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 February 16th, 2009

Los Angeles Community College Sued for Censoring and Violating the Rights of Students.

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

Yup another university sued for discriminating against and violating the civil rights of Christian students.

Calif. professor to student: “Ask God what your grade is”

L.A. Community College District after professor calls student ‘fascist bastard’ for sharing beliefs on faith and marriage.

It seems that every week or two another university is sued for this or a similar offense and all those cases have one thing in common; the university loses.

Alliance Defense Fund:

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District Wednesday. The lawsuit comes after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student following a speech about marriage and his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class.

“Christian students shouldn’t be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor’s assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion.”

On Nov. 24, 2008, Los Angeles City College speech professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Jonathan Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling him a “fascist bastard” in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, “Ask God what your grade is.”

One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. Matteson’s treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which Matteson told his entire class after the November election, “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard.”

“Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student’s religious beliefs,” said French. “When students are given open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America’s public universities and colleges are supposed to be a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ not a hotbed of intolerance.”

Now here is the rub, if this had to come to a lawsuit, this means that the administration is sitting on it’s hands. not going far enough to protect the students or backing the profesor. This is no surprise because as in the IUSB case, the IUPUI case, the SFSU cases, the TSU case, the Wayne State University case, and the Michigan case, it was the university administration that knowingly and willfully violated the student’s rights and the law.

Here is the filing of the LAWSUIT.

FIRE is also on it.

Dr. Adams comments on the case HERE.

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

San Francisco State U: Radicalized Islamists and leftists turn violent at anti-terror protest.

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

Gator GOP:

The College Republicans at SFSU held an anti-hamas event on campus. They had a petition for students to sign in opposition to Hamas. Playing off the Bush shoe throwing incident, students who opposed hamas were encouraged to throw a shoe at the Hamas flag. Radical leftists and Hamas supporters rallied against the event and became violent. TWO students were taken into custody and charged for attacking the College Republicans.


Aftermath – Socialists and Islamists demand end to free speech at SFSU:

An anonymous source from inside the Palestinian Club and the Socialist club at SFSU has provided the College Republicans with the following information:

In response to the College Republican’s anti-Hamas event (video below) held on Wednesday the “offended parties” have banded together to push the school to punish the College Republicans for throwing shoes at the Hamas Flag. Over the next few days the coalition will release a statement making the following demands:

-Authorities must drop all charges pending against Muhammad Abdullah and Jeremy Stern, the two protestors that assaulted the College Republicans and stole their property.

-The school must sanction/punish the College Republicans for throwing shoes at the Hamas flag.

-The groups must organize a forum to “educate” students about what forms of speech are not acceptable according to the offended parties, specifically the always ambiguous “hate speech.”

So far we’ve confirmed that the General Union of Palestinian Students and Muslim Student Association are the main players in the push to ban/punish forms of speech that could potentially offend students.

Timeline of violence by leftist/Islamist students at SFSU:

Last week the College Republicans were attacked by a group of radical students on campus. Some protesters openly supported Hamas. One Hamas supporter leaned in to the table and said, “Of course I support Hamas, I voted for hamas! I fought for hamas! How dare you!” Some media outlets and bloggers think this is the opening salvo in a battle to suppress “offensive” speech at sfsu. But the frightening reality is that this kind of thing has been going on at SFSU for quite some time now. The following is a timeline of events that have taken place at SFSU that involve radicals trying to silence political opposition using violence or threats of violence. (Click the link for the timeline).

Bill O’reilly did a spot on one of the ‘incidents:

O’Reilly said that they look like Al-Qeada. They may be. According to Jihadwatch and some other watchdogs many Muslim Student Organizations are affiliated with or sympathetic to Al-Qeada.

SFSU GOP gets note from the violent student who was arrested and responds:

UPDATE: K Real responds. The arrested protester wrote to us with a dissertation that contained the following literary gems:

-“Standing on that flag could have caused many problems for the USA including a global boycott of US Goods which could have cost the USA billions during a recession. Food for thought homies.”
-“Petty Thefty all that was alleged! My case was thrown out already!!! So what theft? I took my flag back and it is were it belongs!!! ”
-“Standing on that flag was like a KKK cross burning. ”
-“yeah enjoy laughing at the fact that I have tens of thousands of people who adore me. Don’t be jealous!”

We’re flattered that k real thinks our club could start a global boycott of the United States. Anyone else think he’s giving us WAY too much credit? Whatever, we’ll take it! As far the case being dropped: Are we supposed to be surprised that the San Francisco DA wouldn’t press charges against a protester that attacked Republicans? We would have been shocked if punishment had been sought in the case. The KKK burned crosses to warn of impending violence and used it as a tool of their terror. It was YOU who committed acts of violence, not us. As for the “tens of thousands of people who adore you,” if thinking that helps you get to sleep at night, more power to you.

And of course the SFSU administration is covering for those who commit violence and had to be sued for violating the legal rights of College Republicans.

