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 19th, 2011

House votes to repeal ObamaCare – Some members double down on stupid

Posted by iusbvision on January 19, 2011

The vote was 245-189. Three Democrats (McIntyre, Ross, Boren) crossed party lines to support passage. In the past when the elite media got one Republican to vote with the Democrats big government, big spending, or corrupt regulations to pick winners and losers they would say that it enjoyed bi-partisan support. So now we can say that both parties want O-Care repealed!!

John Lewis was asked the inconvenient question:  What part of the Constitution authorizes the government to pass an individual mandate? The only thing I can say after this incredibly wrong headed and vapid answer is that it is time to retire…. wow.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this, and excessive government regulation, taxation and bureaucracy was a complaint in the Declaration of Independence as a VIOLATION of the pursuit of happiness.

Declaration of Independence:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Lewis compared John McCain to ultra-racist George Wallace in October 2008.


UPDATE: Our friend Lee Doren posted a great rant on this nonsense. Definitely a fun listen! 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Post 2010, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

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

Posted by iusbvision on January 19, 2011

Fox News:

A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.

In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn it’s energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.

Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.

The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia’s two Democratic Senators.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent the president a letter which read, in part:

“I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress.”

[Wow, take a look in the mirror Sen. Rockefeller. Who are YOU to lecture anyone about creating uncertainty in business especially after the failed and corrupt stimulus, the regulatory and tax burden that is ObamaCare, AND who are you to complain about regulators just doing what they want in spite of law passed by Congress especially after you said THIS –  IUSB Vision Editor]

Sen. Joe Manchin issued a statement which appeared to mock the EPA’s permitting process.

“According to the EPA, it doesn’t matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules,” Manchin wrote. “Why? They just change the rules.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Leftist Columnist: Dick Cheney Has Been Vindicated. Democrats Should Apologize.

Posted by iusbvision on January 19, 2011

So where are all of the alleged privacy activists now? You have proved yourself to be nothing but mere partisan attack dogs.

I would like to remind my leftist readers that I only supported the Patriot Act after the Supreme Court trimmed it and only as long as the sunset provisions were in place. The Democrats have made the Patriot Act permanent and have expanded domestic spying; they have also argued in the courts to expand it even more.

Glenn Greenwald at

I genuinely believe Obama and the Democratic Party owe a heartfelt, public apology to Bush, Cheney and the GOP for all the harsh insults they spewed about them for years based on policies they are now themselves aggressively continuing. Obama has won the War on Terror debate — for the American Right. And as Cheney demonstrates, they’re every bit as appreciative as they should be.


In the early months of Obama’s presidency, the American Right did to him what they do to every Democratic politician:  they accused him of being soft on defense (specifically “soft on Terror”) and leaving the nation weak and vulnerable to attack.  But that tactic quickly became untenable as everyone (other than his hardest-core followers) was forced to acknowledge that Obama was embracing and even expanding — rather than reversing — the core Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism.  As a result, leading right-wing figures began lavishing Obama with praise — and claiming vindication — based on Obama’s switch from harsh critic of those policies (as a candidate) to their leading advocate (once in power).

As early as May, 2009, former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith wrote inThe New Republic that Obama was not only continuing Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was strengthening them — both because he was causing them to be codified in law and, more important, converting those policies from right-wing dogma into harmonious bipartisan consensus.  Obama’s decision “to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China,” Goldsmith wrote.  Last October, former Bush NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden — one of the most ideological Bush officials, whose confirmation as CIA chief was opposed by then-Sen. Obama on the ground he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program — gushed with praise for Obama: “there’s been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president.”  James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times‘ Peter Baker last January: “I don’t think it’s even fair to call it Bush Lite.  It’s Bush.  It’s really, really hard to find a difference that’s meaningful and not atmospheric.

Those are the nation’s most extreme conservatives praising Obama’s Terrorism policies.  And now Dick Cheney himself — who once led the “soft on Terror” attacks — is sounding the same theme.  In an interview last night with NBC News, Cheney praised Obama for continuing his and Bush’s core approach to Terrorism:

He obviously has been through the fires of becoming President and having to make decisions and live with the consequences. And it’s different than being a candidate. When he was candidate he was all for closing Gitmo. He was very critical of what we’d done on the counterterrorism area to protect America from further attack and so forth. . . .

I think he’s — in terms of a lot of the terrorism policies — the early talk, for example, about prosecuting people in the CIA who’ve been carrying out our policies — all of that’s fallen by the wayside. I think he’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he’s learned from experience.

Cheney was then specifically asked whether he stood by his early attacks on Obama’s national security policies — “You said you believe President Obama has made America less safe. That he’s actually raised the risk of attack. Do you still feel that way?” — and Cheney, not exactly known for changing his mind, essentially said that, thanks to Obama’s continuity, he now does not:

Well, when I made that comment, I was concerned that the counterterrorism policies that we’d put in place after 9/11 that had kept the nation safe for over seven years were being sort of rapidly discarded. Or he was going to attempt to discard them. . . . As I say, I think he’s found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did.

It overstates the case to say there are no differences.  There were some: Obama formally ended the “enhanced interrogation program” (the authorization for which had been withdrawn when he took office); banned CIA black sites (which were empty when he took office); and has not invoked the Article II lawbreaking theories of Bush’s first term (Bush largely abandoned them as well in his second term as Congress began legalizing his programs).  And there is a more conciliatory tone, and some greater technocratic efficiency, in some foreign policy pronouncements.  But the crux of Bush/Cheney radicalism — the mindset and policies that caused much of the controversy — continues and has even been strengthened.  Gen. Hayden put it best, as quoted byThe Washington Times:

“You’ve got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram [in Afghanistan],” Mr. Hayden said, listing the continuities. “And although it is slightly different, Obama has been as aggressive as President Bush in defending prerogatives about who he has to inform in Congress for executive covert action.”

And that list, impressive though it is, doesn’t even include the due-process-free assassination hit lists of American citizens, the sweeping executive power and secrecy theories used to justify it, the multi-tiered, “state-always-wins” justice system the Obama DOJ concocted for detainees, the vastly more aggressive war on whistleblowers and press freedoms, or the new presidential immunity doctrines his DOJ has invented.  Critically, this continuity extends beyond specific policies into the underlying sloganeering mentality in which they’re based:  we’re in a Global War; the whole Earth is the Battlefield; the Terrorists want to kill us because they’re intrinsically Evil (not in reaction to anything we do); we’re justified in doing anything and everything to eradicate Them; the President’s overarching obligation (contrary to his Constitutional oath) is to keep us Safe; this should all be kept secret from us; we can’t be bothered with obsolete dogma like Due Process and Warrants, etc. etc.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Analysis: Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton on HillaryCare

Posted by iusbvision on January 19, 2011

Notice how Clinton says that it will work because it means that everyone in the business will have to raise their prices the same so it all works out; no it doesn’t. Clinton is engaging in a false assumption that destroys smaller competition and benefits the biggest players in a market.

Cain is explaining that “big pizza” has a higher base percentage of profit, based on both volume and on economies of scale, that gives them lower costs and higher aggregate profitability compared to smaller competitors. While Godfathers has a profitability of 1.5%, “big pizza” has a profitability that is likely close to 6%.

So what does this mean? If Clinton gets his way “big pizza” will not raise their prices at all, on the contrary they will have a sale and keep that sale on till smaller outfits like GodFathers who are forced to raise prices and reduce service via layoffs can’t compete and shut down. At first the barely profitable stores close, then the better ones. The result is more and more markets where “big pizza” progresses its virtual monopoly in each market. With that competition taken out of the picture “big pizza” can charge whatever it likes and prices go up, and the pressure to keep quality up starts to evaporate.

This is why companies like Philip Morris lobbied Democrats to have tobacco taxes and regulations increased.

This brings us to 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, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet? | Leave a Comment »

A veteran’s thoughts on women in combat.

Posted by iusbvision on January 19, 2011

I was in one of the first co-ed basic military training unit’s in the Air Force. It was a disaster. The reactions were bad with some of the men and the women.

The males would not help the women and would not come in range of touching one because one complaint to “social actions” and things became “political” very fast. Two of the women in my unit were full blown nymphomaniacs and even though we slept in different rooms things still “happaned”. Training and combat are highly stressful and people behave very differently and much more impulsively under such conditions.

There were women who liked to become more helpless around men to try and get the guys to do things for them, or they just liked attention. There were men who behaved differently (sometimes foolishly) because women were around.

After a short time, some of the women realized that the political nature of being reported to “social actions” was a weapon they could exploit. In one example I remember a female trainee (I still know her name to this day) who just could not do several of the obstacles in the confidence course. She started to cry. The course military training NCO was a 22 year old buck sergeant. So here is an E-4 faced with dealing with a crying E-1, who can say anything she wants; who will be believed? So he did the only thing he felt like he could do and keep his career from being sullied. He gave her a passing score and waved her on. I saw things like this often.

One female trainee even got money out of a male trainee by threatening to say that he touched her. I saw all of this in one military training unit, over six weeks.

Even though all of these things happened, no one got caught, no one spoke up, because the pressure was on to “make the co-ed units work”.
This raised most everyones streess level. Not only did I have to worry about what I was doing, my assigned “buddy” was doing, follow a list of orders perfectly the first time, I had to keep a bubble around me in which no female should penetrate and watch all of the time.

It introduced and greatly amplified some social dymamics that become destructive in a military unit. It is because of dynamics similar to these that the female Navy pilot was killed doing a carrier landing. She got a waiver to get a lower score so she could get her wings.

Now I am not saying that all women are incapable or anything like that, what I am saying is that in combat and training environments things happen that shouldn’t. It has and will cost lives.

Note:  Some say that Iraq demonstrated that women can fight the enemy. This is apples and oranges. Women who were forced to engage the enemy did so en route from safe zone to safe zone. These were small skirmishes; not military units isolated and in a combat zone for an extended duration.


Posted in Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »