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 January, 2011

“Loose Change” 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Heroin Charges

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

Oh why is this no surprise…


ONEONTA, N.Y. — A producer of a documentary alleging conspiracy theories behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been arrested on drug charges in upstate New York.
Oneonta police tell the Daily Star of Oneonta that 27-year-old Korey Rowe and a 19-year-old Bronx man were arrested after selling packets of heroin to an undercover officer.
Rowe was arraigned last Friday on a felony count of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

Authorities say the Oneonta resident was released from Otsego County Jail after posting $10,000 cash bail.
It couldn’t be determined if he had a lawyer. Rowe’s phone number was unlisted.

An Army veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, Rowe was a producer of “Loose Change,” a 2006 film that challenged the official explanation of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Nikki Goeser: Gun Free Zone Laws Helped Kill My Husband!

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

Even the most sensible “sounding” gun laws often result in the deaths of innocents.

Nikki Goeser appears with famed economist and scholar Dr. John Lott.

Dr. John Lott: I don’t think that the government should fund research. They cannot separate politics with who gets the money and what they know certain academics are going to say. Democrats will appoint academics who agree with them, who will produce garbage studies to promote their views.

Our take, we pretty much agree, although if a method to make the grant process blind some exceptions may be OK.

Posted in Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Firearms | Leave a Comment »

Gallup: 70% of Americans say Republicans should consider tea party ideas

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

Can you say “main stream’? I knew ya could.

PRINCETON, NJ — About 7 in 10 national adults, including 88% of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress take the Tea Party movement’s positions and objectives into account as they address the nation’s problems. Among Republicans, 53% rate this “very important.”


These results are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Jan. 14-16, prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad, Post 2010 | 1 Comment »

Reagan vs. Obama

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

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

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

American Thinker gets the story correct:

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he did more, much more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan had Teflon coating; Obama has thin skin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allen West to Congress: Go Bold or Go Home!

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2011

West also gives the elite media a needed tongue lashing.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck Destroys Chris “Balloon Head” Matthews

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2011

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

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

Islamic rape gangs targeting schools in UK

Posted by iusbvision on January 27, 2011

Related – Islamic rape gangs a serious problem in the UK.

Via The Other McCain:

VIDEO: British Girl, 13, Says Rape Threats Are ‘Happening to Lots of Girls’ at School

In November, we reported on the shocking story of Muslim rape gangs terrorizing girls in Great Britain Now, Eric Dondero at Libertarian Republican has this video interview with a 13-year-old girl — whose accent indicates she’s from northern England — talking about the intimidation she faces at school:

When she reports threats from fellw students to school officials, she says, the boys get no worse punishment than 15 days’ suspension. And, she says, young men are hanging around outside school “every day” trying to pick up girls. Recent headlines in England have been full of similarly lurid tales:

As you can see — and I’ve only sampled a few headlines from the past three weeks — the situation seems to be quite alarming. It’s hard to tell how much of this is media sensationalism, but it certainly doesn’t portend a hopeful prospect for multiculturalism in the U.K.

They use the word “Asian”  instead of Islamic because of the rampant political correctness and fear of physical retaliation.

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

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Posted by iusbvision on January 27, 2011


Obama arbitrarily revoking coal mining permits, putting people out of work, raising energy costs.

Gas prices up 55% under Obama

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

CPI: Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus (government picking winners and losers)

Little Truth in President’s Oil Spill Comments

SCANDAL – Administration lies about conclusion by expert panel to ban off shore drilling. “We never said that” expert panelists say. Obama still refusing skimmer ships from foreign countries….

Another Lie: Obama now fully reversed on offshore drilling.




Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue that could help close the federal deficit is being lost as a result of President Obama’s anti-drilling agenda.

Production in the Gulf of Mexico — which normally accounts for about 30 percent of all U.S. production — is expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

With oil currently at $90 a barrel and the royalty rate at 18.75 percent, that equals $3.7 million in lost revenue each day.

If the agency projections hold over the course of the year, the federal government would lose more than $1.35 billion from Gulf royalty payments this year.

The number grows even larger when coupled with a lack of Gulf lease sales and fewer rental payments. Those three components — royalties, leases and rent — make up a sizeable amount of government revenue.

The looming shortfall is raising red flags on Capitol Hill. Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s drilling moratorium and the subsequent slowdown in permitting, first called attention to it in September.

“It’s not only about job loss along the Gulf Coast — the federal government is losing revenue as a result of the administration’s misguided moratorium,” Vitter explained.
“I’ve been attacking the moratorium from multiple angles and will continue to do so until drilling can fully resume.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled a Gulf lease sale last October. He postponed another in the central Gulf of Mexico, originally scheduled for March, until 2012. One planned for October 2011 in the western Gulf also could be delayed until 2012. That would make 2011 the first year since 1965 that the federal government has failed to hold a lease sale in the Gulf.

Bonus bids from lease sales averaged about $1 billion in 2009 and 2010, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE).

The lack of lease sales ultimately means the government will collect less in rent payments by lease holders. Offshore rents currently generate more than $200 million per year.

The Gulf revenue decline comes as Obama’s oil spill commission is recommending new fees for oil companies – a scenario that could be avoided if the government removed barriers to exploration and production.

“Over the years, offshore production royalties have provided billions of dollars to the U.S. government,” saidNational Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi, former director of the Minerals Management Service, which predated BOEMRE. “Now, at a time when Congress is looking to maximize efficiency without raising taxes, there sits millions of dollars per day uncollected,” he said.

The Obama administration has dismissed the financial impact. The revenue loss would be “negligible,” Rebecca Blank, under secretary for economic affairs at the Department of Commerce, told a Senate committee in the fall.

“It is difficult to speculate now on the specific impact the moratorium would have over the five- or 10-year budget window, but one would expect the impact on the deficit to be negligible,” Blank wrote to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in September.

“Revenues may be higher or they may be lower depending on future years’ oil prices and the time profile of production,” Blank said.

Energy experts said the administration’s policies are certain to have long-term consequences for the industry.

“You continually need new discoveries and new production coming online to replace what’s being depleted,” said Andy Radford, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. “These wells taper off over time — the ones that are producing now — so without a continual flow of new discoveries and new production, the number will continue to decrease.”

A report from the economic forecasting firm IHS Global Insight estimated that federal, state and local taxes related to the Gulf, combined with royalty payments, totaled $19 billion in 2009.

Royalties, bonus and rent payments made up more than $6 billion of that number. That pot of money could go a long way toward deficit reduction. And that’s from the Gulf alone.

Significant additional revenues would be generated if the federal government opened access to exploration and production in areas currently closed to development such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico, portions of the Rocky Mountains, ANWR, and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

recent study conducted by Wood Mackenzie for the American Petroleum Institute estimated that increased access to those areas would bring $150 billion into federal coffers by 2025.

Why leave so much money uncollected, especially in a time of rising deficits?

Originally published by the Washington Examiner.


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

January unemployment still on the rise

Posted by iusbvision on January 27, 2011

Normally unemployment rises a bit for the first two weeks of January. This is because those who lose their jobs in the last two weeks of December tend not to look for work during that time and do not add to the official unemployment number. At the end of December many seasonal hires are let go. This effect causes a mild January bump most years. While uncertainly and fear of what regulatory burden/scheme the government will come up with next continues to damage the economy, part of this bump is what happens almost every January during the first two weeks. What is a bit disturbing is the third weeks increase.


In the week ending Jan. 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 454,000, an increase of 51,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 403,000. The 4-week moving average was 428,750, an increase of 15,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 413,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.2 percent for the week ending Jan. 15, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week’s unrevised rate of 3.1 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Jan. 15 was 3,991,000, an increase of 94,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 3,897,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,975,500, a decrease of 39,750 from the preceding week’s revised average of 4,015,250.




Posted in Other Links | 1 Comment »

Mark Levin Reaction to Obama SOTU

Posted by iusbvision on January 27, 2011


Mark Levin:

President Obama’s foot remains where it has been since the day he entered the Oval Office, on the gas pedal.  He’s not braking for anyone or anything.  All this pre-SOTU spin from Obama’s whisperers, gobbled up by the Obama-hungry media, was always nonsense.  Obama has no intention of touching entitlements in any significant way, period.  Why would he tamper with the New Deal and Great Society when he considers them a good start but insufficiently bold to advance his statist beliefs?  Obama has no intention of honestly working with Republicans on health care, cap-and-trade, etc.  These are hallmarks of his transformative agenda.  They define him and his presidency.  His bureaucracy is working overtime to institute them.


It amazes me that some usually thoughtful people seize on anything they can find to argue, or hope, that Obama has been chastened by the last election.  For weeks they’ve pointed to the tax deal as evidence of his “pivoting.”  Actually, what Obama did is tee-up the tax fight for a time when he believes his class warfare demagoguery can be best employed — during the final weeks of his re-election bid.  He already started it last night.  And, of course, the Republicans fell for it, hailing the tax deal as momentous.  Obama is ready to deal some more, they reckoned — a sad delusion.


As a matter of basic logic, how could the biggest deficit-spender in American history reverse course and become a responsible fiscal hawk?  It was never going to happen.  How could a man who believes his lot in life is a matter of destiny, his and the nation’s, allow his legacy to be tainted by a Tea Party-driven election?  In his mind, he won’t.  “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” as he famously said about himself and his supporters.  He’s not going to allow a single mid-term election, driven by what he perceives to be yahoos and miscreants, change the course of history — his history or the nation’s.  Too many commentators just don’t comprehend this man.


The contradictions and ironies in his speech are too numerous to catalogue.  Suffice it to point out a few of the most glaring examples.  This is our Sputnik moment, he says, at the same time he is cutting NASA’s budget (one of the few programs he wants to cut), directed its top administrator to focus on Muslim outreach, and entered into a treaty with the Russians that weakens our strategic defense efforts.  Obama says he is willing to work with Republicans on reforming Obamacare, yet the GOP has offered several reforms that Obama has completely ignored for they focus on private alternatives and competition — neither of which are compatible with Obama’s top-down, government-driven ideology.  He says Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable, yet he not only offers no suggestions on how to reform them, he rejects his own Deficit Commission’s recommendations, uses Obamacare to expand Medicaid, and drains resources from Medicare.  Obama’s idea of unleashing research, development, and science to create the new technologies and jobs of the future is centered on targeted federal grants and initiatives — bigger government, more spending, and more regulating.  It is, of course, the American private sector that is the engine of spectacular economic progress.   And a Democrat SOTU speech would not be complete without an attack on the oil industry.  But for the Obama administration’s anti-energy production policies, the oil industry would, in fact, be exploring and drilling more within and around our shores, thereby increasing supply and driving down price.  Still, Obama says the government shouldn’t be subsidizing these companies with tax breaks.  No, direct taxpayer subsidies are to be reserved for GE, GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other favored businesses or quasi-businesses.


Obama said that it is time to put party labels aside and work for the nation.  Within 12 hours of that statement, he hit the road to begin his re-election and raise an astounding $1 billion in campaign cash.  I guess he meant for everyone else to put partisan politics aside.  After all, history calls him.


We conservatives must stay focused.  We must defeat Obama in 2012 by nominating an intelligent, articulate, confident conservative for president.  We must keep a close eye on the Republican leadership in Congress to make sure it does not return to its loser ways.  Keep in mind; they are not of the Tea Party movement, although they’ve benefited politically from it.  We must continue to take on the Left (including the mainstream media) both intellectually and politically.  And we must send more conservatives to Congress.  Our focus must be victory and we must not be distracted by the symbolism, games, ways, and intimidation tactics of those who’ve brought this great nation to this perilous point.


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

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

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

More Regulatory Abuse: Obama uses ‘green’ emissions standards to push truckers into Teamsters union

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

The Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama’s administration is using new “environmental standards” to force independent owner-operator truckers into becoming part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a union that gave more than $2 million to Democrats in the last two election cycles.

By increasing the number of “green” requirements truckers have to comply with in order to get into some major United States ports — like Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland — the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are helping push previously independent truckers into companies, which then makes them vulnerable to unionization or, in many cases, forced to join a union. As these aren’t administrative laws from the EPA per se, trucks that don’t fit this new “green” standard, which is meeting at least 2007 EPA emissions levels, are still allowed to operate throughout the country. But each of the major port authorities won’t let them in if they don’t fit the new environmental regulations, which would force many independent truckers out of business if they resist since many truckers depend on business from the ports to survive.

Alex Cherin, an attorney who represents a trucker advocacy group opposed to these forced unionization attempts, told The Daily Caller the Teamsters have been trying to get independent truckers classified as employees of a company for years because “under federal labor law, they [the Teamsters] cannot unionize independent contractors.”

“They [the Teamsters] see this as their window of opportunity,” Cherin said in a phone interview. “They know that most drivers want to stay independent contractors to keep their freedom, but that many can’t afford these new ‘green trucks.’ They want to piggyback their agenda onto an environmental initiative.”

Cherin said the Teamsters has been pushing unionization more and more lately, and it has “really heated up with the ‘green trucks’ program.” He said that the air in Southern California is cleaner as a result of the program, but that this is really a unionizing effort disguised in a “green” initiative.

Americans for Limited Government spokesman Rick Manning said this effort is definitely driven by labor unions, especially since the leader of the Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., is pushing it.

Hoffa, Jr., the current president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and son of the infamously “disappeared” union boss Jimmy Hoffa, alluded to his real intent with the program while advocating on behalf of the new “green truck” rules in a Huffington Post blog.

“We want the trucking companies to buy and maintain clean new trucks,” Hoffa, Jr. wrote in March 2010. “We also want them to pay their truck drivers a fair wage and the employment taxes that go with it. The trucking companies would prefer the federal government protect them from those obligations.”

These new “green trucks” cost more than $100,000 and, to meet the “green” requirements, truckers have to join companies and, by extension, the Teamsters union.

The “green trucks” program, which critics say is all about re-classifying independent truckers as employees of a company, fits in with the Obama administration’s Department of Labor’s assault on the profession as well. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis hired more than 100 new “investigators” for the Wage and Hour division. Those investigators handle, among other things, “misclassification” cases, or seek out independent truckers and other independent contractors to investigate whether they think they should be “classified” as such.

T.J. Michels, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups in favor of these port policies, including the Teamsters, confirmed for TheDC that they have two major goals with their port policies: clean up the air around the ports and stop “misclassification” of truckers as independent contractors.

“It’s misclassification that’s going on, which allows companies to cheat on taxes and take advantage of workers,” Michels said. “The whole reason the old rigs were polluting in the first place is because the wrong people were paying for them.”

Solis has denied TheDC’s several requests for interviews, as has Labor Solicitor Patricia Smith, who is behind most of the Department of Labor’s forced unionization regulation policies.


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Regulatory Abuse | 1 Comment »

Obama’s own Medicare Actuary more confident in Paul Ryan’s ‘Road Map’ cost controls than Obama’s health law

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Daily Caller:

The government’s chief actuary for Medicare spending on Wednesday said he had more confidence that Republican Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements would drive down health-care costs than President Obama’s recently passed overhaul.

Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, made the comment in response to questions from lawmakers during House Budget Committee hearing.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat from Maryland, went on the attack against committee chairman Paul Ryan’s “Road Map” plan, which is a long-term proposal to make entitlement spending solvent.

Van Hollen pressed Foster on whether Ryan’s plan would work, prompting Foster to point out that one of the biggest problems in health care now is that most new technology that is developed increases costs rather than decreasing it.

“If there’s a way to turn around the mindset for the people who do the research and development … to get them to focus more on cost-reducing tech and less on cost increasing technology, if you can do that then one of biggest components of [increasing costs] turns to your side,” Foster said. “If you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower cost levels possible.”

Foster said: “The Road Map has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, though I’m a little less confident about that.”

The thinking behind Foster’s comment is that a voucher system would reduce the amount of government money available for health care over time, causing consumers to shop around and creating an incentive in the health-care sector to compete for those dollars.

In a brief interview outside the House chamber later in the day, Ryan explained it this way: “There’s only going to be so much money for health care because the economy can only support so much … So is it better spent through the person in a competitive marketplace or through the government under increasing price controls and pressure?”

“If you go through the century, these entitlements consume all money. The GAO calculation assumes Congress is going to wise up and cut back on these programs because people will decide they don’t want 100 percent of their discretionary income going to health care. They want some for food and some for shelter and some for other things. So there will be a curtailment of health care spending in the future,” Ryan said. “The question is which curtailment gets you the better results at going after the cause of health inflation: consumer pressure or government price controls.”

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

Malkin Blasts Corrupt Global Warming Czar

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Michele Malkin:

The Obama Culture of Corruption won’t be the same without her. But the question is: While lying, eco-radical czar Carol Browner may be stepping down (Politico has the scoop), does it really mean she’s stepping out of the inner circle?

Word has it she may have lost out to health care czar Nancy DeParle for the coveted deputy chief of staff position (As I’ve previously reported, DeParle’s got her own set of baggage).

In any case, it’s a Pyrrhic victory unless the Republicans are able to hold her accountable for all her dirty green deeds.

My archives are stuffed with Browner’s power-grabbing, transparency-undermining, science-distorting antics that stretch across two Democratic administrations. She and her energy lobbyist husband Thomas Downey are immovable Beltway fixtures — and it looks like she has no plans to leave D.C.

More via NYT:

Carol Browner, who has served as President Obama’s top environmental adviser in the White House, will leave the administration soon, a senior White House official said Monday night. Carol Browner, White House director of energy and climate change policy, in December.Alex Wong/Getty Images Carol Browner, White House director of energy and climate change policy, in December.

Ms. Browner had been viewed as a close adviser to Mr. Obama in the White House. A veteran who was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton, her name was floated as a possible candidate for a deputy chief of staff when Rahm Emanuel departed to run for mayor of Chicago.

But that talk faded after Mr. Emanuel’s job went to William Daley, another cabinet secretary under Mr. Clinton. And Ms. Browner’s chief portfolio — climate change — appears headed toward the back burner in the wake of the Republican gains last fall.

In a news conference just days after the November elections, Mr. Obama all but conceded defeat on his efforts — led by Ms. Browner — to get a comprehensive energy bill through the Congress.


Proving they live in Bizarro World, the Times performs this nifty bit of P.R. work on Browner’s behalf:

Ms. Browner was praised for her work during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer, a performance that was said to have increased her stature in Mr. Obama’s White House.


WHO praised her — other than the NYTimes, I mean?

An increasing number of Democrats have raised their voices against Browner’s War on Carbon.

She infamously bullied auto execs to never put down anything in writing ever.

Obama’s own oil spill commission singled out Browner for misleading the public and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.”

And her BP data doctoring was under fire by both Senate and House Republicans.

The GOP must not let her slip out the door quietly without answering for her abuse of power under oath and in the full light of public hearings.

I’ll withhold my usual “DLTDHYOTWO” until such time.

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

Translation of Obama’s SOTU ‘Five’ Pillars

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

As a follow up to our live blogging to President Obama’s State of the Union address a translation of the five pillars seems in order.

“Making sure we are competitive and creating jobs” sounds great, but we have heard that before. We have also heard it after every bill that turns out to be a power grab that fails the economy he says “OK now we will focus on jobs.” So far he is doing a great job of shutting down energy production and sending “green jobs” funds to China.


Forbid drilling, closing more coal mines, forbid nuclear plant licencing, no new natural gas, more solar panel factories chased out of the country,  more low cost loans to foreign countries so THEY can drill more, more Mexican, Cuban and Chinese oil wells just off our shores, more EPA caps on our refineries.  More expensive energy.

The solution? The joke that is now called the Chevy Volt.  Poisonous and expensive twisty light bulbs, expensive solar and wind power that can’t do the industrial heavy lifting we need.


More government programs and bureaucrats, more tax dollars thrown at teachers unions. More sabotaging of voucher programs. More outrageous reporting requirements. More failed schools. More students left behind.


More online databases of your information such as medical records. Privacy (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)?


Make work programs for unions in cities, like the high speed raid Obama mentioned.  Corruption: Stimulus Funds Spent in Democrat Districts…

Deficit Reduction:

Keep repeating the lie that ObamaCare lowers the deficit.  Raise taxes.

Government Reform:

Rule by executive order. Bypass Congress and put the czar’s to work. Abuse the regulatory and permit process for social engineering.

UPDATE – someone finally noticed, the speech seemed to have six pillars, as opposed to the five that was told to the press in the White House previews of the speech. Of course a commenter below didn’t catch on to this and blamed us for the mistake.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 2 Comments »

Mike Pence response to SOTU

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Notice he says the same thing we did in our live blog about the spending freeze.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Palin’s response to the State of the Union

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

It was quite similar to our comments when we live blogged it.

Gov. Palin:

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

– Sarah Palin

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

Rep. Michelle Bachmann Delivers Tea Party Response to State of the Union

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Nicely done.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to State of the Union Address

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

Conversation with an aspiring elite media journalist

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Sen. Rand Paul: State of the Union Response

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Definitely the best response yet.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Jackie Walorski response to State of the Union.

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Chuck Norton’s Live Blog on the State of the Union

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

Chuck Norton live blogged the SOTU on Facebook. It was information that you will not want to miss.

1 – I am listening to the SOTU, Race to the Top is a disaster. It’s reporting requirements are massive and complex thus keeping many of our administrators and resources working for the federal government.

This is what we had to say before about Race to the Top:

Governor Christie shows us just what a mess the federal education bureaucracy has become

2 – Wow, listen to him describe “We eliminated tax subsidies to banks” in regards to student loans – No he nationalized the student loan industry….

3 – Obama is not being straight about pat downs at train stations as TSA has said is coming. Also high speed rail has proven to be a money sink boondoggle in most places it has been tried in the United States.

4 – More green energy boondoggles sure to make china wealthier just like it has so far. In the mean time we have trillions in energy wealth that the government keeps off limits.


Obama arbitrarily revoking coal mining permits, putting people out of work, raising energy costs.

Gas prices up 55% under Obama

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

CPI: Big Polluters Freed from Environmental Oversight by Stimulus (government picking winners and losers)

Little Truth in President’s Oil Spill Comments

SCANDAL – Administration lies about conclusion by expert panel to ban off shore drilling. “We never said that” expert panelists say. Obama still refusing skimmer ships from foreign countries….

Another Lie: Obama now fully reversed on offshore drilling.

5- Wow, listen to him describe “We eliminated tax subsidies to banks” in regards to student loans – No he nationalized the student loan industry….

6 – Oh the rail will have the pat down as TSA has said is coming. Also high speed rail has proven to be a money sink boondoggle in most places it has been tried in the United States. High speed rail is the answer to a question the American people are not asking.

7 – Obama is talking about lobbyists and unfair gaming of the system by well connected businesses, the problem is that his administration has been the most guilty of this as any in modern history. Just go to my blog site and in the search pane type in “lobbyist” to get about two dozen articles showing you just that. THIS is a good post to start with that has many links. I have two categories covering this issue. Corporatism and Big Bizz Loves Big Govt.


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


8 – A review of government regulations that get in the way. Sounds great, but he is the one who has abused this problem more than anyone in recent history. Ahem…… ObamaCare, creating a niche market for AARP in the Medicare Advantage industry while other competitors got screwed. The Food Regulation Bill that sticks it to smaller farms and food producers, the Financial Reform bill which was a huge power grab. Using the EPA to force cap & trade.

Sarbanes Oxley which has proved to be terribly expensive and ineffective etc etc etc…


Corrupt AARP Health Care Deal Puts Seniors at Risk

CBO: Obama is wrong, cuts in Medicare will result in benefit cuts. The corrupt AARP angle. UPDATED!

9 – Unwilling to cover those with pre-existing conditions – Ahem they way ObamaCare does it creates what is called an “adverse selection spiral” that breaks the risk pools and sends insurance prices skyrocketing and drives carries out of covering certain higher risk areas. See our health care roundup posts for all of the details.  A better way to to handle pre-existing conditions is to have states and the feds create competing high risk insurance pools that are partially subsidized. This would be WAY WAY cheaper and more effective then the current obamacare solution and solve the problem.

10 – Freeze spending? Are you kidding Obama? Deficit spending is 10 times what it was in 2007 (LINK 1, 2). Democrats have increased the base line budgets of most federal agencies by up to 25%. To freeze it would lock in that higher spending in perpetuity. We cant afford that and it is a recipe for disaster. We need to cut back to 2007 or 08 levels.

11 – Oh here we go on the tax cuts – umm under those tax cuts government revenue skyrocketed. The wealthy and productive can just plop their money in a tax deferred account and not move it. Only by incentivising economic activity will the government get more tax revenue from the producer class and the wealthy class. This is why his own deficit commission recommended lowering tax rates and complexity across the board. For more on how progressives do tax cuts and how they REALLY work check out my note here as it is a first good step in understanding what happens when they get their way –

12 -Put legislation online?? We had that promise before and it was shattered regularly – just like putting health care talks on C-Span.


Obama breaks 5 days pledge to place bills online for the public to see

13 – Transparency – wow folks – Saul Alinsky lives on. If you wish to see samples of the Obama record on transparency here it is –

Obama Administration implemented policy to have political appointees review all FOIA requests….

Heritage: Obama Breaks Transparency Promise Yet Again

More on transparency: 

14 – Transition to an Afghan lead, I hope so, but that government is a mess. Is this code speak for pulling the plug and walking? We did that after we helped kicked the Soviets out. We left and let the fledgling Northern Alliance on its own only to get invaded by the Taliban which came from Pakistan in the early 1990’s….. and we all know hat that led to.

15 – START would never have been passed if it were not in a lame duck session. It was another slanted against the United States bad deal. I don’t care if you like Governor Palin or not, but she is right about the START Treaty. She correctly states that it undermines our missile defense which Reagan fought so hard for. This makes it harder for us to defend against rogue states.


Ambassador John Bolton explains why the New START Treaty with Russia is a bad deal for America

Palin to Senate: Vote NO on START

16 – So far it seems like SOTU is a repeat of many of the promises made and broken in 2008 (2).

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

New Obama Adviser Jeff Immelt’s Agenda: “Big Government and Big Business”

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

This is neo-corporatist corruption in its Chicago style glory.

GE, which owned NBC and MSNBC, benefited with its relationship with the Democratic Leadership. GE has also had other ethical problems which are pointed out in the video. Of course noth NBC and MSNBC abandoned serious news reporting long ago and chose a path of highly biased and unfair reporting on one side, to nightly lies and character assassination on the other.

This leads us to another opportunity to remind you all of Norton’s First Law:

Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium sized competition out of the competition. It also causes inflation, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Former Obama Advisor Van Jones: ‘Communism’ definition of social justice.

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

Via the Blaze:

While speaking at an event this month, Van Jones was asked to define social justice. He did that by explaining that true social justice is achieved when everyone’s lives are essentially the same. As the video’s creator pointed out, that’s communism.


Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

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

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

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

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

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


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

Republicans moving to prune ObamaCare and cut spending

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

Senator Borrassso explains several of the preposterous, and downright silly regulations in ObamaCare

Senator Rand Paul explains his plan to cut spending by an extra $500 billion. I know that some people have concerns about him, but so far it looks like he is trying to keep the promises he ran on. This bill is a good first step and Senator Paul is making that pretty clear. His plan for entitlement reform seems like a good first step as well.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

Bernard Goldberg discusses elite media corruption of MSNBC coverage

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

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

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

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

Gregory Hilton: Gov. Granholm will not be missed.

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

Gregory Hilton:

SHE WILL NOT BE MISSED: After an eight year tenure, Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) left office earlier this month. Granholm has a high negative rating and now says she is through with politics forever. She is moving to California to be a law professor at UC-Berkeley. We do not know what she will tell her students, but for eight years Michigan residents always heard nothing was her fault.

She ignored the fact that unemployment was 4.8% under her GOP predecessor, and 13.1% when she left office.

Granholm deserves a significant amount of the blame, and the only industry which grew in Michigan in her era was government. The state now has 20% more government employees than manufacturing jobs. Michigan’s economy was growing when Granholm took office but she quickly reversed that trend. The state lost almost one million jobs while she was focusing on various liberal crusades. MSNBC’s Chris Mathews called her a genius, and she was — in killing jobs. Organized labor also deserves equal blame for contributing to the state’s unemployment problem.

