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 July, 2008

If you thought that leftist censorship and discrmination was bad at American universities, wait till you get a load of this….

Posted by iusbvision on July 31, 2008

Readers of this blog are well aware that exposing and fighting censorship has been the most important part of our mission here at the Vision.

Rory Leishman of the London Free Press tells about how Canada’s universities have become bastions of censorship, oppression and discrimination. Now some radical leftist groups are trying to deny students with ‘unapproved’ views and religions access to state run university facilities. (Hat Tip FIRE)

In America the far left tries to veil its censorship by calling it a ‘fairness doctrine’ or ‘harassment’, or ‘speech codes’. In Canada the far left openly proclaims censorship, oppression and discrimination as a virtue.

Read on:

Academic freedom used to be a hallmark of the Canadian university system. Apart from a few fascists, communists and other cranks on campus, everyone recognized that the free and vigorous expression of controversial ideas is essential to the life of the mind and the pursuit of truth.

Today, academic freedom is under attack as never before. On all too many campuses, freedom of expression is trumped by the contemporary canons of political correctness.

Consider, for example, the suppression of debate on abortion and the sanctity of human life. Earlier this year, the Canadian Federation of Students, an organization that purports to represent more than half a million students at more than 80 universities and colleges across Canada, expressed support for students’ unions that “refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space.”

In conformity with this resolution, a growing number of students’ unions from Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, have barred pro-life student organizations from using student facilities. In defending the adoption of this policy at York University, Gilary Massa, vice-president for equity of the York Federation of Students, explained that students will still be allowed to discuss abortion in student space, provided they do so “within a pro-choice realm.”

Massa sees no room for the discussion of abortion from a pro-life perspective. “These pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they’re sexist in nature,” she insists. “The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing . . . Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women’s rights.”

That’s typical of campus censors: They are very sure that they have an infallible grasp of the truth.

Be sure to read FIRE’s great post on this issue here –

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | 8 Comments »

Yakov Smirnoff and the Socialist Workers Paradise

Posted by iusbvision on July 30, 2008

Below is an exerpt from a conversation with famed comedian and former college professor Yakov Smirnoff. Smirnoff was born and raised in the Soviet Union and shares his thoughts of what it was like to live in the former socialist workers paradise where ‘social justice’ reigned supreme. – Chuck Norton

* * * * * * *
Smirnoff: In terms of freedom, I think it came from my dad. And I talk about this in my Broadway show, how memorable it was that he was listening to Voice of America. And he would have to get up, like, in the middle of the night-because they would jam broadcasts from Voice of America, and, uh-but in the middle of the night, they would not, because they didn’t think that anybody was listening [apparently the Marxist paradise had its own version of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’]. So he would get up, like, at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning and listen and then tell us-my mom and me at breakfast. And one time, I remember waking up and making myself -my way to the bathroom, and I heard this crackling, staticky noise, and I came over and sat with him. And it was-they talked about Statue of Liberty, and it just-as a young child, it made such a big impression on me that I figured, “I-I-I want to meet her someday.” And, you know, I liked everything about her except the green skin.

Yakov Smirnoff

Yakov Smirnoff

Smirnoff: That didn’t care-didn’t care much for it. And then, you know, many years later, I was sworn in at the Statue of Liberty as an American citizen, so I guess those dreams do come true.

Smirnoff:– how do I go around it and make it work? And I was successful at that, and I became very popular in the Soviet Union at that time and traveled around the country, worked on the cruise ships on the Black Sea. I-I called them the Love Barge. And that’s where I met American people. And-and this is where they really-for the first time, I saw their eyes. I mean, I heard about Americans, but I didn’t have contact with Americans. And seeing their eyes and seeing that spark of freedom that I-most Russian people, Soviet people those days just looked down. They were all very suppressed. And seeing people who were smiling, and they just-they were so happy. And they told me-through the interpreter, because I didn’t speak English-they told me about freedom and freedom of speech. And in Russia, they would tell us also we have freedom of speech, but here, you have freedom after you speak.

Paulson: So how does one become a comedian in the old Soviet Union? Um, you know, comedians in this country, they push the envelope.

Smirnoff: Yep.

Smirnoff: How much envelope pushing could you do?

Smirnoff: Well, you can-you can push it once. And then-then you’ll be looking for punch lines in all the wrong places. Um, I guess-there’s certain amount of benefit that I got from being restricted from-I couldn’t talk about politics, government, sex, and religion. The rest was fine.

Smirnoff: And I was censored by the Department of Jokes. Once a year, you submit your material. And normally you have to do jokes pretty much tried out by somebody else, because original stuff didn’t really exist there. And that way the- you know, the politician who is sitting there or the bureaucrat who is reading those things, he doesn’t have to take the responsibility for anything. So and then they approve it with a stamp, and you get it for a year, and you have to basically repeat that thing like a tape recorder. And,uh, so I did that. I did it. I was very careful. And the only-the challenge was to find humor that was clever enough that the politician or the bureaucrat could not see the double meaning of it –

Let us all hope and pray that we do not allow far left academics, activists and politicians lead us into the workers paradise that Yakov Smirnoff had to flee from.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Profiles in Crazed Far Left ‘Thinking’

Posted by iusbvision on July 30, 2008

UPDATE – “Think Progress” censored (read removed) the link to us that contained the CNS News Service article that showed how the Obama Campaign was paying women less than the men – in contrast to his rhetoric on the issue. Apparently “Think Progress” can’t handle any inconvenient facts posted by their readers and just censor them. We did not post the link to our post on their site, one of their readers did. I would like to thank “Think Progress” for proving my point about the far left’s love affair with censorship. Obviously progress does not include the First Amendment or a substantive dialogue.

* * * * *

Examine this link above and also be sure to look at the comments.

This post above is not unusual and is typical of the tactics of the far left. It claims or overtly implies that President Bush hates women, in spite of the fact that he is married to one and has two daughters. There is no attempt to examine the reasons why a Bush adviser recommended that the bill be vetoed. Bills have sections all the time that can result in unintended consequences or have amendments that make a bill unacceptable.

For example – I was hoping that the President would Veto the Fannie/Freddie bail out bill. Fannie and Freddie Mae, both government sponsored corporations, have been funneling millions of dollars to lobbyists, politicians and think tanks and most were of the far left variety. Government sponsored corporations should not be kicking back to politicians or engage in any partisan activity. The tax payers bail it out and they intern send money to partisans. There is a term for that, its called sanctioned corruption. Its a scam. Of course if Bush did veto the bill far left outfits would say that Bush is against housing or some stupidity like that. I will have a full post on this corruption tomorrow.

Now lets go back to the link and examine the post made by “Shayne”.

A poster had linked an article that we here at the Vision posted from CNS News, a well known news wire service. It explained how Obama was paying women in his campaign less than men which is contrary to his rhetoric. Here is the link to our article.

So did the far left poster Shayne examine the facts presented to see if it was true?? No.

Did Shayne even mention that we were merely quoting other reliable sources? No.

Shayne decides that its easier to attack us for posting it, calls us liars and asks that the comment with our link in it be flagged so it could be censored.

To complete his sophistry, Shayne in the most predictable fashion, makes the obligatory NAZI reference as well, which I always find amusing because Nazism is just another form of far left socialism.

As we have been cataloging carefully here, the far left both on and off campus either wants to censor others, or attempts to more and more often. Attempts to revive the so called “Fairness Doctrine” to silence talk radio is an example. Episodes of censorship, discrimination and retaliation on college campuses by the far left are now commonplace. It is so bad that California has been passing legislation drafted by Dr. Leland Yee to help prevent censorship and retaliation by university administrations against faculty that stand up for the free speech rights of students. The University of California is fighting the law ( links here and here ).

The Alliance Defense Fund had to create a special division solely dedicated to campus abuses.

Students for Academic Freedom works to protect the freedoms of students and to encourage a partisan disconnect in academia so that college faculty behave as educators and not as a political party.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is so busy that it cannot act on or investigate all of the inquiries submitted to it.

If you take issue with leftist nonsense, usually they have no interest in dealing with the facts, in fact if you look at the comments in the thread below our leftist friend KC would not engage me on the facts I presented that he found inconvenient. Instead it was easier for him to call the writer a pig and go on posting as if the inconvenient facts exposing how incorrect he was never existed.

This is how a radicalized far left does business. If you dare disagree with them, they are out to destroy you. They call you names like Nazi, bigot, etc as a warning to others that it is dangerous to disagree with them. In short, they use every Orwellian tactic in the book.

The best way to fight these people is aggressively and boldly. If Shayne had any effective critical thinking skills, perhaps he would not have to resort to such tactics, but unfortunately in too many universities, just as in the Wayne State lawsuit we reported on, students learn this behavior while in college. Part of that reason is because too many colleges and faculty are trying to make careers and not minds.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

National Association of Scholars: Social Work Education is a National Academic Scandal

Posted by iusbvision on July 30, 2008

A group of people who seek to change the political, cultural and economic circumstances of their constituencies and engineer their view of an ideal society through the wielding of political and economic power.


Is the above the definition of a school of education or is that the definition of a political party?

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) released a study that reviewed the course materials of 10 schools of social work:

The study, which reviewed social work education programs at ten major public universities, aimed at assessing whether or not they conformed to the academic ideals of open inquiry, partisan disengagement, and intellectual pluralism. Instead, it found the descriptions of social work education programs to be, at every level, chock full of ideological boilerplate and statements of political commitment.

For example, all ten programs reviewed accepted accreditation from a body — the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) — that expects programs “to integrate social and economic justice content grounded in an understanding of distributive justice, human and civil rights, and the global interconnections of oppression”; nine of the ten programs require students to conform to the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), which enjoins social workers, using similar left/liberal rhetoric to, among other things, “engage in social and political action” and “advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions to meet basic human needs and promote social justice.”

The mission statements of the programs reviewed are replete with similar ideologically fraught statements ranging from an avowal of commitments to the “empowerment of oppressed people” to an emphasis on understanding “the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination that lead to poverty, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ableism, and ageism” as a means of advocacy “for social and economic justice.” These thematic preoccupations receive further reinforcement in several official student handbooks.

Course descriptions also contain highly politicized content or ideologically slanted premises. For example, “Organizing for Social and Political Action” at the University of Michigan is described as preparing students to use “political advocacy as a form of mobilization” with special emphasis “placed on organizing communities of color, women, LGBT populations, and underrepresented groups in U.S. society,” while “Muslim Families” at the University of Washington assumes the existence and discusses “the effect and interaction of cultural imperialism on Muslim communities, both in the United States and abroad.”

Commenting on these findings, NAS president Stephen H. Balch remarked, “It is totally unacceptable for an academic discipline to load mission statements with question-begging concepts that preempt the discussion of unsettled questions, prepare students to become activists for particular causes, or require that students swear loyalty to creedal formulations in order to graduate. Social work education does all these things.”

“What we’ve uncovered,” observed Dr. Balch, “reveals a field that has supplanted open minded inquiry with left-wing, morally relativist, and occasionally paranoid dogma. There is certainly room for vigorous debate about the extent to which responsibility for life’s problems derives from individual choices as opposed to social structures, discrimination, or even, as the CSWE would have it, ‘the global interconnections of oppression.’ But there is little in the doctrinaire, activist stance of contemporary social work education to encourage such colloquy. Instead, academic freedom has been replaced by ideological lockstep.

Oh it all just sounds so warm a fuzzy doesn’t it; social justice and helping the oppressed?

What many students are too young to understand is that these are the euphemisms employed by socialists, communists and tyrants from the Bolshevik Revolution to the destruction of the Iron Curtain. ‘Social justice’ means strong limitations on economic freedom, reduction of economic growth and the creation of wealth, and the redistribution of wealth to the constituencies of those in power by use of government force.

Conveniently, the ‘oppressed’ are only those who seek to put such political elites in power or can be manipulated into doing so. Those who oppose their ascendancy to power are the ‘oppressors’.

The communists came to power by promising social justice in the name of the oppressed working class. Of course once the communists attained power it was the workers who found out that it was they who were oppressed at the hands of their ‘liberators’ and their secret police forces such as the KGB. Stalin killed over 30 million of his own citizens in order to achieve his ‘workers paradise’.

Leftist academics say that pointing out such history is “fear mongering”. However, after having been fortunate enough to talk to some Eastern Europeans who have lived through it, the distance and mystery of what went on behind the Iron Curtain becomes a stark reality. Having lived through the cold war, it was leftist academics and journalists that praised the centralized economy of the Soviet Union as the model for us all. They praised it almost to the day it all collapsed and condemned those such as President Ronald Reagan who worked to bring about that collapse.

The goal of those claim to be for ‘social justice’ and helping the ‘oppressed’ is often just the establishment of a political class that has central control over the economy and our lives. Their actions and behavior demonstrate that they believe people are too stupid to be entrusted with their own freedom.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | 6 Comments »

Sometimes the ones who are given the most public trust and responsibility are the ones who most brazenly violate it…

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2008

Sometimes the ones who are given the most public trust and responsibility are the ones who most brazenly violate it… while enjoying protection from some of their peers.

UPDATE: 9/5/2008 WABC Radio reports that the charges against Chris Long, the bicyclist who was the victim of police brutality, has had all charges dropped against him. The officer involved has been reassigned pending an investigation.

Hat Tip

What the video doesn’t show is Pogan arresting Long for attempted assault in the third degree, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct – charges that kept the Bloomfield, N.J. man behind bars for 26 hours before his release late Saturday…

Adding insult to injury, the criminal complaint drafted by Pogan bears little resemblance to what was witnessed by onlookers and recorded on video.In court papers, Pogan accused Long of purposely swerving his bicycle to block traffic and then using it as a weapon to run down the officer, knocking him off his feet and causing a “laceration” on his forearm.

Does this police officer look like he was run down and knocked over by the bicyclist? Or was it the other way around? The video yeilds an obvious answer. The second officer had to have gone along with the cover up of Officer Pogan’s crime.

Our friends at ask:

Exit quotation: “If it wasn’t caught on video people would not have believed it.”

Exactly. No one expects a person in the public trust to be so brazen in the abuse of that trust. It is hard to believe it when it happens. So when the obscure man is violated who believes him? How are his rights protected? This is a situation many falsely accused students are put into every day. If the victim does fight back the perpetrators peers circle the wagons against the victim.

