IUPUI EMPLOYEE WHO FILED BOGUS RACIAL HARASSMENT CHARGE HAD AXE TO GRIND
There have been many new shocking updates on why the bogus charges were filed against IUPUI (Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis) student Keith Sampson and why IUPUI PR Director Rich Schneider has engaged in a whisper campaign of bogus racial harassment charges against Sampson to the national press, but refuses to elaborate on the charges even to Sampson himself. Sampson could use a good attorney right about now.
Sampson’s accuser had an axe to grind so read the update at the link below for the details, but in a nutshell, Sampson’s accuser, Nakea Vinson, had a cousin who worked at IUPUI until that cousin made threats toward Sampson and was terminated for it.
Cover up at IUPUI?? Some of this is speculation but the entire picture is starting to look like this:
IUPUI knows by now why Vinson filed the bogus racial harasment charges against Sampson. It is obvious that IUPUI Affirmative Action Administrators Watkins and Charleston went far beyond extreme leftist, racist, nutcake zeal in going after Sampson indicating that the Affirmative Action Office wanted Sampson’s scalp because of the firing of Vinson’s cousin.
If more evidence of this got out other than what we have already… the IU President in Bloomington would likely get involved. By IUPUI PR Director Schneider trying to make it look like Sampson is guilty of “something” with his whispering campaign of slander to the press, it keeps IUPUI from being guilty of everything.
This is an indicator that IUPUI PR Director Schneider is not doing this slander campaign on his own accord, he has a behind the scenes mandate, which explains why Chancellor Bantz has not put an end to it in spite of massive press attention it has generated and IUPUI being made a laughing stock in the national press corps. Chancellor Bantz’ legacy is at stake, not to mention damages if a lawsuit came of it. Under oath depositions would prove to be most revealing. Rest assured I am not the only one investigating this case.
Chancellor Bantz allow me to give you a history lesson. It wasn’t the crime that brought Nixon down, it was the cover up.
This post is just a teaser - get all the details at our link below
If statements by Paul Tsongas and other Democrats from the 1980’s who advocated higher gas and fuel taxes, to “progressives” demanding that we “RAISE GAS TAXES NOW” (see photo below), to Barack Obama’s frank admission that current gas prices are fine, but he wished that we had gotten to the current prices a little slower (see video below)… all were not enough to convince you …
Democrats have opposed new drilling off shore, in the arctic tundra, have opposed new nuclear power and have opposed new clean coal and opposed the recovery of oil shale in the west, where we have more oil than the middle east.
Raise Gas Taxes Now! Click to enlarge.
The latest spin, in light of new polls saying that over 70% of the American people want us to expand energy production, Democrats are now adopting the rhetoric of “Drill Now” while legislation they are proposing pushes oil companies to drill at places that all have said are not economical to lease, or drill on leases where getting the oil would not be economically affordable due to reasons such as the oil is too deep to reach etc.
I was going to write a new article about this legislation but our friends over at Hansmast.com had a post that was so good I am just going quote it:
The “Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008″ would bar companies from obtaining any more federal leases for drilling onshore or on the Outer Continental Shelf, unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas from the leases they already hold or are in the process of diligently developing the leases they already hold.
Speaker Pelosi's New Drilling Strategy by Michael Rimerez via Powerline.com
More on why there’s not drilling today on those leases and why drilling in ANWR *will* bring prices down now. Also, in 2005 I posted some research done by a fellow-blogger and engineer (Alton Foley) about how the footprint of ANWR drilling is equivalent to scale of a tic-tac in a football field. The idea of environmental impact is laughable based upon scale alone, not to mention a host of other factors.
One final note: Look at how Obama cleverly shifts the goal posts in this quote: “[Drilling in ANWR] is not something that’s going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular”. Well duh! But certainly a shifty way to make it sound like it won’t do any good now or later without acknowledging that at the very least it will do good later. http://hansmast.com/?p=715
The Wall Street Journal reminded us what the The U.S. Minerals Management Service had to say about unused oil leases:
Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it’s one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment - and time.
Obama: Tax Energy Companies When They Drill, Tax them When they Cant!
It gets better, Congress isn’t the only one trying to play games with the voters to keep gas prices high, the latest from the Obama Campaign is to tax oil companies for “winfall profits” after they invest billions in getting more oil and tax them if they can’t get oil off the leases they have now, even if it is completely infeasable to do so:
Obama Suggests Charging Oil Companies for Unused Leases
Sen. Barack Obama said that rather than opening up more federal land to drilling, he would instead dun oil companies for the leased lands they are currently sitting on and use the proceeds to fund sustainable energy projects.
Instead of opening more lands to drillers, Obama said he supported a bill in Congress that would levy a fee on oil companies that have rights to exploit federal property but don’t.
Obama’s remarks were mixed in with a host of energy proposals he has pushed recently, including stepped-up investment in renewable energy research and a windfall tax. Aides said it was the first time on the political hustings that Obama has voiced support for a Senate bill that would implement the dunning procedure on fallow federal leased land.
The bill is sponsored by [Democrats] Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin.
The Obama campaign says it calculated that 68 million acres of leased land remain untouched, compared with the 1.5 million acres that President Bush would like to see opened to exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
The majority of these unexploited acres are currently inaccessible by pipeline and much of the land has dubious production value.
Indeed there are some leases that have oil that we can get to but aren’t and WHY is that? Because eco-extremists in league with the Democratic Party have prevented the building of pipelines and other needed infrastructure to make use of the oil once we have drilled for it.ANWR by comparison has all of the proper needed infrastructure nearby.
So what have we learned - that having an oil lease and actually getting to a point where you can drill on the lease and being able to economically make use of the oil once you have drilled to it are two totally different things (see at the bottom of this post where I elaborate on this).
Joe Donnelly - What Have You Done?
Our very own Congressman Joe Donelly is playing the same game. He says he supports more domestic energy production and may even reverse his position now that gas is $4.00 a gallon - but his previous votes say the opposite. Luke Puckett has something to say about it:
How long will it take to get that oil in the arctic tundra Luke?
But wait a minute Luke -
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party Candidate for President says, "Isn't ANWR a place with pretty little trees and pretty little squirrils that EVIL REPUBLICANS want to bulldoze over and MURDER??
When Giant Mosquitos Attack!
Ok lets try again and lets see what the arctic tundra really looks like.
Of course, all the oil in the world will do us no good if we don’t build some refineries, that Cynthia McKinney and her friends in the Democratic Party have prevented us from building for 30 years.
Reasonable Citizen is a liberal guy but he is NOT one of the far left haters or crazy types that used to come here so often. As Reasonable Citizen shows in his blog, there is an accusation (conspiracy theory) from the far left that oil companies are squating on leases in order to keep the price of crude oil high, thus allowing them to do nothing and still make good profits on the crude they are producing.
Chuck: Of course at $140 if the oil companies could get more oil out of these leases economically there is a huge profit motive to do so. But having the oil lease is no good if you are prevented from using the lease because the oil is too deep or too hard to get to, or because eco-extremists have prevented you from building the infrastructure needed on the lease so that making use of that oil once you get it is feasable.
RC: I am not convinced of this. I cannot imagine that any oil company, or combination of oil companies, would spend $37 Billion for leases in March 2008 in which they do not know if oil resides underneath. They have geologists up the wazoo to determine the probability of striking oil and they do this for a living. They are professionals. I do not buy the argument that you buy enough oil leases in the hopes that one pans out. That would be amateurish and unacceptable to any set of stockholders.
They have no incentive to drill for oil if other wells are producing and profits are good.
And they can sell any of their oil leases anytime they want. But they don’t. Because holding them without producing oil keeps the market supply low and the price high. If prices fall too low, then everyone loses. The game is about maximizing profit and not oil production. This is a commodity and unless you can drill cheaper or transport cheaper or crack it cheaper, it is in your best interest to have the highest possible oil prices at your lowest current cost of production.
Chuck: Let me explain why you are mistaken. IF we raise domestic production, OPEC will lower production to keep the prices up [it is more likely that prices will drop some but at a certain price point OPEC would lower production to keep prices from falling below a certain point]. So by expanding drilling and production here, instead of $700 BILLION a year going out of Americans pockets to OPEC, a big chunk of that pie would go to Americans, in American companies and taxed by our government. It would lower our trade deficit BIG time.
RC: Perhaps the whole thing is beyond my understanding. I am familiar with verticalized industries and familiar with senior management thinking yet the oil company logic escapes me.
I agree that eco restrictions are a problem in NEW oil fields but the leases are not for new oilfields. If I could find the map that shows the known oil fields and unused leases I would post it. I did not save that link.
I admit that I do not know enough to continue this. My visceral feeling is that I am right on this but I cannot match my feeling with arguments. Thanks for stopping by and making me think.
Chuck: Oh I forgot - If I am wrong, the oil companies are lying, and the The U.S. Minerals Management Service is wrong…. that getting the oil on these unused leases should be no problem at all - then I have your fix.
Have the government pay oil companies what ever it takes to get the oil from the leases, so the government can sell the oil themselves and keep whatever profits they can make and/or sell it to Americans at a discount.
Use the power of the government to prevent eco-extremists from getting in the way and use the power given to Congress under Article Three of the US Constitution to take the juristiction away from the courts on this issue. They could do it with a majority vote.
If Democrats wanted to make sure that unused leases are used, this is a 100% surefire way to do so…. but such a move would not match their agenda.
Reasonable Citizen is right that there are some leases with oil that go unused that can be drilled. BUT when you consider the costs that come with…
1. Fighting eco-extremists and/or local government in court to build the infrustucture to make use of it once you have drilled to it, complete with even more lawsuits and appeals.
2. Fight eco-extremists and/or local government to build an oil pipeline to move it, complete with lawsuits in every juristiction the pipe goes through and lets not forget about appeals.
3. The time and money it takes to get through federal red tape to do anything on the land that you have the oil lease for - oh and did I mention that the eco-extremists sue every step of the way and claim that the federal regulation isnt being complied with or that it would disturb the habitat of the Red Chested Nut Scratcher Bird? … and lets not forget when the eco-extremists lose in court they appeal.
4. Ok how many years and millions upon millions have just been blown and you still havent moved 1 drop of oil yet? And by the way, if you lose in court or have some federal agency stop you, congrats you just bought an oil lease for nothing.
5. When you finally start to drill, IF the geologists got it right - hope and pray that something you didn’t detect prevents you from getting to it on the spot where you built the oil rig or doesn’t drive up the costs considerably.
6. Oh by the way we need a refinery to make this oil into gas and other useable products.
7. Do you get the risks that energy companies have to deal with yet?
If you ever doubted media bias or how bad the elite media has been in the tank for Obama this one will remove much of that doubt:
Courtesy: Richard Drew of the Associated Press
3 Anchors to Follow Obama’s Trek Abroad
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 17, 2008; C02
The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama’s trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza.
Lured by an offer of interviews with the Democratic presidential candidate, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric will make the overseas trek, meaning that the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts will originate from stops along the route and undoubtedly give it big play.
John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.
This one speaks for itself. The only reason Obama is going to Iraq is because he was shamed into it by McCain for making Iraq strategy plans and not even speaking to the commanders on the ground.
UPDATE - A talking head on the evening news said that Obama should avoid an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment and another talking head said, maybe he should say ”Ich bin ein beginner”. That’s funny. Obama’s European leg of the trip is designed to make a big campaign rally of European socialists to make it seem like all of our allies want him elected. When the media will leave out is that France and Germany had their anti-American Bush hating governments thrown out and had pro-American pro-Bush governments elected.
UPDATE II - I had this quote from the New York Times and forgot to paste it in this post so here it is:
The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that three newscasts by the traditional networks - which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people - spent 114 minutes covering Obama since June; they spent 48 minutes covering McCain.
Hellooooo minions of leftist class warfare ……. can you say Teresa Heinz Kerry? This is just the beginning of the hypocrisy. Read on to see more.
Our friend Amanda Carpenter of Ball State University fame beat us to the punch on this story, But considering that she was a part of this breaking news story I guess that makes it ok ;-)
Jamal Simmons, who works for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) said on CNN today that Cindy McCain’s wealth generates a “red flag” he criticized her for having 8 houses, says that makes the McCains out of touch, and claims that the McCain campaign isn’t being financially transparent.
Here is the video - notice that CNN is doing its usual job of “fair & balanced” by pitching two leftists and a very vocal and biased moderator against one conservative, our intrepid Ball State grad, Amanda Carpenter.
As Amanda points out in her column today Barack Obama has stated that the wives should be off limits:
“I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue and if I saw people doing that—I would speak out against it,” Obamasaid in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on June 18. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/394432.aspx [- Complete with video.]
Mrs. McCain is reportedly worth more than $100 million due to the beer distribution company she inherited from her parents, Hensley & Company. The McCain’s keep their finances separate and Mr. McCain has recused himself from Senate votes on alcohol issues.
Some Democrats, like Simmons, say the McCain campaign is hiding information Mrs. McCain’s wealth. Ironically, the information about her credit card debt comes from Mr. McCain’s Senate financial disclosure forms, readily available on the internet through the Center for Responsive Politics.
McCain’s 2008 report, which includes tax information for the previous year, is 51 pages long. By comparison, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s 2006 report, which contained information about her former President husband’s international speaking fees and their joint finances, is 11 pages long. Her 2007 form is unavailable although it was due last May. She filed for an extension on May 12.
Obama’s 2007 Senate financial disclosure forms are 8 pages long.
I will be watching to see of Obama speaks out against the DNC - would anyone like to place any wagers?
As Amanda rightly points out Teresa Heinz loaned the Kerry Campaign millions, requiring more financial disclosure. The Clintons loaned the Hillary Campaign millions. Cindy McCain lets her husband use her jet at a discount and McCain fully documents it in his own financial disclosure forms. Amanda also rightly points out that McCain has been more transparent than anyone when it comes to financial disclosure. McCain has obeyed all Senatorial and Federal Election Commission disclosure requirements so that resolves the “transparency” issue.
The real reason why they want to open Cindy McCain’s private records is so they can go on a fishing expedition through her life. Until Cindy McCain loans a pile of money to her husbands campaign she is entitled by law to the same privacy as any other American.
McCain has been the leader in Congress in attempting to bring more transparency to politics. A good student of political science will see that this is nothing more than an attack on John McCain where he is strongest. This isn’t the first time the Obama campaign has used this strategy. Over the 4thof July week several of Obama’s campaign surrogates launched a coordinated attack on his military service in an attempt to take that issue out of the campaign.
Obama says that it isn’t right for a campaign to go after McCain’s military service and several of his campaign surrogates do just that all at the same time over the 4th of July weekend. Obama says that the wives should be off the table after Michelle Obamamakes a series of regrettable statements that might indicate that she has similar views as many elitist Marxist academics - only to send out his surrogates to attack Cindy McCain with class warfare rhetoric and false claims of “non-transparency”. Hmm perhaps now is a good time to review the millions in illegal campaign money the Clintons and Gore’s took from agents of the communist Chinese government, some of which they got caught for and had to give back or donate to charity.
Let’s get back to the “Cindy has 8 houses so the McCain’s are out of touch” comment. Teresa Heinz Kerry is financially worth over 10 times what Cindy McCain is. Here is an article from the AP that tells of the Kerry’s many homes. I will include a portion of the list:
Boston: A five-story, 12-room Beacon Hill town house that serves as Mr. Kerry’s main residence. Assessed value: $6.9 million.
Nantucket, Mass.: A three-story, five-bedroom waterfront retreat on Brant Point. Assessed value: $9.18 million.
Washington, D.C.: A 23-room town house in Georgetown. Proposed 2005 assessment: $4.7 million.
Ketchum, Idaho: A ski getaway converted from a reassembled barn near Sun Valley. Assessed value: $4.9 million. Mrs. Kerry also owns two adjoining lots valued at $1.5 million and $1.8 million.
Fox Chapel, Pa.: A nine-room colonial on nearly 90 acres in suburban Pittsburgh. The property also includes a nine-room carriage house. Assessed value: $3.7 million.
The simple truth is that there are very few members of the Senate that I would consider to be “in touch”, but the Democrats want to apply one standard to Cindy and another for Teresa. I believe that if the spouse goes out on the campaign stump and makes speeches they become fair targets for critique. This isn’t about what wife has more money. This isn’t about whom it is fair to critique and it most certainly isn’t about truth or “transparency”. It is about politics, political dishonesty and the hypocrisy that has tainted our political process.
Chuck Norton
UPDATE - The Day After the DNC Attacks Cindy McCain for Being Wealthy Obama Launches on the Right for Attacking Michelle:
And I’ve said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. http://www.glamour.com/news/blogs/glamocracy/2008/07/barack-obama-ta.html
Amazing isn’t it?
UPDATE - Michelle Obama says thanks for the $600 stimulus check maybe that can get her a pair of earrings…:
“You’re getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month,” she said. “The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.”
Holy cow, and they say that Cindy McCain is out of touch. Last time I went to Target they had plenty of earrings below $100, not to mention $600. Of course, based on what is publicly available about her income will she even be getting a check anyways? She commented on policy, so it’s fair to critique it.
One thing is for sure, if Cindy McCain said anything even close to this, the elite media would be sounding alarms, and the Obama campaign would be going into overdrive.
Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly and Patterico have done great work at exposing this story and deserve everyones thanks for doing the right thing not only for Tony Snow and his family, but for simple journalistic integrity.
Any first year journalism student knows that you NEVER attack someone in an obituary. An obituary is never the place for editorial comments on politics or policy. The AP did just that:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster’s good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook - if not always a command of the facts - he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.
Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation.
Malkin and Patterico have been covering the L.A. Times attacks on Snow. Here are some of the comments that the L.A. Times CHOSE to publish. All comments posted at the L.A. Times MUST be approved by the editors before they appear and it says just that on the web site.
“CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM. HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL. NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK………………..”
“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the first day of a Tony Snow-free world! Yay!!!!”
“I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.”
“I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.”
Here are the links with all the revolting details.
MSNBC, which has been taken a beating in the ratings and has been criticized for its unfair coverage against Hillary Clinton during the primary, has now jumped even deeper in the depths of leftist cookdom when host Chris Mathews stated and argued with great emotional vigor that the Iraq surge isn’t working…
PAT BUCHANAN [in a classic bit of realpolitik]: Do you want to get into the substance, or the politics? [Green can be heard laughing in the background.] Look, the American people believe we made a mistake going into Iraq. Barack wins that. The American people believe the surge has worked, it is working.
MATTHEWS [shouting]: No it hasn’t! The American people haven’t been asked the right question. Pat, you know you’re wrong on this. Pat, you’re disagreeing with yourself on this, Pat. You have said in the past the reason to stick the army in there with greater strength a year or two ago was to get the Iraqis to solve their own fish. To put it together themselves politically so that we could come home. By that definition, have we won?
BUCHANAN: By the loudness of your argument and your intensity, you are suggesting McCain indeed has a powerful point.
Chris Wallace in Variety - MSNBC in the tank for Obama:
Continuing Fox News‘ war of words with MSNBC, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace accused its rival of being “in the tank” for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, while further pressing the news channel’s case that the mainstream press exhibits a liberal bias.
“I think MSNBC’s coverage went so far over the line that it lost all credibility,” Wallace told reporters Monday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour.