For all the details here is the link to FIRE’s case file on SFSU violations.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Israel | 1 Comment »

Senator Graham: Paulsen mislead us. Didn’t buy troubled mortage assets with the bailout money as promised.

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

Today on Fox News Radio Senator Lindsay Graham said when we here at the IUSB Vision have been saying for weeks. The vast majority of thiese trillions are being spent for either corruption reasons or political reasons, not economic ones. 

When the first bailout came the government promised to buy bad mortage assets to help people who were in trouble, renegotiate the mortages for those people which would also help out the banks. Instead Hank Paulsen handed out billion to banks he picked to be winners, and denied banks he chose to be losers so the banks who got billions of your money could buy up their competitors and get richer in the process.

See our links HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury and now the Democrat Congress (democrats have been in control there for 3 years now) have/are spending trillions and so far not one bad mortgage asset has been bought. The stimulus bill spends almost a trillion dollars and even though small business creates 75% of the jobs in the United States, only 3.5% of the stimulus is there to help small business. Instead theya re gioving billions to political cronies and wall street and hoping it will trickle down to the rest of us….. or trickle back to the Democratic Party in kickbacks.

We hope to get a copy of the audio from Senator Graham to post here. In the mean time, we welcome Senator Graham (whose leadership is often inconsistant) to the club.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama Administration Reversing Itself on Government Censorship of Talk radio

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

They call ity the “Fairmness Doctrine or “Localism” – but in practice it is plain old fashioned censorship in spite of the Orwellian relabel. Democrats are being stupid with this. If they try and do it it is likely that the Supreme Court won’t stand for it. If on the slim chance that they do Republicans would have two options when they take power again: eliminate it or enforce it on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC just to see how the Democrats like it. Without these networks covering for the Democrats and spreading propaganda for them as they did in the last campaign, they would have a much smaller chance at holding power again.

Back in the campaign….

Remember when the Left laughed at conservatives’ concerns over the Fairness Doctrine? Barack Obama already said he opposed the reimposition of the FCC rule, they said.  After all, Obama’s campaign gave this definitive statement in June 2008:

“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.


Today, Chris Wallace interviewed David Axelrod and asked him directly about the Fairness Doctrine — and suddenly the White House adviser got a lot less definitive:

WALLACE: Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?

AXELROD: I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now.

That’s hardly a denial, as Politico’s Michael Calderone notes:

Lester Kinsolving, the conservative radio host, has twice asked Robert Gibbs about it in the briefing room, and each time, the press secretary didn’t reveal the administration’s position.

Last week, I reached out to press office staffers in order to find out if the administration’s position is the same as in June, and have not yet received a response.

Allahpundit at comments:

It’s an easy question.  Does this administration believe in free speech or government censorship?  Their sudden inability to provide a clear answer, when they had no problem giving such assurances eight months ago, does not bode well for the answer.

I’d like to say I told you so to all of those who accused us of paranoia, but the window on that ability to do so on the airwaves looks like it’s about to expire — like all of Obama’s campaign promises.

The American media should be ashamed of themselves on this issue.  They pose as the defenders of the First Amendment and free speech.  Why are Chris Wallace and Michael Calderone the only MSM people pursuing this?

Talk radio has a much larger audience than the TV networks. The “elites” at CBS and NBC can’t be happy about that. If talk radio is censored it will make talk radio’s ratings tank. No one will listen to it. The “MSM” thinks that their propaganda will become the default place for information after that.

Update:  Now they are back to saying no censorship. Was a nice trial balloon hugh Axelrod?

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Econ Professor Blasts Obama for Dishonest Rhetoric

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

Professor Brad Schiller from the University of Nevada blasts Obama for being dishonest about the economy. Forunately Schiller is in a business and economics department and not in a liberal arts department or social work department or writing this might harm his career.

Obama’s Rhetoric Is the Real ‘Catastrophe’

In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%.


President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today’s economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don’t come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That’s a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost — fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. That’s more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can’t equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today’s economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That’s comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn’t compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn’t come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s.

Mr. Obama’s analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they’re also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren’t likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a “recovery” package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy’s woes might produce better policies.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of “The Economy Today” (McGraw-Hill, 2007).

Posted in Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

1500 Bags of Pork Rinds for Senator Schumer

Posted by iusbvision on February 16, 2009

Michelle Malkin has this awesome post on her web site today:

1,500 bags of pork rinds for Schmucky

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 16, 2009 04:30 AM

Last week, I noted Kentucky radio talk show host Leland Conway’s campaign to send Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer bags of pork rinds in response to his arrogant claim that Americans don’t care about the pork in the trillion-dollar-porkulus.

Guess what? Conway’s call produced a mountain — an estimated 1,500 pork rind bags that will be packed up and delivered to the Schmuckster’s office. Yes, they care:

Guess he’ll just dismiss Central Kentucky taxpayers as more of the “chattering classes”…

Thank you Michelle and thank you WLAP!

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 4 Comments »