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 30th, 2008

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 »