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 May, 2011

US now borrows 58,000 per second…

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet? | Leave a Comment »

Indiana Supreme Court turns the 4th Amendment on its head.

Posted by iusbvision on May 16, 2011

This is one of the bad things about state and local politics and this problem is moving into the federal level more and more, that judgeship’s are becoming more like ambassadorships. No longer are qualified people demanded, or are great legal minds sought out; volunteer, lick some envelopes, make some donations, plan a few fund raisers, attend a few cocktail parties, and book a great guest at the State Barr Assoc. Dinner and whamo your a judge!

Unfortunately several states have courts like this. This will of course make it’s way to the federal courts where it will be overturned …….eventually, but that is not the point.

Here are the Indiana Supreme Court Justices and they must face the voters for a retention election come the end of their terms. While Justices Rucker and Dickson least voted no and are tolerable, the other three need to be made an example of and must be replaced by an upcoming Governor Pence. The governor cannot just pick who he likes, he must pick from a list of people chosen by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission which is made up mostly of the Bar Association. To put people like this up, who would have failed a 4th Amendment Question with this answer if they had taken Constitutional Law with Judge Allen Sharp as I did, tells me that the so called “Missouri Plan Method” of selecting judges has broken down, and either the Indiana Commission is a political body giving the illusion of merit, or it is infected with ideologues. In either case if a majority of judges on the court are this radical, the system is broken. More humiliation for Indiana when one day a federal court will site precedent and reverse this. The 4th amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment, and this also gives the federal courts judicial review over such flawed state court decisions.

What is most painful, is that Justice David who wrote this abomination of a ruling, was just appointed by Governor Daniels, whose primary opponents will have a ball with this. I was just starting to get some guarded enthusiasm about Gov. Daniels possible White House run, this hurts.

Politics is politics, but messing with God-given rights recognized since Magna-Carta is something else. Print out this page and put their names on your refrigerator, when retention election time comes send them packing.

Name Term Start Term Expires Position
Randall Shepard September 6, 1985 September 6, 2015 Chief Justice
Brent Dickson January 6, 1986 January 6, 2016 Associate Justice
Frank Sullivan, Jr. November 1, 1993 November 1, 2013 Associate Justice
Steven H. David October 18, 2010   Associate Justice
Robert Rucker November 19, 1999 November 19, 2009 Associate Justice


Via Hotair.com and Michelle Malkin:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment needs a disclaimer when it comes to officers of the law acting unlawfully (at which point, by definition, wouldn’t they cease to be “officers of the law”?).

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”
I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

There have always been a difference between daytime “knock warrants” and smash and grab “no-knock” warrants. The “no-knock” smash and grab often ends up with the family dog being shot on entry. These kind of rulings encourage the police to use less restraint. With more reports of younger cops getting in trouble because of a lack of restraint (everyone has a camera phone now) if anything we should have more incentive for restraint, not less. These jackanapes on the court for some reason that abandons all logic, cannot understand that. They need to be sent back to private practice.

UPDATE – Apparently judging by what some lay people have sent via messages they completely do not understand this ruling.

If there was probable cause for the police to check on the welfare of the wife (which there may have been) than it was not an illegal entry. The problem is that the judges took it one step further and said, even if it was totally illegal and unjustified it still has our blessing – THAT is the problem. Hence the press coverage.

Essentially the three judges opinion position boils down to this, you have a Fourth Amendment right AFTER the fact. You do not have rights to be presumed presumed innocent, but rather you are presumed guilty, but IF you can afford a big fancy lawyer to take on the govt, and IF that lawyer is up to the task, and IF you can find a lawyer who is willing to sue the police YOU can go to court and if you prove you were innocent and the police invasion was unlawful, and you win you might get a damage award, after whatever damage is done to your family is already done. This takes away the burden of proof away from the state and puts it on the citizen.

What if that citizen does not have the resources to launch such a legal battle, now defacto he has no rights. It gets worse, if you have to sue, the government will defend, so they will do all they can to defeat (smear) you, investigate you up and down, do all they can to discourage you form continuing, and violate you even further because you were “foolish” enough to dare stand for your constitutional rights, but wait, it is not a right if you are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is on you, which is the entire point. So what is the incentive for the police to respect the rights of the people? Oh there is none. Instead of working to protect your rights the government must defend in court and thus work against them. Welcome to King George’s wet dream. The Constitution and the basis for Western Civilization is turned on its head. Jefferson would NOT be amused.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Welcome to “Ethnomathematics” where 2 + 2 = We Must Raise Taxes Because White People Are Bad

Posted by iusbvision on May 15, 2011

This is too crazy to make up folks. Ethnomathmatics….  multiculturalism (The West is evil) combined with social justice math. If a bomb costs $10,000 how many children are denied health care because Donald Rumsfeld bought a bomb?

Ethnomathmatics has its own Wikipedia entry and web sites:

http://www.ethnomath.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnomathematics

http://www.radicalmath.org/main.php?id=SocialJusticeMath (watch the video as well and does anyone want to say that the left is not turning our schools into indoctrination mills while graduating students with skill levels far below what they should be?

The “Guide for Integrating Issues of Social and Economic Justice into Mathematics Classrooms and Curriculum” has been updated. Download.

The web site Moonbattery has more:

Since moonbattery is a totalitarian ideology, nothing escapes from its poisonous lies — not even mathematics. Teachers unsure how to pass off indoctrination in race-based Marxism (a.k.a. “social justice”) as a math class can find resources to assist them at Radical Math:

There are at least two related ideas behind “Social Justice Math”. The first is that you can use mathematics to teach and learn about issues of social and economic justice. The second is that you can learn math through the study of social justice issues….

A subspecies of Social Justice Math is “Ethnomathematics,” defined as:

The study and celebration of mathematical practices from various countries and cultures from both historical and contemporary perspectives, including: symbolic systems, spatial designs, games and puzzles, calculation methods, measurement in time and space, architecture and design, problem solving, etc.

With all this important material to cover, it’s no surprise if teachers don’t get around to boring stuff like multiplication tables.

The Math Skills & Social Justice Topics Chart (Word doc) offers concrete suggestions for dressing up moonbat propaganda as math. For example:

Comparing how money spent on military operations could be used to support other important causes (ex: if a bomb costs $10 million and a it costs $10,000 to provide health care for an entire family for a year, how many families could get health care for the cost of this bomb).

Here’s how geometry can be combined with “environmental justice”:

Determine the density of toxic waste facilities, factories, dumps, etc, in the neighborhood.

By now it should be obvious why moonbats cannot be left in control of education. This means prying it out of the fist of Big Government and the unions that bankroll Democrat politicians.

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

Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day

Posted by iusbvision on May 15, 2011

Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart:

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

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

Newt is in!

Posted by iusbvision on May 14, 2011

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck Special: Indoctrinate U

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Beck: My daughter goes to college and no one there knows she is my kid. Some of these professors say horrible things about me, none of which are true (and could ever support with evidence). So I called the college and asked how much would I have to donate every semester just so you would stop trying to fill my kid’s head with lies.

Special thanks to The Daily Beck

James Madison University CR:

By Emily Buck

Emily Buck

I am the chairwoman of the only conservative group at James Madison University, which is named after the father of the constitution, and I had the audacity to bring a conservative speaker, Kate Obenshain, to speak on the Failures of Feminism.  I also spent the whole semester expressing my concerns to my professor that is the adviser for the school newspaper about how liberally biased it is.  For those reasons I was targeted by this self-proclaimed liberal male professor because I am a conservative woman who will not bend to his beliefs.

For at least a week, I walked around school hanging posters for my event, which school employees admitted  that they threw away, and students even bragged about tearing down my posters on a school sponsored feminist blog.  I was viciously attacked on feminist websites, in the newspaper, and even on facebook.

In the midst of all this I made a huge mistake.  I showed up at the wrong time for an exam.  Well my self proclaimed liberal professor who is the head of our liberal school paper got his revenge on me!

As a conservative, I would have accepted my mistake, except my professor told me he wouldn’t allow me to take my exam even though he might allow others to because I didn’t deserve it.  He said I was a trouble maker, I had a bad attitude, and I was a bad student, despite having been on the dean’s list every semester.  Despite having contact many people in the administration at JMU, no one will give me a reason as to why other students are allowed to take missed exams but I am not!

On the bright side, I was able to go on Glenn Beck and talk about assistant Professor Grundmann!

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

President Obama, Why Has Your Administration Largely Ignored Struggling Homeowners?

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

President Obama,

You Promised To Save Millions From Foreclosure Yet Your Housing Program Was A Failure And Now The Housing Market Is In The Midst Of A “Double Dip.” Why Has Your Administration Largely Ignored Struggling Homeowners?