If there was no publicized video of this crime: the bicyclist would have been railroaded and you can be certain that Officer Pogan’s partner would have perjured himself in a court of law to make the injustice stick. You can bet that the NYPD would have backed their lying officers 100% and even the prosecutor would have been more aggressive in his prosecution. Internal affairs would have concluded that it was two officers word against a malcontent kid from a critical mass bike ride so it is no a no brainer that the bike rider is a liar who is just trying to cause even more trouble. “After all”, asks internal affairs, “why would two of New York’s finest conspire against you…a kid they don’t even know?”

Perhaps even the judge would have imposed a stiffer sentence after finding him guilty all because the victim tried to defend himself in court with his “outrageous story”.

A member of the administration once told me to my face “a student’s word is never as good as a professors”… in this case a critical mass bike rider’s word is never as good as two of New York’s finest and if it were not for a good citizen with a video camera, they would have gotten away with it.

In the case of Keith Sampson at IUPUI, it was the AAO/diversity office that was committing the crime. The very same people who were charged with protecting Sampson from illegal discrimination were using illegal discrimination against him. The IUPUI administration circled the wagons against Sampson, even the Black Faculty and Staff Council rose up against him. IUPUI public relations was even attacking Sampson in the press. Fortunately great outside forces intervened and the truth was told. I wish this ordeal was over for Sampson, but efforts to isolate him and make him feel unwelcome by some at IUPUI continue.

Chuck Norton

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

Montclair State University Student Newspaper Gains Independence from Student Government After Censorship Fight

Posted by iusbvision on July 29, 2008

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

The student government, which provides a large portion of the budget for The Montclarion, temporarily froze the newspaper’s funds last month after the paper hired a lawyer to challenge the government’s tendency to meet behind closed doors. The government later restored the funds pending mediation of the dispute. Those talks broke down this week.

All too often, a student government’s only constituents are themselves. Let’s face reality; most students get involved in student government as a way to further fluff a resume or to network and the truth is, many university administrations like it that way.

A student government that sticks up for student rights, the law, or in some cases the the university’s own rules, can find itself in battle with the administration when it acts against the law, the rules, or the best interests of students. Some administrations like to have a member of student government on certain committee’s to create the illusion of genuine student input. Student governments that do the right thing can find their budget authority threatened by the administration for example.

In this case it was the student government who took the budget away form the student newspaper because the student government had so many “closed meetings” that the student newspaper actually had to hire a lawyer to work to force the meetings open and gain access so the newspaper could do its job.

The trustees of Montclair State University, in New Jersey, have approved separating the institution’s student newspaper from the Student Government Association, the Associated Press reported. The Montclarion had received most of its budget from the government association, but now will be supported through student fees and advertising revenue.

The trustees at Montclair State did the right thing in this case and should be applauded. Hopefully, the adviser for the student government used all of his persuasive power to prevent the student government from having too many closed meetings and from attempting to censor the student paper in the first place. The student government in this case apparently deserved a good lecture about such behavior.

It either case, having the student government fund the student newspaper that covers it is a conflict of interest to say the least.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Sometimes it’s your own student government that violates the law to oppress you (and then the university administration piles on…)

Posted by iusbvision on July 28, 2008

and gets the university dragged into federal court facing a lawsuit it has no chance of winning. (Hat Tip – FIRE)

By Chuck Norton

Wayne State University in Michigan is being sued by a student group represented by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) for unlawful religious and viewpoint discrimination.

ADF’s Press Release contains some of the details.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the school’s student fee policy, which precludes student groups with religious viewpoints from benefits that are extended to student groups with nonreligious views.

Andrea Bezaire, president of WSU Students for Life, submitted a budget request to WSU’s Budget Committee to help fund the group’s Pro-Life Week 2008 events. The committee denied the request “because of the spiritual and religious programming references in the cover letter.”

In Bezaire’s appeal of the denial, she removed all religious references in order to meet the budget committee’s demands. Even so, the university replied by again denying the group’s entire budget request, with some student council members stating that the subject matter of the group’s events was inappropriate and would greatly offend women who had an abortion.

The lawsuit also challenges a reservation policy which WSU used to deny the group access to a room because the university officials found the proposed pro-life event to be “unsuitable.”

Wayne State University’s written policy states:

Funds (event, travel, and office supplies) you receive from Student Council are considered public funds. Therefore they cannot be used for – 1.) Political advocacy 2.) To advance religion

The ADF’s brief makes it clear that even after religious references were removed, student council members stated before the vote that they did not want to vote the pro-life group any funds because they didn’t like the views of the pro-life group and that such an event might offend women who had an abortion.

I have news for the Student Council of Wayne State University and it’s chancellor; student group funding must be content and viewpoint neutral which means if a student group wants to produce an event to oppose abortion, have a campus crusade for Christ, and cooperate with the College Republicans to ask students to vote for Republicans who are pro-life, the university is obligated by law to treat them no differently from any student group that asked for funding for any other activity such as a student group who wants to have a tennis tournament.

The law was broken and the pro-life group had its rights violated when they were asked to remove the religious references from their funding request. The result of the resubmitted request demonstrated that not only was there unlawful religious discrimination involved in the denial of the funds, but unlawful viewpoint discrimination as well.

The federal case law is crystal clear in cases such as these:

This case is a perfect example of a violation of the constitutional principle of viewpoint neutrality as explicated by the Supreme Court in Rosenberger vs. Rectors of the University of Virginia (1995). In that case, the Court ruled that the University of Virginia violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech by refusing to fund a student paper based on the paper’s religious viewpoint. The Court wrote in Rosenberger, ‘The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.’ If the university charges students fees, it is required to distribute them on a viewpoint-neutral basis.

Likewise, in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System vs. Southworth (2000), the Court upheld the viewpoint neutrality principle, allowing the university to collect mandatory fees so long as those fees were distributed on a viewpoint-neutral basis. The Court wrote:

‘Viewpoint neutrality is the justification for requiring the student to pay the fee in the first instance and for ensuring the integrity of the program’s operation once the funds have been collected’.

I quoted FIRE directly because their explanation of case law that applies in this situation is spot on. When I was Chief Justice of IUSB Student Government I authored judicial reports that referenced cases such as Rosenberger. If I were the Chief Justice at Wayne State, this is exactly the case law I would have quoted and based my ruling upon.

What I find most amusing is that while most cases of such blatant illegal discrimination by a university is in violation of its own regulations, in this case the University’s own written policy is clearly unconstitutional by well established and understood federal case law standards.

How is this possible? How could such an obviously illegal policy be allowed to exist, and how could it be enforced; especially after Penn State, Temple University and Georgia Tech have all recently lost lawsuits to the Alliance Defense fund for this or similar types of illegal discrimination?

Part of the answer comes from a student’s posted comment to the Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the lawsuit by a student, who I would wager is a member of the Wayne State Student Council:

I attend Wayne State and I have no doubt the Students for Life group had their budget rejected for legitimate reasons. Much of their literature involves religious references. On top of that, all student organizations are prohibited for using university funds for t-shirts and snacks. It is in the budget handbook all student orgs are required to overview at the beginning of the school year. They are extremists and this is nothing more than a publicity stunt.,4,Prohibited

Do students leave high school with this kind of hostility towards religious people or even those who are pro-life? Do student’s leave high school with no regard or understanding of what “freedom of speech” means? In a word, No. Students learn such hostility and ignorant attitudes from radicalized undergraduate course faculty and administrators, which in this day and age is in no short supply.

There is little doubt that the pro-life students tried multiple appeals to Wayne State University’s administration to remedy to this illegal discrimination, yet the administration let this come to a lawsuit they have no chance of winning. Why?

Wayne State has a law school on the campus which no doubt has several First Amendment case law experts. I have taken three courses at IUSB that cover First Amendment Case Law and I am well versed in the precedent so it is not like this area of litigation is obscure.  All someone in the administration would have had to do was pickup the phone and talk to experts they have right on campus or Wayne State’s administration could have consulted their own legal experts when the illegal policy was first crafted. Is it incompetence or do university officials simply have no reason to care how many times they break the law because it will be the taxpayer who pays the bill? Odds are those who broke the law have nothing to fear as far as personal monetary consequences are concerned. They make the policy that suits their own ignorant and hostile attitudes and let others worry about the consequences. Is this what we should expect from college administrators who make six figure salaries? Perhaps it is time to do as California has begun to do, and pass new laws to hold university administrators themselves to account when student’s rights are violated.

Wayne State University is named after General Anthony Wayne who was a friend of George Washington. Wayne was a devout Episcopalian and was an active member of his church. The actions of his namesake would make him rollover in his graves; both of them.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

FIRE and National Review Feature the Vision in Recent Coverage

Posted by iusbvision on July 27, 2008

FIRE features the Vision in its weekly roundup.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has featured the Vision’s original reporting in it’s weekly roundup. FIRE has become the civil rights organization at the tip of the spear in combating campus abuse, censorship, intimidation and retaliation. Together with the Alliance Defense Fund, Students for Academic Freedom, the Student Press Law Center and state chapters of the ACLU, some of the grossest violations of law and abuse have been resisted. Abusive administrators and radically minded faculty are becoming aware that the days of violating people’s rights in secret are coming to an end.

Here is the link –

We would also like to give very special thanks to National Review Magazine. National Review has a special section of their online presence, aptly named Phi Beta Cons, dedicated to restoring educational values and principles that have faded in recent years. Phi Beta Cons featured the original coverage in the Vision recently:

I would also like to thank all the others who have sent encouraging words of support and featured The Vision on their blogs as well.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Ivy Tech Abuses Professors at the Expense of Students

Posted by iusbvision on July 25, 2008

Ivy Tech Abuses Professors at the Expense of Students.

(A new entry with more information about this information is in the works so stay tuned)

Some of the students in Prof. Pejman Norasteh’s class were having a problem fully understanding the concepts presented in the textbook. So like any good professor he created supplemental materials to aid the students. As is often the case, many students will not ask for help, so when some need help odds are those students are not alone.

Ivy Tech fired Prof. Norasteh for his efforts. Apparently a couple students complained about getting materials that were not in the syllabus (pretty lame really), but after other incidents at Ivy Tech it becomes clear that the administration did not want the impression given that their curriculum could be anything less than perfect.

Inside Higher Education gives us the details:

Pejman Norasteh was teaching statistics this spring at the Indianapolis campus of Ivy Tech Community College when he tried to respond to one set of student complaints and found himself in trouble with the administration for doing so. Norasteh saved e-mail messages he received from students and superiors that document his version of events and that he shared with Inside Higher Ed, minus identifying information about students.

Norasteh – like many adjuncts – didn’t have much control over the material he was supposed to cover. But students started to send him e-mail saying that the textbook was unclear. One student said he was getting “depressed” and giving up when he didn’t understand the required assignments. Another student wrote: “As usual, our textbook does a poor job of explaining concepts. I am adding this chapter to my list of examples of how poor our book is….”

In response to the e-mail messages and personal requests, Norasteh started handing out supplementary materials to cover the same subject matter as the textbook, but with his own explanations. While the students who complained were happy, some others were not. They sent e-mail messages to the division chair saying that they were being asked to do extra work on top of the syllabus because the supplementary materials were not mentioned on the syllabus as required reading. That of course was true, since Norasteh didn’t start the course thinking he would add to the reading beyond the textbook.

At that point, Norasteh received an e-mail from Mark Magnuson, division chair for liberal arts and sciences, and general education at the campus. Magnuson wrote that it was clear to him that “you are not using or following the syllabus or textbook,” adding that “all instructors, adjuncts and full-time, are required to use the syllabus and textbook in each course to meet the statewide agreed upon course objectives. Individual instructors do not have the option of straying from the syllabus and/or textbook.”

While Norasteh disagreed with the e-mail (he says he never stopped using the textbook, and only added material), he backed down and returned to the unadulterated textbook. He even has e-mail from one of the students remarking on his return to the textbook only. But it was too late. Shortly after, he was told his contract would not be renewed.

It gets better. Enter the lame PR excuse:

Jeffery Fanter, vice president of communications at Ivy Tech, said he was aware of Prof. Norasteh’s situation but said that college policy prevented him from commenting on it directly. But he defended the idea that the college might tell an instructor not to deviate in any way from a syllabus. “I can tell you that there are expectations that certain aspects of a courses syllabus be followed and taught consistent with the elements that were approved by the faculty in a specific department,” he said via e-mail. “The syllabus and curriculum is developed by our faculty. As a transfer institution consistency in our academic delivery is an important part of our mission.”

The lame “privacy” excuse is just that. It is the abused who are blowing the whistle and want the details publicized. So pretending that they are acting in the best interests and privacy concerns of the people they had abused is a lie that insults the intelligence of anyone with even average critical thinking skills. The truth is that many administrations who abuse students and carry out their duties as if the university exists to provide them with a six figure income always claim ‘privacy’ when they don’t want to be held accountable to the public and to the media. These are tax payer funded institutions and many of those who run them like to think that they are unaccountable.

IUSB has seen this behavior first hand. When IUSB student Robert Francis asked former SGA Chief Justice Chuck Norton (the author of this article) to represent him when he was being unfairly railroaded by the administration in his famed case, the administration delayed Francis’ side of the investigation by claiming ‘privacy’ concerns. The administration asked that it be presented written permission from Francis to see the case materials and see the communications involved. The administration received all of the documents they asked for and continued to deny Norton inclusion in communications and refused to answer many of Norton’s emails.

For more details on this and other recent Indiana University cases: and

Fanter’s ‘transfer of credits’ claim is almost as laughable as the bogus ‘privacy’ claim. To claim that some supplemental materials to help students understand important concepts, on top of the course text, in any way endanger accreditation doesn’t pass the snicker test. PR professional or not, the taxpayers should not tolerate state employees who are dishonest.

Adding supplemental material at the professors own dime is the act of a true educator; especially considering that he can prove that he was acting at the behest of struggling students. It is not that the Ivy Tech has no clue about genuine education; it is just that genuine education is not at the top of their priority list.

This brings us to the next unethical act of abuse by the Ivy Tech administration:

Becky Lee Meadows was responsible last semester for supervising the work of 16 adjunct instructors at Ivy Tech Community College’s campus in Madison, Ind. When two of them – working without any health insurance from the college – had health emergencies, Meadows got to thinking about what could be done to help out.