Granholm shut down the government to win a debate with the legislature, and the result was one of the largest income tax increases in state history. She also succeeded in passing a 22% tax increase on gross business receipts. Republicans were solidly in opposition, and now all of their predictions have come true. The tax increases didn’t come close to raising the revenue she promised. In fact, this year Michigan will have 33% less revenue.
Many Michigan businesses closed down or left the state. Among all states, Michigan now ranks last in economic growth, first in unemployment, and third for high business taxes. It ranks 49th in retaining young adults.

Granholm was always a mouthpiece for the AFL-CIO and was consistently hostile to business. After eight years Michigan ended up with less business, less revenue and less employment. Granholm is gone but the lessons from her mistakes remain. Liberal Democrats such as Granholm do not realize that jobs are created by small businesses and lowering costs to employers. The Granholm agenda was similar to what so many other liberal Democrats are promoting. She increased spending which required higher taxes, and then she asked businesses to carry out her social agenda with laws, rules and regulations. The latter hides the spending from political fall-out.

If you want less of something, all you have to do is tax it. She increased taxes and then added excessive regulatory burdens on employers. The result was that companies such as Pfizer and Comerica left Michigan, and hundreds of thousands of jobs left with them.

Posted in Other Links | 1 Comment »

Heather Wilson: Our superficial scholars

Posted by iusbvision on January 24, 2011

Heather Wilson writes her concerns about public education  in a letter to the Washington Post.

Wilson represented New Mexico in the U.S. House from 1997 to 2008. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a Rhodes scholar.

Heather Wilson

For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. In general, the experience is an annual reminder of the tremendous promise of America’s next generation. We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities for one of the most prestigious honors that can be bestowed on young scholars.

I have, however, become increasingly concerned in recent years – not about the talent of the applicants but about the education American universities are providing. Even from America’s great liberal arts colleges, transcripts reflect an undergraduate specialization that would have been unthinkably narrow just a generation ago.

As a result, high-achieving students seem less able to grapple with issues that require them to think across disciplines or reflect on difficult questions about what matters and why.

Unlike many graduate fellowships, the Rhodes seeks leaders who will “fight the world’s fight.” They must be more than mere bookworms. We are looking for students who wonder, students who are reading widely, students of passion who are driven to make a difference in the lives of those around them and in the broader world through enlightened and effective leadership. The undergraduate education they are receiving seems less and less suited to that purpose.

An outstanding biochemistry major wants to be a doctor and supports the president’s health-care bill but doesn’t really know why. A student who started a chapter of Global Zero at his university hasn’t really thought about whether a world in which great powers have divested themselves of nuclear weapons would be more stable or less so, or whether nuclear deterrence can ever be moral. A young service academy cadet who is likely to be serving in a war zone within the year believes there are things worth dying for but doesn’t seem to have thought much about what is worth killing for. A student who wants to study comparative government doesn’t seem to know much about the important features and limitations of America’s Constitution.

When asked what are the important things for a leader to be able to do, one young applicant described some techniques and personal characteristics to manage a group and get a job done. Nowhere in her answer did she give any hint of understanding that leaders decide what job should be done. Leaders set agendas.

I wish I could say that this is a single, anomalous group of students, but the trend is unmistakable. Our great universities seem to have redefined what it means to be an exceptional student. They are producing top students who have given very little thought to matters beyond their impressive grasp of an intense area of study.

This narrowing has resulted in a curiously unprepared and superficial pre-professionalism.

Perhaps our universities have yielded to the pressure of parents who pay high tuition and expect students, above all else, to be prepared for the jobs they will try to secure after graduation. As a parent of two teenagers I can understand that expectation.

Perhaps faculty members are themselves more narrowly specialized because of pressure to publish original work in ever more obscure journals.

I detect no lack of seriousness or ambition in these students. They believe they are exceptionally well-educated. They have jumped expertly through every hoop put in front of them to be the top of their classes in our country’s best universities, and they have been lavishly praised for doing so. They seem so surprised when asked simple direct questions that they have never considered.

We are blessed to live in a country that values education. Many of our young people spend four years getting very expensive college degrees. But our universities fail them and the nation if they continue to graduate students with expertise in biochemistry, mathematics or history without teaching them to think about what problems are important and why.



The Chronicle: Students are failing to learn at college

Top Colleges Rank Lowest on Civics Exams

The “DUH” Generation




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

Awesome Video: Congressman Allen West on Israel and Militant Islam

Posted by iusbvision on January 24, 2011

Allen West appearing on the Shalom Show, “We are living in a 1930’s Neville Chamberlain moment”.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Israel | Leave a Comment »

More Top Union Contributors to Obama Get ObamaCare Waivers

Posted by iusbvision on January 24, 2011

So much for equal justice unde rthe law. More picking of winners and losers. Welcome to Chicago….

Related: 222 companies and unions get ObamaCare waivers from White House


CNS News:

Three SEIU Locals–Including Chicago Chapter–Waived From Obamacare Requirement

Monday, January 24, 2011

Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)

The SEIU, with more than 2 million members nationally, includes health care workers, janitors, security guards, and state and local government workers.

The three SEIU locals, covering a total of 36,064 enrollees, are covered by the federal waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third — 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.

SEIU Local 1199’s health plan put a $50,000 cap on medical expenses for its New Jersey nursing home workers, according to 1199 SEIU spokeswoman Leah Gonzalez. That’s $700,000 under the 2011 limit stipulated by HHS regulations.

In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

Local 1199, SEIU’s Greater New York Benefit Fund, requested the waiver specifically with respect to its separate plan for New Jersey members, according to Gonzalez. This waiver primarily affects low-wage New Jersey nursing home workers whose health care plan provides medical, hospital, prescription, dental and vision benefits.

The New Jersey members now have an annual maximum health care benefit of $50,000. Gonzalez said fewer than 1 percent of members have ever reached that cap, and that those members who did received additional help.

“The members’ health benefits are paid for by the employer and are negotiated through collective bargaining,” Gonzalez said in a written statement to “Several years ago, facing limited dollars from the employers for this small group, the members themselves chose how to shape their health plan to get the most out of their coverage.”

Gonzalez added that prescriptions are excluded from the cap. “For example, if a member maxes out from a hospital stay, she/he can continue to get their life-saving medications throughout the year while accessing alternative coverage at low-cost community clinics.”

Neither SEIU Local 25 nor Local 1, nor the national organization responded to’s request for comment.

The SEIU’s Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. SEIU-affiliated groups in Illinois have long supported Obama’s campaigns and endorsed him for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004. In 2008, the national union backed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. (See earlier story.)

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

Black Heroes and Founders of the Great American Revolution.

Posted by iusbvision on January 24, 2011

By The Founders:

For many years the actions of black men, women, and children in our nation’s founding has been largely ignored. The enslavement of black Americans was prominent, not their contributions. We read about those slaves who joined the British Army to gain their freedom. But what of the thousands of blacks who served this country in her hour of need? Their deeds were no less important than those of their white neighbors. They fought and died on the battlefields. They road the countryside as couriers. They held office. The wrote in support of independence. The led their communities.



Below are some short biographies of some of these Black Founders and Patriots. This list is by no means exhaustive, and quotes and pictures are not always available. However, these people and the service they rendered this country do not deserve to be forgotten.



Continental Army

Many black men served as soldiers in the American Revolution. The number is between 12,000 and 15,000. Some were slaves fighting for the promise of freedom. Others were free blacks fighting for their country’s liberty. They served in an integrated army, the last one until the Korean War. By 1779, 15% of the Continental Army was black. These men fought in the very first Battles of Lexington and Concord all the way to the final major battle at Yorktown. They saw action in every major engagement including Ticonderoga, Monmouth, and Princeton. They suffered at Valley Forge and crossed the Delaware with Washington. Every colony except South Carolina and Georgia sent black men with the white men to fight.

In addition to the integrated units, there were also three all black units that served: the Rhode Island First regiment, who fought with distinction at Newport, Monmouth and Yorktown; the Black Bucks of America, a Massachusetts regiment whose banner is still on display at the Massachusetts Historical Society; and the Volunteer Chasseurs, a regiment from Haiti brought over by our French allies. The latter unit took the ideas of liberty back to Haiti with them. Those ideas were used to overthrow their French masters and create the second republic in the Americas.



Phillip Abbot

Abbot was a servant to the family of Nathaniel Abbot of Andover, Massachusetts. When Nathaniel Abbot’s men were called to the Battle of Bunker Hill, Phillip Abbot fought and died along side them.


Jack Arabus

Jack Arabus was a slave of a wealthy Connecticut merchant. As was common in those days, a person could pay someone to take their place in the military. Arabus’ owner offered him his freedom if he would fight in the place of the merchant’s son. Arabus accepted the offer and found in the American Revolution. Sadly, upon his return from war, his master changed his mind.

Arabus decided to take matters into his own hand and ran away. He was not free for long. He was captured the next day and put in jail in New Haven. His master sued for his return, but Arabus had a defender. The Yale educated lawyer, Chauncey Goodrich, took on his case. He won. The judge ruled that Arabus was free the moment he went to fight. The agreement did not matter. This case enabled hundred of enslaved black patriots to win their own freedom as they had won their country’s




Caesar Augustus

Augustus was the last colonist wounded in the Battle of Lexington. He was from Dorchester, Massachusetts.



Charles Bowles

Bowles was born in Boston in 1761. He was mixed race, his father was an African and his mother was the daughter of Colonel Morgan. At the age of 14, Bowles enlisted in the Continental Army. Her served during the entire length of the war. His first two years he spent in the service of an officer, but then reenlisted to fight. After the war, he moved to New Hampshire and became a farmer. There is a story that he had been a slave to a Tory family, but that would not be correct if his mother was white. He might have been a servant.