The RNC asks a very good question here. A question we have been asking over and over again Link + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. These girls would like an answer:

PROMISE: President Obama Promised That His Housing Program Would Prevent 7 to 9 Million Families From Foreclosure. “And we will pursue the housing plan I’m outlining today. And through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can afford—avoid foreclosure.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The Home Mortgage Industry In Mesa, Arizona, 2/18/09)

FACT:

Only One In Four Of 2.7 Million Homeowners Seeking Assistance From Obama’s Mortgage Relief Plan Succeeded In Getting Their Payments Reduced. “Just one in four of the 2.7 million homeowners who sought to participate in the Obama administration’s signature mortgage assistance program have succeeded in getting their monthly payments reduced.” (Alan Zibel and Louise Radnofsky, “Only 1 In 4 Got Mortgage Relief,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/28/11)

Inspector General Neil Barofsky, Who Oversaw HAMP, Said That The Program “Continues To Fall Short Of Any Meaningful Standard Of Success.” “The program has faced sharp criticism. Neil Barofsky, the departing special inspector general overseeing the program, has faulted the administration for launching it with inadequate analysis and only partially developed guidelines. This led to delays and confusion, and the program ‘continues to fall short of any meaningful standard of success,’ he said a report released in January.” (Alan Zibel and Louise Radnofsky, “Only 1 In 4 Got Mortgage Relief,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/28/11)

“It’s Official. Home Prices Have Double Dipped Nationwide, Now Lower Than Their March 2009 Trough, According To A New Report From Clear Capital.”(Diana Olick, “National Home Prices Double Dip,” CNBC, 5/5/11)

 “Home Values Posted The Largest Decline In The First Quarter Since Late 2008, Prompting Many Economists To Push Back Their Estimates Of When The Housing Market Will Hit A Bottom.” (Nick Timiraos, “Home Market Takes A Tumble,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/9/11)

The Oregonian: “Economists Who Once Predicted That Prices Would Bottom Out Sometime This Year Now Are Saying, Well, Maybe In 2012.” “Lenders have filed more than 300,000 foreclosures against American families every month for almost two years. As long as that’s occurring, the housing numbers will stay bleak. Home prices nationally have fallen for 57 consecutive months. … Economists who once predicted that prices would bottom out sometime this year now are saying, well, maybe in 2012. ” (Editorial, “American Housing: Underwater And Still Sinking,” The Oregonian, 5/9/11)

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck K-12 School Special: Talking With Teachers

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Via The Daily Beck:

There was a report out this week that only 22% of 8th graders passed a basic civics test. The conclusion? Millions of young Americans will be unprepared to be informed and engaged, which is required in a healthy democracy. When the news last Sunday came out of Usama Bin Laden’s death, the number five search on Google was “Who is Usama Bin Laden?”. 25% of all searches overall came from those under 24. That, and much MORE on indoctrination tonight!

The audience is almost all teachers tonight. This is very interesting to see, as some of the teachers have bought some of their union propaganda. Some don’t understand the cultural problems in public schools that help create the larger issues, some don’t understand that a public school that isn’t very good results in the people who care and the wealth fleeing, which lowers property values and exacerbates the problem. Bad schools create bad neighborhoods, which makes bad schools worse. But some do get it.

One teacher says that it is a values problem, unions and government have drummed the values out of public education.

See what happens when Beck asks the audience if they have seen their union and such push blatantly Marxist propaganda on the kids.

This is very interesting.

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

Corruption: After approving NBC buyout, FCC Commish becomes Comcast lobbyist

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

The lobbyist revolving door. Do what they want now, quit and come to get your cash. Even though Baker was a Republican appointee, what happened to the new lobbying rules to keep this from happening that President Obama promised in the campaign? Oh that’s right he loosened them…

ARS Technica:

Meredith Baker

Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, plans to step down—and right into a top lobbying job at Comcast-NBC.

The news, reported this afternoon by the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and Politico, comes after the hugely controversial merger of Comcast and NBC earlier this year. At the time, Baker objected to FCC attempts to impose conditions on the deal and argued that the “complex and significant transaction” could “bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.”

Four months after approving the massive transaction, Attwell Baker will take a top DC lobbying job for the new Comcast-NBC entity, according to reports.

The response of groups like Free Press was expected in its anger, but not without merit. “No wonder the public is so nauseated by business as usual in Washington—where the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows,” said Free Press’ Craig Aaron. “The continuously revolving door at the FCC continues to erode any prospects for good public policy. We hope—but won’t hold our breath—that her replacement will be someone who is not just greasing the way for their next industry job.”

Such cash-ins, of course, are a bipartisan affair in Washington.

Attwell Baker this afternoon released a statement once the news broke, explaining that she would leave on June 3 and that she was “privileged to have had the opportunity to serve the country at a time of critical transformation in the telecommunications industry. The continued deployment of our broadband infrastructures will meaningfully impact the lives of all Americans. I am happy to have played a small part in this success.”

Update: Comcast has issued an official announcement. Attwell Baker will report to Kyle McSlarrow, who formerly ran the top cable lobbying group NCTA. McSlarrow said, “Commissioner Baker is one of the nation’s leading authorities on communications policy and we’re thrilled she’s agreed to head the government relations operations for NBCUniversal. Meredith’s executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Dirty Tricks | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s Assault on South Carolina Jobs

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Of course this is aside from his assault in Gulf Coast jobs with the illegal offshore drilling ban, the assault on Alaska jobs with the revocation of Shell’s oil rights, the assault on West Virginia jobs with the completely arbitrary revocation of mining permits, the assault on Nevada jobs with the political closing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear facility.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley responds on this blatant show of corruption from the Obama Administration.

[Editor’s note – The Democrats used every sex smear in the book trying to defeat this governor in the last election.]

More details from Newt Gingrich in Human Events:

Suspicious Timing

In October 2009, Boeing decided to open a new production facility in North Charleston, SC to meet the growing demand for its 787 Dreamliner airplane.

The decision came after months of negotiations with the machinists union leadership at Boeing’s main production hub in Puget Sound, WA.  Since 1995, there have been five work stoppages in the Puget Sound plant. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

Still, Boeing negotiated in good faith with the union leadership for the Puget Sound facility to try and find a way to open the new factory there.  In exchange, Boeing wanted a ten year moratorium on strikes so the additional capacity upon which the company was about to spend billions of dollars would be a sound investment.

Boeing and the union were unable to reach an agreement so the company looked elsewhere.  They eventually settled on South Carolina, which is one of the twenty two “right-to-work” states in our country where workers cannot be forced to join a union.

The complaint filed last month by the NLRB on behalf of the machinists union alleges that Boeing located the new facility away from Puget Sound in retaliation for the 2008 strike, which is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.  It makes this accusation despite the months Boeing spent negotiating with the union to try and reach a deal to open the new facility in Puget Sound, and despite the fact that there is a clear legal precedent that allows companies to consider the impact of future strikes when deciding where to open new facilities.

It is the timing of NLRB’s complaint, in fact, which seems retaliatory in nature, not Boeing’s business decision.

The complaint comes a full seventeen months after Boeing announced the location of the new facility and thirteen months after the union leadership first asked NLRB to look into the issue.
Boeing has already begun construction of the new facility, hiring over 1000 people in South Carolina and investing $1 billion. This complaint puts all those jobs created and all that money invested at risk.

Unelected, Unconfirmed Bureaucrats Running Wild

This action by the NLRB is even more disturbing when you consider that it is being led by Lafe Solomon, the acting General Counsel for NLRB, who still needs to be approved by the Senate.  He only holds his position because of a recess appointment by President Obama.

The president also used a recess appointment to place Craig Becker on the NLRB after Becker was rejected by a Democratic Senate in 2010.

As a recent Daily Caller article discovered, Becker’s past writings reveal a disturbing socialist bent that bear directly on the Boeing complaint.

Becker has previously written that the federal government should control and constrain the freedom of companies to direct their capital and resources as they please in order to rig labor negotiations in favor of unions.   Becker has also written that the NLRB possesses the power to impose card-check policies on the nation without an act of Congress.

An Assault on the Right to Work

It is clear that President Obama is packing the NLRB board with left wing ideologues as a payoff to his union boss allies, so that the fix is in with regard to this case and others like it.

The move is consistent with an ongoing pattern in the Obama administration, in which they use the apparatus of big government to reward their allies and punish their opponents.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was exactly right when he characterized the complaint as “one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”

If the NLRB is successful in overturning Boeing’s perfectly rational business decision, it puts tens of millions of future jobs in all 22 right-to-work states in jeopardy.  It would make it effectively impossible for U.S. companies to open new facilities in right-to-work states if they are currently located in one that allows forced unionization.

Global Competition Is a Fact, Not a Theory

The Left simply cannot come to grips with the intensity of global economic competition and the demands it places on U.S. economic policies.

This blindness to reality was on display in the reaction to a recent USA Today article showing that Americans paid less taxes in 2009 than any time since the 1950s.  The article has been used by the Left in recent days as a counter to the conservative case that tax increases would be devastating to any economic recovery, possibly driving us back into recession.

Their argument shows the Left is completely missing the point.  In the new global economy, America is not competing against itself from 1990, 1970 or 1950.

We are competing against Germany, which today has only a 15% federal corporate income tax (and recently hit a 19-year low in its unemployment rate), compared to a 35% corporate tax rate in the U.S., the highest of any central government in the industrialized world.

We are competing against Singapore, which has a capital gains tax of zero, compared to a potential 35% capital gains tax in the United States.

We are competing against Switzerland, which caps the federal personal income tax rate at 11.5%.

We are competing against Canada, which just last week reelected an incumbent Conservative government that has pledged to cut the corporate tax to 15% and lower the personal income tax for families – all while planning to balance its entire budget by 2015.

Consider the case of the New York Stock Exchange.  This icon of American free markets is now owned by a Dutch holding company.

That $10.2 billion takeover was driven by simple economic reality. As Walter Gavin, Vice President of Emerson, explains, the Netherlands has a tax code which makes it more profitable for the NYSE to be owned by a Dutch company than by an American one.  In fact, according to Gavin, the United States lost almost forty companies to Amsterdam in 2010 alone thanks to their more business friendly environment.

This brings us back to President Obama and his union allies’ assault on South Carolina jobs and all twenty two right-to-work states in America.

If the NRLB’s complaint is successful, U.S. companies will simply increase their flight of capital and new facilities to places outside the United States.  In the midst of a struggling economy, it will make it harder for businesses to operate in America, not easier.

The union bosses and their political allies in the White House aren’t going to save union jobs by attacking right-to-work states.  They’ll simply prevent new jobs from being created here in America.

More HERE.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Dirty Tricks, Economics 101, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Obama: Releasing UBL Pictures May Cause Violence – UK Daily Mail: Barack Obama to release up to 2,000 photographs of prisoner abuse

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

We all heard it from the administration. We can’t see the UBL pictures because it might cause a backlash. So would any leftists care to explain this?

UK Daily Mail:

President Barack Obama is to release up to 2,000 photographs of alleged abuse at American prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in a move which will reignite the scandal surrounding Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Indiana takes the lead with virtual charter schools, open to all.

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

The Heartland Institute:

The Indiana legislature has passed a bill permitting virtual charter schools to serve students throughout the state, regardless where they live.

House Bill 1002, sponsored by Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R-Indianapolis) and Representatives Bob Behning (R-Indianapolis), Mary Ann Sullivan (D-Indianapolis), and Cindy Noe (R-Indianapolis), allows the creation of virtual charter schools in the state with no limits on enrollment. The state’s two existing virtual charter schools are limited to 500 students.

The bill passed the state Senate by a 29 to 20 vote on April 12, and the House of Representatives passed it by a 61 to 37 vote on April 27. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed the bill into law on.May 5.

“Once again, Indiana is at the forefront of a growing national movement that will ensure our students receive the quality instruction they deserve,” noted Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett in a press statement. “By boldly asserting every child’s right to attend a great school, the Hoosier state has taken a powerful stand in favor of equal educational opportunities for all children.”

‘High-Quality Solution’
If a student of the proposed new statewide virtual charter school previously attended a traditional public school, funds will follow the student to the virtual charter school. The range would be $4,800 to $8,400, depending on the funds allocated to the local “bricks and mortar” school system.

“This is an issue that I and many families have been advocating for years,” said Monique Christensen, president of Indiana Virtual School Families, a coalition of about 2,000 families. “Virtual schools are but one option that can provide a high-quality educational solution for kids. Not all children thrive in the standard brick and mortar environment.”

A virtual charter school enables students to access curriculum via computer rather than going to a school “building,” but many of the other educational elements are similar or superior to traditional education, said Christensen.

‘Pace Appropriate for Learning’
“Certified teachers with student/ teacher ratios similar to traditional schools oversee the schoolwork along with a committed learning coach whether it’s a parent, mentor, aunt, uncle, or someone else,” Christensen said. “Accelerated and gifted learners are able to move at a pace appropriate for their learning, and those needing remediation and extra help are able to spend the time needed in order to comprehend the material.”

Students must pass each lesson with 80 percent mastered comprehension before they are allowed to move on to the next lesson.

Even though there isn’t a traditional classroom, “teachers are in contact with their students and families frequently,” said Christensen. “Teachers often say they develop closer relationships and are in touch more with their virtual school students than they ever were in a traditional classroom through the use of phone, email, or Web cast conferences. Students also have access to their teacher and peers, as well as educational field trips, frequent social outings, and extracurricular activities.”

Students attending charter schools in Indianapolis have fared better in math and have had mixed results in other subjects compared to their counterparts in traditional schools, according to Marisa Cannata, associate director of the National Center on School Choice (NCSC) at Vanderbilt University.

‘Seeking Better Education’
Parents who move their children to virtual and brick-and-mortar charter schools seem to be pleased with the choice, Cannata added. And other parents can’t wait to make that move.

“My husband and I have begun to look into adoption and are appalled at the education choices available to our future offspring,” said Julia Porter, who lives in Warsaw, a small town in the northern part of the state.

“When looking at alternatives to schools, the closest charter school is over an hour away,” said Porter. “I feel that this virtual charter would allow for educated individuals who have children and want more for them than the community offers to seek better education. As a former New York City teacher, I see many advantages to offering this in Indiana, as Indiana offers much fewer choices to parents than larger cities.”

Phil Britt (spenterprises@wowway.com) writes from South Holland, Illinois.

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

GAO – Government Shut Down Yucca Facility for Political Reasons, Not Scientific Ones

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Remember when Obama said that science was going to have it’s rightful place restored in policy?

Well he shut down the facility in order to help Harry Reid’s re-election, but the permitting process to build a new facility will take 34 years.

There was nothing wrong with the old location besides the fact that Reid didn’t like it. What is our nuclear industry to do now? The Obama Administration has found yet another way to increase our energy costs.

Ed Morrissey and the NYT have more to say HERE.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Human Events: Planned Parenthood Down and Out In Indiana

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Human Events:

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels recently signed a bill that eliminated public funding for Planned Parenthood.  It also banned abortions after 20 weeks, required women considering abortions to receive written information about the procedure and its alternatives, and required doctors to provide ready access to emergency care for women injured during abortion procedures.  The bill makes Indiana the first state to prevent Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood.

In response to complaints that defunding Planned Parenthood would jeopardize the health of women, Governor Daniels “commissioned a careful review of access to services across the state and can confirm that all non-abortion services, whether family planning or basic women’s health, will remain readily available in every one of our 92 counties.”  He promised to “take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before.”  He even allowed that organizations such as Planned Parenthood could get their sweet, sweet taxpayer funding back… provided they stopped performing abortions.

Planned Parenthood didn’t care for this bill, and they weren’t about to shut down that lucrative abortion machine, so they asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to block its implementation.  Today she declined this request, so the new law will go into effect while Planned Parenthood’s legal and constitutional challenges make their way through the courts.

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, the judge “said from the bench that today’s ruling should not be viewed as an indication of how she will rule on the law’s constitutionality.”  She didn’t stop the law from taking effect because she found no danger of “immediate” and “irreversible harm” to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, which has plenty of time to bill its Medicaid expenses, plus a hefty emergency fund.  It will also continue to receive a couple of million dollars per year in federal funding.

In its pending lawsuit, Planned Parenthood argues that defunding them would “void contracts and grants already in effect, violating the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause.”  They also maintain that forcing them to choose between performing abortions, and receiving funds not directly related to abortion, is both unconstitutional and a violation of Medicaid law.

This brings us back to the infinite flexibility of money.  Every dollar taxpayers are compelled to give Planned Parenthood frees up a dollar to be used for any operations it conducts.  It’s absurd to speak of public funding as somehow sanitized because it comes in envelopes that say “DO NOT USE FOR ABORTIONS.”

Ostensibly free Americans are forced to give far too much money to wealthy corporations – a point the Left suddenly loses interest in making, when the corporation in question is Planned Parenthood.  We can at least grant the taxpayers relief from subsidizing activities they consider an outright moral horror.  Then we can work our way back through the stuff they merely regard as stupid.

The Indianapolis Star notes that Governor Daniels’ signature of this bill “has added to speculation that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination.  The move could be viewed as a way to reassure Republican primary voters.  Earlier this year, social conservatives criticized the governor for calling for a truce on social issues.”  I don’t think Planned Parenthood is interested in truces any longer.  Today, they couldn’t even get a cease-fire.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Corporatism | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Rick Perry on the stream of lies from the Obama Administration. Withholding disaster funds for political reasons. – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

Talk about a slow response to Katrina, how about no response because you are a Republican.

White House: Gov. Perry disrespected us because he would not greet us when the President flew in.

The Facts: Obama flew into El Paso, a two-hour flight for Gov. Perry and yet just a few hours later Obama was to be in Austin, where Gov. Perry was, for two fund-raisers. “We offered to meet the President here in Austin” says Gov. Perry. President Obama refused to meet with him.

White House: Border counties are safer than ever.

The Facts: The White House bases that number on the number of illegal immigration apprehensions. The apprehensions are down because the economy in the USA is bad and fewer people are coming across, but the drug cartels and border violence are up and some parts of the border have been ceded to the drug cartels and are not under our control.

White House: Gov. Perry is not telling the truth about the fires as the federal government is paying 75% of the bill.

The Facts: The Federal Government is helping with 25 fires out of 9000. [Editor’s Note – By the way, wild fires would not be so bad if the federal government did not have restrictions on forest management such as cutting fire breaks and cleaning underbrush.]

UPDATE – If you want to see the depth of President Obama’s border security lie, the Federal Government through the BLM is posting these signs in Arizona just south of Interstate 8. This is not just on the border as Interstate 8 is THREE COUNTIES inland.

If the border is safer than ever, why are these signs needed now and say not when Reagan was president or even Clinton?

The Arizona TEA Party recently posted this message on one of their web sites:

“Sheriff Dever’s Dept. (Cochise County) and also the Pinal County Sheriff’s Depts (Sheriff Paul Babeu) which are the two counties that are directly on the AZ/Mexican border, are now being sued by Obama and Eric Holder to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws? Mark, this situation has become extremely dangerous now. Not only are thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants crossing our border daily, we have thousands of OTM’s (Other Than Mexican….a-hem, middle-easterners).  Obama and Holder want to stop these Sheriff Depts from apprehending them, and handing them over to ICE for deportation.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper makes a few observations about the president’s border speech. He quotes the increase in border agents from the early Bush Administration, counting the increases authorized by the former president as his own. In short putting up a light fence on a few hundred miles of border when that border is thousands of miles long is hardly securing it, and neither is adding 3000 border agents which is an ounce in the bucket. Obama has hardly secured the border and in fact files harassment suits against local law enforcement to stop serious enforcement of it.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Dirty Tricks, Government Gone Wild, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov: How the KGB Demoralized, Propagandized and Indoctrinated Youth Using Schools

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2011

The following is part one of a 1985 interview with Ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov. In this interview, Bezmenov outlines the four step systematic demoralization and indoctrination techniques utilized for decades against America.

The interview is prophetic, describing effects we can see all around us today.

The goal of demoralization: To change the perception of reality of every American so that they are unable to come to sensible conclusions for their own good and defense in spite of abundant information.  To get them in a mindset so that no amount of evidence will ever convince them that leftism is wrong. Pump their heads with the ideology of their enemy which we have done to at least three generations of students with next to nothing opposing it.  This works with them until the real Marxists come to power.

Those journalists, professors, activists, union leaders, film directors and other idealistically minded Marxists who believe in the “beauty of collectivism”; these useful idiots think that they will be coming to power, when they don’t they will become the first to become disillusioned and become the revolution’s worst enemy. They will have to be executed because revolutionaries know how to wage a counter revolution. They have to go because they know too much. Others will become disillusioned when they or their communities have to feel the boot (Hence the old saying a conservative is a liberal who got mugged).

During the demoralization process those in influential circles  who will not accept “the beauty of collectivism” will be subject to character assassination.

The full 81 minute interview can be found HERE.

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

Dr. Phyllis Chesler: Protecting Muslim Girls From Rape is Now a Crime in Europe

Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011

The Euros have lost it and are heading head first into dhimmitude.

One of my history professors lectured about how and why great societies get conquered. Europe is being conquered right now as they will not defend their culture, their values, or even their women.

To our friends in Europe I say this, try and stop what is happening. If you cannot then come here and help us defend America or go to England and help UKIP, because if we lose freedom here as the Danes, Swedes, Germans and others have the world will be lost.

Dr. Chesler:

Freedom of speech and women’s rights just took a major hit in Denmark earlier today when the public prosecutor found Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish (and International) Free Press Society, guilty of “hate speech” under section 266b of the Danish penal code.

Hedegaard’s crime was to note “the great number of family rapes in areas dominated by Muslim culture in Denmark.”

The prosecutor’s crime is far greater. Now, courtesy of this prosecution, it is officially “racist” to tell the truth about sexual violence against women in Denmark, at least when that violence is perpetrated by Muslim fathers, uncles, or cousins.

When feminists first brought rape and incest out of the closet, we were accused of being “strident man haters,” and “crazy” as well. We learned to say: Not all men rape but all rapists are men. To our horror, we eventually discovered that women sometimes rape or sexually abuse children. They rarely rape other adults or force unwanted sex on other women outside of a prison setting.

Islam is not a race. Muslims come in every conceivable color. The Danes, the Scandinavians, all Europe has critiqued and exposed the real and imaginary sins and crimes of both Judaism and Christianity. Now, suddenly, Islam alone is to be spared such treatment.

Hedegaard has just published a book, Muhammed’s Girls: Violence, Murder and Rape in the House of Islam. I was told that my work appears throughout. Will my work someday also be considered “hate speech” or “racism”?

I stand in solidarity with Hedegaard at this awful moment. If the Danes and the Europeans do not take some very radical measures, it will be just as Bat Ye-or predicted. Post-Enlightenment Europe will no longer exist; Eurabia will.

I am ready to talk to the prosecutor to condemn this utter insanity. And so should everyone else. The real racists, the infidel-haters, the Jew-haters, the woman-haters are not being condemned. Only those who expose them are.

More HERE.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Leftist Hate in Action | 2 Comments »

Dr. Phyllis Chesler: Retirees & Alums Demand Investigation of Growing Anti-Semitic Cancer at CUNY

Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011

Having discovered Dr. Chesler’s web site I feel as if I have found a treasure trove of interesting information.  Next time I am in New York I am definitely going to offer to buy her lunch along with my good friend the soon to be Dr. Jeffery Cappella, global security consultant (Cappella is a supra-genius. A name you will be hearing you can be sure).

This letter from the CUNY Alumni Association says it all:

As alumni, professors and students of the City University of New York, we wish to comment regarding the character assassination that is now transpiring via email attack and media attacks on Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a gifted and serious CUNY Trustee who performed his duty and exercised due diligence regarding the recent vote on CUNY honorary degrees. Many who are presently impugning Mr. Weisenfeld’s character are also responsible for a very unwholesome and dangerous demagoguery that is creeping into mainstream dialogue at CUNY campuses.  We are particularly cognizant of a dangerous demagoguery at Brooklyn College where we have most recently been made aware of an anti-Israel and anti-semitic culture that is growing, aided and abetted by the campus administration.  Brooklyn College is not alone in this regard, however, and documentation is mounting regarding abuses on other campuses, supported by local CUNY administrations.

On many CUNY campuses, Muslim Student Association (MSA) clubs (sometimes dubbed Palestinian Clubs) are aided, abetted and supported by off-campus “advisors” and Imams from radical Muslim groups. They operate as virtual missionary groups, exercising tactics which are contrary to free inquiry and which seek to foment hatred towards other campus groups.  Most are also supported by a professors’ union that promotes rhetoric which encourages and promotes this hatred.

We have also been made aware that professors who are politically pro-Israel are intimidated and prevented from speaking freely, out of fear of retribution when seeking reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. There is little doubt that there are valid bases for this fear.

All this is reflected in the venom that is pouring out of the CUNY professoriate in the attempt to stifle Trustee Wiesenfeld for the simple exercise of his right and responsibility as a member of the Board of Trustees.

We ask that the Board initiate an investigation into the assault on Jews at the City University, disguised as anti-Israelism, which seeks to mask its true agenda: anti-semitism. We ask that a representative task force be established to investigate this phenomenon.

We are grateful that one member of the Board, Mr. Wiesenfeld, has the courage to speak the truth. He is a giant among men and a hero to so many. We shudder to think what will happen when his tenure on the Board is over. We fear the demise of CUNY as an institution of free speech and inquiry.

Should the Board of Trustees continue to ignore the current assault against those of free will who object to the administration’s uninspired and cowardly support of radical liberal orthodoxy and against those who are supporters of the State of Israel, then please be aware that our Association of CUNY Alumni and Retirees will assure:

  • That CUNY alumni are apprised of recent events and are exhorted to reconsider donations to their alma maters – colleges which are no longer institutions which are protective of all.
  • That Jewish graduates and others of good will are apprised that the colleges which were once their homes, are no longer welcoming to supporters of Israel.

We will not sit by idly and allow this cancer to continue to grow.

Members, Association of CUNY Alumni and Retirees

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

Dr. Phyllis Chesler: Aspiring Intern Attempts to School Me on Her Third Worldist “Feelings”

Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011

A pro-Israeli women’s studies professor and psychologist who actually has the guts to stand up and say “you know women are treated pretty badly in Islam”. I am amazed.

She is looking for an intern, and of course many universities are rife with antisemitism and the most dishonest pro-Islamic/antisemitic propaganda imaginable. Of course like the most effective “attitude change propaganda’ the victim is left short on facts and big on attitude and “feelings” as you are about to see.

Dr. Chesler:

Life is funny, life is great, but life is also strange, the way it all boils down to one’s views on only two or three subjects, namely Israel, Islam, and America.

Yesterday, I met with a potential intern sent my way by a local area college with whom I’ve happily worked before. She seemed alert, bright, interested, talented and ready to start her (unpaid) full-time summer internship almost immediately. I had already told her to visit my website and to read some of my articles and assumed that she knew my current subjects and views. She did. In fact, on the phone, she went out of her way to agree with me on my critique of the academic feminist view that the Islamic face veil and polygamy are “liberating” for women.

Just after we finished discussing hours and possible projects, she stopped, smiled smoothly, and said this:

“But I have to tell you that I take issue with your position on Israel.”

“Oh” said I. “Have you lived in Israel, do you know any Palestinians, have you read many books, written many articles, taken many courses about Israel and about the Middle East?”

“Well no,” she said, “but I feel strongly about it.”

And then I said: “So, based on your feelings and perhaps on some peer pressure, you are willing to give up an internship that you might otherwise want?”

I stressed that I had no problem with her holding a view different than my own. I asked her whether she could work with someone with whom she did not agree exactly on this one issue.

She paused. And then she said: “But I have another problem. I think it is wrong to condemn all of Islam.”

Now I looked at her for a moment without saying anything.

Then I spoke.  “But I don’t. In fact, I champion the work of some religious Muslims as well as those of secular Muslims and ex-Muslims and I work with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. To expose honor killings, to challenge Islamic gender apartheid practices is not the same as condemning all Muslims or all Islam.”

Again, I told her that I could work with someone with whose views I did not completely agree; could she? Although by now I was fearing that if she said yes that instead of working for me  she would force me to teach her in an unpaid tutorial.

She was not yet done.

“I also take issue with an article you wrote in which I believe you are stereotyping lesbians and Jewish lesbians.”

Friends: I actually managed not to laugh out loud.

I assured her that I was not at all biased against lesbians or against Jewish lesbians but indeed, that I had seen many lesbians, including Jews, who were “Queers for Palestine,” and who defended a toxically homophobic “Palestine” over the Jewish state when that Jewish state actually grants political asylum to Palestinian homosexuals who have been tortured and near-murdered by their Palestinian families, neighbors, and political leaders.

And then I said: “Look, if you decide that you can work for someone with whom you do not agree, call me.”

She left. Calm, cool, unruffled, almost satisfied.

This was the second time in which a young woman–no more than 20 or 21 years old–felt entitled to preach at me, rather righteously, when they were applying for a job with me. The first young woman was applying for a paid position but she did not let me speak until she first spent 15 minutes “filling me in” on her Third Worldist views. Yesterday’s cream-of-the-crop  came all the way for an interview, ultimately in order to challenge me up close and personal.

For all I know, a tape recorder might have been running in her bag because when she left my apartment she seemed strangely happy.

Why is this all important? Because these two young women (granted, they do not represent all young Ivy League women), do not seem to respect authority or at least authority with whom they do not agree. This means that, potentially, they might be willing to destroy their own civilization since they disagree with its authorities on certain key issues.  Standing on no serious knowledge base, they and others of their generation nevertheless feel absolutely entitled to stake out a position based on “feelings.”

Is this a continuation of the student uprisings in Europe and America in the 1960s?  Is this the result of the politicization of knowledge, i.e. its Stalinization and Palestinianization?

Where will this end if we do not stop it? And, how can we do that?

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

Here we go again. Lawsuit: Student constantly bullied commits suicide; school administrators destroy evidence of parent complaints…

Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011

Just like we said recently about the Phoebe Prince case:

Victims go ignored, some even kill themselves like Phoebe Prince and the story is always the same. The school claims ignorance when the kids and teachers say that everyone knew about it.  District Attorney Elizabeth  Scheibel demonstrated that the administrators, from the Superintendent on down, were lying about not knowing, as Prince’s mother had multiple meetings with the schools administrators, which proved to be fruitless. Another reason that schools tend to side with the bullies, “Both Phoebe and Tyler were targeted by high-status kids who were well-liked in the community,” said Barbara Coloroso, a prominent anti-bullying consultant. By the way, Prince’s bullies were sentenced last week (expect a civil suit to follow).

Well it seems that the school administrators learned from the Phoebe Prince case, so lets destroy the evidence

A lawsuit that accuses the Cy-Fair school district of intentionally destroying or hiding evidence has detailed the bullying that 13-year-old Asher Brown went through before he took his life, at least according to his mother.

Brown’s death drew national attention as part of a series of incidents where students wee bullied or harassed because they were or were thought to be gay. Brown shot himself one day after school, the same day, his parents told reporters, that he had told them he was gay.

Brown’s mother, Amy Brown Truong, has filed a suit in federal court here in Houston. In it, she says she and her husband called and visited Hamilton Middle School countless times to complain about the bullying of Asher; Cy-Fair ISD, in its only statement on the incident, says no evidence — either security video or documentation — exists of such contacts.

The suit says “School staff destroyed or have hidden the ‘Visitor Log-In Sheets’ and videos, showing [father] David Truong entering the school district to speak with staff about his concerns and the written and oral complaints made by Asher and videos of Asher being bullied in the school bus and on other parts of the school grounds.”

The suit includes numerous descriptions of bullying incidents around the county, and also details what allegedly happened to Asher.

On numerous occasions someone would run up to Asher when he was running track, and a student would stop in front of Asher, so that Asher would run into that boy and simulate anal intercourse. The someone would call out “Hey faggot, quit trying to f@lk me.” “Her guys, Asher is trying too butt f@lk me.” On many occasions these incidents were often observed by Physical Education and coaching staff.

Asher’s religion was also a target, the suit says:

Also on numerous occasions Asher would be tying his shoe lace and D.K., D.H. K.C. and another D.K. would come up behind him, simulate anal sex and yell out “You like this don’t you? You f@lking faggot. Is this what Buddha does to you guys, doesn’t he? Have you f@lked Buddha today, Boodie boy?”

The suit claims one of the main tormentors, who has since left the district “because he was receiving threats from other students,” was punished by being forced to miss one football game.

School administrators and such lying, violating student rights, violating faculty rights, etc is such a huge problem, that our friends at FIRE and ADF cannot hope to help everyone and must focus on just the most egregious cases.  Some good news is that it seems the ACLJ is also moving into the campus rights arena in a big way with the hiring of high powered super attorney David French who has made quite a name for himself in the civil rights arena going after schools and universities who violate the law. The more the merrier. Donate to them now!!!

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

Girl Raped by School Athletes and School Demands She Pay $45,000 to the School Under Legal Loophole

Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011

I just wonder, is every school administrator a despicable human being? We publish lots of stories about school administrators who break the law (and there are literally thousands we do not publish because it would be all we would ever do – no that was not even an exaggeration), lie, abandon all ethics etc when scandal hits, but this one amazed even me, and just when I thought I had seen it all.

Warning this will infuriate you – LINK.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Click & Learn | Leave a Comment »

The Atlantic Monthly: On Second Thought, Sarah Palin was a Great Governor

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Every once in a while, the elite media (Democrat Media Complex) remembers that they are journalists and when they think they can get away with it they tell the truth or at least get much closer to it. Of course they had to destroy Sarah Palin first with all of their lies, editing chop jobs and other malfeasance, but at least now they can say “hey we reported what a good job she did”.

[Editor’s Note – Here is something else you might not know. In the infamous interview Palin had with Katie Couric over those couple of days, Katie would ask Sarah the same questions over and over again. This frustrated Palin and some of her answers became flippant as she was just getting sick of Couric’s badgering. The flippant answers are what NBC put on TV. 

