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 March, 2008

Obama’s Campaign Theme of “Judgment” Leaves His Campaign on the Brink – UPDATED

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

UPDATED – See Below

Barack Obama has made “judgment” the primary theme of his campaign. He claims to have had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning. He claims better judgment in his associations such as not taking money from some of the lobbyists who have given money to Senator Clinton’s campaign. Obama claims that judgment trumps experience.

Some of the minor themes of his campaign have been “hope” and the ability to transcend race and bring the country closer to a post-racial America.

It is very easy to be caught up in Obama’s striking oratory and while it is no secret that this writer is no supporter of Obama’s far left politics, I was hoping that Obama was at least a sincere man. This hope started to unravel when he started borrowing text and themes from speeches by others such as President Reagan and Governor Patrick of Massachusetts without giving the proper credit.

It has now been revealed that Obama has been associating himself with radical preachers and organizations that preach hate, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy theories. These are not casual associations. They are relationships that have been ongoing for 20 years.

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, the Chicago preacher has been most notable in the news, but he is far from the only purveyor of hate Obama has had long associations with. I will list several others but let us start with Rev Wright.

Wright on September 16th 2001 did not give the kind of memorial service after 9/11 that you would expect to help the victims of the attack and their families. Wright launched in a tirade blaming America for the attacks. Wright has attacked Colin Powell, Tiger Woods and even refers to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Condoskeezza Rice. For those of you who are not aware of the word SKEEZ it is a grotesque sexual reference that the Urban Dictionary defines as “a word formed by mixing skank and sleeze” (

Wright refers to America as the US of KKK A. Wright claims that the AIDS virus was invented by whites to kill blacks. Are unprotected sodomy and the sharing of drug needles only something that black people have done? Are the victims of tainted blood transfusions only black people – of course not – which is why such conspiracy theories are ridiculous on their face.

Other nuggets dropped by Rev. Wright include:

Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.

Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.

America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . .  We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Gaddafi.

Rev. Wright’s sermons and videos have been for sale on his web site. There is not enough room in this publication to outline the hate and venom that this man has espoused. Wright has lavished praise on the black nationalist and anti-Semite Minister Louis Farrakhan and accompanied Farrakhan to visit Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The Obama campaign at first claimed ignorance about Wright and then the campaign started spreading the word to the Washington press corps that Obama was not there when Wright made such statements. Of course since Obama had attended the church for 20 years and got married there such claims stretched credibility. Obama delivered a speech on this matter and says that he disagrees with and disavows Wright’s political views and admitted that he did Wright’s statements. Obama defended Wright’s statements in that he is a product of the black anger of his generation.

While some lingering anger from injustices of the past is understandable, what is not acceptable is the constant America bashing, the conspiracy theories, the hate against whites, Israel, Condi Rice and others…and all in the name of our Savior Jesus Christ at the pulpit. What is not acceptable is the repeated association with nutty hate merchants like Farrakhan.

Obama’s condemnation of Wright’s statements and actions stretches credibility. When you or I go to a church and you see something hateful or obviously nutty repeated from the pulpit, do you continue to attend that church? Obama condemned Don Imus for making one insensitive joke about a ladies basketball team and said that Imus should be fired, yet Obama had thousands of church choices in the Chicago area but it wasn’t just any church that attracted Obama – it was THIS church. 

If this was Obama’s only lack of judgment in his associations it could be forgiven. Unfortunately there are many others. William Ayres is a professor in Chicago; he is famous as a former “weatherman” terrorist who took credit for planting bombs in the name of radical leftism.  Ayres was quoted in the September 11, 2001 New York Times as saying “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.” Obama and Ayres have been friends since at least 1995. They served on the Woods Fund together and Obama attended Ayres home for “meet the candidate” events.

While Obama served as a paid board member of the Woods Fund, the fund gave $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN); a group that refers to the establishment of the nation of Israel as a catastrophe. The co-founder of AAAN is Rashid Khalidi, who according to The Jewish Press, a weekly news magazine, Khalidi served as a director of the PLO press agency WAFA while the PLO was still listed as a terror group by the State Department. Khalidi held a fund raiser for Obama for his failed 2000 bid for Congress.