Seymour Burr

Seymour Burr, also spelled Seymore, was the slave of the brother of Colonel Aaron Burr, also named Seymour. Burr was from the colony of Connecticut. During the American Revolution, Burr ran away to join the British Army who was promising freedom to slaves who enlisted. Burr was found by his master before he could enlist. His master offered him his freedom if he would enlist in the Continental Army instead. Burr enlisted in the Massachusetts Seventh Regiment, led by Colonel John Brooks. He served at the siege of Fort Catskill, suffering cold and starvation.





Cyrus Bustill

Cyrus Bustill was born in Burlington in 1732. His father was an English lawyer and his mother a slave. Because the status of the child follows the status of the mother, this meant that Bustill was a slave. He was trained to be a baker by a Thomas Prior, who was a Quaker. At the age of 36, Bustill got his freedom. During the American Revolutiion he helped the army with something it had a great need for, bread. He was commended for this service and received a silver piece for General George Washington.

After the war, Bustill and his wife, who also mixed race – the daughter of an Englishman and a Delaware Indian, moved to Philadelphia. There they and their eight children attended Quaker meetings. Bustill was also an early member of the Free African Society which began in 1787. This is the society established by black Founders Richard Allen and Absalom Jones. When Bustill retired as a baker, he opened a school. He dies in 1806.



Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell was born in the colony of New Jersey, near Burlington. There seems to be some confusion on his birth date. One source has it as May 24, 1753, while another puts it in 1752. He was light skinned, a farmer, and was raised by the family of John Hutchin. It is possible that he was born a free black.

He served in the second New Jersey regiment under Captain Lowery and and Colonel Israel Shreve. He served in the battles of Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Monmouth, and Yorktown. He made the famous crossing of the Delaware on December 25, 1776.

George Washington personally signed Cromwell’s discharge papers at the end of the war. Washington also designed a medal which was presented to Cromwell. He later applied for a pension as a veteran. He could not read or write, but he was very well liked in the community of Burlington. Local lawyers, judges, and politicians helped him to get the pension of $96 a year. Cromwell purchased a 100 acre farm, fathered 14 children, and moved into Burlington in his later years. He outlived 8 of his children, and died when he was 100 years old. He is buried in the Methodist churchyard in Burlington, where some of his descendants still live.



Prince Easterbrooks

Prince Easterbrooks was also known as Estabrook. In the very first battle of the American Revolution, the Battle of Lexington, there were no fewer than ten black patriots. Easterbrooks was one of them. He served under Captain John Parker, the first to engage in the war. He was wounded when the British forces fired upon the citizens of the town. He was mentioned in the Salem Gazette or Newberry and Marblehead Advertiser for April 21, 1775, as a “Negro man” who was “wounded (Lexington) .”





Fraunces Tavern

Samuel and Elizabeth “Phoebe” Fraunces

Samuel Fraunces was a mulatto, a person with one whie and one black parent, from Jamaica. His was most likely born in 1734, though it could have been as early at 1722. At some point in his life he immigrated to the colonies and settled in New York City, eventually becoming the owner of a tavern. It was rumored that during the Revolutionary War, his tavern was used as a meeting place for Patriots. On December 4, 1783, George Washington delivered his farewell to his officers at Fraunce’s Tavern. Apparently Washington and Fraunces had a personal and business relationship. The two dined together at the Old 76 House in Tappan, New York, and Fraunces cooked for Washington at the DeWint House, which is also in Tappan. Fraunces also served a steward to President Washington in New York City, and in Philadelphia from 1791 to 1794. George Washington Parke Custis, Martha’s grandson, remarked on Fraunces at a state dinner, “Fraunces in snow-white apron, silk shorts and stockings, and hair in full powder, placed the first dish on the table, the clock being on the stroke of four, ‘the labors of Hercules’ ceased.”

Fraunces is also known to have helped feed the 13,000 American prisoners of war kept around New York City, including those kept on the notorious prison ships.

Fraunces and his wife, Elizabeth Dailey, had seven children, one by the name of Elizabeth, but called Phoebe. During the Revolution, Washington came to stay at a place called Mortier House in New York Cith. He wrote to ask Fraunces to find for him a housekeeper. Fraunces sent his daughter Phoebe. It is possible that he sent her because he had heard a rumor that an attempt was to be made on Washington’s life, or it may be that Phoebe discovered this plot while working at Mortier House. Either way, one of Washington’s body guards, Thomas Hickey, was executed for attempting to poison the general. Phoebe and her father are credited with discovering the plot, and Fraunces is credited with removing the poisoned peas intended for Washington’s dinner. Phoebe was ten years old at the time of Hickey’s execution in June of 1776.





The plague showing Freeman stabbing the British officer

Jordan Freeman and Lambert Latham

In 1781, at the Battle of Groton Heights near New London, Connecticut, 185 Patriots, black and white, tried to hold off the 1,700 British led by that turncoat, Benedict Arnold. So heavily outnumbered, the Americans had no chance for victory, but refused to just surrender. They retreated to nearby Fort Griswold. The British stormed the fort. The Patriots ran out of ammunition and began fighting with bayonets, the butts of their muskets, and pikes. During this last stand, Jordan Freeman speared Major Montgomery who was leading the bayonet charge on the fort. About the same time, Lambert Latham picked up the American flag which had been shot off of its poll, and held it above his head.

Finally, the British were able to capture the fort. A British captain asked who was in charge of the fort. Colonel William Ledyard answered, “I did once. You do now.” As he stepped forward he offered his sword to the British officer, a sign of surrender. The officer took Ledyard’s sword and thrust it into his body to the hilt. “Lambert . . . retaliated upon the [British] officer by thrusting his bayonet through his body. Lambert, in return, received from the enemy thirty-three bayonet wounds, and thus fell, nobly avenging the death of his commander.”

The British response to the death of their captain and other officers was to slaughter every man, including Freeman. A plaque at the fort honors these men for their bravery.

Freeman had been the slave of Ledyard, but had been freed. Freeman stayed living near his former master, married, and enlisted when the fighting began, serving side-by-side with his former master.






Primus Hall


Hall was the son of Prince Hall, the founder of the Masonic lodge that bares his name. He was born in 1756. Primus Hall served as the servant of Colonel Pickering. Pickering and Washington were friends and this brought Hall and Washington together. A story goes that after one visit, Washington decided it was too late for him to return to his own camp. He asked Hall if there was enough straw and blankets to make him up a bed for the night. Hall answered that there was. When the officers retired for the night, Hall busied himself until they were asleep. Then he sat himself down upon a stool and slept. During the night, Washington awoke and realized that Hall had given up his own bed. Washington then assisted that Hall join him for the rest of the night. Hall resisted, but Washington won out. Note, it was not unusual during this period for men to share a bed while traveling.





Prince Hall

Prince Hall was born in 1735 in Boston, Massachusetts. He was the slave of William Hall. He father his son Primus by Delia, who was the servant of another Boston family. In 1762, when he was 27, he joined the Congregationalist Church. He also married a slave by the name of Sarah Ritchie. When Sarah died eight years later, Hall married again, this time to Flora Gibbs of Gloucester.

A month after the Boston Massacre, Hall was freed by his master, his certificate of manumission stating he was “no longer Reckoned a slave, but [had] always accounted as a free man.” Hall then worked as a peddler, caterer and leather dresser. He was even listed as a voter and a taxpayer. He owned a small house and leather workshop in Boston.

Did he fight? There were six men in Massachusetts named Prince Hall, but it is believed that he was the Prince Hall that served in the Battle of Bunker Hill. He also supplied leather drum heads to the Continental Army, as a bill he sent to Colonel Crafts in April of 1777 shows.

Before the war began, Hall and 14 other free black men had joined the British Army Lodge of Masons. When the British retreated from Boston, these men formed their own lodge, the African Lodge #1, which was later renamed in Hall’s honor. it took 12 years to get the official charter. Hall was the first Grand Master. This lodge was the first ever black lodge.

Hall became one of Boston’s most prominent citizens and a leader in the black community. He spoke out against slavery and the denial of the rights of blacks. After years of complaining of the lack of schools for black children, he set one up in his own home. In his last published speech, at the lodge in 1797, he spoke out against violence.

“Patience, I say; for were we not possessed of a great measure of it, we could not bear up under the daily insults we meet with in the streets of Boston, much more on public days of recreation. How, at such times, are we shamefully abused, and that to such a degree, that we may truly be said to carry our lives in our hands, and the arrows of death are flying about our heads….tis not for want of courage in you, for they know that they dare not face you man for man, but in a mob, which we despise…”

He died in 1807. It was a year after his death that the lodge he founded decided to honor him by renaming itself The Prince Hall Grand Lodge.






Lemuel Haynes

Haynes was born a free black in 1753 in West Hartford Connecticut. He was abandoned by his parents who were “a white woman of respectable ancestry” and a black man. At the age of five months, he was indentured to a David Rose of Middle Granville, Massachussets. His indenture was until the age of 21.  According to Haynes, “He [David Rose] was a man of singular piety. I was taught the principles of religion. His wife . . . treated me as though I was her own child.” Part of the agreement for his indenture was that he would receive an education, which he did. “I had the advantage of attending a common school equal with the other children. I was early taught to read.” He developed a passion for reading, especially theology and the Bible. While just a teenager, he began giving sermons in the town parrish.