This is while Steve Schmidt, (who was hostile to Palin from the beginning because he despises religious conservatives and made that clear in his own writings)  who ran the incompetent McCain communications machine, kept her off talk radio where she had a lot of experience, and wanted Sarah to behave in a way Schmidt wanted, Sarah just could not be herself.

In the infamous interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, ABC cut out many of the substantive parts of her answers to foreign policy questions. Gibson misquoted Palin when he scolded her for saying that Iraq was a “mission from God”. Palin never said it in that context as the full quote was selectively edited. Palin’s answer about the “Bush Doctrine” was also correct; as there are six “Bush Doctrines” with Sarah naming one and Gibson naming one.

When ABC’s Barbara Walters asked Sarah Palin the infamous question again “what do you read” they edited out the books she mentioned about law, philosophy and history such as Liberty & Tyranny by famed attorney and legal scholar Mark Levin.]

This Atlantic  article isn’t perfect, but from a leftist outfit that often just publishes smears and hate that can be debunked in mere moments, it is quite good where it is just explaining the facts and not editorializing for the left.

Sarah Palin did not just “raise taxes” as MSNBC tried to spin this piece, Sarah Palin pushed through an entirely new royalty structure for the oil companies buying oil from the people of Alaska. The old royalty system was not just a good deal for the oil companies, it resulted in a royalty so low that the people of Alaska were being ripped off (details HERE). The Murkowski machine was corrupt and on the take, they were also corrupt in the contract bidding process which Palin also fixed.

As far as I know, this is the first elite media publication to tell the truth that Dick Morris told us way back in mid 2008 (and what we have told you in dozens of articles ever since):

So why do so many of the American people not know this Sarah Palin? Why did the elite media, who knew all of this, not bother to tell you?

Atlantic:

As governor, Palin demonstrated many of the qualities we expect in our best leaders. She set aside private concerns for the greater good, forgoing a focus on social issues to confront the great problem plaguing Alaska, its corrupt oil-and-gas politics. She did this in a way that seems wildly out of character today—by cooperating with Democrats and moderate Republicans to raise taxes on Big Business. And she succeeded to a remarkable extent in settling, at least for a time, what had seemed insoluble problems, in the process putting Alaska on a trajectory to financial well-being. Since 2008, Sarah Palin has influenced her party, and the tenor of its politics, perhaps more than any other Republican, but in a way that is almost the antithesis of what she did in Alaska. Had she stayed true to her record, she might have pointed her party in a very different direction.

Inside the Alaska capitol hangs a framed copy of the front page of the Anchorage Daily News for September 11, 1969, its headline—“Alaska’s Richest Day: $900 Million!”—stretching above a picture of purposeful-looking men in suits carrying large briefcases and about to duck into a car. The briefcases contain a fortune that is being rushed to the airport and on to a bank in San Francisco, so Alaskans will not forgo a single day’s interest. This is the proceeds of the state’s first oil-lease auction since the discovery, a year earlier, of the massive oil deposit at Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope, to this day the largest in North America. The headline captures the euphoria over the massive payout by the world’s leading oil companies—a windfall that transformed the state’s politics, economy, and self-image almost overnight.

Throughout most of its history as a territory and, after 1959, as a state, Alaska was a tenuous proposition, a barren outpost rich in resources yet congenitally poor because the outside interests that extracted them didn’t leave much behind. The main obstacle to statehood was convincing Congress that Alaska wouldn’t immediately go bust. It still relies heavily on aid from Washington, and that, combined with the federal government’s holding title to 60 percent of its land base (the state itself holds 28 percent more), generates a robust resentment of federal power. The colonial mind-set is reinforced by the intensity of the state’s politics, a common attribute of remote settlements like Alaska, as the historian Ken Coates has noted—think Lord of the Flies.

To suddenly strike it rich opens up all sorts of possibilities, but there can be problems too. The legislature exhausted its fortune without meeting Alaskans’ outsize expectations. And although oil brought jobs and revenue, it also ensured that a state long accustomed to economic subservience would be beholden to a powerful new interest. Oil is more important to Alaska than the movie business is to Los Angeles or the auto industry is to Michigan. Stephen Haycox, a professor at the University of Alaska at Anchorage, writes in Frigid Embrace, his history of the state’s political economy, “The oil industry is, for all practical purposes, Alaska’s only private economy.”

This binds the state’s fortunes not just to the price of oil but also to the fate of the three giants that dominate Alaska: BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips. Oil taxes supply almost 90 percent of the general revenue, so oil is the central arena of state politics. The industry is forever trying to coax lower taxes, lighter regulation, and greater public investment by promising jobs and riches—or, on occasion, threatening to withdraw them.

In 1978, the Democratic legislature tried to secure the state’s share of oil profits by establishing a corporate income tax over the bitter opposition of the oil companies, which sued to overturn it. They lost in every venue, including, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court. But the real battle was fought in the statehouse.

The oil industry contributed mainly to Republicans through the 1960s and ’70s, but came to realize that it needed broader alliances, and in the late ’70s began courting Democrats too. The strategy paid off. In 1981, the oil companies, through their allies in the legislature, launched a coup, ousting the speaker of the house and key committee chairmen. Then they revoked the corporate income tax. For the next 25 years, oil interests ruled the state almost uninterruptedly.

Palin’s rise began in 2002, when, term-limited as mayor of Wasilla, she ran for lieutenant governor. Little known and heavily outspent, she beat expectations, losing only narrowly and showing an exceptional ability to win fervent support. Afterward, she campaigned for Frank Murkowski, the four-term Alaska senator come home to run for governor. Palin traveled the state speaking about Murkowski, and making herself better known. When he won, she was short-listed to serve the remainder of his Senate term, and even interviewed for the job. But it went to his daughter Lisa instead. (Palin acidly recounts the patronizing interview with the new governor in her memoir, Going Rogue.) Palin got the low-profile chairmanship of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a regulatory body charged with ensuring that these resources are developed in the public interest.

By the time she arrived, the notion that Alaska’s oil-and-gas policy operated in the public interest was getting hard to maintain. The industry controlled the state, and especially the Republican Party. Other than a modest adjustment to oil taxes that squeezed through in 1989 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the hammerlock held. Alaskans were coming to regard this situation with suspicion and anxiety. The problem wasn’t just that the state was starved of revenue from its most valuable resource. It was also the failure to develop another resource to which the oil companies held title: Alaska’s bountiful supply of natural gas. It’s always been understood that North Slope oil would one day run dry. Someday, perhaps as soon as 2019, there won’t be enough oil left to push through the trans-Alaska pipeline—a catastrophe, unless the state somehow replaces the revenue. For this reason, building a gas pipeline has long been a political priority, and one the oil companies have balked at.

From her spot on the oil-and-gas commission, Palin touched off a storm over these anxieties. One glaring example of the unhealthy commingling of oil interests and Republican politics was her fellow commissioner and Murkowski appointee, Randy Ruedrich, who was also chairman of the state Republican Party. Less than a year into the job, Ruedrich got crosswise with Palin for conducting party business from his office (and, it was later revealed, giving information to a company that the commission oversaw). When he ignored her admonitions to stop, she complained to Murkowski’s staff, but still nothing happened. So Palin laid out her concerns in a letter to the governor and the story leaked to the media. In the ensuing uproar, Palin became a hero and Murkowski was left no choice but to fire Ruedrich from the commission.

Palin got strong support from an unlikely quarter: Democrats. “She had the appearance of someone who was willing to go in a different direction,” Hollis French, a Democratic state senator, told me. “We subsequently learned that she’ll throw anyone under a bus, but that wasn’t apparent at the time. It looked like real moral courage.”

Even so, Palin’s actions were presumed to have ruined her prospects. Murkowski and Ruedrich still ran the party. Breaking with them made her no longer viable as an ordinary Republican or a recipient of oil-company largesse. To continue her rise, she needed to find another path. Palin alone imagined that she could. In this and other ways, she displayed all the traits that would become famous: the intense personalization of politics, the hyper-aggressive score-settling—and the dramatic public gesture, which came next.

Palin was clearly the victor (Ruedrich paid the largest civil fine in state history), but she quit the commission anyway. In Going Rogue, she says only that as a commissioner, she was subject to a gag order that Murkowski refused to lift. But quitting didn’t void the gag order. What it did was thrust her back into the spotlight and reinforce her public image. It also gave her a rationale to challenge Murkowski.

All of this turned out to be shrewd politics, because Murkowski’s governorship proceeded to fall apart, thanks to his brazen sense of entitlement. After failing to persuade the Homeland Security Department to buy him a personal jet (to help “defend, deter or defeat opposition forces”), he ignored the legislature’s objections and bought one with state funds. But it was his handling of matters vital to the state’s future that finally threw open the door for Palin.

Murkowski made up his mind to strike a deal with the major oil producers to finally build a gas pipeline from the North Slope. He cut out the legislature and insisted on negotiating through his own team of experts, out of public sight. This rankled all sorts of people because, beyond his arrogance, Murkowski had distinct views about oil and gas that many others didn’t share.

Alaska’s parties align differently from parties elsewhere—they’re further to the right and principally concerned with resource extraction. The major philosophical divide, especially on oil and gas, is between those who view the state as beholden to the oil companies for its livelihood, and will grant them almost anything to ensure that livelihood, and those who view its position as being like the owner of a public corporation for whom the oil companies’ interests are separate from and subordinate to those of its citizen-shareholders. “Oil and gas cuts a swath right through ordinary partisan politics,” Patrick Galvin, Palin’s revenue commissioner, told me.

Murkowski’s willingness to cater to the oil producers, and his secrecy, caused tensions in his administration that burst into view when he announced his deal, in October 2005. It was a breathtaking giveaway that ceded control of the pipeline to the oil companies and retained only a small stake for Alaskans; established a 30-year regime of low taxes impossible to revoke; indemnified companies against any damages from accidents; and exempted everything from open-records laws. In exchange, the state got an increase in the oil-production tax. (Palin later released a private memo in which Murkowski’s top economic adviser complains that he has “gone completely overboard” and is treating “Alaska as a banana republic in order to secure the gas line.”) The deal conceded so much that Murkowski’s natural-resources commissioner, Tom Irwin, publicly questioned its legality—and was summarily fired. Six of Irwin’s aides quit in protest, and the “Magnificent Seven” became a cause célèbre. In the end, the legislature rejected the gas-line deal. But, in a twist, it agreed to the oil tax—which had been intended as an inducement to pass the rest of the package.

Palin came out hard on the other side of the philosophical divide from Murkowski—and made it personal. She announced she would challenge him for governor. She assailed the “secret gas line deal” and the “multinational oil companies that make mind-boggling profits off resources owned by all Alaskans.” She put an “all-Alaska” pipeline at the center of her campaign. And she declared her intention to hire Tom Irwin to negotiate the deal. “She’s what I call ‘alley-cat smart,’” Tony Knowles, the former Democratic governor, told me. “It’s not about ideology. She knows how to pick her way down the political route that she feels will be the most beneficial to what she wants to do.”

Murkowski’s tax was discredited almost immediately. Just after he signed the new Petroleum Profits Tax, the FBI raided the offices of six legislators, in what became the biggest corruption scandal in state history. During the legislative session, the FBI had hidden a video camera at the Baranof Hotel, in Juneau, in a suite that belonged to Bill Allen, a major power broker and the chief executive of Veco Corporation, an oil-services firm. The tapes showed him discussing bribes with important politicians, and revealed the existence of a group of Republican legislators who called themselves the “Corrupt Bastards Club” and took bribes from Allen and others. (Several were later sent to prison.)

In the Republican primary, Palin crushed Murkowski, delivering one of the worst defeats ever suffered by an incumbent governor anywhere. She went on to have little trouble dispatching Knowles, an oil-friendly Democrat. “A lot of people on the East Coast, when they think of Sarah Palin now,” Cliff Groh, a former state tax lobbyist, told me, “some five-letter words come to mind: Scary. Crazy. Angry. Maybe some others. But the five-letter word that people in Alaska associated with her name was clean.”

You betcha.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

Dr. Thomas Sowell: Too many people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Famed Author and Economist Thomas Sowell

In a nutshell….

One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.

One of those words that many people seldom look behind is “education.” But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.

Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.

We don’t have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.

When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.

A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: “Master’s in English: Will Mow Lawns.” It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master’s degrees in English.

Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.

Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.

On the contrary, people with such “education” are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.

Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to “the well-educated but underemployed” Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there– a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.

In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.

It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded– and got– heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.

Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.

Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that “the educated unemployed” became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.

Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.

There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.

We don’t need more government “investment” to produce more of such “education.” Lofty words like “investment” should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.

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

Dallas public school teacher runs virtual “Fight Club” in class.

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

I noticed this story while browsing. A teacher in Dallas sits there while students are attacked, and in another video he sits there while students make an arena with the chairs, two students casually strip to their shorts and fight while other students film it with a cell phone. The Teacher says that policy prevents him from doing anything, so he just sits there as “fight club” goes on in his class and apparently this is not uncommon.

WFAA has the story and Hotair.com has updates. Click the links to see the video and the story. So much for the effectiveness of the so called “zero tolerance policy”.

[Editor’s Note – The information and video of the “fight club” that went on in the class is at the WFAA link so be sure to watch it]

“Ever constant, never changing, ongoing harassment” is how the victim describes the situation. Of course what did the school do about this?

Now the victim is dropping out of school because he is convinced it is unsafe; which is not unusual for a state run union school and is in fact what they prefer because victims mean that there is trouble in their school that administrators do not want to admit to under their watch, so if the victim goes away, bureaucratically speaking, so does the crime.

The school is also going after the student who recorded it, after all we can’t have the outside world know what is going on in class can we?

Victims go ignored, some even kill themselves like Phoebe Prince and the story is always the same. The school claims ignorance when the kids and teachers say that everyone knew about it.  District Attorney Elizabeth  Scheibel demonstrated that the administrators, from the Superintendent on down, were lying about not knowing, as Prince’s mother had multiple meetings with the schools administrators, which proved to be fruitless. Another reason that schools tend to side with the bullies, “Both Phoebe and Tyler were targeted by high-status kids who were well-liked in the community,” said Barbara Coloroso, a prominent anti-bullying consultant. By the way, Prince’s bullies were sentenced last week (expect a civil suit to follow).

MORE STUPIDITY – A public school in Maryland had a student dragged off in handcuffs and why? Because he had a two inch folding pocket toolkit that included a pen knife which he used to maintain and repair his Lacrosse stick. He had a lighter to burn off strings and frays. The school said that the folding took kit was a deadly weapon and that the lighter was an “explosive device”. Is being a moron a requirement to getting a school administrator position paying six figures? – LINK with video.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Stuck on Stupid, Violence | 1 Comment »

Feds spending $2 million to install cameras in school lunchroom to see what your kid is eating.

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

The government goes on as if there is no $16 trillion debt with Social Security and Medicare near broke. Do we really need this crap?

Related: Dept of Education is a Failure: 82 Fed Govt Programs to Improve Teachers. Billions Spent With No Results. Bill Gates Foundation Concludes that Teaching Credentials Make No Difference

For those of you who wonder why so many women, Catholics and Hispanics voted with the TEA Party in 2010, this nonsense is one of the reasons.Democrats will not make priorities and the cuts we eed to keep the important programs going and pay the debt. The GOP will only do it if we keep their feet to the fire.

AP/Yahoo News:

That’s the idea behind a $2 million project being unveiled Wednesday in the lunchroom of a San Antonio elementary school, where high-tech cameras installed in the cafeteria will begin photographing what foods children pile onto their trays — and later capture what they don’t finish eating.

Digital imaging analysis of the snapshots will then calculate how many calories each student scarfed down. Local health officials said the program, funded by a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant, is the first of its kind in a U.S. school, and will be so precise that the technology can identify a half-eaten pear left on a lunch tray.

“This is very sophisticated,” said Dr. Roberto Trevino, director of the San Antonio-based Social & Health Research Center, which will oversee the program.

The grant from the USDA will fund the study for four years. Trevino said the coming school year will be very experimental, with programmers fine-tuning the cameras and imaging software to accurately identify what’s a pear and what’s an apple. He expects the “prototype” to be in place by the second year.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Prof. Niall Ferguson on Obama: A colossal failure of American foreign policy.

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Niall Ferguson


WANTED: A Grand Strategy for America

By Niall Ferguson

“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.

Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity . . . and missed it completely.

In Bismarck’s case it was not so much God’s coattails he caught as the revolutionary wave of mid-19th-century German nationalism. And he did more than catch it; he managed to surf it in a direction of his own choosing. The wave Obama just missed—again—is the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy. It has surged through the region twice since he was elected: once in Iran in the summer of 2009, the second time right across North Africa, from Tunisia all the way down the Red Sea toYemen. But the swell has been biggest in Egypt, the Middle East’s most populous country.

In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around,

in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”

The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted.  The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.

Last week, while other commentators ran around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, hyperventilating about what they saw as an Arab 1989, I flew to Tel Aviv for the annual Herzliya security conference. The consensus among the assembled experts on the Middle East? A colossal failure of American foreign policy.

