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 March 11th, 2011

NewsReal: Seven Child Molesters Protected by Teacher’s Unions

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

NewsReal:

How many times have you heard that public school teachers are sorely underpaid, under-appreciated public servants with hearts of gold who love your kids more than you do? There is a myth out there that every person who enters into the sacred field of education has the heart of a servant, a love of children and no desire for personal gain or satisfaction. And certainly, there are teachers that fit that description (I’ve had a few myself.)

But I’ve also had teachers who should never have been allowed within fifty feet of children. A 2004 study by Hofstra University scholar Charol Shakeshaft on the sexual misconduct of public school teachers is a shocking wake-up call that was widely ignored by the public union-friendly press. And even worse, the public teachers unions protected many of the offending teachers and allowed them to quietly transfer to other schools where they victimized more children. “Examples include touching breasts or genitals of students; oral, anal, and vaginal penetration; showing students pictures of a sexual nature; and sexually-related conversations, jokes, or questions directed at students.”

Everyone agrees that the sex scandal in the Catholic Church is a tragedy of immense proportions and the media has done a good job at uncovering the network of cover-ups and lies that harmed children irreparably. But what would you say if I told you that the public school system, which is about the same size as the Catholic Church in America with a school in every parish, has more sexual abuse cases in ten years than the Catholic Church has had in fifty? The mishandling of sex offenders in the public school system has cost hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees to the taxpayers and unmeasurable damage to the victims. The following are among the worst offenders in the public school system.

Follow this LINK for the details.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Daily Caller: Dems at radicalization hearings recite Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group’s talking points

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

I am not surprised I am sorry to say.

Ted Kennedy reached out to Russia to undermine Reagan.

Democrats opposed Reagan’s efforts to end the Cold War.

Democrats favored Daniel Ortega when he aligned with the Soviets in the 80’s

NPR was just caught expressing a willingness to funnel illegal terrorist funds from the Muslim Brotherhood to itself.

On college campus around the country the progressive secular left and the MSA, which is a part of the Muslim Bortherhood, collude to harass Christians and Jews and to stifle free speech.

The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller has acquired the talking points that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, supplied to its supporters as an aid in attacking the Muslim radicalization hearing New York Republican Rep. Peter King held Thursday. Save for Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s incoherent ramblings on Thursday, Democrats’ statements and testimony against King’s hearing, whether intentionally or unintentionally, largely mirrored MPAC’s talking points.

MPAC recommended that its supporters accuse King of “pure political posturing,” and told them to say, “these hearings appear little more than a political circus with Rep. King as the ringleader.” MPAC also recommended supporters say that the “hearings hurt our national security” because of their “narrow scope.” Finally, it said supporters should say that the hearings were unnecessary because “active” partnerships between law enforcement and the American Muslim community already exist.

California Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson hit on the “pure political posturing” point in the MPAC memo. She compared King’s hearings to those of the McCarthy era.

Rep. Al Green, Texas Democrat, asked why King wasn’t investigating the Ku Klux Klan, something that plays right into the MPAC “suggested message” that the “hearings hurt our national security” because of a “narrow scope.”

“I think that all criminals should be prosecuted. I think that all terrorists should be investigated which is why I said we ought to investigate all of them and that would include the KKK,” Green said. “Over a hundred years of terrorism why not investigate them too. They are rooted in a religion as well. Check their website out. You’ll see.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison regurgitated all the MPAC talking points in his testimony at the beginning of the hearing.

“Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure,” Ellison said. “Targeting the Muslim American community for the actions of a few is unjust. Actually all of us–all communities–are responsible for combating violent extremism. Singling out one community focuses our analysis in the wrong direction.”

A spokesman for Ellison told TheDC that the congressman didn’t receive the MPAC talking points and “wrote his testimony himself.” Spokespeople for Green and Richardson did not immediately respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

The MPAC’s talking points aren’t something that surprise Ben Lerner of the Center for Security Policy. He said they are just another example of a self-described “rights” group shifting the debate away from the issues at hand and onto whatever they want to talk about.

“Serious people are trying to raise serious questions about the issue of homegrown terrorism and radicalization in the Muslim community,” Lerner said in a phone interview. “A lot of what these ‘so-called mainstream’ Muslim organizations are doing is throwing out insults and labels to anyone who has tried to delve into this. They’re not offering any serious, substantive responses to the concerns that are being raised by Congress.”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

The problem with Ron Paul

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

This is what kills me about Ron Paul. He makes some points worthy of consideration and then he talks about how Bush Lied (no he didn’t) and “maintaining our empire all over the world” as if we had some moral equivalence with Russia or the old British Empire – NUTS. When you have some good points of serious consideration, why gum it up with “code pink” like nuttery?

His points (like the blowback argument), while worthy of consideration might not be as compelling as arguments the other way, but it is good to ask the questions and good to have the debate.

By the way, it was not blowback of the Shaw that radicalized parts of Iran’s population. The Muslim Brotherhood has been doing that since WWII. And that kind of militant Islam has been around since Mohammad invaded Medina.

It would be fair to say that when there is one side another side will escalate, but that is true about everything. For example: a bad blowback argument might have been “The USA should not have have stopped trade with Japan after it invaded China. The blowback was Pearl Harbor and Kamikaze attacks!”

The problem with Ron Paul is that many of his arguments, like my sample “blowback” argument, omit certain key truths.

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

CAIR gets on TV with Robert Spencer

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

It is rare when CAIR will get on the same air with Robert Spencer and you just saw why.

Robert Spencer is perhaps the worlds foremost expert on the Jihadist Movement. I have read one of his books. Spencer, like Walid Shoebat (Palestinian former Muslim Brotherhood member), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Somalia), and Brigitte Gabriel (Lebanon) believe that Islam itself is a militant cultural theo-politic. According to all of my study of the Koran, Hadith and Sharia this is correct.

Pamela Gellar is correct when she reminds people that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. Islam has rules for culture, criminal law, family law, taxes, finance and banking, war, courts etc.

Of course these people will also be the first to tell you that 70% or more of the worlds Muslims do not practice Islam much beyond saying the prayers. However polls in England for example have shown that 28% of Muslims polled were willing to tell a pollster that they were sympathetic of or supportive of the 9/11 hijackers and the subway bombers. Hardly a tiny minority. In fact this very writer has been threatened by a Jihadist student face to face right here at IUSB.

Right now the far left and the domestic smiley face of Jihad (CAIR) are having a cow over hearings into domestic terror and Islam. The far left and their friends in the elite media are playing up the “McCarthy” or “racist!” propaganda angle. The truth is that Joe Lieberman had over a dozen hearings on this very subject and no one had a cow. But you see the new head of the committee is a Christian and not a committed Jew such as Joe Lieberman so people can criticize Chairman King without being called an antisemite. Of course since King is a Republican the double standard in coverage applies automatically.

This writer has great sympathy for non-militant Muslims. They are in between a rock and a hard place. If they speak out someone in their family may be offended and they usually keep in mind that militant Muslims have no qualms about killing dissenters.

Related:

AWESOME VIDEO: CAIR Activist Confronts Allen West and ……

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Chuck Norris: U.S. public schools are “Progressive” indoctrination camps

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

Chuck Norris:

(This is Part 1 of a two-part series on U.S. public schools.)

Why should liberals want to change the public educational system when it is turning out the product they have been striving for years to produce?

Check outthese real news headlines from the past several weeks and months about the state of U.S. public education across the country:

  • “U.S. teachers tell U.N. sex is a ‘spectrum’ – advocate mandatory classes to freestudentsfrom ‘religion'”
  • “Principal orders Ten Commandments yanked from school lockers”
  • “Teens ask for more sex ed, greater condom availability”
  • “State university defines Christians as ‘oppressors'”
  • “Why Catholic schools score better than public schools”
  • “Teachers take charge to save ailing public schools”
  • “Schools’ mandatory Arabic classes create firestorm”
  • “District taking money, but censoring Christians?”
  • “No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda”
  • “District pays up for slamming student’s rosary”
  • “Judge cites homeschoolers for violating U.N. mandate – Police interrogate parents, confiscate their curriculum”
  • “Some say schools giving Muslims special treatment”

On Dec. 27, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his vision for the University of Virginia (chartered in 1819), “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it.”

But what should happen 200 years later when our public schools and universities avoid the testing of truths? Or suppress alternate opinions because they are unpopular or politically incorrect? Or no longer tolerate opinions now considered errors or obsolete by the elite? What happens when sociopolitical agendas or scientific paradigms dominate academic views to the exclusion of a minority even being mentioned?

What happens when the political and public educational pendulum swings from concern for the tyranny of sectarianism in Jefferson’s day to secularism in ours? What happens when U.S. public schools become progressive indoctrination camps?

Dr. Jim Nelson Black, founder and senior policy analyst of the Sentinel Research Associates in Washington, D.C., wrote an excellent book, “Freefall of the American University.” In it, he documents the clear biases pervading our public academic settings. Among that lopsidedness is the intentional training of students to disdain America, freely experiment sexually, forcefully defend issues like abortion and homosexuality, as well as become cultural advocates for political correctness, relativism, globalization, green agendas and tolerance for all.

One of the primary ways these educative platforms are spread is by recruiting and retaining faculty members who reflect and teach them. For example, citing from the polling firm of LuntzResearch, Dr. Black notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that “news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media.” And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, “Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?” was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan).

This is why it is no surprise that the two largest teachers unions, the NEA and AFT, are the largest campaign contributors in the nation (giving more than the Teamsters, NRA or any other organization), and that 90 percent of their contributions fund Democratic candidates. In doing so, do we think such funding is going to balance traditional and conservative values in public schools?

The impact of progressivism is being experienced bystudentsacross this land, hundreds of thousands of whom have already cried out withcomplaintsof academic inequity. A sampling of the hundreds of student grievances from across the academic spectrum can even be found on websites like theStudentsfor Academic Freedom and NoIndoctrination.org.

It is also no surprise that an average of 6,000studentsevery year is leaving the approximately 94,000 public schools in America. If the power-to-be over our public schools, likegovernmentand unions, continue to oppose conservative curricula and impose overarching liberal educational revisions and laws, public schools will continue to experience an exodus.

I fully realize there are some great conservative people on the staffs of many public schools and universities, but I know virtually all of them would concur that a liberal bias in our academic curricula and system is overwhelmingly dominant and ubiquitous.

Is thispresent, restrictive and one-sided educational environment that which Thomas Jefferson and other founders intended for the future generations of America? Absolutely not! Rather than encourage free thinking, the U.S. academic system has turned Jefferson’s plans for open education into our culture’s system of indoctrination.

 

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

UC Berkeley sued by Jewish student who was attacked by student jihadists. University knew about threats and violence on campus by student Islamic groups and failed to act.

Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011

Something similar happened to Ruth Malhotra at Georgia Tech except she was persecuted by far left students, faculty, and administrators. A professor told Ruth that if she attended the Conservative Political Action Conference that it would mean an automatic fail in the class. The professor carried out the threat and when Ruth complained the university exonerated the professor. The threats against Ruth were so bad that local police had to escort her form class to class because university police refused to respond to the threats against her. Ruth and fellow student Orit Sklar,  in conjunction with our friend David French at the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Georgia Tech. It gets better, after Georgia Tech lost the first ruling, they put out a press release claiming victory. After the second ruling George Tech suffered a large payout and revocation of their illegal speech codes

Frontpage Magazine:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Neal Sher, an attorney practicing in New York City. He, along  with San Francisco attorney Joel Siegal, is presently representing Jessica Felber, a Jewish UC Berkeley student who is suing the university over being physically attacked by Muslim Students.

Previously, Sher was the Director the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, which investigated and prosecuted Nazi criminals in the U.S.  In that capacity, he was responsible for bringing many dozens of prosecutions and for barring former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim from coming to this country. He also served as the National Executive Director of AIPAC and was the President of the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.

FP: Neal Sher, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Tell us about this suit that you are filing on behalf of Jessica Felber. What happened exactly?

Sher: On March 5, 2010, Jessica Felber, a twenty-year-old Jewish student at Berkeley, was attacked and injured on campus during a pro-Israel event while she was holding a sign stating “Israel wants Peace.” Her assailant, Husam Zakharia, also a UC Berkeley student, was the leader of Students for Justice in Palestine at Berkeley. There is no doubt that she was attacked because of her religion and Jewish ancestry.

Defendants – UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials – were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students. Nevertheless, in clear dereliction of their legal responsibilities, Defendants took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.

The Complaint further describes how the SJP conspires and coordinates with the Muslim Student Association, which has a publicly documented history of affiliation with and support of organizations deemed “terror organizations” by the United States Department of State. That they have resorted to intimidation and harassment is evidenced most recently by the fact that the District Attorney of Orange County, California, has indicted eleven students from these groups for inciting and disrupting a speech given by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States at the University of California, Irvine.

Ignoring complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus, defendants condoned, allowed and enabled groups such as the Muslim Student Association and the SJP to threaten, harass and intimidate Jewish students and to endanger their health and safety. Their tolerance of the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses, and their failure to take adequate measures to quell it, violated the rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environment free from threats and intimidation.

FP: Tell us in what ways this is a very significant and important lawsuit. It can be seen in many ways as turning point right?

Sher: This is, to our knowledge, a precedent complaint demanding that the university honor its legal obligations to protect the rights of its students. It is also important because, as people who follow and monitor events on campuses around the country well know, universities and colleges are major battlegrounds for those who are pressing the campaign to delegitimize and denigrate Israel. They have created an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment for Jewish and pro-Israel students which has been condoned and allowed to fester by university officials.

FP: Why did UC Berkeley fail to provide security to Felber?

Sher: It’s also difficult to pinpoint motives. Perhaps officials themselves were intimidated or, perhaps, they were simply hostile to students like Jessica and their causes. But, the central point is that the officials were fully aware of the threats posed by the SJP, MSA and their followers and they failed to respond adequately as they were legally obligated to do.

FP: Your thoughts on the growing Muslim extremism on campuses putting Jewish students in danger?

Sher: Clearly, this is a very serious problem as there has been a growing number of incidents on campuses, not just within the University of California system but throughout the country, where groups like the SJP and MSA have intimidated and harassed students and faculty members.  Moreover, this campaign appears to be highly organized and thoroughly planned.

It is also very troubling that the on-campus activities of the SJP and MSA against Jessica and other students – and the university’s failure to confront them – present a disturbing echo of the darkest period in history: the incitement, intimidation, harassment and violence carried out under the Nazi regime and those of its allies in Europe against Jewish students and scholars in the leading universities of those countries during the turbulent years leading up to and including the Holocaust.

I can tell you that there is a genuine fear by Jessica and other students of Jewish ancestry on campuses throughout the University of California system that the tragic lessons of history have not yet been learned by these defendants. They fear that the University of California campuses are no longer places of hope and dignity, of academic and personal freedom, or of peaceful life and personal safety.

FP: What do you hope this lawsuit will help achieve?

Sher: First, we are demanding damages for Jessica injuries she suffered, physical and otherwise, due to defendant’s failure to honor its legal obligations. And, we would all like to see a sea change in the attitudes and actions on the part of the university and officials. As it now stands, students such as Jessica have been deprived of their constitutional rights and their ability to live and learn in a campus environment free of intimidation, threats and bullying.

FP: The thought of the roles reversed here, and with Berkeley having the same disposition toward the events, is simply unfathomable. What I mean is this: I can’t even imagine (1) Jewish students physically attacking Muslim students on a campus and (2) that if this hypothetically happened, that Berkeley would respond in the same way. First, if Muslim students sensed they were in danger from Jewish students, I am sure Berkeley would have made security arrangements – to say the least. And if Jewish students attacked a Muslim student, while the entire country’s media would be up in arms, Berkeley would be engaged in all kinds of disciplinary action. What are your thoughts on this observation?

Sher: You’ve hit the nail on the head.  There is no question that if the shoe was on the other foot, immediate and decisive action would be taken by the powers that be. It’s time that we demand an end to the hypocrisy and double standards which have gone on far too long and which will be exposed in this lawsuit.  The silent majority should remain silent no longer!

FP: Neal Sher, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview and thank you for coming to the defense of those who are no longer safe from violence on our campuses.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Israel, Violence | Leave a Comment »