The Obama campaign started a religion site affiliated with his campaign at The site contained testimonials from not only the aforementioned Rev. Wright, but also Rev. J. Alfred Smith of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland California and Rev. Michael Pfleger from Chicago. Rev. Smith has had a long association with the sometimes violent Black Panther Party. Smith’s own web site shows him receiving awards from the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. The co-founder of the Black Panther Party, Bobby Seale, attended services at Smith’s church and Rev. Smith lead the funeral ceremony for Seale’s mother on February 1st.

At Black Panther co-founder Huey P. Newton’s funeral eulogy in 1989 Rev. Smith said, “We celebrate his homecoming not as a thug, not as a criminal, but as a member of the Allen Temple family. The Black Panther headquarters were down the street. Do you think it’s closed? It’s not closed. Trust me, it will rise again.”

Rev. Pfleger has invited Minister Farrakhan to speak at his own church, has a long history of radical leftist activism, threatened the owner of a legal gun store saying, “We’re going to find you and snuff you out.” Saying further, “If it takes whatever it takes.”

The Chicago Tribune reported, “One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama’s campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.”

The Bottom Line

This is not simple guilt by association like someone’s “crazy uncle” who robbed a bank and therefore you might be a bank robber too. Everyone knows that you can’t chose who your relatives are. Obama’s campaign is about judgment and who a president associates with. The New York Times article insinuating that John McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist had importance because it speaks to the judgment of a presidential candidate and who he associates himself with.

If any one of Obama’s troublesome choices of association stood alone, it could be forgiven as a lapse in judgment or unfortunate circumstance; however it is clear that there is a pattern of repeated associations with radicals, haters, nutty conspiracy theorists and those who espoused violence.  Those associations span years and render Obama’s recent distancing from such views less than credible.

If Obama does not share the views of these people and did not speak up to them to voice his displeasure or disagreement over the years and while he was a sitting Senator, all the while using them for “street cred” and campaign labor and campaign fund raisers; the word insincere hardly begins to describe it.

Chuck Norton

UPDATE – The list of 60’s communists in the Obama Campaign grows longer and some of them have a history of violence. The City Journal has the details (continue reading the article for the rest of the list):

Michael Klonsky, whose disgust for mainstream politics led him to launch a new, Maoist Communist Party in the 1970s, today supports Barack Obama so enthusiastically that until recently he was blogging on the Illinois senator’s campaign website. And boycotting this November’s election, Klonsky maintains, would be a “tragic mistake.” He notes that Barack Obama isn’t Hubert Humphrey, 2008 isn’t 1968, and the strong movement he served back then is “relatively weak” now. “My own support for Obama is not a reflection of a radically changed attitude toward the Democratic Party,” Klonsky recently explained to me. “Rather, it’s a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”

Michael Klonsky is hardly the only ’68 radical supporting Obama this year. In 1968, when Mark Rudd organized the student strike that shut down Columbia University, the SDS chapter that he chaired ridiculed Kennedy and McCarthy as “McKennedy,” claimed that “neither peace candidate offers an alternative to the war policies of Lyndon Johnson,” and suggested “sabotage” as an alternative to voting. Rudd succeeded Klonsky as national SDS leader, presiding over the organization’s metamorphosis into Weatherman and performing “a liaison function” for the plot to bomb a Fort Dix soldiers’ dance that instead killed three Weathermen, including two of Rudd’s Columbia SDS colleagues.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Israel | 4 Comments »

America’s Racial Divide: Same Words, Different Worlds

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

The issue of race relations in America and how to deal with it has now taken on a far different life than anyone could have imagined. Perhaps now there will finally be a conversation on race that America really needs.

But the racial divide between Black and White America is far different than anyone is really willing to admit, far different than many of us even know about. We certainly want to get this issue behind us as a nation no doubt, but getting from seeing the problem to seeing the solution seems elusive at this point.

And that, in my view, is because the races aren’t talking to each other. It is not because of animosity or hate, what I see is something really quite different. I see Black and White America talking literally two different cultural languages: on the one hand, there is the language of struggle, inequality and victimization.  On the other hand is the language of forgiveness, equality, personal responsibility.

Both are valid, of course, but there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of recognizing both equally. We either emphasize one or the other.  And which language you emphasize determines the outcome of the way you interpret your world.

The real problem with interpreting Jeremiah Wright’s seemingly racist and anti-American diatribes is that they make a false assumption that is baked into the cake. The assumption is that all things being equal, the interpretation of words and meanings should be equal to both races. But that is a demonstrably false assumption.

The problem is that African Americans were not brought here by choice, they were brought here as slaves.  And that, my friends, changes everything.  What that means is that we as a nation do not have a shared set of beliefs, we do not have a shared history, and we do not have a shared understanding of ourselves as a people. No. For African Americans it is different.  

Theirs is a culture of struggle. Theirs is a culture of difference. Theirs is a culture of injustice and victimization.  And because their shared heritage is so much different than the rest of us who were brought here because we chose to be here, that difference has had a profound impact on how we see our different worlds, and how we interpret the same words from the pulpit on Sunday morning. 

So when Reverend Jeremiah Wright launches into a sermon sound bite about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he is decidedly not talking at all about World War II and the justification to drop the atom bomb.  Absurd history lesson though it is, it is a language that Black America understands, a language they respond to instinctively. What he is talking about is something completely different. He is speaking to the wound in the Black soul, the ache in the conscience of a people, the sense that one group of people is forcing its will upon another.  And this is why Reverend Wright’s congregation stood up and cheered.  It was not because America was unjustified in its attack on Japan, it was not because America is a bad country, and it was not because the congregants hate America. No most certainly not!! It was a narrow interpretation of events that helped make a broader point that Reverend Wright was making: the injustice of one group forcing its will upon another.

The comparison was inarticulate and hopelessly apples and oranges to white Americans, but African Americans have learned not to interpret the text of a sermon the way white Americans do. What they understand all too well is a sermon’s subtext: what they hear behind the words themselves. White America understands text, Black America understands subtext. And that was the point of Reverend Wright’s sermons. He was speaking to something the rest of us can only glimpse, to something exclusively Black in its scope.

When a Black minister speaks, African Americans hear something quite different than merely text. They hear what speaks to the meaning of being Black in America, the meaning of being misunderstood, the meaning of being the victim, the meaning of being the ‘other’ that just doesn’t seem to break through no matter how hard they try to speak to others about their issues. Black America has a different history, a different identity, a different and unseen struggle that others cannot really quite understand in their terms. For Black America lives in a different world than White America, and no matter how loud they shout it, no matter how hard they try to be heard, their voices never really come through. White America is trying, to be sure, but ultimately they cannot hear the voices that a history of slavery, injustice, and oppression has silenced.

Gerry Rough

Posted in Gerry Rough | Leave a Comment »

Modern Man has “Educated Himself into Imbecility”

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

“It has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and laboring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”

– Malcolm Muggeridge, Seeing Through the Eye: Malcolm Muggeridge on Faith

My generation has embraced a world of intellectual elitism. The “uneducated” are no longer in a position to determine that which is right and wrong. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” a principle espoused by our founding fathers and written in the United States Declaration of Independence can no longer exist, intellectual evidence now reigns supreme.

If a man argues the principles of God in the world of academia they are cut with the two words that will bring my very generation to its knees. “Prove it.” Man can no longer get his principles from God alone, it must be backed by science or psychology. Only those with a thorough understanding of these subjects can determine that which is best for society. In short, my generation has become lawyers of truth and the defendant is God.

The irony in all of this is that while demanding that the man who defends the principles of God must use psychology and science to defend itself, those who demand it cannot defend their own principles using science and psychology. 

When questioned of their own ethic, their only response can be that each person can possess their own perception of right and wrong, otherwise they would have to justify their moral doctrine by the very criteria they demand be made of those who argue God. They are, in effect, rendered impotent of creating a moral society by their own argumentation.

Let me implore, nay, warn the reader to understand the importance of this to its most intrinsic level. There was a time in history when a society eventually embraced completely not the laws of God, but the idea that the elite few with a complete understanding of science and academia could drive man towards a Utopian society.

The most sobering realization to my generation ought to be that the holocaust was not driven by madmen, not encouraged by the unintelligent, not espoused by those without an understanding of philosophy but by men who were rational, some of the most highly educated and by those who possessed some of the greatest understanding of the philosophies of their time.

The difference was only that which drove their rationale, intellect and philosophy. These men were living without God, and if something does not change in western civilization, we may see a different picture all too late.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

– C.S. Lewis, “Mere” Christianity

Craig Chamberlin

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Craig Chamberlin, Culture War | 3 Comments »

The Fourth Party Candidate

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

It has been said that Ross Perot handed Bill Clinton a victory over George Bush and that Ralph Nader handed George W. Bush a victory over Al Gore. This is precisely the reason that a third party candidate will never be successful.

The answer to cracking the oligopoly that is the American political system is the fourth party candidate. In the previous elections, Pat Buchanan was a tool of the Democratic Party to defeat Bob Dole and Ralph Nader was a tool of the Republican Party to defeat Al Gore.  Did you know that registered Republicans were getting petitions signed to get Nader on the ballot?  Democrats were doing the same thing for Buchanan.

This may be the year for the dawn of new era. If Obama can pull off a victory over Hillary Clinton, and all the signs are pointing to that scenario, look for Senator Clinton to run for President anyways. Her narcissism will not allow her to concede defeat to Senator Obama. Equally, there is a disturbance in the Republican Party. Many conservatives do not like John McCain. Beyond McCain, many conservative Christians are beyond frustration with the Republican Party. For too many years we have been promised an end to the Roe v. Wade decision. Put this all together and there is a perfect storm brewing in Washington. If Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both end up running for President, look for the conservatives to run their own fourth party candidate.

Neither the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, nor the Reform Party have the backing to run a competitive race.  However, if the far left, moderate left, moderate right, and far right all had a candidate, there could be a competitive four-way race. Senators Obama and Clinton have shown that they can each garner a fifty percent split of the liberal votes. If there were no Mitt Romney, Huckabee could have taken McCain all the way to the convention.

Conservative Christians, most of whom belong to the Moral Majority, could run a candidate who could gain nearly 30% of a popular vote. That would be enough to win a four-way race. Some names that immediately surface that could run as that candidate are James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Don’t count on either of them, they have a following, but I don’t think they have Presidential aspirations anymore. Gary Bauer is the next logical choice, but he has already endorsed John McCain. No, the fourth party candidate would need to be solidly pro-choice, pro-second amendment, and not entrenched in the Republican Party, which is why Mike Huckabee would not be the right choice.

I cannot honestly say who should be the candidate, but I can offer up a couple of names. At the top of my list would be someone like Jay Sekulow. So, who is Jay Sekulow? He is the head of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Conservative Christian answer to the ACLU. For years, Sekulow has been an advocate for defending the Constitution. He has the connections in Washington from many years working with conservative politicians writing up bills to be made into laws. He would fit the above mentioned profile, but name recognition would hold him back.

Another name at the top of the list would be Colonel Oliver North. Col. North is extremely popular among the servicemen and women. His credentials as being pro-second amendment and pro-Christian cannot be questioned. He also has a connection to Ronald Reagan, which anyone on the conservative ticket must have.

If you trust exit polling taken at all in the primaries and caucuses, you know that Obama supporters do not like Clinton and vice-versa. A split Democratic ticket is a real possibility this year. Senator McCain has got to be the most unpopular Republican candidate since Ford. The perfect storm is brewing over the beltway and it is going to get darker before it gets brighter. Look for Obama to head up a far left ticket, Clinton to head up a moderate liberal ticket, McCain to head up the Republican ticket, and an unknown contender to head up a conservative ticket. Eventually it will happen, why not now?

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Jarrod Brigham | 1 Comment »

Commenting on “Anonymous Scientology”

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

The only fascinating aspect I can find in Anonymous’ actions is how some dozen allegedly educated college boys could fall for an obvious online marketing campaign so fast and without any suspicion. There seem to be personal deficits here, despite of online games and communities.

I am an IUSB alum (where I was involved in student government) and a proud member of Anonymous. I am a moderator at the Enturbulation forums, and am actively involved in the project chanology website and the partyvan irc. Believe it or not, Anonymous – despite being anonymous – is completely transparent. If you want to know, it’s all there for you to see. The Church of Scientology cannot make this boast. If you are interested in learning more, I’d be happy to give you an interview.

Anonymous has not fallen for an ‘obvious online marketing scheme.’ Anonymous is not a ‘group of superhackers.’ There are many myths that the Church of Scientology is spreading about what we are. I’d be happy to clarify, if you’re interested. is an absolute must-read. is a must-view.

In fact, Shawn Lonsdale, the gentleman being interviewed in that video (filmed last year) on top of the parking garage, was found dead in his home under questionable circumstances just a few weeks ago.

Scientology is far more sinister than you realize; more sinister than your article implied.


Posted in Letters to the Editor | Leave a Comment »

Commenting on “Can Science and Religion Co-exist?”

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

Science and religion will, in all probability, never reach an understanding on this issue. Science constantly wants the proof of something supernatural; which is in and of itself an oxymoron. Science tests ideas in the natural world and can only hypothesize on the supernatural. That is why it is called the SUPERNATURAL.

The constant debate as to the origins of man grows tiresome. Surely we as a human race can put our energies to something much more fruitful than arguing over the pettiness of how we got where we are. The point is that we are here.

I believe what my soul has always lead me to believe, that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Mankind sprang from His hand and no other place. It is my feelings that the interference of man, an imperfect creature, has been a cause for some evolutions. For example, it was man that developed antibiotics.

I understand that this will be shredded and dissected, but I simply don’t care. My beliefs are my own. I can not prove them or replicate God’s work in a science lab neither would I want to. It is only when we try to play God that we end up doing more harm than good. Dr. James Vanderveen is correct on one thing:
“Although scientists do not know everything, we are continually testing ideas and refining the ways we seek knowledge.”

Scientists do not know everything, only one Being knows everything that was, is and, is to be. Tested knowledge is only as good as the instruments that are doing the testing. Having theories based upon theories is where we run into trouble as a race. At one time science “proved” the Earth was flat, and religious figures insisted that Earth “was the center of the galaxy”.  Both are examples of basing theories upon theories. As far as I know, nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say “Earth is the center of the universe and all other bodies orbit that body”.

The truth remains that I believe in a Higher Power, something I can’t (nor do I wish to) ever test for. With that said, I don’t appreciate the scientific community slamming my belief structure by calling my views MYTH. I do not go around calling such people as Darwin buffoons.

I find it amazing how the above article describes Creationism as having a place in Sociology, Philosophy, and Religion classes but not Science. I would wager that Dr. Vanderveen would agree that Darwinism has a place in all the above classes. What does that mean? Does science somehow transcend all other thought? Should we view science as the “Holier than thou” of the academic world?

I want to make it perfectly clear, I mean no disrespect to anybody by this response. I am sorry if anybody takes offense to my views, but I am simply tired of being pushed down. Most professors believe that being open minded fosters the best learning experiences. Sometimes, those same professors can be the most closed minded people I have ever dealt with. Again I mean no disrespect to anybody, some of my best friends are professors.

I am open to any and all comments, but please don’t try to drag me into an argument. I have no desire to argue with anybody, I have made my point.


Robert Lowman
A proud IUSB grad

Posted in Letters to the Editor | Leave a Comment »