This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried. The president himself is not wholly to blame. Although cosmopolitan by both birth and upbringing, Obama was an unusually parochial politician prior to his election, judging by his scant public pronouncements on foreign-policy issues.

Yet no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.

The best national-security advisers have combined deep knowledge of international relations with an ability to play the Machiavellian Beltway game, which means competing for the president’s ear against the other would-be players in the policymaking process: not only the defense secretary but also the secretary of state and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. No one has ever done this better than Henry Kissinger. But the crucial thing about Kissinger as national-security adviser was not the speed with which he learned the dark arts of interdepartmental turf warfare. It was the skill with which he, in partnership with Richard Nixon, forged a grand strategy for the United States at a time of alarming geopolitical instability.

The essence of that strategy was, first, to prioritize (for example, détente with the Soviets before human-rights issues within the U.S.S.R.) and then to exert pressure by deliberately linking key issues. In their hardest task—salvaging peace with honor in Indochina by preserving the independence of South Vietnam—Nixon and Kissinger ultimately could not succeed. But in the Middle East they were able to eject the Soviets from a position of influence and turn Egypt from a threat into a malleable ally. And their overtures to China exploited the divisions within the Communist bloc, helping to set Beijing on an epoch-making new course of economic openness.

The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking.  The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.

Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week.

“We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on

containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt

moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.

These were his words back in June 2009: America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice.  Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so.  A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.

Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”

Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.

At worst, he has no map at all.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Niall Ferguson, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Meet the Favorite Candidate of that “Racist” TEA Party

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

Herman Cain

At the beginning of the first GOP Presidential Primary Debate only one person in the Frank Luntz focus group knew who this man was, by the end he had won the debate handily.

Herman Cain has been TEA Party favorite since 2009 and this author has followed his career since 1994. Cain has been speaking a TEA Party and GOP events for a long time and this debate was his national television debut. Cain is also a former Indiana resident.

www.hermancain.com

  • A native and current resident of Atlanta, Georgia. Married for over 40 years with two adult children and three grandchildren
  • Author of four books, Leadership Is Common Sense (1997), Speak As A Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October, 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May, 2005)
  • Graduated from Morehouse College with a B.S. in Mathematics in 1967. Earned his Master’s Degree in Computer Science from Purdue University in 1971
  • Recipient of eight Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Morehouse College, New York City Technical College; Suffolk University, Johnson & Wales University, Creighton University, Purdue University, Tougaloo College and the University of Nebraska
  • Serves on the Boards of Directors of AGCO, Inc., Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Hallmark Cards Inc., Whirlpool, Inc., and Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Member of The National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (1995), chaired by former Republican Vice-presidential candidate, Jack Kemp
  • Former Chairman and President of the Tax Leadership Council, the public educational component of Americans for Fair Taxation
  • Former Chairman of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc. after serving as CEO and President for ten years, 1986 – 1996. In 1988 he bought the company from The Pillsbury Company
  • Past Chairman of the Board of the National Restaurant Association (1994-1995), and former full time CEO and President of the Association (1996-1999)
  • Recipient of a 1996 Horatio Alger Award and the 1991 International Foodservice Manufacturers Association’s Operator of the Year/Gold Plate Award
  • Chief Executive Officer and President of THE New Voice, Inc., a business consulting company, and Head Coach of HITM
  • Past Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
  • At a nationally televised Presidential Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Reform (1994), challenged President Bill Clinton’s health care proposal when he said, “Mr. President, with all due respect, your calculations are incorrect…”
  • Radio Talk Show Host, “The Herman Cain Show”, News Talk 750 WSB – Atlanta, Monday – Friday, 7pm-10pm EST

Herman Cain is incredible in a debate. The Democrats (and their media complex) already know that they do not want to have Obama on the same stage with this man. They will try to ignore him, but when they can ignore him no longer they will attack and smear him. Expect it.

Herman Cain: Stay Informed, Stay Involved, Stay Inspired

Sen. Rick Santorum also gave a very impressive showing at the debate. Here is an interview with Judge Napolitano:

Posted in 2012 Primary, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Dept of Education is a Failure: 82 Fed Govt Programs to Improve Teachers. Billions Spent With No Results. Bill Gates Foundation Concludes that Teaching Credentials Make No Difference

Posted by iusbvision on May 11, 2011

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

Bill O’Reilly scolds Juan Williams for…..

Posted by iusbvision on May 10, 2011

Well remember what they say about the left and the bogus equivalencies?

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

CIA Director Leon Panetta is the Patriot of the Day

Posted by iusbvision on May 9, 2011

It appears that CIA Director Leon Panetta was the driving force behind getting the bin Laden raid done, as others in the administration, especially the Chicago side (Valerie Jarret etc) were opposed. Panetta is an old school Democrat who is not one of these new “Alinskyites”. Kudos to Director Panetta for pushing for a risky, yet difficult call that paid off.

[Editor’s Note: Based on what I know so far, if there was no Leon Panetta the raid likely would not have happened even though we knew where bin Laden was. This is based in part on newspaper reports and access to some people I have become familiar with. Panetta put together a team of people to push for the raid from allies he could get from in the intelligence complex and the administration. Of course the 80/20 rule applies. Getting a straight story out of this administration is not always easy.]

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

University of Missouri St. Louis Labor Studies Dept. preaching violent Marxist revolution to students.

Posted by iusbvision on May 9, 2011

Gotta love it when the student starts taping. He put together this series of highlights.

The stuydent wrote a massive post with what he was “taught” day to day – My Introduction to Labor Studies

[Note: The video jumps around not just because of editing, the class is taught with two professors video conferencing during the class, so when another professor talks the video jumps to that person]

Chapter 4 – Bring in Communists to lecture about unions and communism.

Chapter 2 – Advanced Thuggery – Fear and Intimidation Tactics

Recently, the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) sponsored two college courses: Introduction to Labor Studies and Labor Politics and Society, to be taught simultaneously through a video conference between two campuses.

The Professors are Judy Ancel, Director of Labor Studies at UMKC and Don Giljum, business manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers at Ameren UE in St. Louis (Bonus: he is a member of the Communist Party).

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

Euro Leftist Tolerance: Priest calls terrorist who killed children a “terrorist”. Terrorist threatens to behead the Priest. Police charge Priest for critisizing Islamic terror group.

Posted by iusbvision on May 9, 2011

A Finnish priest prosecuted and accused of inciting religious hatred for using the word terrorist to describe the TERRORIST responsible for the Moscow Metro Bombing. He went to police to complain of the death threat by beheading and then …

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Just a little reminder about President Obama.

Posted by iusbvision on May 9, 2011

He will say anything.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Can Christians celebrate bin Laden’s Death?

Posted by iusbvision on May 9, 2011

In short, YOU BETCHA!

By Jordan Sekulow

In the aftermath of the successful U.S. military raid that ended in the killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world, we saw thousands of Americans take to the streets and gather at Ground Zero to celebrate, waive flags, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and sing “God Bless America.” However, some Christians have struggled with how to deal with Osama bin Laden’s death. I have set aside time on my daily radio show to address this very issue because it is a very real debate happening within the evangelical community.

This outcome was the natural consequence of a war that bin Laden began waging against the United States long before the 9/11 attacks. Recall the just war theory that has been discussed here at “On Faith.” Killing bin Laden is like winning a major battle in a just war. His organization attacked the United States; we hunted him for nearly ten years and removed him from the battlefield. It is swift act of justice in an unquestionably just war against al Qaeda.

As Christians, we believe that God has specifically ordained government to rule over a fallen world – to bring security to the law-abiding and inflict swift justice against evildoers. As the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans, “If you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

As such, when the United States military exercised its right to defend the people of American and bring the most heinous terrorist this nation has ever known to justice, it should be celebrated. As the Psalmist David wrote, “The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then people will say, ‘Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.’”

This is exactly what President Obama meant when he declared late on Sunday night that, “Justice has been done.”

We celebrate the victory of the righteous over those who seek to do evil. Osama bin Laden, a man with the blood of thousands of innocents on his hand, was the definition of evil. Christians should rejoice in the fall of evil. We are doing the right thing when we praise the brave men and women who fight to protect American from evil every day.

Jordan Sekulow is a famed constitutional law attorney and Christian activist.

More from Dennis Prager HERE

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson

Posted by iusbvision on May 8, 2011

This five hour series is not only very informative, it is also very entertaining. Ferguson really “gets it” and I would argue with very little of what he has to say.

This is the history of money and the ascent of man and the West. This is invaluable and everyone should watch it.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Niall Ferguson | Leave a Comment »