented.

Although I don’t understand the complaint of Drake University Law School Dean Allan Vestal that this was a “misuse” of the right of voters to vote on judicial retention.  Isn’t this exactly what the retention power is intended to do?

In Federalist 51 Madison defined the fundamental challenge of constitutional government: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  There is no solution to this, just a tradeoff.  You can increase the independence of elected officials, which makes it easier for the government to control the governed by insulating them from majoritarian and interest-group pressures.  But if you increase independence you run the risk of increased agency costs when the government is unable to control itself–when politicians (including judges) pursue their own self or ideological interest instead of the purposes for which they are given independence in the first place.  And vice-versa: more democratic control will make politicians more responsive to the governed but also reduce the risk of agency costs.

Iowa has set up one system that tries to balance this.  If the voters of Iowa concluded that the Justices of the state Supreme Court abused their power in creating a right to same-sex marriage, and that this represents the Justices reading their own ideological views into the law, then it is entirely appropriate for them to toss some or all of the offending Justices.  That’s not a “misuse” of the retention power; that’s what it is there for.

Whether Iowa has struck a proper balance between independence and accountability, or should balance it in some other way  is a different question.  And whether any other system has struck the balance correctly (whether more or less democratic) is also a separate question.  But having struck the balance in this manner it seems to me that this was an entirely appropriate use of the voters’ recall power–to get rid of judges who the voters believe are misusing their authority to impose their personal views on the law.


And before some pinhead says it in comments, I have gay friends. I absolutely oppose those who wish violence towards gays or anyone else for that matter. The Golden Rule applies people.This is not a hate issue, this is a popular sovereignty issue.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

PBS’ Bill Press: Americans Are Stupid

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

So typical of the attitude at PBS and NPR and yet another reason why my tax dollars should not be paying for this nonsense.

It also demonstrated that leftist elites have no sense of introspective and cannot see passed the end of their own myopic world view.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Post 2010 | 1 Comment »

John Boehner – The First Things He Will Do

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

Wall Street Journal:

Secrecy, arrogance, and the abuse of power have shattered the bonds of trust between the people and their elected leaders. Repairing that trust requires sweeping change, beginning with an end to earmarks.

The political landscape has been permanently reshaped over the past two years. Overreaching by elected officials—in the form of pork-laden “stimulus” spending, permanent bailouts, and policies that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior—has awakened something deep in our national character. This has led to a surge of activism by citizens demanding smaller, more accountable government and a repudiation of Washington in Tuesday’s elections.

Tired of politicians who refuse to listen, Americans who previously were not involved or minimally involved in the political process are now helping to drive it. While their backgrounds are as diverse as the country itself, their message to Washington is the same: Government leaders are servants of the people; the people are not servants of their government.

The members of the 112th Congress must heed this message if there is to be any hope of repairing the shattered bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders. And that begins with the speaker of the House, who as leader of the institution must lead by example.

Accordingly, there are several steps I believe the next speaker should be prepared to take immediately. Among them:

No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them. The speaker of the House shouldn’t use the power of the office to raid the federal Treasury for pork-barrel projects. To the contrary, the speaker should be an advocate for ending the current earmark process, and should adhere to a personal no-earmarks policy that stands as an example for all members of Congress to follow.

I have maintained a no-earmarks policy throughout my time of service in Congress. I believe the House must adopt a moratorium on all earmarks as a signal of our commitment to ending business as usual in the spending process.

Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote. The speaker of the House should not allow any bill to come to a vote that has not been posted publicly online for at least three days. Members of Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to read it.

Similarly, the speaker should insist that every bill include a clause citing where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to pass it. Bills that can’t pass this test shouldn’t get a vote. House Republicans’ new governing agenda, “A Pledge to America,” calls for the speaker to implement such reforms immediately.

No more “comprehensive” bills. The next speaker should put an end to so-called comprehensive bills with thousands of pages of legislative text that make it easy to hide spending projects and job-killing policies. President Obama’s massive “stimulus” and health-care bills, written behind closed doors with minimal public scrutiny, were the last straw for many Americans. The American people are not well-served by “comprehensive,” and they are rightly suspicious of the adjective.

No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker’s office. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view. Issues should be advanced one at a time, and the speaker should place an emphasis on smaller, more focused legislation that is properly scrutinized, constitutionally sound, and consistent with Americans’ demand for a less-costly, less-intrusive government.

The speaker of the House, like all members of Congress, is a servant of the American people. The individual entrusted with that high honor and responsibility should act accordingly. A speaker’s mission should not be to consolidate power in the speaker’s office, but rather to ensure that elected officials uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and the American people we serve. If a speaker carries out that mission successfully, the result should be legislation that better reflects the considerable challenges we face as a nation.

The American people deserve a majority in Congress that listens to the people, focuses on their priorities and honors their demands for smaller, more accountable government. Accountability starts at the top, in the office of the speaker.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Post 2010 | 2 Comments »

Democrats Trying to Steal Renee Ellmers Congressional Win with the Old “Ballots found in a box” Trick – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010


Democrats “found” votes after the election was over. This is the same kind of fraud that Al Franken used to steal the election. Renee Ellmers is a Tea Party candidate who won fair & square while the NRCC told her that they would not help her in her campaign and now wont support her in the recount. I am beseeching all of my political friends to open your wallets and help her now as this is her most desperate hour! Ellmers needs money for lawyers to monitor the recount and stop this fraud.

Her opponent is Bob Etheridge, who became infamous when he assaulted a student who asked him an inconvenient question.

UPDATE – GOP Chairman Michael Steele is stepping up to help. This web site has always supported Chairman Steele through all of the unfair attacks from the GOP establishment and the elite media, we are gratified that our support was not misplaced.

UPDATE II – Renee needs $230,000 to monitor the recount to help insure that she isn’t ripped off. The NRCC sent $5,000 after Rush Limbaugh went off on them today.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Vote Fraud | 1 Comment »

Boehner: “Trust me. I’m Going To Make Sure This H’care Bill Is Never, Ever, Ever Implemented”

Posted by iusbvision on November 5, 2010

Awesome. Folks we have gone through this bill backwards and forwards. This writer tends to stay away from superlatives but it is just this simple; this healthcare bill is so bad, so expensive and so destructive to healthcare, seniors, jobs etc that if you support it you are either a fool, evil, or are in denial about what is in it.

I realize this statement may offend some of my professor friends at IUSB, but I care about you and people enough to give you the splash of cold water that you desperately need. I challenge anyone to debate me publicly on the merits of this bill in front of an audience and when the debate is over perhaps you will realize what the American people made crystal clear on election day.

This is also about “process”. You do not do a power grab on 1/7th of the economy on a party line vote, using secret negotiating and bribes to cram it through.

Rudy Giuliani used to run the second largest health care company in the country. He tells how the bill is and scolds the pinheads on The View that they are stuck in their New York bubble which is not the real world.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law | 1 Comment »