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 April 11th, 2010

Town Hall: Congressman Doesn’t Know Constitution

Posted by iusbvision on April 11, 2010

Interesting video. A citizen asks his member of congress two simple questions about the Constitution. What is Article I Section I mean and name me 3 of 5 rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Article 1 sets up the legislative power among the House and the Senate and as a First Amendment whiz I know the five guarantees of the First Amendment by heart, freedom of press, association, speech, redress of grievances, and religion. The implied but unspoken freedom is freedom of conscience.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Sarah Palin at SRLC. Blasts Obama’s Lack of Experience.

Posted by iusbvision on April 11, 2010

Sarah Palin on “the Obama Doctrine”. Having fun at Obama’s expense.  

Palin is right, there has been one foreign policy goof after another out of this administration and the State Department.

Full Speech. Very smart and funny, worth the time.

Limbaugh Comments: Obama’s point about the joint cheifs is silly. If any one of them objected to the policy to the press they would be canned instantly.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

McCotter: How to Speak Democrat

Posted by iusbvision on April 11, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

Duke University – If you are a white male consensual sex = sexual misconduct

Posted by iusbvision on April 11, 2010

Duke has quite a record of this sort of radicalized feminist, marxist conflict theory lunacy.

First there is the famed Duke LaCrosse case where 88 members of the faculty signed a statement essentially saying that the students must have raped the black stripper because they are rich, white, and male; all without a hint of evidence. The rich, white and male lacrosse players were exonerated by the evidence and the prosecutor in the case was himself prosecuted for his misconduct in the case.

Duke shut down an event on motherhood because pro-life students with children were going to participate in the event. FIRE was able to get justice in that case as well.

Duke has a LONG history of illegal censorship and retaliation for free speech. Duke shut down Prof. Gary Hull’s website after he posted an article on it calling for a strong military response to the terrorist attacks is just another incident in that long history linked to.  FIRE has been fighting them each step of the way quite successfully.

Look through that long history and it doesn’t take long to realize how subversive and quite frankly mentally deranged many academics at Duke have become. Much like in the book Lord of the Flies, the forces of myopic group think and peer pressure can progress to a psychosis.

Now we have the latest from Duke, a change to its campus policy which essentially states that if there is a “perceived power difference” between two people who engage in consensual sex that it creates an atmosphere of coercion.

Allow me to interpret this radicalized marxist conflict theory code speak. If  male student has sex with a female student, well females are a “protected minority class” there is a power difference therefore the act could not have been truly consensual. Remember the 1970’s and 80’s feminist idea that “all sex is rape”?

This Duke policy is also overtly racist. If a white female had consensual sex with a black male, the white female runs face first into this policy because of the black studies marxist conflict theory polemic called “white privilege“. [Jim Quinn defines white privilege as “a racist idea used by leftist proponents of group politics to explain away the economic and social failure of ‘group politics'”. It is  used to help keep minorities down by infusing them with false envy; see Detroit – Editor].

Of course this policy will be selectively enforced to promote the marxist conflict theory polemic, therefore it is only white males who are likely in danger of having this new policy used against them.

FIRE sent a letter to the Duke administration. Duke responded by only addressing a minor point in the letter and ignoring the rest of the points addressed. This is a typical tactic used by hyper extremist ideologues on internet message boards when faced with a reality and/or an argument they cannot handle. The people who use this tactic seem to actually believe that the recipient is so stupid that they will fall for it.

Sorry Duke administration, the nice people at FIRE are not stupid.


Duke and the Art of Not Answering Questions

April 9, 2010

by Robert Shibley

Lawyers often specialize in the art of answering questions without actually answering questions.

Here’s a great example: the letter we received today from Duke University lawyer Kate Hendricks. Hendricks was personally very pleasant to me when I had a non-substantive conversation with her on March 25, as I mentioned in my previous blog entry and to which she refers in her letter. But Hendricks’ letter employs a common tactic: it addresses the least important concern we raised in our letter while conveniently ignoring everything else.

Here’s the sole concern Duke addresses: FIRE pointed out in our letter that the sexual misconduct policy says that students in sexual misconduct hearings have all the same rights that they would in all other hearings, but then when it lists those rights, it leaves some of them out. FIRE wrote, “It is unclear whether this ambiguity is an oversight or if Duke intends to give students accused of sexual misconduct fewer rights than they have in other types of cases.” FIRE then goes on to list the rights that seem to differ and concludes the section by asking, “Do these rights exist in sexual misconduct hearings or not? If they do exist in sexual misconduct hearings, why is that not made clear?”

In response to this, Hendricks writes, “While your letter is the first indication we have received that this point is ambiguous, we can certainly review to determine whether clarification is in order.” OK, great. But how long does that take? Like Hendricks, I’m an attorney, too, and it was ambiguous to me—why wouldn’t undergrads be similarly confused? Why can’t Duke just say “whoops, we’ll fix that”? It would require the titanic effort of copying and pasting from one webpage to another. That’s it.

Anyway, as I said, that was the least important of our concerns.

By way of contrast, here is a short list of some of the far greater problems Duke ignored, presented in plain English:

1. If two students are merely “perceived” as differently “powerful,” this policy says that the more “powerful” student may have unintentionally coerced the other into sex and therefore committed sexual misconduct.

2. If two students are drunk and have sex, according to this policy they both committed sexual misconduct against each other.

3. What does “psychological pressure” to have sex mean, and on a student-to-student level, how does Duke distinguish this from peer pressure or even simple persuasion?

4. Since the victim and the accuser do not have to be the same person, and the accuser can be an anonymous third party, the accused cannot be guaranteed the right to face his or her accuser.

5. The accused has no right to representation by an attorney under the policy, so Duke can force him or her to incriminate himself or herself in ways that could compromise his or her defense in parallel criminal charges.

6. The composition of the hearing panel is weighted 3 to 2 in favor of students in ordinary misconduct hearings, but 2 to 1 in favor of faculty and staff (paid by Duke, of course) in sexual misconduct hearings.

7. All participants are required by the policy to keep “any information” about sexual misconduct proceedings confidential, apparently into perpetuity, which denies those found not responsible for sexual misconduct and those falsely accused from using the court of public opinion to clear their names (a right that was critical in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax case).

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »