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 November 21st, 2010

Col. Allen West: John Lewis is a hypocrite

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

While Democrat Ron Kline was accusing Col. West of being a part of a racist gang, accusing him of being a drug dealer (the old “all blacks are drug dealers” narrative), slandering his military service, mailing out his social security number to 60,000 people, slandering his wife and the list goes on and on. John Lewis came to Florida to support Kline.

John Lewis is portrayed as some great civil rights hero and his book is all over IUSB. The same John Lewis that compared John McCain to George Wallace in October 2008. The same John Lewis that lied through when he claimed that Tea Party protesters in DC chanted the N-word at him 15 times, except oops, hey John dozens of people filmed the event from multiple angles and guess what, no N-word. Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof that it happened. No Takers.

Here is an idea, if you are going to make up a lie about a mass event, don’t do it in front of a sea of new media video cameras.

Now even Juan Williams is saying that Lewis is exploiting black people and racism for political purposes. They say John Lewis is a hero, well true heroes don’t sell out.

Allen West has had enough of this nonsense and enough of John Lewis. You can be sure that it is not over between these two men. After what Kline, Lewis and the rest of these liars and cronies did to Col. West’s family it is now personal.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

It is time to dismantle the TSA – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

I have avoided posting on this issue for the simple reason that the media and countless bloggers have done a good job in covering this story.

The TSA tells us that they do not do pat downs in kids under 13, they tell us that they are not exposing or touching private parts and yet, we know that they took the top off of a woman, exposed her breasts while some made fun of her, we saw the video of the tiny little girl being groped by a TSA, we saw the famed video of the “crotch check”, we have seen other pictures of  of hard crotch checks, we know how the TSA made one person remove her breast prosthetic (mastectomy), we know how former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has to go through the “enhanced pat down” every time because the metal in his hip sets off the metal detector.

We know how disabled lady was picked up off the ground by her crotch by a TSA. We are aware that the pilots union and flight attendants union are up in arms, and now we know that one pilot is suing the TSA because they wanted him to show his penis. Again all of this has been well reported. Citizens are posting Youtube of incidents daily, complaints are rising daily.

Well that rule about not doing “enhanced” pat downs on little kids that the head of the TSA said in sworn testimony to Congress a few days ago… someone forgot to tell this group of agents as the shirt was removed from this child during the enhanced pat down to prove that the little boy wasn’t hiding any bombs.

UPDATE – The TSA and many in the elite media have stated that it was the boys father who took the boys short off to show that he wasn’t carrying a bomb, nut what the TSA didn’t volunteer is that the boy is autistic and they told the father that the child’s short would have to be removed or the autistic child would have to go through the aggressive pat down process. Then TSA agents tried to intimidate the person recording the video into erasing it, but obviously the victim held his ground. Via The Blaze. [redlasso id=”cfc16f68-7de9-4c32-86c5-dd2364b9aedd”]

1 – It is now clear that TSA is simply incapable of following its own rules.

2 – The Secret Service does not even do this kind of groping and they are second to none when it comes to security.

3 – The full body nude scan machines cannot detect many kinds of explosives.

4 – These enhanced searches have stopped no terrorists or found any bomb making materials.

5 – Better equipment such as bomb sniffing dogs and electronic sniffers are not being used in favor of what is going on now.

6 – No court has ever allowed these kind of invasive searches without a warrant or probable cause.

7 – It is the job of the government to protect and safeguard our rights, not look for excuses to violate them.

8 – Doing these searches on old women, nuns and little children actually makes us less safe. By spending resources on people who are clearly innocent that is less resources used going after terrorists.

9 – As the Israelis have told us, looking for objects is a waste of resources, looking for people who are out to cause trouble is much more effective.

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

National Assoc. of Scholars on Campus “Diversity Babble”

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

This is very fun to read, but it also shows a real problem. It shows how university administrators talk about tolerance and diversity but selectively enforce the rules to shut diversity down.

National Association of Scholars:

The headline of the local Chico, California newspaper was “Chico State planning for greater diversity”1. The front page story was about the now infamous California State University, Chico (CSU Chico) Diversity Action Plan that has been accurately described in Attack of the Giant Plethora, $600 for “Teaching to Diversity” at CSU Chico and from Diversity to Sustainability: How Campus Ideology Is Born. As I read the comments of the CSU Chico’s administrators, I noted how representative they were of the sloppy thinking and cynical dishonesty of many so-called diversity advocates.

According to the newspaper article, Gayle Hutchinson, Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at CSU Chico, had enthusiastically explained that the university’s goal was “to increase the presence and impact of a variety of groups that may be inadequately represented” and “to create greater diversity at Chico State.” She also said that at CSU Chico diversity meant “ability, age, culture, race/ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sexuality, regional and national origin, political orientation, religion and socio-economic background.” This unusual list of variables immediately struck me as unrealistic and perhaps illegal to track. The article also reported that CSU Chico would have a “Chief Diversity Officer” whose job would be to “measure progress at increasing diversity.”

Let us consider how CSU Chico’s Chief Diversity Officer might go about measuring and tracking the demographic, behavioral and belief variables that Dean Hutchinson listed. Will CSU Chico survey student and faculty applicants concerning their political orientation or religion? Will the Chief Diversity Officer someday say, “We don’t have enough students who are Republican or Evangelical Christian,” or “we have too many progressive Democrats”? Will a student or faculty applicant someday be rejected because their religion is overrepresented? Just how might the Chief Diversity Officer determine whether CSU Chico has the requisite diversity of “gender expression”? Perhaps by asking applicants, “Do you ever cross-dress?” Maybe to determine “sexuality” they will ask students about the quality and frequency of sexual relations, or perhaps ask them to rate their interest in sexual activity on a scale of 1 to 10. Perhaps Dean Hutchinson meant sexual orientation instead of sexuality, but is CSU Chico planning on asking student and faculty applicants about their private sexual preferences? Maybe they will take a more underhanded approach by requiring every applicant to submit a photo and write an essay on how they would contribute to diversity at CSU Chico. Then if an applicant doesn’t reveal enough personal information or doesn’t look like a minority, they can be safely rejected using the charade of the “whole person” concept. If you think this last option might be a bit farfetched then please read College Application Essays: Going Beyond “How Would You Contribute to Diversity?”.5

What exactly did Dean Hutchinson mean by increasing the diversity of ages and abilities? Is Dean Hutchinson expecting to increase the number of middle-aged adults and seniors in undergraduate classes? What abilities was she specifically referring to? Mental, physical? Or was it to some restrictions in those abilities that she was referring? What exactly are those “abilities” that are so important and “may be inadequately represented” that CSU Chico is willing to spend precious funds to locate and recruit people with them? Is Dean Hutchinson implying that people of color or of a specific ethnicity have special abilities not found in the white population? What exactly did Dean Hutchinson mean, by “regional and national” origin, considering that CSU Chico is a state university with a mission of providing higher education opportunities to the sons and daughters of California burdened tax payers?

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

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff on Campus Censorship

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

Greg Lukianoff discusses his essay on campus censorship from the book New Threats to Freedom. Are there circumstances under which a person’s right to not be offended supersedes a person’s right to free speech? Based on the actions of several public universities, it seems that this may be a dangerously common attitude within academia.

Here is another example of just how loony many of our taxpayer funded college administrators have become. This is SEIU thug tactics.

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

Syracuse University Chancellor Nancy Cantor goes off the deep end: sends university police to go after student’s Halloween costumes

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

I am well aware of the Stalinist streak that goes up the spine of too many university administrators and far left academics, but rarely do we see the lust for totalitarian control of others taken to such an extreme. Chancellor Cantor’s actions are so extreme and ludicrous that it forces reasonable people to question her stability and of a few in her inner circle.

By the way, she pays herself nearly $1.4 million a year to go after those Halloween costumes…

Syracuse U. Chancellor Nancy Cantor

Syracuse U. Chancellor Nancy Cantor

Of course this outrageous behavior by Syracuse University provoked a fast response from Harvard grad Adam Kissel, who is also a Vice President at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.  I have seen Kissel’s work, and while he is a much nicer fellow than I am, I can assure any college administrator with a totalitarian streak that the last thing you want is his complete and undivided attention.

November 18, 2010

Nancy Cantor, Chancellor
Syracuse University
300 Tolley Administration Building
Syracuse, New York 13244

Sent via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (315-443-3073)

Dear Chancellor Cantor:

While FIRE awaits the resolution of Syracuse University College of Law’s chilling investigation of law student Leonard Audaer-now in its second month-for his alleged publication of clearly protected satire, we sadly must write to you regarding another violation of Syracuse University’s promises of free speech. FIRE is gravely concerned by the threat to free speech posed by Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Anthony Callisto’s public assertion that he would use DPS police power to censor “offensive” Halloween costumes on campus.

This is our understanding of the facts. Please inform us if you believe we are in error.

On October 11, 2010, Thomas V. Wolfe, Syracuse’s Senior Vice President and Dean of Student Affairs, e-mailed all Syracuse students encouraging them to “be thoughtful and sensitive when choosing [their] costume[s],” lest their costumes “threaten [their] safety or that of others”:

Before you go out, please consider how your portrayal of ethnicity and race, gender, class, religion, culture, sexual orientation, or disability might affect others.

In the past, even well-intentioned (but un-thoughtful) costume choices created significant bias-related tensions in our community. To avoid this, consider a thoughtful conversation with others about how Halloween celebrations can build a spirit of community, in which no one is mocked, stereotyped, or inappropriately represented. Take this opportunity to protect yourself and your peers by choosing not to engage in behaviors that threaten your safety or that of others.

Syracuse’s Division of Student Affairs, which includes DPS, was listed as one of the many administrative bodies at Syracuse that endorsed the statement.

Then, on October 14, The Daily Orange reported on Wolfe’s e-mail and quoted Callisto:

If DPS patrol officers see a biased costume during Halloween weekend, they will act on it, Callisto said.

If we detect that there’s a person with an offensive costume, we’d likely require them to remove it, and we would file a judicial complaint,” Callisto said. “There are costumes that could be very offensive to members of protected class communities.” [Emphasis added.]

Callisto also reportedly said:

Students need to remember that what you see on Comedy Central or on other cable comedy stations doesn’t make it right here at Syracuse University … What’s difficult for people to remember, sometimes, is what might be appropriate for a cable television outlet is not going to be appropriate in a place like Syracuse University, a place that really celebrates diversity. [“DPS to crack down on insensitive Halloween costumes,” available at

These statements violate Syracuse’s promises of free expression, which it is legally and morally bound to uphold. While Syracuse University may legitimately encourage its students not to “mock[],” “stereotype[],” or “inappropriately represent[]” others through Halloween costumes, Syracuse may not require students to refrain from such expression under pain of punishment or investigation. DPS may not threaten students with “a judicial complaint” simply for wearing a costume that “could be very offensive to members of protected class communities,” nor may DPS force students to remove such costumes.

As a private institution, Syracuse has chosen to promise freedom of speech to its students. For instance, Syracuse asserts that it is “committed to the principle that freedom of expression is essential to the search for truth, and consequently welcomes and encourages the expression of different and varied opinions, and of dissent.” Syracuse’s harassment policy also explicitly does not apply to expression within “the bounds of protected free speech.” Under such promises, students do not have to ensure that their expression is consistent with “a place that really celebrates diversity.” In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court wisely noted that “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Under such principles and Syracuse’s own promises, there can be no question that an “offensive” Halloween costume is protected expression at Syracuse and out of the reach of Syracuse’s police.

It also cannot be credibly asserted that wearing a Halloween costume, in itself, can be a threat to campus safety. Does Wolfe really believe that Syracuse students will be unable to control their violent impulses if they see a Halloween costume that they believe is offensive? Even if this is indeed what Wolfe believes about Syracuse students, by putting the power to censor in the hands of the most sensitive and violent people in the community, Syracuse effectively enacts a “heckler’s veto,” which is anathema to free speech on campus.

Nor is the threat to free speech posed by Wolfe and Callisto confined to Halloween. Students are now on notice that the university’s police will intervene if students wear anything that might be seen as offensive by any of their peers. T-shirts with controversial or satirical statements are apparently out of bounds and subject to police action at Syracuse. Students are likely to decide not to wear these items out of fear that a DPS officer may determine them to be “very offensive to members of protected class communities.”

I hope you understand how disrespectfully Syracuse has acted toward its own students, diminishing their rights and disparaging their self-control: expression that is allowed on a public sidewalk bordering Syracuse’s campus has been declared so offensive that it could provoke violence among members of the Syracuse University community.

FIRE asks that Syracuse University disavow the claim that it will ever use the university’s police force to patrol the protected expression of Syracuse students. Syracuse must notify its students that they will not be investigated or prosecuted for wearing “offensive” costumes or apparel. Please spare Syracuse the embarrassment of another fight against students’ rights.

We ask for a response to this letter by December 7, 2010.


Adam Kissel
Vice President of Programs


Thomas V. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Dean of Student Affairs
Anthony Callisto, Director of Public Safety
Gerald M. Martin, Director, Office of Judicial Affairs
James K. Duah-Agyeman, Director, Office of Multicultural Affairs
Chase Catalano, Director, LGBT Resource Center
Terra Peckskamp, Director, Office of Residence Life
Roy S. Gutterman, Director, The Tully Center for Free Speech

Now did you all catch the last name there? Syracuse U. has an educational center for free speech. So are the faculty and the director of the Tully Center for Free Speech going to stand up to this immoral and illegal censorship? Don’t hold your breath, but hey guys, if you show some backbone I will be thrilled to post it here. As for me, I contend that while many communications and journalism academics pay lip service for free speech, few are willing to take some risk in standing up for it.

I examined the facebook page and the twitter page for the Tully Center for Free Speech….nothing….

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 2 Comments »

Pro-Life student group banned by Carlton University sues

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

You remember our friend Ruth Lobo?

Well welcome to lawsuit number two that Carleton University is likely to lose. The rub here is that like in Canada, it will not be the lawbreaking, totalitarian administrators who pay the fines when they lose, it will be the taxpayers. This is why there needs to be real changes made to sovereign immunity laws.  Here in the United States I intend to push the new Congress for those laws after it is seated January 20th.

James Shaw and Ruth Lobo

James Shaw and Ruth Lobo

National Post:

The lawyer for an anti-abortion group just decertified at Carleton University said Friday he will take the school’s student association to court unless the ban is reversed. Albertos Polizogopoulos called the decision to decertify Carleton Lifeline by the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) “totalitarian”  and “ludicrous.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, meanwhile, has sent a letter to CUSA asking it to behave more responsibly and protect minority opinion.

“You can be pro-choice and for free speech,’’ said Nathalie DesRosiers, general counsel of the civil liberties group. ‘‘Student governments must act like a government and represent all students, not just the ones who think like them. They have a duty to protect minority views. We have told them that what they are doing is not proper and they should respect the right of dissent.”

The student association says it banned Carleton Lifeline because its anti-abortion stance violates CUSA’s anti-discrimination policy, which “respects and affirms a woman’s right to choose her options in case of pregnancy.”

Mr. Polizogopoulos wants the Ontario Superior Court to decide whether CUSA acted in accord with its own constitution.

“Their own constitution states they will not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation or belief,” Mr. Polizogopoulos said. “They’ve enacted a policy that is clearly in violation of their own constitution. And just the fact they would attempt to enact such a policy is ludicrous.”

Mr. Polizogopoulos’s said CUSA’s constitution trumps all policies and bylaws and so the anti-abortion group should be allowed to stay.

The club was officially decertified Thursday by CUSA. Carleton Life line had been told earlier in the week that to avoid being kicked off campus they would have to adopt a pro-abortion policy, something that would be anathema to the group.

That’s right folks, in violation of the law, and their own rules, they actually put in their non-discrimination policy that all student groups must have a written pro-abortion position to be recognized for status and student funding. How delightfully Stalinist of them.

To examine the legal nastygrams and to donate to their legal defense fund please visit –

Donate today!

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Student Government | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Christie describes apology from teachers union president over death threat.

Posted by iusbvision on November 21, 2010

If my chief of staff had sent out that email, praying for your death, there would have been 5000 teachers on the front steps of the state house screaming and yelling for him to be fired, and you would have been too late, because I would’ve already fired him. If a student sent out that email praying for the death of his teacher, he would’ve been suspended from school and sent to mandatory counseling. Yet, if a Teachers’ Union leader does it, it’s no big deal… That double standard doesn’t exist anymore.


Via Breitbart

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »