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 December 26th, 2008

Senator Stevens May Walk: Prosecutorial and FBI Misconduct Could Get Stevens Conviction Overturned

Posted by iusbvision on December 26, 2008

This is a real shame because Sen. Stevens may very well be guilty.

A credible FBI Agent has blown the whistle on prosecutors and FBI agents withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense and the whistle-blower alleges that prosecutors and agents had inappropriate contact with prosecution witnesses and evidence (seeming to mean that they were feeding that witness extra evidence to “testify to” in order to help guarantee a conviction.

Prosecutorial and police misconduct is nothing new in America and it is getting worse and worse. I keep a file of cases that have been overturned due to such misconduct and the file is pretty thick. High profile cases like the OJ Simpson case where the police had taken some blood and placed it in the Bronco to “help the case along”, the Scooter Libby case is a brazen case of prosecutorial misconduct and there are signs of prosecutorial misconduct already in the Governor Blagojevich investigation. These problems are all over, down to and including cops who try to meet their ticket quota by giving tickets to every person riding a moped for driving a motorcycle without a license in spite of the fact that they have 49cc engines and are not motorcycles by law, but who that rides a moped can afford to fight such a ticket?

FBI whistleblower alleges Stevens trial misconduct
UNETHICAL: Agent says prosecutors covered up evidence, corruption investigations tainted.

By RICHARD MAUER
rmauer@adn.com

(12/22/08 13:52:58)

An Alaska FBI agent has accused fellow agents and at least one prosecutor of misconduct and unethical behavior in the public corruption investigation in Alaska and the trial of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.

The agent’s complaint to internal investigators in the Justice Department was made public Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by the judge in Stevens’ case.

The complaint had sharp words about one supervising agent, accused of getting too close to sources, including Allen. It said agents took gifts and accepted favors from sources and revealed confidential grand jury information and investigative practices to sources and reporters.

And the complaint said that prosecutors deliberately withheld and covered up evidence favorable to Stevens during his month-long trial, contradicting their statements to the judge at the time that their errors in not producing material to Stevens were accidental.

The judge, who said he wanted to protect the privacy of the complainant and those who were named, covered up almost all identifying details in heavy black ink, making some allegations difficult to follow.

But the agent who produced the explosive eight-page complaint, drafted in November, was clearly someone with intimate knowledge of the government’s investigation in Alaska and the preparation and conduct of its trial of Stevens.

“I have witnessed or learned of serious violations of policy, rules, and procedures as well as possible criminal violations,” the whistle-blower asserted in the complaint, which is now before the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

The whistle-blowing agent ran at least one of the sources in the investigation who gave grand jury testimony. And the whistle-blower described being in the room on Aug. 30, 2006, when agents were convincing the man who would become their most important witness, former Veco Corp. chief executive Bill Allen, to cooperate in the investigation.

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/631518.html

Here is the link to the court docs. The judge found it compelling enough to order this report released to the public. http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/12/23/11/256-2_Whistleblower_Complaint.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

Hotair.com comments HERE.

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Iraq to Replace Saddam Era Monuments With Peace Art

Posted by iusbvision on December 26, 2008

Via Al-Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Nearly six years after Iraqis and U.S. soldiers toppled grandiose monuments erected by Saddam Hussein, Iraq plans to put up 100 new art works it hopes will stand as affirmations of a new era of peace.

Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, all statues and monuments in public squares made reference to Saddam’s Baath party or told a story about its military victories against Iraq’s numerous enemies.

In the heavily fortified Green Zone diplomatic compound, two pairs of giant arms emerge from the ground, hundreds of metres away from each other, holding crossed swords to form an arch across a parades ground. They were modeled on Saddam’s hands and cast using 160 tonnes of bronze.

Iraq wants to replace such monuments with symbols of peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081226/stage_nm/us_iraq_art

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Internet Overtakes Newspapers As News Source

Posted by iusbvision on December 26, 2008

internet-news-beats-newspapersFor the first time the internet is beating newspapers as a news source according to the Pew Research Center.

This comes as no surprise to the IUSB Vision. Editor & Publisher has been telling us that newspaper circulation has been going down for years. Rasmussen, Pew Research and the Media Research Center have published polls year after year showing that the credibility of most newspapers has been falling. The public is becoming more and more aware that what they read in newspapers from the Associated Press and Reuters print news services often just isn’t the truth.

Dow Jones, the Star Tribune and other newspapers are dropping their contracts to carry the Associated Press and who can blame them?

We have published a great many stories on media bias here at the Vision; one of the latest involving the AP is when they were spinning for the Obama campaign and calling Sarah Palin a racist. Even the far left MSNBC went after the AP for that story (video HERE). There are more examples of this kind of bias than we have room to publish. We recently told you how the New York Times revenue is down 20% and be sure not to miss our story on the awards for the worst examples of elite media bias from the Media Research Center.

In other good news, television news viewership is suffering the same problems as the newspaper industry. Hopefully in a few years internet news sources like NRO, Hotair, Newsmax, Politico, Townhall and American Thinker will surpass television as well.

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

“Scientists Say” Repeal Incest Laws…

Posted by iusbvision on December 26, 2008

Its the old “Scientists Say”… as if these people speak for all scientists because that is how this study will be presented by “social activists”.

First, in the name of science, social activists in the scientific community said that homosexuality should be normalized. A few years ago the American Psychological Association (APA) made a push to normalize pedophilia. The backlash, lead by the famed Dr. Laura Schlessinger, was intense and included backlash from Congress and several state legislatures. The APA retreated so completely that they now deny that they ever did this in the first place.

The latest is ” lets repeal incest laws” in an article in Public Library of Science:

Inbreeding is the source of jokes about British royalty and is associated with increased birth defects among offspring. The practice is so reviled that 31 U.S. states ban marriage between first cousins or allow it only if the couple has undergone genetic counseling or at least one partner is sterile or no longer fertile because of age.

But those laws “seem ill-advised” and “should be repealed,” a geneticist and medical historian write in today’s PLoS Biology. “Neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible.”

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Brown Shirt Tactics of the Left May Lead to New Political Disclosure Laws

Posted by iusbvision on December 26, 2008

Here are excerpts from the latest  Dr. John Lott column – it is a must read:

How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.

We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public — many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people’s fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 — California’s recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman — is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign.

Richard Raddon, the director of the L.A. Film Festival, donated $1,500 to Yes on 8. A threatened boycott and picketing of the next festival forced him to resign. Alan Stock, the chief executive of the Cinemark theater chain, gave $9,999. Cinemark is facing a boycott, and so is the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival because it uses a Cinemark theater to screen some of its films.

A Palo Alto dentist lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles gave a $100 personal donation, triggering a demonstration and boycott against her restaurant. The pressure was so intense that Marjorie Christoffersen, who had managed the place for 26 years, resigned.

These are just a few instances that have come to light, and the ramifications are still occurring over a month after the election. The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future: to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025779370234773.html#

Donors in Some Issue Campaigns Need First Amendment Protection

Ironically, it has long been minorities who have benefited the most from anonymous speech. In the 1950s, for example, Southern states sought to obtain membership lists of the NAACP in the name of the public’s “right to know.” Such disclosure would have destroyed the NAACP’s financial base in the South and opened its supporters to threats and violence. It took a Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to protect the privacy of the NAACP and its supporters on First Amendment grounds.

Intimidating someone is a crime, and attempting to punish people for their views is also illegal so it is time for some VERY carefully crafted laws to protect people from retaliation. They are not “proclaiming their speech” with these activities the clear intent is to suppress the speech of others.

Here is one more example from Dr. Lott:

Other threats are more personal. For example, in 2004 Gigi Brienza contributed $500 to the John Edwards presidential campaign. An extremist animal rights group used that information to list Ms. Brienza’s home address (and similarly, that of dozens of co-workers) on a Web site, under the ominous heading, “Now you know where to find them.” Her “offense,” also revealed from the campaign finance records, was that she worked for a pharmaceutical company that tested its products on animals.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton | 3 Comments »