Prof. Becky Meadows courtesy Lacarlotta Magazine

Prof. Becky Meadows courtesy Lacarlotta Magazine

She came up with the idea of raising money to create a fund, to be turned over to the college, that would be used to help adjuncts facing unexpected health costs. A country music singer when she’s not an academic, Meadows thought she would get things started by holding a benefit concert. (She records under the name FOXX.)

Not only has the college not created the fund and pressured her to call off the concert, but Meadows is now out of a job, and she believes it is because of anger over her efforts on behalf of adjuncts. A committee of the American Philosophical Association and the Indiana conference of the American Association of University Professors, having reviewed documents in the case, agree – and are saying that the Meadows case raises troubling questions about academic freedom and shows the vulnerability of those without tenure.

A college spokesman said that he didn’t know that Meadows was no longer working at the college, and didn’t have any information he could discuss.

Meadows had worked as an assistant professor and chair of liberal arts at Ivy Tech since 2005. She was full time, receiving health benefits, but as is the norm at the campus, she worked on annual contracts, not on a tenure track. Meadows taught philosophy, English and general humanities classes while getting involved in the Faculty Senate, serving on a curriculum committee, and helping to organize a conference on the humanities.

When she came up with the idea of holding the concert, she told Ivy Tech officials about it because she wanted to be sure they would take the money raised and hold on to it for adjuncts. Meadows said she was eventually told that the college didn’t object to the concert idea, provided that the college was in no way linked to the effort. That was fine with Meadows, who planned to have the company that manages her concerts make the arrangements and to hold the event off campus.

A date was set and tickets were printed. Then Meadows received e-mail messages from college administrators complaining about the tickets, which identified the name “College Relief Fund.” Ivy Tech officials complained that the word “college” violated the pledge by Meadows not to link Ivy Tech to the concert – so she blacked out the word “college,” leaving the tickets labeled only as “Relief Fund.” But more e-mail messages arrived, including one telling her to “cease and desist” and in a meeting with administrators, Meadows said that the she was told by administrators that the concert had become “a PR nightmare” by implying that Ivy Tech doesn’t treat its adjuncts well.

To make a long story short – they canned her. I am not a big fan of teacher unions and sometimes groups such as the AAUP are a part of the problems seen in higher education. If such behavior at IVY Tech continues I would support the faculty of Ivy Tech voting to create a union. Let us see how a few union walk outs help the PR for Ivy Tech’s administration.

Martin Benjamin, professor emeritus of philosophy at Michigan State University and chair of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee for the Defense of the Professional Rights of Philosophers, said he was intrigued by the case as soon as Meadows told him about it. So he requested copies of all the documents and e-mail exchanges. After reviewing them, he wrote to the Ivy Tech chancellor this week to ask for reasons why Meadows is no longer employed.

“It’s a prima facie case that her rights may have been violated,” Benjamin said. He said he was waiting for the Ivy Tech response, and that he couldn’t prove a link between the concert and the non-renewal, but that the timing raised questions. “It looked like she’d been doing an excellent job, had the esteem of her colleagues, good teaching evaluations, and it was very surprising that she would not be given a contract,” he said. “It seems like everything they asked her to do, she did.”

Richard Schneirov, a professor of history at Indiana State University and president of the Indiana AAUP, has also been looking into the case and talking to faculty members who, because of what happened to Meadows, do not want to speak out. Based on the interviews he had conducted and the documents he reviewed, “there is no doubt” that Meadows lost her position because she tried to raise money to help adjuncts, he said.

Prof. Norasteh and Prof. Meadows were doing the right thing and were made to suffer for it by the Ivy Tech administration in a most callous and vicious way. These kinds of abuse are becoming epidemic on campus from coast to coast. The State of California has taken the lead on this issue by passing due process laws and anti-retaliation laws in an effort to get out of control administrations back in line with the public trust. Such measures and a strict set of ethics laws, aimed precisely against such abuses, are needed in every state in the union. Our students, fair minded educators, and tax payers deserve no less.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 6 Comments »

Bush and Batman Have Much in Common

Posted by iusbvision on July 25, 2008

Warning: This movie review may make neo-Marxists, Marxists, hyper partisans and those with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) foam at the mouth and flop on the floor in convulsions.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you,

Chuck Norton

What Bush and Batman Have in Common

July 25, 2008; Page A15

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Courtesy Warner Brothers

Courtesy Warner Brothers

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror — films like “In The Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Redacted” — which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3” and now “The Dark Knight”?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They’re wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

These Girls from Texas Were Shot Dead by Their Father for Not Dating Muslim Boys

Posted by iusbvision on July 24, 2008

Amina (left) and Sarah /facebook

Amina (left) and Sarah /facebook

UPDATE I – “During the vigil, the girls’ brother took the microphone, saying his father did not kill his sisters. ‘They pulled the trigger, not my dad,’ he said.”

How charming …

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Another ‘Honor Killing’ of defenseless girls, this time in Texas. Posted by Chuck Norton.

The AP Via Fox News reports:

One of the teen sisters shot and left for dead in a taxicab dialed 911 for help, telling the operator “I’m dying,” according to a call released by Texas police on Wednesday.

Amina Yaser Said, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17, were found dead in a parking lot on New Year’s Day in Irving, Texas.

The first call, made at 7:33 p.m. on Jan. 1 and determined to be made by Sarah Said, was dialed from a cell phone from an unknown location, according to police. Sarah can be heard telling the operator repeatedly “I’m dying.”

The second call came in at 8:30 p.m., reporting a suspicious circumstance at a hotel in the Irving area.

A manhunt continues for the girls’ father, Yaser Abdul Said, 50, wanted in connection with the slayings. A capital murder warrant has been issued for Said.

Authorities are offering a $10,000 reward for information leading an arrest and indictment.

Police documents show that Said had threatened to hurt one of the girls for dating a non-Muslim boy.,2933,323265,00.html

Sarah and Amina /facebook

Sarah and Amina /facebook

Hear the 911 Tapes of the murders – WARNING GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING AND NOT FOR CHILDREN,2933,323265,00.html#

Gail Gattrell, the sisters’ great-aunt, has called the deaths an “honor killing,” in which a woman is murdered by a relative to protect her family’s honor.

According to a police report released Tuesday, a family member told investigators that Yaser Said threatened “bodily harm” against Sarah for going on a date with a non-Muslim.

The police documents, first obtained by Dallas television station KXAS, also show that Patricia Said fled with her daughters in the week before the girls were killed because she was in “great fear for her life.”,2933,321486,00.html

The Murderer - Yaser Abdel Said courtesy AP/Irving Police Department.jpg

The Murderer - Yaser Abdel Said courtesy AP/Irving Police Department

Steps need to be taken by Congress and immigration officials to identify those who are prone to such behavior and keep them out of the country. Reports show that Yaser Abdel Said had a history of violence when it came to his family. The girls had come to school with evidence of being beaten so where was the school? Where were officials to get these children away from this maniac?

The Digital Journal reports, “According to the UN and the International Campaign to Stop Honor Killings, over 5000 women and girls in 52 nations are murdered every year.”

The world should not tolerate this.

Fox News Channel will be airing a special this weekend about ‘honor killings’ in America.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 1 Comment »

Democrats Are the Party of the Rich

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2008

Vision readers may remember the post linked below that shows Obama’s biggest contributors. Money is more important to Obama than ever since he broke his promise to use the public financing system for his campaign.

Democrats, contrary to their claim that Republicans are the party of the rich, have been far more dependent on money from PAC’s, other special interests and big money interests than Republicans have.

David Brooks had a nice Op-Ed where he goes over these facts in an eloquent way.

Obama’s Money Class

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at

People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

EU Parliament Members Caught Robbing the Tax Players

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2008

EU Parliament Members Caught Robbing the Tax Players.

Can you say BUSTED?

Our friend Dr. Reynolds at Instapundit had this to add for a caption:

Over at EU Referendum under the heading “Caught red-handed” there is an instructive YouTube video. It shows a bunch of MEPs showing up at their place of work at quarter to seven in the morning. Exemplary devotion to duty? Well, no. What they are actually doing, suitcases in hand, is signing the attendance register on a Friday morning before heading home for the weekend. Then they will be paid, most lavishly, for working that day.

The cat really lands among the pigeons around 2 minutes 30 seconds in. Watch the MEPs dodge back behind doors as they register the camera’s unwelcome presence. Listen to the cries and squeals. “It is not your business!” “Such impertinence!” I did not catch the name of the genial chap who claimed to be about to start work in his constituency before running for the door, but Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott (of, I am sorry to say, the EU-sceptic Independence and Democracy Group) said she had already been at work for seven hours, and Hiltrud Breyer of the German Green Party really ought to look at people when she talks to them.

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

They are All About Peace and Love ….

Posted by iusbvision on July 23, 2008

They are all about Peace and Love ….

(Hat Tip

Here is coverage from a recent “anti-war” protest from blog. While some where willing to talk, two were reasonable, some are clearly delusional, some are mired by hate. Many just repeat slogans and are totally incapable of reason. When confronted with inconvenient facts they call you a fascist. It is like trying to talk to a wall. I have had similar experiences when attempting to have a conversation with so called activists here at IUSB, minus the spitting of course.

Just like these protesters, Obama still won’t admit that he was wrong about the surge, while at the same time calling for a surge in Afghanistan. Obama walked around Iraq without a vest, which would not have been possible if it were not for the surge. Here is an experiment, find your local protester and see if they will admit that they were wrong about the surge.

You know, the Left would like to turn almost anything now into a hate crime. Do you think we could get the Dems in Congress to include US servicemen and women in their next piece of hate crime legislation? Imagine if some right-of-center folks had spat all over a LGBT parade. I’d think we’d see a huge cry of intolerance and bigotry from the Left.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

The Buzz About a McCain-Romney Ticket – NYT Gets On the Train When It’s Leaving the Station

Posted by iusbvision on July 22, 2008

The Vision told you about this story on July 6th. The New York Times got around to telling you on July 19th.

We told you in this link here :

Here is the fluff from the New York Times, only it’s two weeks late.

The Buzz About a McCain-Romney Ticket

It was not so long ago that the idea that Senator John McCain would even entertain tapping Mitt Romney, his bitterest primary rival, as his running mate would have seemed preposterous, rating at least 7.0 on the strange-bedfellows scale.

But that was then.

These days Mr. Romney, a telegenic former Massachusetts governor, is serving as a wingman extraordinaire for Mr. McCain on cable television. He has dutifully raised money for Mr. McCain. And Mr. Romney has developed a reputation as a campaign surrogate who can talk fluently about the economy, and who has roots in Michigan, an important swing state.

Now Mr. Romney is attracting perhaps more buzz than anyone else as a potential running mate for the man he once derided.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

More Shameful Conduct at IUPUI – Black Faculty Council Running Interference for Those who Falsely Persecuted Sampson for “Racial Harassment” – Rules Ignored – More Developing….

Posted by iusbvision on July 19, 2008

This story has gotten a bit large and complex – the best bet is to scroll down to where it says “Original Story” – start there and read the updates as numbered in order – Editor

Hello National Review, The Torch and Townhall readers – and thank you. – Editor

For those who are new to this story, should read the entry linked here to catch up –

UPDATE III – SAMPSON WROTE AN EDITORIAL IN 1999 DEFENDING THE NAACP – Does this man seem racist to you ???

Keith Sampson's 1999 Newspaper Editorial Defending an NAACP Boycott. Click to Enlarge.

Keith Sampson's 1999 Newspaper Editorial Defending an NAACP Boycott. Click to Enlarge.

Story Highlights:

– Black Faculty & Staff Council Running Interference for Those who Falsely Persecuted and Accused Sampson of “Racial Harassment”.

– Black Faculty & Staff Council Blocks Faculty Vote on Resolution to Review Affirmative Action Office (AAO) Till Next School Year – Claims This is “Retaliation” Against AAO.

– AAO Dispute Procedures Weighted Against the Accused and Protect Bad Faith Accusers.

– IUPUI Continues to Violate Own Procedures – Chancellor Bantz Continues to Allow IUPUI PR Director to Slander Sampson with Bogus Charges to Press – Procedures Mandate that the Accused be Provided With a Copy of the Procedures …Sampson “they did not give me a copy”

– FIRE Writes New Letter to Chancellor Bantz – Wants Whisper Campaign Against Sampson Ended – Sums Up Media Firestorm  –  CBS, AP, WSJ, Chicago Trib., New York Times, L.A. Times, National Review, Blogs..

– An Open Letter to Chancellor Bantz

– Special outside investigator brought in by Chancellor Bantz has a history of her own – allowed classes to be restricted by race….

– New IUPUI Equal Opportunity Officer has history of violating rights; outrageous behavior got her previous employer sued – court docs below!

* * * * * * * Original Story* * * * * * * *

We have been poring through IUPUI documents to bring you the very latest on this important story. I expect tosee more updates below. For those who are new to this story, should read the entry linked here to catch up – – Editor

I have the minutes from the IUPUI Faculty Council meetings and they have been illuminating; especially the second meeting.

April 1, 2008 Faculty Council Meeting.

Some members of the faculty offer a resolution to review the AAO, and after a scandal of massive proportions as this one has been it is important to keep the confidence of the faculty and let those who wish it do a review do so. This meeting does have some content worth commenting on (see below in the commentary section).

Ward said Mr. Sampson is a student as well as a staff member. Ward said the student has shared the letters and the second letter does not indicate he has done anything wrong as well as the same for the staff member. Academically, he would like to see the university make a stronger statement regarding academic freedom and its ability to support the same. Vermette said he has made good points but needs to be a motion of some kind. The resolution speaks to everyone, not just students.

Spechler said there has been damage done to the institution and should there be a resolution that says we need to fix a problem? He has heard nothing from the other side. Either they choose not to speak or that no one has asked them. He thought there would have been an immediate resolution by the administration following the action.

Baldwin agrees with Spechler. What is the time table? When will the review be done? Bantz said the 28th of this month (estimate) and will be finished before the new officer arrives.

Packer asked if there has not been accountability of that office? She said her experience has been that a form letter is sent to the person who has been under review. Who is the office accountable to? Vermette responded that the office is under the Chancellor’s office.

Schneider asked if the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)has been informed of the review of the office? Bantz said the review will be done by an outside professional and will say whether we have good practices or if there are practices we are not be doing that should be done.

Ward and Spechler indicate they want something done and something done soon – they have the forsight to see that this is going to hit the university hard. It also indicates that these two are showing some genuine concern for academic ethics.

Ward and Spechler seem aware that this case isn’t brain surgery. The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that academic study, research and speech is constitutionally protected no matter how offensive. So it would not have mattered if the book was pro-KKK instead of anti-KKK as it was. Sampson’s boss at work said that an anti-Klan book is like bringing porn to work. I have news for Sampson’s union and boss; the most hardcore porn book is constitutionally protected on campus so long as it is used for academic study. Indiana University does have the Kinsey Institute and campuses in the IU system teach the history of porn, the legal and cultural issues surrounding porn, and ethics classes debate and teach the ethical issues surrounding porn.

Chancellor Bantz says that the review of the AAO is being done by an outside party and that this review should be done on or about April 28th. I intend to get a copy of that report.

The proposed Resolution:

Proposed Resolution for the Review of the Affirmative Action Office

Approved by the IFC-EC 3-27-08

Amended and approved by the IFC-EC on 3-31-08

For approval by the IFC 4-1-08

Tabled until the IFC 4-15-08 meeting.

The Faculty Council requests that the Chancellor, in collaboration with the IFC Faculty Affairs Committee, immediately review the procedures of the IUPUI Office of Affirmative Action relating to the handling of allegations of discrimination and adopt immediately interim procedures, assuring fairness to all parties, comparable to those in use on the Bloomington Campus.

The Faculty Council elected to read up on IU Bloomington’s procedures for handling these kinds of problems and to review the AAO on their own before passing a resolution. They tabled the resolution until the next meeting. It all seems so reasonable.

April 15 2008 Faculty Council Meeting – The Black Faculty & Staff Council intervenes… its “retaliation”:

Agenda Item VII:  [Action Item]:  Resolution for Review of the Affirmative Action Office

Vermette has spoken with the President of the Black Faculty and Staff Council (Kim White-Mills) who has concerns about the timing of the resolution, the harshness of it, and the “immediacy” of the resolution.  White-Mills said the BFSC believes the resolution is in retaliation to the office in response to the employee’s case against a student/employee who chose a book to read which she found offensive.  The BFSC believes that case was a mistake and will tarnish the reputation of Lillian Charleston, Affirmative Action Officer. They believe the resolution is redundant from what the Chancellor has said in his report today.  Since the university is taking on a review, it may negatively affect the good work of the office.

Baldwin said, in light of White-Mills’ remarks, that the motion should be tabled until next fall to give the university time to review the office as previously indicated.  Karlson said federal law permits to review the office.  Karlson said there will be a Board of Review called today or tomorrow as a result of a case brought about by a faculty member who has no idea why she is being charged with unfairness.

Fisher called the question regarding the motion by Baldwin (seconded by Blackwell).  The motion carried to table the resolution until the fall.

The “harshness” of it? This critique isn’t a critique at all, it is an excuse that does not even merit serious refutation. I have seen harsh resolutions in my time, this one doesn’t come close.

The resolution is “redundant”? Again this is an excuse. There is redundancy built into the system of faculty chairs, faculty committees, faculty senates and administrations duties for a reason. Of course if there is a wolf pack mentality the purpose of such redundancy is rendered ineffective.

The “immediacy” of it? When people’s rights are being violated, Dr. Martin Luther King tells us that “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now”.

The AAO had immediacy on their mind when Sampson first walked into Marguerite Watkins office, was chewed out for being “racist” and was declared guilty on the spot. AAO head Lillian Charleston had no problem with immediacy when she declared Sampson guilty without reviewing the contents of the book or even speaking with Sampson.

Hey Black Faculty and Staff Council (BFSC), allegedly groups like yours claim to know something about oppression. It didn’t take long for people on your committee to find out about this fiasco and you let it go on right under your noses. A student who had no one to turn to on campus was being oppressed and brutalized by the administration and you did nothing to help him. Speaking of immediacy your group should have been the very first ones to stand up and put an end to this.

BFSC you are worried about the “reputation of Lillian Charleston”after she had become a principal perpetrator of this injustice? What about the reputation of a man who was falsely accused of such wickedness and continues to be falsely accused by the IUPUI administration to the national press? Where was your concern over his reputation, or that of IUPUI as an institution?

BFSC believes the resolution is “retaliation”? This is the final straw that gives away BFSC’s agenda. It’s not about fixing a problem after a huge failure that violated the rules and the law. It’s not about making sure that innocent students are protected. It isn’t about the integrity of the process. It isn’t about restoring the public trust as a faculty community with a reasonable review of the procedures and actions taken. To BFSC it is about retaliation against Lillian Charleston because she is black and Sampson is white.

So Professors Ward, Spechler and the others who authored and voted against tabling the resolution are engaging in retaliation according to the BFSC. They aren’t honest people trying to do the right thing – oh no – not according to the BFSC – the retaliation charge, with all of the trimmings above, is the thinly veiled accusation designed to make them all back down – the authors of that resolution are out to get a black woman’s scalp … it’s retaliation they say … the unspoken but clearly delivered message – they are racists.

Welcome to the world of how radical politically correct racial entrepreneurs operate, as if the actions of Lillian Charleston and the other cases at FIRE’s web site ( weren’t enough to convince you. Such people do not operate out of any sense of justice, they operate using the tactics of brutality. I wonder what the great Frederick Douglas would have to say to such people.

IUPUI Continues to Violate its Own AAO Dispute Procedure:

Let us begin with the sections that IUPUI has violated. Here is the link to the document:

  • The uncertainty and scrutiny of a discrimination complaint can be disruptive and difficult for all involved to tolerate. A copy of these guidelines will be provided to all parties to inform them of the system to be followed in handling incidents of alleged discrimination.

Sampson states that he has no memory of ever being provided with a copy of the procedures and after reading them it comes as no big surprise. Sampson wrote back and stated that they did not give him a copy and he has checked his records to be sure. Sampson kept every document form his AAO “interviews”.


  • Complaint investigations will be conducted as promptly as possible, and the results will be reported in writing to the complainant and those persons party to the resolution of the matter.

IUPUI PR Director Rich Schneider tells press outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and this blog that Sampson is accused of other racial harassment that they refuse to elaborate on, even to Sampson himself. What about the results of those charges in a prompt manner? It is July; this has been going on for months and you still can’t elaborate?


Fairness and Objectivity. – The procedure, so far as possible, must protect the rights of all involved.

Notice – Once a person becomes the focus of a complaint, the identity of the complainant, and the nature of the complaint.

Thoroughness – The office is committed to the principle that complete and accurate information should form the basis of responses to complaints.

Finality – Those handling complaints should communicate the results of their investigations in a clear and timely way to provide a sense of completion.

No recognition of Keith Sampson’s constitutional rights were even considered until the Indiana ACLU forced the issue.

Sampson has not been advised who the identity of unknown complainants are or their nature, once again because Schneider won’t elaborate.

Complete and accurate information? The AAO would not even review the book or listen to what Sampson had to say. Watkins and Charleston found Sampson guilty without even a reasonable attempt at complete and accurate investigation.

Finality?? …. ok I have made my point. Aren’t full disclosure clauses like the above supposed to be there to avoid exactly this situation?

AAO Dispute Procedures Weighted Against the Accused and Protect Bad Faith Accusers.

Chancellor Bantz wants to bring in an outside party to review local IUPUI Affirmative Action Complaint Procedures. There are pressing and structural problems with the IUPUI AAO complaint resolution procedure.

Action taken against those who file AAO complaints are addressed twice in the document.

University Policy prohibits retaliation against an individual because of the filing of a complaint, or cooperating with a complaint investigation. Such incidents will be considered seriously and action will be taken expeditiously to prevent such conduct.

No one at the university may reprimand or discriminate against a person for having initiated in good faith an inquiry or complaint.

The second line contains the line about good faith and is pretty straight forward. The first line is a real problem and should be changed. The document does not define “retaliation” so it can be construed to be any action taken against someone who makes a bad faith complaint as the evidence indicates Nakea Vinson has.

The faculty who wrote the resolution above were obviously operating in good faith but were accused of “retaliation” by the BFSC anyway. Rest assured if this case did not hit the media, and the university knew that Vinson had an axe to grind against Sampson and sought to take action against her for a bad faith accusation, the BFSC would scream retaliation. The policy needs to directly address how to deal with bad faith accusations.

Appeals Hearing Board, as Defined by the AAO Dispute Procedures, is Weighted Heavily Against the Accused:

In the event the complaint goes to a hearing board:

1. Each disputing party will choose one member.

2. the two members selected will choose a third member to constitute a three-member Hearing Board meeting the above criteria.

3. In the event that neither party initially chooses a tenured faculty member, then each party will choose an additional member of the Hearing Board from the list of available tenured faculty members. The four Hearing Board members will select an additional tenured faculty member.

*In the case of a conflict of interest, the Affirmative Action Officer may arrange for another selection.

8. All parties to the dispute may question evidence presented by the other parties, but this questioning will be carried out by the hearing board.

I have been in these campus hearing boards before, and FIRE has cataloged many of them. They are nothing more than a star chamber with a pre-defined result and this one is especially bad as I will explain.

In order for the hearing to not be a shut out against the student, the student must find a member who is not only sympathetic to his position, but will aggressively stand up for the rules, and the law and will take his position seriously and even advocate for it if need be. Good luck finding one.

Retaliation is so common on campus, especially among the radical PC groups, that California had to pass a law that protected faculty and staff who stand up for the free speech rights of students. University of California is fighting the law. Any examination of the Student Press Law Center or FIRE’s web site will show you. I have even seen cases of unfair retaliation right here at IUSB which is also explained on FIRE’s web site. I am currently authoring a book on this very subject. The problem is epidemic.

Being tenured is little protection. There are all sorts of ways to retaliate against tenured professors. Bonus money, merit pay, research money, class schedules, taking away on campus offices are just a small part of a long list. Bogus charges against other faculty are not uncommon at all. Just ask Dr. Michael S. Adams who is currently embroiled in a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina. He is one example of many and if the member of the board you pick is nontenured, forget it.

There are nontenured professors and staff here at IUSB who, outside of class, will only speak with me in private so they are not seen. People walk on eggshells when it comes to radicalized minority groups on campus for reasons by now are obvious.

Another problem is that, a majority of professors have similar political and cultural views. For example it is no secret that in many departments Democrats, or those even further to the left, outnumber Republicans by 10 or 15 to 1 depending on what campus you are on. So finding someone who will buck the radicalized PC crowd is very difficult.

Here at IUSB I know of professors who have served on such hearing boards who have knowingly broken the law and IU rules when finding a student guilty. One told me to my face “good luck finding an attorney to take the case” another tenured professor who has served on these boards told me that students come and go, but “we have to work with these people”.

So now the two who are chosen select another person and if not enough tenured faculty are on the commission you see that the procedures are in place to stack one or two on. Remember that faculty peer committees often decide who gets tenure or not, so if someone got tenured it is a surefire indicator that they went with the flow for 6-7 years and didn’t rock the boat.

If there is a conflict of interest (like a person chosen is sympathetic to the accused, meaning that the accused and the chosen board member know each other – hey it can be interpreted that way) that person is thrown out and the Affirmative Action Officer who in this case was a principal offender, hand picks a new member. How convenient. Ironically in the case of Robert Francis here at IUSB, a principal offender was a judicial affairs/affirmative action officer.

Line 8 is a real beauty, many universities are not even this bold in its bias. The accused can question any evidence, but may not have anyone to cross examine the witnesses. The accused has to count on a member of that board to act as his defense attorney to get any aggressive cross examination done to get down to the truth. As I have demonstrated already the odds against that happening are immense.

The peer pressure to not buck the AAO, vice-chancellors over the AAO and the other faculty is very strong.

The AAO can call in people in mandatory meetings, compel witnesses etc. The accused has no power or facilities to take depositions and get statements from people. If people don’t want to give the student a statement they simply don’t show up. Like most star chambers, there are no pre-established rules of evidence. All in all, the student is put in the position of proving himself innocent and even if they do, as the defense had done in the Robert Francis case, they find him guilty anyway.

What the accused really needs is a well paid ombudsman whose job it is to defend the accused and has the power to investigate a case properly and who is structurally set to be outside of the system and reports to an off campus authority. The ombudsman must be immune to peer pressure or retaliation.

FIRE to IUPUI – Stop Publicly Smearing Your Students:

FIRE Calls on IUPUI to Resolve Sampson Matter for Good

by Azhar Majeed

July 17, 2008

In a letter sent today to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Chancellor Charles R. Bantz and others, FIRE calls on IUPUI to clarify the university’s official stance regarding the racial harassment charge against Keith John Sampson.

As we have discussed on The Torch recently, IUPUI Director of Media Relations Rich Schneider has engaged in publicly smearing Sampson to the press, stating that the racial harassment finding against Sampson was based not on his reading the book in question, but rather some undisclosed harassing behavior. Schneider has refused to reveal the nature of this alleged behavior. In light of the vague, unsubstantiated statements made by Schneider, it is perhaps not very surprising that Sampson’s case continues to generate plenty of press coverage.

In today’s letter, FIRE calls on IUPUI to set the record straight once and for all:

[D]oes IUPUIbelieve that Sampson has engaged in any harassing or not? If so, due process demands you let him know what he is being charged with and by whom, but if not, you should inform Mr. Schneider that baseless accusations of such a serious nature should not be made against students or employees. It appears that almost all parties in this case wish it to be resolved, and we hope that everyone can finally move on.

It is indeed our hope that this matter will soon be behind us. That, however, is up to the IUPUI administration.

FIRE’s Media Roundup on IUPUI Case:

Weekly Media Round-up: IUPUI Heats up the News Cycle, ..

by Peter Bonilla

July 18, 2008

FIRE’s public efforts on behalf of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis(IUPUI) student-employee KeithJohn Sampson, who was convicted of racial harassment for reading the book Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, received a major boost this week, courtesy of the Associated Press. The AP ran a story covering IUPUI Chancellor Charles Bantz’s belated apology to Sampson following months of contemptible treatment at the hands of the university and IUPUI’s Affirmative Action office. The article, which first appeared on July 14, has been picked up by more than 200 separate news outlets, including CBS News, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The Los Angeles Times, to name just a few.

The AP article has also been cited and/or reproduced in dozens of blogs, including that of political commentator and radio and television host Sean Hannity. Other blogs to pick up on the feature include Hot Air, Richard Shenkman’s aptly titled Just How Stupid Are We?, and Indiana University-South Bend student Chuck Norton’s IUSB Vision blog, which has provided extensive coverage of recent developments in Sampson’s case. FIRE is thrilled to have so much attention drawn to IUPUI’s shameful treatment of Sampson, and hopes that this flurry of media attention will compel the administration to bring the matter to rest for good.

Commentary – an Open Letter to Chancellor Bantz:

Chancellor Bantz – with all due respect – What do the people of Indiana pay you a fat six figure salary for? We pay you to exercise some good judgment in a timely manner. We pay you to be a good steward of your responsibilities and so the public trust given to you is not tainted.

Chancellor Bantz, any privately educated high school sophomore who has taken a good civics class can tell you what the First Amendment basically means and that you cannot punish someone for reading a book no matter how much someone doesn’t like it. Chancellor Bantz, you have a university with lawyers and communications law professors and constitutional law experts at your fingertips; so all you would have to do when you found out about this situation was call one of them up and ask them what the law is and what the case law is. A phonecall is all it would have taken. But no…. you had to wait till you got not just one, but TWO letters from the Indiana ACLU.

“I am sure you see the absurdity of a university threatening an employee withdiscipline for reading a scholarly work that deals with the efforts of Notre Dame students in the 1920s to fight the KKK,”  – American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana attorney Ken Falk to IUPUI.

“By first finding Sampson guilty of racial harassment simply for reading a book in the break room, then refusing to admit the gross impropriety of such a finding, IUPUI makes a mockery of its legal and moral obligations as a public institution of higher learning,”  – Adam Kissel, director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program to IUPUI.

Was that enough??? No. The IU Planet reported in March that some IUPUI employees were “determined to strike out at Sampson”, so that means your administration and faculty knew it. Was it investigated properly…not on your life.  You had to wait until after FIRE and the blogosphere and the Indianapolis Star poured on the pressure before you notified FIRE, with your April 17th letter, that you intended to clear Sampson of wrong doing ….. or so we thought.

At that point all you had to do was apologize to Sampson and be done with it. So what did you do, you had to wait for the Wall Street Journal to write about it on July 7th to finally motivate you to apologize on behalf of your administration. Time to exercise good judgment yet? Not on your life…. The AAO shut itself in like a clam and refused to answer questions and your administration, in the form of your PR Director Rich Schneider, using thinly veiled language to the press, claims that there is other racial harassment that Sampson is guilty of, but in violation of IUPUI local policy you wont tell Sampson what it is. To top it off your “apology” was parsed a little too far to be considered totally sincere. The story is picking up media interest again.

Chancellor Bantz, both you and Lillian Charleston were paid six figure incomes to exercise some good judgment in a timely manner and secure the public trust you were given. How do you think you have done?

Chuck Norton

UPDATE I – The outside EOE investigator Chancellor Bantz brought in to review the AAO’s actions and procedures also has a history. Barbara Mawhiney was the EOE & Affirmative Action Director at Arizona State, where they had restricted some classes by race. Will the disappointments ever end?

UPDATE II – New EOE Director at IUPUI has a history of violating due process rights of those she “investigates”

Newly appointed IUPUI EOE Director Kim Kirkland (Charleston’s replacement) has a history of violating the due process of those she “investigates”. Court documents obtained by The Vision show that the accused was threatened not to obtain council, was not allowed to see specific allegations against him, was denied documents in order to prepare a defense. The accused due process was violated and he was fired. The accused sued and after discovery the university folded and restored employment to the accused. Below are the court documents.

Attorney Max Rayle tells the Vision, “I stand by my court pleadings” and confirms that “due process issues involved Kirkland.”

Kirkland’s job description at Bowling Green State University:

Kim D. Kirkland is the Affirmative Action Officer & Senior Investigator for the Office of Equity & Diversity at Bowling Green State University. In this position, Kirkland monitors university compliance with federal and state equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws and regulations. She monitors institutional employment practices and procedures, conducts investigations and resolves discrimination and harassment complaints to determine if violations exist, to circumvent potential litigation, and propose corrective actions and/or interventions.

It was her job to make sure that university rules, procedures and contractual obligations were followed precisely to avoid lawsuits just like this one. It looks like IUPUI’s hiring and background check process is ineffective to put it mildly. Can faith and trust in this administration and this office ever be restored?

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 5 Comments »

Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop-Flip This Video Says It All

Posted by iusbvision on July 18, 2008

Nuff said.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 2 Comments »

If You Ever Needed Proof that Democrats Want Higher Gas Prices… – UPDATED – They Want to Raise the Gas Tax Again!

Posted by iusbvision on July 17, 2008

Updated – see updates below – editor

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.

Raise Gas Taxes Now! Click to enlarge.

Youtube has been terminating the accounts of those who post this video – this is the last one left . If anyone has this video please send a link. Transcript HERE. Mort Kondrake asks Obama if he would like to see $4.00 a gallon gas.  

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 had a post that was so good I am just going quote it:

Democratic Energy Strategy

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) website on the legislation she sponsored:

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

Speaker Pelosi’s New Drilling Strategy by Michael Rimerez via

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.

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??

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.

Chuck Norton

Related Posts –

UPDATE – I just had a great convo with Reasonable Citizen at his blog here:

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?


Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues with highways, bridges and transit systems.

“We’ll put all things on the table,” Oberstar said, but the gas tax “is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax.”

At the very least, the gas tax should be indexed to construction cost inflation, DeFazio [D-OR] said.,2933,386643,00.html

The American people keep having to go without and Congress raises its spending every year. It is no wonder why this Congress’  approval rating has dropped to 9% since the Democrats took over in 2006. Democrats blocking almost all new domestic energy production was bad enough and now this. Is it possible to be any more out of touch?

Update III –  Parrots Our Analysis On Unused Oil Leases. Once Again The Vision Gets it Right

Remember what we said just above on the years federal red tape you have to go through before a company can drill on the land it has the lease for.

That’s because these leased lands that don’t contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management’s Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.

And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as “production.” For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That’s a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as “productive” holes. And that doesn’t even include holes that might have been continually drilled throughout the year for exploratory reasons.

What can we say folks – NEVER doubt the Vision.

UPDATE IV – Pelosi and House Democrats Pass Bill to Allow Offshore Drilling..Where the Oil ISN’T!!

Guess where most of the oil is folks…. you guessed it, it’s within 50 miles of the shore line.

House Passes Bill To Expand Drilling, Fund Renewables
Republicans Say Measure Isn’t Enough

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 17, 2008; A10

The House approved a package of energy initiatives yesterday, including measures that would allow oil drilling as close as 50 miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and finance the long-term development of alternative energy sources.

In the first substantive votes since gasoline prices rose above $4 a gallon this summer, the House divided largely along party lines, 236 to 189, with most Republicans rejecting the Democratic-sponsored legislation because it would prohibit exploration of much of the known oil reserves closer to the coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links, Palin Truth Squad | 4 Comments »

Media Bias You Can Believe In – UPDATED

Posted by iusbvision on July 17, 2008


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: 

Richard Drew of the Associated Press

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.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 1 Comment »

Profiles in Outrageous Hypocrisy – Obama Surrogates Target Cindy McCain for Being Wealthy – UPDATED

Posted by iusbvision on July 16, 2008


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.  [- 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 Bottom Line.

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.

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.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 3 Comments »

AP and L.A. Times Smear Tony Snow Hours After His death

Posted by iusbvision on July 16, 2008


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.;jsessionid=44B3C08EC399F6DA9F40DD6D0698171B?action=viewBlog&blogID=661364378434378744

If you’d like to contact the head of the Associated Press, here is his contact information:

Tom Curley, President & CEO
Associated Press
450 West 33rd Street
New York, NY 10001
(212) 621-7550
(212) 621-1908 fax

Michelle Malkin uploaded a high quality video of Bill O’reilly’s report on the smears here. It is a must see –

Thank you Michelle.


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.


“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.


Here’s to you Tony – You were one of the greatest!

Here is Tony totally handling a partisan and idiotic press corps:

Here is Tony playing the blues with his band:

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

MSNBC ‘In the tank for Obama’ Claims Iraq Surge Isn’t Working

Posted by iusbvision on July 16, 2008


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…

Here is a link to the video from Newsbusters (right click and save as to download) –

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.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

The Elite Media Really Does Make Stuff Up

Posted by iusbvision on July 15, 2008


Examine this picture from the AFP on Yahoo News (hat tip Hotair):

Click to see full size and be sure to look at the red device on the end of the soldier’s rifle barrel.

Here is the caption alongside the photo which proves to be totally bogus:

US soldiers secure the area at a newly installed check-point at the Babadag training facility in Tulcea, Iraq. A string of suicide attacks against Iraqi security forces killed at least 37 people on Tuesday, including 28 when two suicide bombers blew themselves up among a crowd of army recruits, security officials said.(AFP/Daniel Mihailescu)

Via Hotair: 

The red attachment is a laser transmitter, part of the MILES system used by soldiers for non-lethal combat training.  When soldiers press the trigger, it sends a laser burst that can be detected on gear that other soldiers wear, and it can also be used with blank cartridges for more realistic training.  Any rifle equipped with the MILES system is useless for actual security purposes.


The picture in question could not be of soldiers securing anything. It is a file photo of a war-games exercise and the laser device on the end of the rifle barrel demonstrates that beyond reasonable doubt. It is most likely that AFP found a file photo and invented the caption. Another example of why more and more reasonable people have no trust in the elite media.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s ‘Self Reliance Tour’ – All Rhetoric.

Posted by iusbvision on July 15, 2008

Senator Obama has been on the so called “Self Reliance Tour” as of late, and that includes his recent speech to the NAACP.

Obama, in recent weeks, has taken on the message of Bill Cosby by telling black families that they essentially need to get their act together socially and exercise more restraint, responsibility and self reliance.

If ANY white man went to the NAACP and said such a thing that message would not have been well received to put it mildly.

It is no secret that Obama took a huge hit among white voters, including union workers that tend to vote Democrat, with statements about the middle class such as his “guns and religion” comment that so damaged his campaign. The poll numbers reflected that damage.

Obama knows that the self reliance message is one that rings true with Middle America where the concepts of freedom, limited government and rugged individualism are a staple of society even among moderate and Reagan Democrats.

Obama’s voting record shows him to be the very most partisan of the very left wing of the Democratic Party. The self reliance tour would have destroyed him in the primary and it is not a political message that he has ran on before. The left has no where to go but Obama so he can afford to use a message like this without much risk.

Remember that Obama was outspokenly opposed to the welfare reform that was signed into law by President Clinton and now he takes credit for it. Here is the post complete with Youtube video showing his flip-flop on welfare reform/self reliance –

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Politico: Obama Purges Past Criticism of the Iraq Surge from Campaign Web Site

Posted by iusbvision on July 15, 2008

UPDATE See Below- The rewrite of history continues


The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: “Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.


The rewriting of history has begun. Soon we will see even more statements from Obama that begin like this:

“What I have always said is this….”

…and then he will proceed to rewrite his past statements and history just as he has repeatedly done on issue after issue. Even left wing staples such as the New York Times and some 527 groups are all over Obama for this behavior and now the next phase of it is beginning.

The volume of kick back from left wing groups has caused Obama to reverse his previous reversal on starting the troop withdrawal immediately.

McCain promptly took advantage of the situation by pointing out the obvious; Obama is going to Iraq on a fact finding mission and Obama has just made a new Iraq policy again before he ever even got there and talked to General Patraeus and gotten the facts.

Obama’s long line of flip flops complete with video clip evidence has been catalogued right here. Just take a peek at the link on the left that says “Campaign 2008”. 

Chuck Norton

UPDATE – Obama NYT Op-Ed rewrites his previous positions and now he has back on the pullout bandwagon after the left had a fit over his “conditions on the ground” statements he had made to after the primary.

Here is the link to the Op-Ed and be sure to look at his rewrite of history about his position on the surge –

Let us not forget this:

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 1 Comment »

IUPUI Smears Student in Wall Street Journal with Bogus Racial Harassment Charges – Updated!

Posted by iusbvision on July 11, 2008

This story has gotten a bit large and complex – the best bet is to scroll down to where it says “Original Story” – start there and read the updates as numbered in order – Editor

Welcome National Review, The Torch and Townhall readers – There are many new updates. After you read this post follow the link in update VIII at the bottom of this post.  – Editor

* * * * * * Original Story * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Readers of the IUSB Vision are well aware of the lengths that some university administrators will go to censor student messages they do not appreciate, file bogus charges against students in an effort to shut them up, retaliate or otherwise punish those who resist university administration injustice. A simple examination of (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) will show you an near endless list of just such cases.

This case of abuse by campus administrators is as revolting as they come and IUPUI (Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis) Chancellor Charles Bantz’ lack of action against this latest smear of an already victimized student is both negligent and unethical.

The Vision first wrote about this case here –

IUPUI student Keith Sampson was reading a book in a break room titled ‘Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan’. The book tells about how members of Sampson’s Irish-Catholic heritage stood up to Klan violence and intimidation and beat up the Klanners in what has been described as the biggest street fight in the history of South Bend.

Nakea Vinson, a co-worker of Sampson, (Sampson is working his way through school as a janitor at IUPUI) decided to complain about Sampson’s choice of scholarly reading material. The head of the AFSCME Union on campus told Sampson that his choice of reading material was like bringing porn to work and refused to even hear the explanation about what the book was about (as if it matters, the law is clear that scholarly work can be as offensive and offensive can be and attempts to retaliate are unlawful).

The Wall Street Journal (July 7th) tells of the next step Sampson faced:

The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. “The Klan still rules Indiana,” Marguerite Watkins told him – didn’t he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.

Rational Americans can see through such radical nonsense, however there is no shortage of such irrational nut cases working in university administrations making five and six figures a year to peddle such poison and abuse.

Shortly after Sampson received the following letter from the head of the Affirmative Action Office Lillian Charleston:

Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren’t aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal “reasonable person standard,” a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.

During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer [sic] you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your co-workers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.

Selwyn Duke, a columnist for Renew America writes:

The affirmative-action officer – who draws a salary of $106, 000 a year to perform her crucial role and is obviously a woman of inestimable intellect – neither examined the book nor spoke with Sampson. He wasn’t guilty until proven innocent. He was just guilty.

Mr. Sampson would never have been charged with racial harassment for reading a history book relating to the Klan were he not white; in fact, it’s hard to imagine such a charge being leveled against a black person for any reason, given the double standards in the academy’s politically-correct environment.

The only racism displayed in this case is by grossly overpaid radicals working in the IUPUI administration like Watkins and Charleston, and the complainant Nakea Vinson. Why? If Mr. Sampson had been black there never would have been a complaint. Sampson is white, therefore he is guilty. A similar attitude that I have seen in some administrators at IUSB.

IUPUI would not listen to reason. The administration had made a baseless assumption and who is Keith Sampson to dare challenge the assumptions of these “brilliant PhD’s”. Who would IUPUI listen to if not Keith Sampson?

Sampson contacted Kenneth Falk at the Indiana ACLU who sent IUPUI the following two letters:

On Feburary 7th, instead of getting the apology that IUPUI and the Indiana ACLU agreed to, Sampson recieved the following non-apology from Lillian Charleston, which simply attempted to rewrite history:

I wish to clarify that my prior letter was not meant to imply that it is impermissible for you to limit your ability to read scholarly books or other such literature during break times. There is no University policy that prohibits reading such materials on break time. As was previously stated, you are permitted to read such materials during appropriate times.

I also wish to clarify that my prior letter to you was meant only to address conduct on your part that raised concern on the part of your co-workers. It was the perception of your co-workers that you were engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism. Your perception was that you were reading a scholarly work during break time, and should be permitted to do so whether or not the subject matter is of concern to your coworkers.

Not to imply that  you cant read the book? Are you kidding? I will go so far and state the glaringly obvious that Charleston is lying about the contents of her first letter.

IUPUI did not follow IU due process or the IU Code of Conduct through this matter. Of course, universities violating their own rules and the law to persecute students is nothing new and a simple examination of FIRE’s web site ( documents thousands of just such cases.

By now FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and various other media outlets picked up the story and apparently the shame and criticism convinced IUPUI Chancellor Charles Bantz to issue what we had thought at the time was a genuine apology:

I can candidly say that we regret this situation ever took place and that IUPUI takes this matter very seriously. IUPUI is committed to ensuring that its future approach to such matters is consistent with and affirms the long-standing commitment of this campus to the principles of freedom of expression, lifelong learning, and respect for the rights of all members of the IUPUI community. In the near future, IUPUI will be reexamining the campuswide affirmative action processes and procedures related to internal complaints.

So we had all considered the matter closed…until IUPUI smeared and slandered Sampson to a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. The efforts to rewrite history had begun. The article appeared in the July 7th 2008 issue:

This [the second letter sent to Sampson by Lillian Charleston], indeed, was now the official story – as any journalist asking about the case would learn instantly from the university’s media relations representatives. It would take a heart of stone not to be moved – if not much – by the extraordinary efforts of these tormented agents trying to explain that the first letter was all wrong: No reading of any book had anything to do with the charges against Mr. Sampson. This means, I asked one, that Mr. Sampson could have been reading about the adventures of Jack and Jill and he still would have been charged? Yes. What, then, was the offense? “Harassing behavior.” While reading the book? The question led to careful explanations hopeless in tone – for good reason – and well removed from all semblance of reason. What the behavior was, one learned, could never be revealed.

So IUPUI alleged that there was other harassing behavior and that the book now, magically, had nothing to do with it. IUPUI never mentioned any other allegations to Sampson in any of its communications to him or to his attorney at the Indiana ACLU. IU due process procedures mandate that the student be informed of all allegations made against him (a rule that IUSB also violated in the Robert Francis case).

So once again, Sampson gets no hearing, no explanation of any supposed allegations against him, once again he is not innocent until proved guilty, he is just guilty; now of secret racial harassment charges that can never be elaborated on.

The Wall Street Journal wasn’t buying it – then again, neither is anyone with functional critical thinking skills:

There was, of course, no other offensive behavior; had there been any it would surely have appeared in the first letter’s gusher of accusation. Like those prosecutors who invent new charges when the first ones fail in court, the administrators threw in the mysterious harassment count. Such were the operations of the university’s guardians of equity and justice.

Needless to say FIRE was not amused:

INDIANAPOLIS, July 8, 2008-Two months ago, in the face of withering public criticism, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) revoked its original finding that student-employee Keith John Sampson had committed racial harassment by reading a book at work that celebrated the defeat of the Ku Klux Klan in a 1924 street brawl. Now, IUPUI is claiming that Sampson was in fact punished for some other behavior, but the school refuses to reveal any details of this alleged conduct. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling on IUPUI to either reveal and prove this alleged offense or stop publicly smearing its own student.

“This looks like a classic example of a college making things worse in an unprincipled attempt to save face,” FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley said. “IUPUI’s own letters to Sampson made clear that his reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan was the problem, and the university claims to have completely exonerated him of all charges. If so, why are its spokespeople now telling The Wall Street Journal that the problem was really some other mysterious conduct that the university will not reveal to anyone, including Sampson himself?”

It is no secret that I am authoring a book on the problems of academic culture that lead to injustices like we see here so I took it upon myself to write IUPUI Chancellor Bantz the following letter:

Dear Chancellor Bantz,

I was very happy to see IUPUI apologize to Mr. Sampson for the blatant violation of his rights and I was pleasantly surprised to see that you took action to clear his record in the matter (a step that IUSB refuses to follow your example on in its bogus allegations previously made against student Robert Francis).

I had considered the matter closed in my writings and was prepared to give you credit for doing the right thing in my upcoming book on the problems in academic culture that lead to censorship and bogus charges and such that have been epidemic since the early 1990’s. However, your administration slandered Mr. Sampson in the July 7th Wall Street Journal saying [paraphrasing] that the matter was not just about the book (which sits in every branch of the IU Library system) but that there was other racially harassing behavior that he was guilty of.

None of the communications between IUPUI and Mr. Sampson indicated that there was any such conduct alleged that was separate from the bogus book charge. Why would IUPUI pick The Wall Street Journal of all places to announce such allegations against a student? How is that not a violation of the IU Code of Conduct and IU judicial procedure? After all that has happened, it strains credibility that the statements made by IUPUI to the Wall Street Journal about Mr. Sampson are accurate. If they are not accurate it is difficult to imagine a more cut and dry case of actionable slander/libel.

Do you intend to apologize to Mr. Sampson again? Are you going to correct this? How is Mr. Sampson going to be compensated? When anyone does an internet search on Mr. Sampson’s name they will find a Wall Street Journal article where IUPUI says he is guilty of racial harassment. Can this damage ever be fully undone?

I will begin to pen a new article about this late tomorrow. I hope that your office will have some good news for me to write about.

Chuck Norton

Today I recieved the following response from Rich Schneider of the public relations office at IUPUI:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Wall Street Journal column.

The conduct cited in the July 7th Wall Street Journal column refers to the conduct cited in the second letter sent by IUPUI to Mr. Sampson.

The second letter stated that Mr. Sampson was free to read what he wanted. It also clarified that the first letter was only meant to address conduct on his part that raised concern on the part of Mr. Sampson’s co-workers that he was engaging in conduct for the purpose of creating a hostile atmosphere of antagonism. The second letter states that the Office of Affirmative Action was unable to draw any final conclusion concerning what was intended by the conduct. Because no final conclusion was drawn, no disciplinary action was or will be taken in connection with the circumstances at hand.

We have not elaborated on the conduct, as perceived by his co-workers, nor do we intend to do so.

Why would IUPUI pick The Wall Street Journal of all places to announce such allegations against a student? Please be assured that we did not pick the Wall Street Journal to announce anything about this matter. We have only responded to questions we have received about this matter, including questions from the author of the Wall Street Journal column concerning Mr. Sampson. We did not ask the Wall Street Journal to write about Keith Sampson. We have not asked any media to write or report anything about Keith Sampson.

Given the Wall Street Journal column, the chancellor is considering what steps he may take to best address the matter.

Rich Schneider
IUPUI Media Relations Director

After having some frustrating computer difficulties while typing my reply, I hurrily sent off the following response in hopes to catch Schneider before he left the office:

Dear Mr. Schneider,

Thanks for your response. However your response points out rhetorical distinctions that add up to a distinction without a difference and is misleading.

You stated, “The conduct cited in the July 7th Wall Street Journal column refers to the conduct cited in the second letter sent by IUPUI to Mr. Sampson.” Perhaps you should read that letter again. For your convenience I have included a link to the letter

The conduct “perceived” by fellow employees is the alleged conduct that has to do with the incident that generated the bogus book reading charge. IUPUI’s letter to Mr. Sampson makes that crystal clear. Now it seems that you trying to make the case that the conduct that the employees “perceived” was separate from the bogus book charge. It would seem that you are trying to rewrite history.

The IU Code of Conduct/judicial procedures mandate that the student be advised of all allegations against him. Your response seems to make it clear that you have admitted that there were other allegations we know that Mr. Sampson was not made aware of. By telling the Wall Street Journal that there were other allegations about racial harassment and having not advised Mr. Sampson of such allegations it is the same thing as announcing allegations against a student in the Wall Street Journal.

Making the case that you did not ask the Wall Street Journal to write about it therefore it does not meet your technical definition of an “announcement” is no different than when a politician says “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In your case it is what the definition of ‘announcement’ is. Your response you have given me, while an eloquent rhetorical dodge, is void of genuine substance and is what PR professionals understand as a non-denial denial.

If this was merely a case of the Wall Street Journal misunderstanding you and getting it wrong you would have immediately made it clear to the Journal, to FIRE and to Mr. Sampson that the conduct “perceived” by employees was the reading of the book, but you didn’t do that and you let it float in the Journal that there was indeed other conduct alleged.

You have stated, “We have not elaborated on the conduct, as perceived by his co-workers, nor do we intend to do so.” So you have dropped the allegation against a student as a bomb as it were to a reporter in a major national newspaper and when called on it you clam up and you dare try to shift the responsibility to the Wall Street Journal for your misconduct.

Mr. Schneider, your response has confirmed that IUPUI has once again violated the IU Code of Conduct and the rights of Mr. Sampson.

Chuck Norton

If Chancellor Bantz’ original apology was genuine, he could have demonstrated it by acting fast after the slander appeared in the Wall Street Journal; it is becoming obvious that his original apology was anything but.

Keith Sampson, I hope that you work with FIRE and the Indiana ACLU and sue the pants off IUPUI as they have well earned it.

Very special thanks to the Indiana ACLU and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for standing up for the rights of Keith Sampson and other students abused by university administrations.

Chuck Norton


UPDATE I – Saturday I sent the following email to Rich Schneider, the IUPUI Media Relations Director who has been smearing Keith Sampson:

Dear Mr. Schneider,

Are you a member in good standing with the Public Relations Society of America?

Linked below is the preamble to their code of ethics. It tells how it is unethical to hold back information that is important for people to make a good judgment about your statements. It also speaks of fair and ethical conduct of which no reasonable person, in regards to your conduct in smearing Mr. Sampson, can say your conduct has been.

Chuck Norton

The PRSA and ethical communications professionals understand, that while part of the job is speaking for others, or when you sign your name at the botton of a communication, or when you make disparaging remarks against someone, there is a code of ethics that comes with being a communications professional. Violating that code of ethics not only results in the people involved being unfairly damaged as Keith Sampson was, but it also damages all communications and PR professionals who do follow the ethical rules. It damages the entire industry. PR ethics is a part the education for every communications student in the IU system. Mr. Schneider made a choice to violate that code of ethics.

Update – Schneider admits to Dr. Mike Adams that his statements about secret racial harassment were false –


UPDATE II – IUPUI Chancellor apologizes to Sampson – but nothing about IUPUI’s ongoing slander campaign to national press:

The silent implication from the latest apology letter is that Schneider is doing this to Sampson on his own. It is possible that Chancellor Bantz is playing the “good guy” while Schneider at PR smears Sampson or it is possible that Chancellor Bantz is sincere. If Bantz is sincere he will take action against Schneider so we will be watching. I am well aware how an administration can behave when a “mere student” dares to stand up to them. The apology is carefully worded. If I were Keith Sampson I would ask for an apology for Schneider’s comments to the Wall Street Journal, especially since Schneider lied about the contents of the second letter.

The next question is, what to do about Schneider. Should he be sued in his capacity as PR director at IUPUI?

Some have asked me how to get in touch with Schneider for comment. He sent his contact information in his email to me smearing Mr. Sampson.

Rich Schneider
IUPUI Media Relations Director

The Vision has also learned that IUPUI sent an apology letter to Nakea Vinson, whose bogus charges of racial harassment started the entire affair.

Controversial IUPUI PR Director Rich Schneider told the Vision:

In addition to a letter of apology sent to Keith Sampson, the chancellor sent letters of apology to the co-worker of Sampson who filed the complaint and two other co-workers who were interviewed as part of the investigation. We view the letters as confidential. Generally speaking, in all four letters the chancellor expressed regret about the situation and wrote that the situation could have and should have been handled differently.

Perhaps they should have apologized to her for ever listening to her in the first place.


FIRE sent another letter to Chancellor Bantz over IUPUI PR Director Rich Schneider’s whispering campaign against Sampson:

FIRE Calls on IUPUI to Resolve Sampson Matter for Good

by Azhar Majeed

July 17, 2008

In a letter sent today to Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis(IUPUI) Chancellor Charles R. Bantz and others, FIRE calls on IUPUI to clarify the university’s official stance regarding the racial harassment charge against Keith John Sampson.

As we have discussed on The Torch recently, IUPUI Director of Media Relations Rich Schneider has engaged in publicly smearing Sampson to the press, stating that the racial harassment finding against Sampson was based not on his reading the book in question, but rather some undisclosed harassing behavior. Schneider has refused to reveal the nature of this alleged behavior. In light of the vague, unsubstantiated statements made by Schneider, it is perhaps not very surprising that Sampson’s case continues to generate plenty of press coverage.

In today’s letter, FIRE calls on IUPUI to set the record straight once and for all:

Does IUPUI believe that Sampson has engaged in any harassing or not? If so, due process demands you let him know what he is being charged with and by whom, but if not, you should inform Mr. Schneider that baseless accusations of such a serious nature should not be made against students or employees. It appears that almost all parties in this case wish it to be resolved, and we hope that everyone can finally move on.

It is indeed our hope that this matter will soon be behind us. That, however, is up to the IUPUI administration.


UPDATE III – CBS NEWS/AP Covers the story. Fair but somewhat incomplete


UPDATE IV – FIRE chimes in again with new article – And here –


UPDATE V – Hotair covers the story and comes to the same analysis as The Vision – Reports on Schneider’s whisper campaign against Sampson.


Nakea Vinson, who filed the bogus racial harassment charge against Keith Sampson for reading a book about how members of his Irish-Catholic heritage defeated the Klan, and then later changed her story long after the fact to claim other racial harassment, had an axe to grind against Sampson.

Sources at IUPUI told The Vision that almost one year previously, Vinson’s cousin, also a janitor at IUPUI, approached Sampson at work and threatened to “F him up” and said Sampson “needed to get busy”. The threatening janitor was not a supervisor. Sources say Sampson replied ordering the threatening janitor to, “Get your punk *ss out of my face”.

The incident was reported and the threatening janitor, Vinson’s cousin, was terminated and Sampson was placed on one year probation. The year was nearly at an end when Vinson filed her racial harassment complaint in an effort to get Sampson fired. An employee at IUPUI tells The Vision, “Vinson is a very intelligent and conniving person. She certainly is not a victim.”

The Vision would like to know if the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office was upset over the termination of Vinson’s cousin. We would like to know if administrators in that office, namely Marguerite Watkins and Lillian Charleston who violated IU rules, IU procedures and First Amendment protections to persecute Sampson, knew about it as well, but that office is not returning calls.

UPDATE on Axe to Grind – July 29th – More Evidence of Whispering Campaign – Some of Vinson’s black fellow employees were approached by Vinson who after telling her story were asked, “are you with me.” Not all of the IUPUI employees Vinson approached were with her. Some even knew Sampson to be a good man.

So a new question must be posed; when the AAO interviewed all of Sampson’s black fellow co-workers and if some did not agree that he created a ‘racially hostile’ environment, why would such an exculpatory piece of evidence be left out? – Editor


IU PLANET MARCH 21 – While my initial reaction (based on the preceding logic) was to consider the accusation of racial harassment ridiculous according to the available facts, the situation does cause one to wonder why Sampson’s co-workers took the case so far. There was obviously no shortage of ill will between him and his fellow employees, who argued that “he was creating a hostile environment of antagonism.” It doesn’t seem extremely likely that the co-workers would be so determined to persecute Sampson for the simple fact that he was reading a book concerning the KKK.

So why were the co-workers so determined to strike out against Sampson? Did they have personal non-race-related issues with him? Was he exhibiting a racist attitude in their midst, intentionally trying to offend them with his “repeated” readings, and covering his tracks by making sure it was an anti-KKK book? Were the co-workers and the Affirmative Action Office actually the ones doing the discriminating?


Editor’s Commentary – Now, finally in July we know what that axe to grind was and it had had nothing to do with race. Those who said that this was a case of get-even-with-em-ism were more correct than even they suspected. IU Planet is popular in the IU system. This report from IU Planet makes it almost impossible that AAO, the administration, and at least part of the faculty and staff did not know about some IUPUI’s employees axe to grind against Sampson.

How could the firing of the IUPUI employee who threatened Sampson with bodily harm magically transform Sampson into a racist? That’s an easy one to anyone who understands the radical PC mentality. The IUPUI employee who threatened Sampson (who is ethnic looking but not black) was related to Vinson by marriage and was fired, and Sampson is white and wasn’t fired; those mired in such a PC mentality likely would have chocked up the firing to racism and the whispering campaign began.

I have seen the double standards, persecution, and radical political correctness that is epidemic on campuses across the nation. If you wish to see more examples, feel free to take a look at to find a multitude of such cases and then  go to the Alliance Defense Fund to find a list of such lawsuits.


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 PC, 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. [The IU Planet knew as indicated above 7-19-08].

If more evidence of this got out other than what we have already… the IU President in Bloomington would likely get involved. By 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 Rich 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.

Keith Sampson needs a lawyer who would be willing to take the case.

Chuck Norton

NOTE – The story is continued in a new post here:

UPDATE VIII IUPUI Black Faculty & Staff Council running interference for those who falsely persecuted Sampson  – More Developing …FOLLOW THIS LINK

Related Links

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | 13 Comments »

‘600,000 Pieces of Evidence’ that Saddam Actively Aided Terror Groups Including Al-Qaeda

Posted by iusbvision on July 11, 2008

 UPDATED!! – See Below

A new Pentagon report reveals proof of how Saddam actively aided Al-Qaeda – surprise the elite media ignored or distorted the evidence.

The United States has had control of Iraq for 5 years giving inspectors plenty of time to go through Saddam’s memos, military, intelligence and bureaucratic records. A recent report released by the Pentagon from inspectors on the ground reveals 600,000 pieces of evidence showing all of the former Iraq regime’s terrorist connections. The evidence shows that Saddam supported, trained and equipped virtually ANY terror group that opposed American or Israeli interests, including deliberate support for Al-Qaeda and groups that reported to Osama bin Laden.

The Wall Street Journal Summarizes the details:

Saddam’s Terror Links

Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.

The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.

“The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s ‘coercion’ toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power,” the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat’s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir” was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.

At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly “secular” Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia,” where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.

For 20 years, such “support” included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis “directly associated” with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to “a state-directed program of significant scale.” In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, “is under the wings of bin Laden.”

For years we have heard from the elite antique media that “Saddam had no operational link with Al-Qaeda” and reported it with the attitude that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were opposed to each other in some way. In fact some of the elite media said the same thing about this report.

What does “operational link” mean? George Soros doesn’t control the day to day operations of, yet without the support of Soros, could not exist in any meaningful way. Saddam’s relationship with Al-Qaeda was no different. Saddam did not call the day to day shots in Al-Qaeda, he didn’t have to as they had the same enemies. Saddam helped to made it possible for Al-Qaeda to exist in the form that it did by supplying them with money, weapons, training, sanctuary and medical support. The media tried to redefine “operational link” to no “operational control”. Definitions and context means things and in journalism context is everything.

 Chuck Norton

UPDATE: A leftist blogger took issue with my post and with the Wall Street Journal article.

Leftist blogger said this:

The WSJ article did all it could to obfuscate the issue. I forwarded you the actual report URL. The report found evidence of Saddam support for PLO terrorist activity and NO al Qaeda direct involvement. You needn’t have gone any farther than the Executive Summary: “This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”  

My response:

As far as the report. It is obvious that you didn’t read it any farther than the summary. No “smoking gun” was elaborated on in the report in detail, meaning that Saddam did not have operational control or even any great operational influence on bin’ Laden. The report does say that the Iraqi regime supported terror groups of all kinds, including material support and training for groups they knew full well were working with bin-Laden. George Soros does not have operational control over – he just makes it possible for them to exist through financial support. Its the same thing.

You really should correct yousrelf on your blog. All someone would have to do is pull the quotes and documents out of the report to show that you didn’t read it. The real question is, do you want to tell your readers the truth and the WHOLE truth without spin or leaving critical details out [like the elite media did]…?

Do you have the courage to just admit that Saddam was helping all sorts of terror groups including bin-Laden’s with money, training, materials, and sanctuary? The report states it and Iraqi regime evidence admits it, will you?

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 1 Comment »

Obama Flip Flops On Negative Attack Ads

Posted by iusbvision on July 8, 2008


The RNC attack ad on Obama’s flip flops came out hours after Obama broke his campaign promise about misleading negative attack ads. The long list of recent Obama reversals continues.

At a rally in Wilson, North Carolina on April 28, 2008, Obama made his position on negative ads clear. As you can see he is not ambiguous about his words here:

Yesterday morning this ad started appearing Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan:

Now while negative ads are often a part of a campaign, it is the campaign that decides how misleading the attack ad will be. I have a sneaking suspicion that is going to be all over this one.

Misleading is a generous term to describe this ad. Obama claims that the GOP plan won’t yield more oil for 7 years. This isn’t true as some places to drill can yield oil in a shorter time. What Obama doesn’t say in this ad is that his plan will not yield one more drop of oil EVER. He leaves out that there is only one country in the world that does not drill to expand its own energy resources and that is the United States. What Obama leaves out is that in 1996 the Republican Congress passed an energy reform bill that would expand domestic oil production and President Clinton vetoed it. Clinton also made one of the largest coal mines in the United States a national park with the stroke of a pen without notifying the states governor or its congressional delegation.

Clinton’s Coal Gate –

Obama leaves out that in President Bush’s first year in office congressional Republicans, seeing what was coming, pushed for an energy reform bill and Democrats blocked it. Democrats are still blocking the efforts to expand domestic production.

The most important thing that Obama leaves out is that he is on the record supporting current gas prices. This is nothing new. Democrats have vocally called for gas prices in America to be as high as fuel costs in Europe since Paul Tsongas took office.

Obama Declaring His Support for Higher Gas Prices. Mort Kondrake asks if higher gas prices are a good thing. Obama answers that he only wished that we had not gotten to these prices so quickly saying that he preferred a “gradual” increase to current prices. 

The Democrats talk about “energy alternatives” for decades and yet we haven’t seen any affordable and practical alternatives as of yet and pie in the sky Flintstones air cars and pixie dust magic fuels are not going to bring us the affordable energy we need in the near future. Many countries such as France have been very successful at using nuclear power yet Democrats have opposed this as well.

Related Posts

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Have They Stopped Drinking the Kool-Aide?

Posted by iusbvision on July 8, 2008

 Editors Note Sept. 2010 – youtube has been actively banning videos with “Obama vs Obama” content and is also trying to shut down our youtube channel.

Have They Stopped Drinking the Kool-Aide? RNC, 527’s, Press, Finally More Critical of Long Series of Obama Reversals (and re-reversals).

The IUSB Vision has been ahead of the curve keeping its readers apprised of the long series of reversals coming form the Obama campaign. During the last few days the far left, including Code Pink and the New York Times, have been very critical of Obama for these reversals. Fox News has been on it for a while longer. Obama has adopted so many of President Bush’s positions that some have said that Obama is running for Bush’s third term (see previous posts for details).

Here are some of the results from others catching on; telling you what blogs like this one have already made you very aware of.

The list goes on and on. What is amazing is that while Fox News, NYT and the Washington Post have started to report this, most other media outlets are still mum on the issue.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Profiles in Orwellian Doublespeak: The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on July 8, 2008


It sounds so yummy doesn’t it? “Employee free choice” – I mean who in the world could be against employee free choice right? Why it must be those evil Republicans right? …. read on. 

UPDATED – SEE BELOW: Service Employees International Union is giving $85 Million to Democrats, but isn’t fully funding its pension for union workers! – Hmmm maybe this is who they need card check violence and intimidation.

Now do you want to know what the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does? It takes secret voting in the work place AWAY from employees. It demands what is called a “card check” where the employer or union can come to you with a card to sign your signature to that indicated your vote that all can see.

Anyone who understands union history can see the danger in that. Union elections have had more than their fair share mafia interference, including union officer candidates being killed such as Jimmy Hoffa and coal mining union candidates etc. The union will know how you are voting to pressure you and so will the employer know who to retaliate against if you vote “wrong”.

Union rank and file opposes the bill, but union leadership supports it because they can buy political influence to help keep them from being prosecuted in Democratic controlled parts of the country.

Our Congressman Joe Donnelly voted for this bill (H.R. 800). The union leadership and Democratic Party leadership is openly lying about the effects of this law.

This video from gives an amusing description of the bill:

Here is their website –

Here is Congressman Buck McKeon talking about the bill.

Here is a video of the workers from Indiana telling about workplace pressure and abuse that they faced.

Union threatens a 16 year old girl.

Federal indictment from April 2008. Union thugs stabbed employees, slashed tires, used caltrops on people’s cars, anbushed people and beat them, threw scalding coffee in the face of employees and made numerous threats. 

Chuck Norton

UPDATE!! – The service Employees International Union has pledged $85 Million to Democrats, but isn’t fully funding its pension for union workers! – Hmmm maybe this is who they need card check violence and intimidation. Todays New York Sun has the details:

Yet in 2006, the SEIU National Industry Pension Plan, a plan for the rank-and-file members, covering 100,787 workers, was 75% funded. That is, it had three-fourths of the money it needed to pay benefit obligations of workers and retirees.

In contrast, a separate fund for the union’s own employees, numbering 1,305, participants was 91% funded. Even better, the pension fund for SEIU officers and employees, which had 6,595 members, was 103% funded.

For the SEIU to hold pep rallies to attack private equity funds, while allowing the pensions of their own rank-and-file members to perform worse than those of union officials, is sheer hypocrisy.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 4 Comments »

Mitt Romney for VP? – Updated

Posted by iusbvision on July 6, 2008

State and local leaders from the former Romney campaign are being called asking them to support a McCain/ Romney ticket.  While that doesn’t make it 100% certain, it is a clear indicator that Romney is in the final running for the VP spot. Michigan is a key swing state and Romney is a favorite son there because his father was a popular Governor of the state. The Romney factor in Michigan combined with the unpopularity of left wing Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm could very well deliver the important swing state.

Update I – On July 8th Romney appeared on Hannity & Colmes and when asked if he was in the vetting for VP he stated that “This is something that we don’t talk about.” Leaving it very ambiguous whether means that McCain’s campaign doesn’t talk with him about these things or that he just won’t talk about it. Romney also told Sean Hannity that he has not been asked to give additional information about himself to the campaign.

It could be that Romney wants to be the VP choice and is working his grassroots and the media to nudge McCain in that direction. At this point your guess is as good as mine. Among GOP gossip circles McCain/Romney is the buzz.

Chuck Norton


The Vision told you about this story on July 6th. The New York Times got around to telling you July 19th.

The Buzz About a McCain-Romney Ticket

It was not so long ago that the idea that Senator John McCain would even entertain tapping Mitt Romney, his bitterest primary rival, as his running mate would have seemed preposterous, rating at least 7.0 on the strange-bedfellows scale.

But that was then.

These days Mr. Romney, a telegenic former Massachusetts governor, is serving as a wingman extraordinaire for Mr. McCain on cable television. He has dutifully raised money for Mr. McCain. And Mr. Romney has developed a reputation as a campaign surrogate who can talk fluently about the economy, and who has roots in Michigan, an important swing state.

Now Mr. Romney is attracting perhaps more buzz than anyone else as a potential running mate for the man he once derided.

Posted in Other Links | 1 Comment »


Posted by iusbvision on July 5, 2008

Aqsa Parvez murdered at age 16 by her own family 

Where are the protests? Where is the outrage? Where were the school officials?

All her friends knew it, but no teachers or other school officials? I will be watching this story as I am curious if the school would not intervene do to fear of being politically incorrect. 

TORONTO –  The brother of a Canadian teenager who was slain in what friends described as a family dispute over a Muslim head scarf was charged with murder, becoming the second family member accused in her death, police said Friday.

Aqsa Parvez, 16, of Pakistani origin, was strangled in December at her Mississauga, Ontario, home.

Waqas Parvez, 27, who had faced obstruction allegations in his sister’s death, was charged Thursday with first-degree murder.

Their father Muhammad Parvez, 57, was charged with first-degree murder earlier this month. He had been a suspect since shortly after her death.

But friends said her death came during a family feud over her refusal to wear the traditional Muslim veil. And the killing sparked debate in Canada about the conflict within immigrant families over traditional values and desires to fit into a new culture.

Parvez’s friends from her high school said the ever-cheerful girl faced an increasingly difficult home life. They said that Parvez would come to school wearing track pants and the scarf, but would change into close-fitting jeans and remove the scarf at school. They said her parents caught on and began following her to school to make sure she was abiding by their rules.

Classmate Joel Brown, 17, has said that the girl grew afraid of her parents and began showing up to school with bruises.,2933,373223,00.html

And of course…  

A Canadian Muslim teenager was murdered this week for trying to establish her own identity by moving out of her family home and for reportedly defying her father’s command to cover her head. Meanwhile, Canada’s largest daily newspaper, the Toronto Star, disgracefully hid its own head in the sand.

“She was scared of her father; he was always controlling her,” the friend told the National Post, a Canadian national newspaper. “She wasn’t allowed to go out or do anything.”

Nevertheless, the Grade 11 student, according to friends, would leave home wearing the hijab but arrive at school in western-style clothes, having changed on the way. This was part of her courageous desire to live her own life and overcoming the fear in which she lived.

Despite the Canadian public’s disgust and outrage over this murder and in contrast to Parvez’s courage, the Toronto Star avoided tackling head on the issue of Muslim male intolerance and violence toward female family members who wish to establish their independence and lead their own lives. Instead, the Star published a story that, incredibly, accuses a supposedly racist Canadian society for being equally responsible for the cultural “tension” in Muslim families concerning the issue of head coverings. In the story, two young Muslim women say some Muslim families do not want their daughters to wear the hijab because it will make them “the targets of racism.” If only Aqsa Parvez could have lived in such a family! Not surprisingly, no Muslim women or girls were interviewed who are forced to wear the Islamic clothing.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Chuck Norton, Other Links | 1 Comment »

1, 215 Real Americans

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008

General Petraeus leads the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the U.S. military. The ceremony took place in the rotunda of the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad, Iraq on July 4, 2008. 1, 215 real Americans. Being an American is not a birthright, it is a state of mind. A set of ideas. The men and women in this video get it. Do you?

Posted in Other Links | 1 Comment »

Hate America Left Reveals Itself in a Series of “Don’t Celebrate the Fourth” Columns

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008


Don’t celebrate the 4th hate screeds are popping up all over the in the last couple of days.


Take this screed from The Progressive – a far left magazine: 

Why I’m Not Patriotic
By Matthew Rothschild, July 2, 2008

It’s July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out.
Spare me the puerile parades.
Don’t play that martial music, white boy.
And don’t befoul nature’s sky with your F-16s.
You see, I don’t believe in patriotism.
It’s not that I’m anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic.

Love of country isn’t natural. It’s not something you’re born with. It’s an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game.  Yet most people accept it without inspection. 

For when you stop to think about it, patriotism (especially in its malignant morph, nationalism) has done more to stack the corpses millions high in the last 300 years than any other factor, including the prodigious slayer, religion.
The victims of colonialism, from the Congo to the Philippines, fell at nationalism’s bayonet point.
World War I filled the graves with the most foolish nationalism. And Hitler and Mussolini and Imperial Japan brought nationalism to new nadirs. The flags next to the tombstones are but signed confessions-notes left by the killer after the fact.The millions of victims of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have on their death certificates a dual diagnosis: yes communism, but also that other ism, nationalism.

The whole world almost got destroyed because of nationalism during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


So those who are patriotic and display nationalism insofar as having pride in America’s traditions of freedom with responsibility are equated by the far left with the radical oppressive “nationalism” and communism and are given a moral equivalency to those who love America and celebrate the 4th of July. Of course bogus moral equivalencies are a staple of leftist propaganda and internal psychosis. 


Take a look at that last line about the Cuban missile crisis. To the far left, it is not that an evil Soviet empire, that had sworn to take over the world by force if needed, that placed put nuclear missiles just 90 miles off our shore that threatened the lives of Americans and our national security… OH NO… the problem is American nationalism… it’s OUR fault. Now you know why I refer to this type of thinking as the psychosis that it is.


The Progressive continues: 

When Americans retort that this is still the greatest country in the world, I have to ask why.

Are we the greatest country because we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?

No, that just makes us enormously powerful, with the capacity to destroy the Earth itself.

Are we the greatest country because we have soldiers stationed in more than 120 countries?

No, that just makes us an empire, like the empires of old, only more so.

How about this – we are the greatest country in the world because we unleashed the creative genius of man to a level greater than that of any other in the greatest experiment in freedom that the world has ever known. The United States gives more to global charities than the rest of the world combined. We invent the cures, we invent most of the great technology and we grow the most food to help feed the world. There are graveyards all over the world filled with the graves of our dead who fought for the freedom of others.


Indeed we have troops around the world, but not as conquerors, but as defenders of the peace, stability and freedom. We have saved Europe from itself in two world wars and the Cold War. We helped Japan to remake itself into the wonderful place it has become and we continue to defend it from nearby enemies. Those troops stationed overseas that The Progressive hates so much have saved the people of South Korea from the grim fate of rule by Kim Jong Il.


Leftist Robert Sheer shares his don’t celebrate the 4th screed with us too:

As we head into the Fourth of July weekend of patriotic bluster and beer swilling – but before we are too besotted by ourselves – might we also for once consider our imperfections? …

Any doubts as to this later governing impulse of our imperial ambitions were shattered with the recent news that U.S. advisers to our puppet government in the Green Zone of occupied Iraq have worked out agreements for American oil companies to gain control of Iraqi oil fields. But, then again, what did we expect when we elected a Texas oil hustler, and a failed one at that, to be our president?

Only in an America dumbed down by constant propaganda about our innate moral superiority will anyone any longer believe that we didn’t invade Iraq for the oil, even though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the Bush administration from the board of directors at Chevron, where they named an oil tanker after her. Like Vice President Dick Cheney with those Halliburton contracts, Rice has stayed true to her corporate sponsors.

That’s what the U.S. invasion of Iraq accomplished – for the first time in more than three decades after Iraq joined a worldwide trend of formerly colonized nations gaining control of their own resources, Big Oil is getting it’s black gold back. It was always about the oil – that’s why “we” invaded Iraq – only “we” aren’t getting any, at least not at a reasonable price. The oil companies are.


Well you heard it. You’re a bunch of unsophisticated beer swillin’ hicks who are too stupid to have adopted his leftist “enlightenment”. I believe, as most Americans do, in the moral superiority of liberty; an ideal that the left has always rejected. Their ideal has always been central control, with themselves in control.


The far left, such as many college professors, are creatures of emotionalism, envy and ideology that has rendered them into some of the poorest critical thinkers in the country.


Hey Mr. Sheer, I have news for you, if all we wanted in Iraq was their oil Saddam Hussein would have been MORE than willing to sell us all they could produce at a discount to get around the sanctions imposed from violating the terms of the cease fire agreement.  That agreement ended the first Iraq war that started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Speaking of Kuwait, pseudo-intellectual leftists like Sheer and many leftist academics, media pundits, academics and some politicians said we liberated/invaded Kuwait to take their oil. Now that history has proved them wrong many of them take credit for supporting it.


The first round of Iraq oil contracts did not go to even one U.S. Company. The Kurdish North of Iraq has signed a contract with one American company just recently and our companies are currently bidding on a new round of oil contracts in competition with the rest of the world. So much for the “we invaded to make Bush’s oil buddies rich” conspiracy theory.


Here is more of the same from a leftist Philadelphia Enquirer columnist.

A not-so-glorious Fourth,  U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

By Chris Satullo

Put the fireworks in storage. Cancel the parade. Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.

This year, America doesn’t deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

We have failed to pay attention. We’ve settled for lame excuses. We’ve spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.


It is amazing to see the lengths of tortured “reasoning” the left has to go through to trash America.


Americadoesn’t torture its prisoners. The few people who have abused prisoners were tried and convicted. The U.S. Marines punished and expelled David Motari for abusing a dog in Iraq. There is an ongoing debate as to whether water boarding is torture or not. Our own soldiers are water boarded in escape and evasion school as a matter of training. We also expose our own soldiers to tear gas as a matter of training. Three high value intelligence targets were approved for water boarding by the president.


The next one I find most amusing, the left claims that Bush is evil because enemy combatants weren’t charged or given habeas corpus. Can anyone name me one country in WWI or WWII that gave enemy combatants or PoW’s habeas corpus, access to civilian courts, or charged all such prisoners with a crime? You can’t because no one has. No one has done that and before today in past wars United States has never done such a thing. No European country has ever given prisoners of war habeas corpus or access to civilian courts. You don’t hold a prisoner in war time to try him in court to be tried by tyour local prosecutor, you hold him to keep him secure from rejoining the war and as a source of intelligence.


The third statement by Satollo involves a similar deception, shipping prisoners to “foreign lands” and the “spawning rebellion” language is designed duplicate imagery of when the British would take Americans overseas to be tried for pretended offenses. It was in reality nothing more than political kidnapping.


Satullo is comparing this with the Rendition Program. A policy that started under President Clinton where terrorists are sent to their HOME countries to face terrorism charges at home so they could be judged by their peers and their own governments. These prisoners aren’t sent to a foreign land to be tried, they are sent to their home to be tried; a difference that Satullo was all too willing to ignore so long as it served to fuel his hate America rhetoric.


Anti-America rhetoric has been common staple of the far left. Here are some other examples.


Senator John Kerry in testimony to the Senate in 1971:  

At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


Not only did Kerry attribute such behavior to our people in uniform, he alleged that this behavior was U.S. Policy. Kerry’s and the far left’s Winter Soldier project that told stories of constant American atrocities was proven to be nothing but lies .


More recently in late 2003 the Democratic Leadership and the far left could not retrain themselves any further and started the nonsense again and made every effort to ensure that America would lose the war:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. – John Kerry Dec 4, 2005


Senator Dick Durbin compared our troops at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi’s and Soviets in spite of the fact that multiple inspections of the facility prove that prisoners there enjoy very high standards of treatment. Here is the video.


Senator Harry Reid gave the enemy a propaganda coup when he declared that “the war is lost” and that the USA “can’t win”.


I could list these statements till I ran out of room on the page many times over. Countless statements by the far left that it was a war for Halliburton and that Bush lied us into war because he wanted to steal Iraq’s oil etc. Claims now laughed at by thinking Americans. Why? For Example: how could the Democratic Leadership claim President Bush  lied them into war when they were all saying the same thing from the Clinton’s Presidency until 2003. Examine the following video’s:


I am old enough to remember statements by the far left about the “real reason why we liberated Kuwait”. Of course now history judges that war as a success many of those same people now take credit for supporting it. Now that the latest Iraq war is nearly won – success has many fathers – more and more Democrats will adopt Bush’s position on the war and will start to claim credit for this success that they tried so hard to sabotage almost every step of the way since late 2003.


The far left believes that freedom, capitalism, and the Judaea-Christian ethic that the country is based on are all wrong. They believe that the United States itself in its foundations is flawed from its conception. Hence that is why the far left, such as many leftist American academics and radicalized students, wanted us to lose the war in Iraq (leaving before the job is done = lose. A concept even my teenager can understand). To them diminishing the role of the United States in the world is a good thing which is lie so many leftist academics sang the praises of the Soviet Union during the cold war and still practices apologetics for the likes of other murderous tyrants such as Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Yasser Arafat, etc. When Bill O’Reilly talks about the hate America left on his program, this is exactly who he is talking about. 


Happy 4th! God Bless America!

Chuck Norton


Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 2 Comments »

New York Times Throws Obama Under the Bus Over Flip-Flopping and Adopting of Bush Positions – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008


The Vision always trying to keep the readers informed with the best news analysis, has been telling about the Obama flip-flops and other “typical politician” behavior for some time now. Today the New York Times editorial board, which is the tip of the spear of the far left, now tells its readers what we at The Vision have been telling you for a while and they are not happy about it in the least.

UPDATE SEE BELOW: NYT Op-Ed goes after Obama for flip-flops and Adopting Bush Positions


July 4, 2008

New and Not Improved


Senator Barack Obamastirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obamaon the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

Of course, no national security surveillence of overseas communications requires a warrant. Every President since George Washington has monitored overseas communications in times of war. Mail to England was inspected before it left the country. President Wilson and FDR also monitored all communications that crossed the border. Of course the New York Times knows this, but like so much of the elite media now adays, the facts arent nearly important as the narrative they want to tell.

The NYT continues to “bash” Obama:

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obamaon two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Of course, as long as the government hands out money for services neutrally to denominations that can get the work done there is no establishment clause issue, the Supreme Court has made such a principle clear. The government as far back as the Second Congress gave money to church groups for a variety of purposes. It was always understood that as long as one denomination wasn’t overly favored there was no problem, but lets not confuse the NYT with the facts while they are “trashing”  their favorite politician with the facts on his reversals.


Washington insider Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post also catalogues Obama’s flip-flops and the adopting of President Bush’s positions on a host of issues.

A Man of Seasonal Principles

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 4, 2008; A17


You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.

In last week’s column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama’s brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles — on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecomimmunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Obamaimmediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burtonexplains the inexplicable by calling the November — i.e., the primary season — statement “inartful.” Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary — “Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial.”

Obama’s seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What’s left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obamawill have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’scynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his “original position” on withdrawal has always been that “we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.” And that “when I go to Iraq . . . I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.



Just remember that The Vision beat all these guys to the punch in the analysis of what was starting to happen with the Obama campaign.

Chuck Norton

UPDATE !! July 8th New York Times Bob Herbert:

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

There has been a reluctance among blacks [read his leftist friends – isn’t it amazing that the left, not only mired in the idea of group think and group identity, claims to speak for all blacks – Chuck Norton] to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 1 Comment »