When his indenture ended in 1774, Haynes enlisted as a “Minuteman” in his local militia. Though he did not fight in the Battle of Lexington, he did write a ballad-sermon about it. The poem dicussed the conflict between slavery and freedom but did not address black slavery. He took part in the Siege of Boston and the expedition to Fort Ticonderoga led by Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

After the war, Haynes had an opportunity to study at Dartmouth College. He turned it down. Instead he took up the study of Latin and Greek with a Connecticut clergyman. By 1780, he was able to receive his license to preach. His first congregation was a white one in Middle Granville. He eventually presided over white and mixed congregations in four different states, including New York and Massachusetts. Later he married a white school teacher by the name of Elizabeth Babbitt. He was ordained in the Congregationalist Church in 1785, the first black to be so by a mainstream protestant church.

For more than 30 years, Haynes presided over a mostly white church in Rutland, Vermont. During his time there, he developed an international reputation as a preacher and a writer. In 1801, he published a track called “The Nature and Importance of True Republicanism.” This contained his only published statement on race and slavery. He did argue for the abolition of slavery by arguing that it denied black men their rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He also said, “Liberty is equally as precious to a black man, as it is to a white one, and bondage as equally as intolerable to the one as it is to the other”. In 1804, he became the first black man in America to receive a masters degree, earning it from Middlebury College. He was also a friend and counselor to the presidents of Harvard and Yale universities.

Haynes left Rutland in 1818 due to conflicts over politics, Haynes was a fervent Federalist, and style. Sadly, after living and working with the people of Rutland for 30 years, there was speculation that the departure was due to his race.

Haynes final appointment to a church was in Manchester, Vermont. There he counseled two men who were condemned to death for murder. Their convictions were overturned when their victim reappeared quite alive. Haynes wrote a best seller about the seven year ordeal. The book stayed a best seller for a decade.

During the last decade of his life, Haynes ministered to a church in New York. He died in 1833, at the age of 80. His tombstone read,

“Here lies the dust of a poor hell deserving sinner, who ventured into eternity trusting wholly on the merits of Christ for salvation. In the full belief of the great doctrines he preached while on earth, he invites his children, and all who read this, to trust their eternal interest on the same foundation.”

Haynes was a great admirer of George Washington. He was a member of the Washington Benevolent Society, and every year he would preach a special sermon on Washington’s birthday.



Benjamin Scott Mayes

Benjamin Mayes, nicknamed Daddy Ben, was a royal prince in Africa. He was brought to America and sold to a Colonel Scott. During the Revolution, the British wanted to find Colonel Scott. They could not find him, but they did capture Mayes. In an attempt to get him to reveal the whereabouts of Scott, the British hung Mayes and cut him down before he was dead. They did this not once, not twice, but three times. Despite this torture, Mayes refused to divulge his master’s hiding place. For his bravery and loyalty, Mayes was awarded a gold medal and the admiration of the people of what is now Maury County, Tennessee. He died in 1829.




The flag presented to the Black Bucks by John Hancock

George Middleton and the Bucks of America

George Middleton was a Colonel in the Continental Army. He lead one of only three all black units in the Continental Army. His unit, the Bucks of America, was based out of Boston. The dates that the Bucks were formed and disbanded and their record of service have been lost. However, their actions during the war earned them recognition from one of the leading citizens of Boston, John Hancock, who presented the unit with a special silk flag. The flag resides at the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was also a member of the Prince Hall Freemasonry Lodge, as it is believed were many members of the Bucks. He was appointed Grand Master in 18809. After the war he founded African Benevolent Society in 1796. He was also instrumental in quelling a riot in Boston. He was also a master at breaking horses, worked as a coachmen, and played the violin.

“Freedom is desirable, if not, would men sacrifice their time, their property and finally their lives in the pursuit of this?” ~ 1808



Jordan B. Noble

Jordan Noble was born in Georgia around 1800, so he did not serve in the American Revolution, at least not the first one. He moved to Louisiana, whether on his own or not is unknown. At the age of just 13 he served as a drummer boy during the War of 1812, sometimes called our second revolution. He served under General Andrew Jackson with the Seventh Louisiana Regiment. During this time, musicians were a vital part of the military. They would communicate commands with their instruments. Noble beat his drums in many famous battles and events.

Noble also served in the Seminole War in Florida in 1836. He also was one of the few blacks to serve in the Mexican American War.






The stamp created in Poor’s honor

Salem Poor

Salem Poor was born in the 1740s. He had purchased his freedom in 1769 for 27 pounds, which was a year’s salary for a working man. He married a free black woman by the name of Nancy. Before the war began, they had a son. When the war began, he left behind his family to serve the Patriot cause.

Poor fought in the Battle of Bunker Hill in Colonel Frye’s Regiment and is credited with shooting British Lt. Col. James Abercrombie. He conducted himself so well during the battle, that no less that 14 officers, including Colonel William Prescott himself, petitioned the legislature of Massachusetts declaring that Poor had behaved like an experienced officer and brave soldier and  “a reward was due to so great and distinguished a character.” Of all the men who served in the battle, Poor was the only one singled out for such an honor. What he did specifically to earn such praise is unknown, as the petition states, “to set forth the particulars of his conduct would be tedious.” Some historians think this indicates that Poor’s acts of bravery were too numerous to lay out.

Poor also fought in the Battle of Saratoga, which was the turning point of the war, and at the Battle of Monmouth.

He was honored with a U.S. postage stamp.





John Redman

John Redman served in the First Virginia Regiment of Light Dragoons. A dragoon is a mounted soldier who fights with sabers, pistols, and carbines. Not much else is known about Redman, except that on June 11, 1823, he applied for a veteran’s pension as a veteran of the American Revolution. He was awarded his pension one week later. He was one of the few black men to be a member of a cavalry unit.




Rhode Island First Regiment

During the harsh winter at Valley Forge, a new regiment was created, the Rhode Island First. They were an all black regiment of 125 men, some free and some enslaved. There first engagement was at the Battle of Newport in 1778. At that battle, the Continental Army was forced to retreat. The Rhode Island First put itself between the retreating Americans and the British. They were able to hold the line against no less thant three British attacks. In these, the British suffered heavy casualties. There bravery saved lives and led to the transfer of a Hessian officer. After the battle the officer requested this transfer because he feared for his life. He thought his own men would kill him because of the heavy losses they took.

Again in 1781, the Rhode Island First came to the rescue. At the Battle of Croton River, their commander, Colonel Greene was mortally injured. William Nell, who published a book in 1855 about the black Patriots, wrote,

“Colonel Greene, the commander of the regiment, was cut down and mortally wounded: but the sabres of the enemy only reached him through the bodies of his faithful guard of blacks, who hovered over him, and every one of whom was killed.”

Even though there the wound was fatal, some of the men of the Rhode Island First formed a barrier around him, choosing to die with their commander rather than abandon him to the enemy. The rest of the unit continued the fight and the war. A remnant of the original regiment was present with Washington at the Surrender at Yorktown.






“The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill.”
Salem is at the far right

Peter Salem

Salem was a slave and a celebrated marksman. After the Battles of Lexington and Concord soldiers from all over Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island assembled outside of Boston to confront the 5,000 British troops stationed there. That confrontation, the Battle of Bunker Hill, began well for the Americans until they began to run out of ammunition. At that point, Major John Pitcairn, who had lead troops at the Battle of Lexington, mounted the hill and called “The day is ours!” The day may have been a victory for the British, but it came at a dear price. Salem raised his musket and shot Pitcairn, throwing the British into confusion.

Salem did not serve alone in this battle. Salem Poor, Prince Hall, and Philip Abbott also distinguished themselves in this battle. Salem is considered one of the heroes of Bunker Hill. He had 14 accommodations that day for his acts of bravery and was acknowledge as a great leader of men. He received his honors before Washington himself.

“A negro man belonging to Groton, took aim at Major Pitcairn, as he was rallying the dispersed British Troops, and shot him through the head, he was brought over to Boston and died as he was landing on the ferry ways. It has long been known that Pitcairn was killed by a negro, but this is the first time perhaps that he has ever been connected to Groton.”

~ Groton Historical Series by Dr. Samuel A. Green, Vol IV, 1899, p. 259

Salem joined the Fifth Massachusetts Regiment and served in the battles of Concord and Saratoga. He served for seven years, a length of time few other soldiers could match. Though a slave at the beginning of his service, he was a free man by the end. At the end of the war, in 1783, he married.

In honor of his service, Salem was given a wool bounty coat.



Prince Sisson and the Commandos

In December of 1776, Washington’s second in command, General Charles Lee was captured by the British. The only hope of getting him back was a prisoner exchange. But the Americans did not have a British prioner that was equal to Lee. Lt. Colonel William Barton formed a plan. He would take some men, slip past the British pickets at Newport, Rhode Island and capture General Richard Prescott.

Barton selected 40 of his best men, black and white, for the mission. He warned them of the danger and asked for volunteers. Every man stepped forward.

The group waited until the middle of the night before climbing into rowboats. They wrapped fabric around the oars to muffle the sound and rowed right past the British gunboats anchored in the harbor. When they reached the shore near the generals’ head quarters, they quickly over powered his guards and entered his house. His door was locked.

At that moment, one of Barton’s men, Prince Sisson, threw himself at the door, hitting it with his head. Sisson was a large and powerful man. The door gave and Sisson entered the room and grabbed the general. Barton’s men quickly made their escape with their prisoner. Prescott was subsequently exchanged for General Lee.









Prince Whipple

Prince Whipple may have been a member of a royal family in his native Africa. He was from a rich family. When he was ten years old, his family sent him to America to get an education. But rather than arriving in America to attend school. he was sold by the captain of the ship into slavery in Baltimore. He was then bought by the Founder William Whipple of New Hampshire, who was also happened to be a ship’s captain.

William Nell, in the 1852 book The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution said,

“As was customary, Prince took the surname of his owner, William Whipple, who would later represent New Hampshire by signing the Declaration of Independence. . . . When William Whipple joined the revolution as a captain, Prince accompanied him and was in attendance to General Washington on Christmas night 1776 for the legendary and arduous crossing of the Delaware. The surprise attack following the crossing was a badly needed victory for America and for Washington’s sagging military reputation. In 1777, [William Whipple was] promoted to Brigadier General and [was] ordered to drive British General Burgoyne out of Vermont.”

An 1824 work provides details of what occurred after General Whipple’s promotion:

“On [his] way to the army, he told his servant [Prince] that if they should be called into action, he expected that he would behave like a man of courage and fight bravely for his country. Prince replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, but if I had my liberty, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” The general manumitted [freed] him on the spot.”

True to his word, Whipple enlisted as a soldier in the Continental Army. Besides serving during the famous crossing of the Delaware on Christmas in 1776, where he has been depicted as an oarsman for Washington’s boat, he also fought in the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 and the Battle of Rhode Island in 1778. He also served as a high ranking aide on Washington’s general staff.





Peter Williams

Peter Williams was a clergyman living in New York City. When the British invaded New York, Williams moved to the town of New Brunswick in New Jersey. After the war, his son wrote of Williams actions against the British,

“In the Revolutionary War, my father was decidedly an advocate of American Independence, and his life was repeatedly jeopardized in its cause…He was living in the State of [New] Jersey, and Parson Chapman, a champion of American liberty of great influence throughout that part of the country, was sought after by the British troops. My father immediately mounted a horse and rode round his parishioners to notify them of his danger, and to call on them to help in removing him and his goods to a place of safety.”





A statue in honor of the black soldiers of the American Revolution

Black Rights and the Constitution

‎”When the Constitution of the United States was framed, colored men voted in a majority of these States; they voted in the State of New York, in Pennsylvania, in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and North Carolina; and long after the adoption of the Constitution, they continued to vote in North Carolina and Tennessee also. The Constitution of the United States makes no distinction of color.”

~ The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution by Wm Cooper Neil & Harriet Beecher Stowe 1855

In fact, a number of state constitutions protected voting rights for blacks. The state constitutions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania (all 1776), New York (1777), Massachusetts (1780), and New Hampshire (1784) included black suffrage. In 1874, Robert Brown Elliot, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina and a black man, stated “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.”

However, no state allowed slaves to vote and in South Carolina no free blacks could vote. When it was brought to the state for ratification, our Constitution was voted on by white and black citizens. In Baltimore, Maryland, more blacks voted than whites. Besides the right to vote, blacks in many of the states could hold office as did Wentworth Cheswell. The blacks used their votes well, working along side white abolitionists to end slavery in several states. These included Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York.

It has also been suggested that the Constitution was a proslavery document. Is it? There are only three references to the institution of slavery in the Constitution. The first is in Enumeration Clause in Article 1, Section 3. This is the famous 3/5 clause which some have pointed to as proof that the Founders viewed blacks as less than white. That may be true of some individuals, but not of the clause or the ideas behind the Constitution. Some delegates to the Constitution, especially those that were against slavery, argued that since slaves were considered property, they should not counted at all. The southern states wished them to be counted as a full person since their large slave populations would give those states greater representation and more power in Congress. A compromise was reached, the 3/5 clause. The effect of that clause was to reduce the number of representatives in the House for states with large slave populations and thereby reduce their power. This makes the clause antislavery.

The second mention is in Article 1, Section 9. In this section a date was set to end the importation of slaves. This was another compromise. It allowed the slave trade to continue for a period of twenty years, but then end it. It would be difficult to consider the ending of the slave trade as a proslavery clause.

The final mention of slavery is in Article 4, Section 2. This is the Fugitive Slave clause. That section of the Constitution deals with the states, their citizens, and extradition from one state to another. It holds that people who are bound in service in one state, cannot be excused from it because of the laws of another state. This is the most proslavery section of the Constitution since it allows owners to retrieve runaway slaves from other states, even those that outlawed slavery, but it alone does not make the Constitution proslavery.

Federal efforts against slavery did not end with the Constitution. In 1789, Congress passed a law which banned slavery in all federal territories. Five years later, in 1784, another antislavery law was passed. This one forbade exporting slaves from any state.

Sadly, this progress did not continue. As many of the generation of the Revolution passed away, so did many of their ideals. Beginning in the early 1800s, new laws were passed that limited the rights of blacks and women. This was in part, a political move by one party to limit the influence of the other, but it also reflected a loss of the revolutionary ideals. In 1809, Maryland disenfranchised black voters. Other states followed suit, such as North Carolina in 1835. Even before they were formally denied the vote, many blacks and women were prevented from voting by their white neighbors. This foreshadowed the treatment blacks would receive following the end of Reconstruction.

In 1820, with the passage of the Missouri Compromise, the few remaining Founders began to fear that slavery would destroy the country. Elias Boudinot said it woud be “an end to the happiness of the United States.” John Adams went further by saying that removing the prohibition against slavery in the territories would bring an end to the United States. Thomas Jefferson lamented,

“I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”

At this time, Congress also enacted the Fugitive Slave Law which allowed slave owners to enter free states to find their runaways. It also enabled the kidnapping and enslavement of many free blacks by claiming they were runaways. The Kansas-Nebraska Act pushed the country farther along the road that would take us to war, where finally, the slavery question would be settled.


Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, True Talking Points | 4 Comments »

James Madison: Class envy politics leads to chaos and violence

Posted by iusbvision on January 24, 2011


James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution. The left is saying that repeal of ObamaCare in unconstitutional, which is of course laughable to thinking people, but just in a little help is in order here is Federalist #10:

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

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

Arizona Shooting Roundup Part I – Updated!

Posted by iusbvision on January 21, 2011

IUSB Vision Editor  – After I  heard of the shooting I started checking the internet for his social networking posts before they were shut down and we managed to see them. Many people might not be aware, but I have experience working to help those with Schizophrenia and those of you who are my Facebook friends know that within hours of the shooting I said that the shooter fit the profile and behavior like a glove. It turns out that I was correct.

So what do we know about Jared Lee Loughner? The shooter has a history of mental problems going back to at least 2006. The sheriff’s department verified that the shooter was taken with Rep. Giffords since 2007, long before anyone outside of Alaska knew who Sarah Palin was. Students, teachers, administrators, neighbors and police all were worried about this guy. In fact he was expelled from university until he could show certification from a mental health professional. The shooter had multiple contacts with police. The Sheriff’s department was aware that the shooter had a history of making threats. Loughner asked Giffords in 2007, “How can we have government if words have no meaning?” Of course who could answer such a strange question, but Loughner thought that she was a “scam” ever since that day.

This report from Nightline did a good job of summarizing the details.

So what is schizophrenia? Schizophrenia acts to change how your brain perceives what the five senses tell it. What you see, feel, think and hear sometimes becomes a jumble. At other times one can hallucinate and/or hear voices. Those with schizophrenia have a hard time relating with others because they misinterpret the nonverbal cues that are so crucial in interpersonal communication. If the disorder is pronounced enough the direct verbal cues may also be misinterpreted.

The mind tries to make order out of the chaos. The mind does not wish to accept that you are crazy so the person invents these elaborate conspiracies to attempt to rationalize what they are going through. Since schizophrenia usually is  accompanied with a cognitive skills disorder the conspiracies do not seem too outlandish. Indeed for this type of schizophrenic, they do what they do because in their mind reason demands it. Most normal people can look at a problem of moderate complexity and come to the same conclusion. The schizophrenic will come to a different conclusion and if you don’t agree with them you must be crazy, because to them it is so obvious. Those who get the right help can usually be treated with the proper medication. Those who do not usually try to self medicate so many abuse substances to try to cope.

It is crystal clear that Pima authorities were aware that Loughner was mentally ill. While it has been reported that Loughner had run ins with the Sheriff’s Department, Loughner also had five incidents involving the Pima College Police which released 51 pages of reports.

Pima College Police *Click to Enlarge

Pima College Police *Click to Enlarge

Pima College Police *Click to Enlarge

According to these reports Loughner could not understand why the number 6 was not the same as number 18. Why could the teacher not accept math he asked? Loughner also believed that since he was paying for the classes, and since the Constitution guaranteed him freedom of speech, he believes that whatever answer his mind came up with should be accepted by the teacher because that is the law. When the teacher didn’t accept those answers he said that he was being scammed and “it (meaning school) was a scam” apparently to take his money. Loughner would become upset and argumentative.

Police reports show that Loughner could not understand that what he was doing was wrong and didn’t make sense. The reports are clear that police gave Loughner a series of questions designed to test impairment and he could not answer them correctly. The reports say very clearly that it appeared that Loughner was mentally ill.

The reports also show that Pima College, after they saw Loughner’s  YouTube Videos,  Police delivered a letter of expulsion to Loughner valid until he could demonstrate that he had seen a mental health professional. While reading the letter to Loughner at his home Loughner told Pima College Police he was being scammed.


Loughner’s video’s:

It is obvious to anyone watching those video’s that Loughner is delusional in a big way. So why did no one swear out an affidavit to a court to get him involuntarily committed? Not the police, not his friends, neighbors, teachers, or parents?


Washington Post:

Despite mounting concerns about his bizarre and disturbing behavior, local mental health authorities in Pima County, Ariz. said Monday that no one reported any concerns to them about Tucson mass shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner.

Loughner is accused of shooting 20 people on Saturday, killing six and wounding 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D).

“To the best of our knowledge, he was never and is currently not enrolled in our system,” said Neal Cash, president of the Community Partnership of Southern Arizona, the organization that provides mental health services to Tucson and Pima County for the state.

The majority of the people they serve are on Medicare, Cash said, but anyone diagnosed with a serious mental illness would be in their system and eligible for services. Despite severe cutbacks in the state mental health budget as a result of the foreclosure crisis and recession – Cash estimates around $50 million has been cut in the last two fiscal years – he said that no one diagnosed seriously mentally ill has been turned down for services.

Arizona has what is considered one of the most progressive mental health laws in the country. Any person, including any of the students in Loughner’s classes who exchanged worried emails about his strange actions or any of his teachers who sought to have him removed or who wanted him to receive treatment, could have petitioned the court to have him evaluated for mental illness.

Unlike other states, which require that someone be an imminent danger to themselves or others before seeking to have them involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in Arizona, one need only be “persistently or acutely” ill.

State law defines that as someone who appears to be mentally ill, but who may not know it.”Our crisis line is manned 24/7,” Cash said. “Anyone concerned about his behavior could have called at any time. I have no information to indicate that anyone ever did.”

There is little doubt that Loughner could not pass a psychiatric exam. All it would have taken is one phone call or one person to swear a statement to a judge and Loughner would have gotten help, his name would have been entered into the NICS which would have prevented him fork ever buying a firearm, and this tragic shooting likely never would have taken place. Congress can pass all of the laws in the world, but if people on the ground don’t do their jobs and don’t use some common sense all it will do is make things worse.

There is little doubt that Sheriff Dupnik sought to blame racism, Tea Party, the People of Arizona, Rush Limbaugh and anyone else he could to deflect the media from the fact that he full well know that Loughner was mentally impaired and a problem and did nothing. Loughner’s mother is a supervisor in the Pima Country Parks Department and it is possible that her influence prevented the Sheriff form involuntarily having the shooter evaluated.

One thing is for certain, everyone let Jared Loughner and by extension all of his victims down.


What Did Loughner’s Friends Say? Was Politics an Influence?

There are conflicting reports among Loughner’s fellow high school students.

A high school mate Caitie Parker who has described herself as politically aware (liberal) states:

Here is a list of her tweets in regard to Loughner:

@FriendThatCooks 3 years ago when I saw him last he was more leftist. Now I don’t know.

@johnedelstein & when I say “us” or “our” I mean our group. There were 5-6 of us that hung out in hs.

@johnedelstein well for the Bush/Kerry election we all wore “1 term president” buttons. That election was HUGE to us.

@johnedelstein we listened to political punk in high school & agreed with their leftist opinions for the most part Anti-Flag was our band.

@johnedelstein also probably more libertarian & definitely socially liberal.

@johnedelstein liberal in wanting to change the way the world was run, we both wanted to. He took it to an extreme I never would’ve.

@pursueliberty who knows. It could all be merely a psychotic snap. I don’t think anyone knows. I surely don’t.

@icwhatudo he was leftwing when I knew him in hs & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows. But thanks.

@nyctheblog yeah over 20 facebook messages, emails, & people harassing my poor mom & sister.

@toyotabedzrock yep, I’m merely stating how I remembered an old friend as he was when I saw him last, 3 years ago. I’ve make that clear.

@kurtbradwill I never said anything about him being a Tea Partier, check your facts.

@veronacodex I wish I could give everyone a hug & apologize for lack of knowledge to know, that a guy I new, was troubled, & didn’t see it.

@Gnushound very true. The guy I knew 3 years ago isn’t the evil he became today.

@stewmj I went to high school, college, & was in a band with him. I know what I know & not asking anyone to believe me in this madness.

@MindlessPrey I have no idea. I think he slowly descended in a psychotic break. Something in him snapped. He wasn’t always like this.

@SkyZiegler you’re welcome. I’m glad I could be of some help in this horrible tragedy. Can’t help but think if I had been there today, if things would’ve come out differently. Maybe I could’ve talked him down. Stages of grief?

@TQMKA b/c they’re all related. I’m all about peace & acceptance. That goes hand in hand in my faith & political views.

@lonelyfame I have nothing against differing political views. That’s what our country is built on, freedom of opinions & beliefs. Thank you!

@ToureX thank you sir. I haven’t seen him in 3 years, but the guy I knew was a polar opposite of the evil he became today.

@ToureX I did know him & as stunned & horrified as anyone else. The Jared I knew, want like this. All about peace.

@royaldavis the band It’s Like Love? Love those guys. I tweeter about Jared b/c writing is my means of coping. I had to write to get it off my chest. People hanging on my words, NOT expected. Anyone who says I’m milking or lying for media attention is WRONG! one tweet & my phone, twitter, & facebook blew up. I never wanted this.

@shaunlandry I stated I went to high school, college, & was in a band with him, & made it clear how I knew him THEN not NOW.

@theEcon_tweets what does that have to do with anything regarding today. I was making a observance of a TV show. I voted for Giffords & came into this story wondering what kind of evil could do this. Sadly, I know him, & I’m not proud of that. I do not condone anything Jarod has done, it is horrific. I’m still in shock & haven’t stopped shaking since the news. Did GMA(+ ABC Radio) & The Today Show. No more interviews. I said how I knew Jared, & my shock at this incident. Now to reflect & pray. I can’t manage all these media requests & @ replies. Too much too fast, can’t keep up. This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me.

@antderosa it’s loughner just checked my year book.

@lakarune I haven’t seen him since ’07. Then, he was left wing.

@noboa more left. I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.

@antderosa he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in ’06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical.

@antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.

@antderosa he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven’t seen him in person since ’07 in a sign language class

@antderosa He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was “stupid & unintelligent”

@antderosa I went to high school, college, & was in a band with the gunman. This tragedy has just turned to horrific.


Another friend Zach Osler told Good Morning America that he was non political:

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

Osler also said that Loughner started doing the drug Salvia.

According to Loughner’s social networking activities he held in high regard Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and the online film Zeitgeist.

The fact that Osler describes Loughner as nonpolitical and describes him as heavily influenced by  Zeitgeist (and into the political books he was into) simply does not square. It is rather obvious that Osler is ignorant about things of a political nature and just didn’t pick up on it. I would have found such a notion hard to believe until I started running into more and more recent high school grads at college, and even in my own family, who have no idea what Communism is. To those who read blogs of this nature that may seem hard to believe, but the fact is that in recent years public schools crank out kids that ignorant.

What we have found amusing is that far left bloggers and some in the elite media have described Zeitgeist as some sort of “right-wing”, “libertarian” or “use gold for currency” type of film. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zeitgeist uses disinformation, conspiracy theories, and other propaganda to attack Christianity, promote conspiracy theories like 911 “truth” (Bush did it), promote the elimination all money and private property, promote class warfare, and make radical eco-movement styled planned sustainable communities. One could say that it is a Marxist utopian philosophy but in reality it goes beyond even Marxism in its zeal to control every aspect of human society. Go watch the film for yourself if you have any doubts.

The New York Times, after double downing on the false claim that Republicans are to blame for the shootings, later posted this in the 43rd paragraph of a recent article on Loughner:

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

As has now been reported, Loughner was a graduate of Mountain View High School’s Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) “Program Of Studies”. This program as described HERE is “funded by George Soros through his Open Society Institute by way of his contributions to Ayers’ Annenberg Foundation which funds Smaller Learning. This Annenberg/Smaller Learning curriculum mirrors those of the International Baccalaureate Program, a curriculum of High School studies also funded by George Soros. Barack Obama, Bill Ayers and other Leftists.”  Do not be confused by the partisan nature of the link provided as it describes the program accurately. We have reported on this program along with National Review and other publications.

The SLC program is a sister program to the Baccalaureate Studies Program that is “featured” at many high schools. As the New York Times reports:

Some parents say it is anti-American and too closely tied to both the United Nations and radical environmentalism. From its start in 1968 until 1976, the program was financed partly by Unesco. It is now associated with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and until recently it endorsed the Earth Charter, a declaration of principles of sustainability that originated at the United Nations.

As has been well reported,  “sustainability” is a buzz word for social and political Marxist indoctrination with a radical environmentalist flavor.  Adam Kissel, who is a Vice President at the non-partisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has written about the indoctrinational nature of these “sustainability” programs (FIRE has defended Ward Churchill and other leftists so do not be fooled by FIRE’s critics who say that it is a right-wing academic outfit. Greg Lukianoff, the President of FIRE, is a regular at the Huffington Post).

There is no doubt that Loughner’s high school education was overtly political and even radical.


Conclusion – The Big Question:

Did politics have a role on Jared Loughner’s plans to assassinate a Member of Congress? We are going to have to say yes, but only insofar that the left’s idea of class warfare, everything is a scam, you are being conspired against, rich vs poor, business vs labor, Christians vs atheists and the other flavors of the Marxist conflict theory polemic that are a part of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and Zeitgeist fed into his already severe paranoid schizophrenic delusions.

Let us be very clear. We are NOT saying that Loughner’s left-wing politics played the major roll in his motivations like is commonly seen with ELF, SEIU beatings, the Discovery Channel shooter, the IRS plane bomber, the Una-bomber, the Pentagon shooter etc. It is obvious that Loughner’s mental illness was the primary factor in his motivation for the shootings. All we are saying is that the left-wing conspiracy politics he was so taken in with was a factor in his delusional world view, and obviously who he decided to target.  It seems likely and perhaps rather obvious that Loughner is so mentally ill that he is not responsible for his own actions and furthermore, if Loughner has schizophrenia as severely as the evidence seems to indicate he is not competent to stand trial.

Coming soon: Part II – Journalistic Blood Libel

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »