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 the ‘Jarrod Brigham’ Category

Note to our great readers!

Posted by iusbvision on August 31, 2011

This post and the ‘Banner Page Post’ below are stickied to the top of the page, please scroll down to see the latest!

IUSB Vision Web Log reactivated to bring you this very important story – IUSB Vision proved correct once again – IAC: Previous IPCC Reports failed to meet basic academic standards; Participants “too political” – LINK

UPDATE – IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton has opened a NEW web site at

As many of our 40,000 readers know, Chuck has been responsible for over 90% of our content since mid 2008.  Chuck is moving to the Washington DC area and will be giving first hand accounts of happenings in DC.

Chuck’s new site is still under construction and here is the schedule for it’s completion.

Chuck Norton:

The web site is still under construction. I have about 50 articles in my head that I need to post there. This is the schedule I have worked out for getting the site where readers will expect it to be.

Set up web domain and have it propagated through web hosters – Completed

Set up basic web theme, search tools, links, widgets, and comments functionality – 85% complete.

Import permalinks, blogrolls etc 90% complete.

Out of my previous nearly 3000 web posts and articles, I am transferring about 260 to the new site – 70% complete.

Start posting new content on the happenings of the last three months – Expect completion by September 31st.

Install special sections of the site for global security reports and news, economic reports and news, and campaign 2012 News – Expect completion by October 30th.

Transfer domain to a new hoster that allows for a more robust back end, a more robust and visually appealing theme, better ads, files, and HD Video – Expect completion in January.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The last members of the IUSB Vision staff have now graduated.  After all these years of informing the students and the general public,  none of the few students who we deemed qualified were available to take the reigns here at IUSB Vision so soon we will be posting our final post [Update, we spoke too soon. We might have a new student candidate who is brilliant and spot on intellectually – Editor].

We would like to thank Professor Ernest Goforth for taking the heat from the administration for us. We would like to thank our founding editor Craig Chamberlain, our second editor Jarrod Brigham and all of the staff who have contributed to the IUSB Vision for so long.

We would also like to thank the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Adam Kissel, Peter BonillaStudent’s for Academic FreedomThe Wall Street JournalDr. Mike AdamsProf. Donald Alexander DownsNational Review, and the Indiana ACLU for helping to guard our First Amendment freedoms and watching our backs.

We are very much aware that our 40,000 readers and dozens of other blogs have come to count on us so we would like to let the readers know that IUSB Vision editor Chuck Norton has purchased a terrific root domain and will be launching a new web site very soon which will be posted here so be sure to check back (the back-end is being developed as we speak). The IUSB Vision archives will forever be available.

On behalf of the entire IUSB Vision staff both past and present we would like to thank you all for reading IUSB Vision. It is the goal of every student publication to have an impact and we have the satisfaction of knowing we did.

Faculty Advisor – Prof. Ernest Goforth.

Editors in Chief – Craig Chamberlain, Jarrod Brigham, Chuck Norton.

Contributors – Stacy Rummel, Ed Hellig, Ed Lima, Gerry Rough, Marcus Vigil, Heather White Vigil, Larry Browning, Andrew Filmer, Sandy Brigham, Sarah Chamberlain, Sydney Chase, Naoko Fujimoto, Misty Perrin, Joanna Reusser, Rashida Vindic, Bo Lowman, Carlie Barr, Rachel Wesner, Ryan Hill, Stacie Jensen, Maria Pirrie.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Craig Chamberlin, Jarrod Brigham | Leave a Comment »

Palin Bashers in the GOP Should Think Twice

Posted by iusbvision on June 9, 2011

By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.

It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.

The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.

Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.

You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.

You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.

Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.

Palin Bashing Republican #1:

No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.

You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:

I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:

She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.

She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.

She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.

Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…

Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.

She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!

Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?

And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:

Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.

According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….

Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!

As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.

GOP Palin Basher #2:

Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.

Again I went back to the facts:

[Editor’s Note – A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony “ethics complaint”, each requires an investigation and a ruling – the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor’s staff’s time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]

Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.

Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?

Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.

Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:

And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.

Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.

My Response:

NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.

Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.

Words of Wisdom

Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail –  so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin has posted detailed policy positions on almost very issue imaginable. Most of the others do not.

This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.

Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.

Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.

Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.

If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.

So why has IUSB Vision always been so invested in Sarah Palin?

The simple truth is that we aren’t. The number one goal of this publication and blog, be it under Editor Chamberlain, Brigham, or Norton, has been to introduce people to points of view they will not commonly see on a college campus or in the elite media/Democrat media complex. We believe that the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt.

There is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. We take interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.

Posted in 2012 Primary, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Craig Chamberlin, Jarrod Brigham, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Republican Brand, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Liberty Counsel Summary of House ObamaCare Bill

Posted by iusbvision on August 11, 2009

Liberty Counsel is a libertarian law firm that at times also behaves as a think tank.

They have put out a summary of the House health reform bill (HR3200) which you can read at the following links.

Special thanks to IUSB Vision Editor Emeritus Jarrod Brigham for the links




Posted in 2012, Health Law, Jarrod Brigham, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

The Fourth Party Candidate

Posted by iusbvision on March 25, 2008

It has been said that Ross Perot handed Bill Clinton a victory over George Bush and that Ralph Nader handed George W. Bush a victory over Al Gore. This is precisely the reason that a third party candidate will never be successful.

The answer to cracking the oligopoly that is the American political system is the fourth party candidate. In the previous elections, Pat Buchanan was a tool of the Democratic Party to defeat Bob Dole and Ralph Nader was a tool of the Republican Party to defeat Al Gore.  Did you know that registered Republicans were getting petitions signed to get Nader on the ballot?  Democrats were doing the same thing for Buchanan.

This may be the year for the dawn of new era. If Obama can pull off a victory over Hillary Clinton, and all the signs are pointing to that scenario, look for Senator Clinton to run for President anyways. Her narcissism will not allow her to concede defeat to Senator Obama. Equally, there is a disturbance in the Republican Party. Many conservatives do not like John McCain. Beyond McCain, many conservative Christians are beyond frustration with the Republican Party. For too many years we have been promised an end to the Roe v. Wade decision. Put this all together and there is a perfect storm brewing in Washington. If Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both end up running for President, look for the conservatives to run their own fourth party candidate.

Neither the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, nor the Reform Party have the backing to run a competitive race.  However, if the far left, moderate left, moderate right, and far right all had a candidate, there could be a competitive four-way race. Senators Obama and Clinton have shown that they can each garner a fifty percent split of the liberal votes. If there were no Mitt Romney, Huckabee could have taken McCain all the way to the convention.

Conservative Christians, most of whom belong to the Moral Majority, could run a candidate who could gain nearly 30% of a popular vote. That would be enough to win a four-way race. Some names that immediately surface that could run as that candidate are James Dobson and Pat Robertson. Don’t count on either of them, they have a following, but I don’t think they have Presidential aspirations anymore. Gary Bauer is the next logical choice, but he has already endorsed John McCain. No, the fourth party candidate would need to be solidly pro-choice, pro-second amendment, and not entrenched in the Republican Party, which is why Mike Huckabee would not be the right choice.

I cannot honestly say who should be the candidate, but I can offer up a couple of names. At the top of my list would be someone like Jay Sekulow. So, who is Jay Sekulow? He is the head of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Conservative Christian answer to the ACLU. For years, Sekulow has been an advocate for defending the Constitution. He has the connections in Washington from many years working with conservative politicians writing up bills to be made into laws. He would fit the above mentioned profile, but name recognition would hold him back.

Another name at the top of the list would be Colonel Oliver North. Col. North is extremely popular among the servicemen and women. His credentials as being pro-second amendment and pro-Christian cannot be questioned. He also has a connection to Ronald Reagan, which anyone on the conservative ticket must have.

If you trust exit polling taken at all in the primaries and caucuses, you know that Obama supporters do not like Clinton and vice-versa. A split Democratic ticket is a real possibility this year. Senator McCain has got to be the most unpopular Republican candidate since Ford. The perfect storm is brewing over the beltway and it is going to get darker before it gets brighter. Look for Obama to head up a far left ticket, Clinton to head up a moderate liberal ticket, McCain to head up the Republican ticket, and an unknown contender to head up a conservative ticket. Eventually it will happen, why not now?

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Jarrod Brigham | 1 Comment »

Can Scientific Inquiry and Religion Coexist?

Posted by iusbvision on February 20, 2008

Recently, the Anthropology club celebrated Charles Darwin’s 199th birthday on campus with a panel discussion on evolution and a screening of the film Flock of Dodos. As a six-day creationist, I was intrigued by the theme of the event “Can Scientific Inquiry and Religion Co-exist?”. I had the opportunity to interview Dr. James Vanderveen, professor of anthropology here at IUSB, about the creation/evolution debate.

JB: Thank you for agreeing to an interview on this subject. Giv-en the theme of your event, do you think that there is room in the educational arena for both intelligent design and evolution and at what age could they be taught?

JV: Schools and colleges succeed when they are open to the free exchange of ideas. Even if the ideas are not popular, they need to be expressed in order to be challenged. There is no single right way of thinking. Some ways are more correct than others, however. Although scientists do not know everything, we are continually testing ideas and refining the ways we seek knowledge.

The process of the scientific method should be taught as early as possible. My five-year old son is making predictions about what may happen when he slides down a hill or puts a seed in the ground, and then testing whether those predictions are right. That is science at its most basic level. If he continually tested these events and the same result always happened, and he compared his results with those of students in his day care and they all turned out the same, he could develop a theory of sledding down hills.

But intelligent design is not in any way, shape, or form, a theory.  It can’t be as it is not based on testing. A theory is an explanation that is based on facts. It has been tested over and over again until all other explanations have failed. Intelligent design is not comparable to evolution as a theory (to use the term as we do in science).

I have no problem with talking about intelligent design in my anthropology courses, because we discuss all kinds of creation myths from many varied cultures. ID should be discussed in political science courses because it has an influence on what people are saying and how they are voting even now. It can be part of philosophy, sociology, or religion courses. Yet ID is not part of the science curriculum. Science is dynamic – it is always seeking the truth from what is not known. ID is part of one particular branch of religion (although it can be dressed up to appear otherwise). It is static and based purely on trying to support claims that are already thought to be known. This is a fundamental difference between evolution and creation ideas.

JB: Given the way you diagramed the scientific method with your son, how does one test evolution without the ability to watch it happen and record results and without the ability to compare it with non-terrestrial life forms?

JV: We can, and do, watch organisms change. Viruses mutate and bacteria alter their structure, which is why doctors tell you to take all the antibiotics. Scientists have recorded evolution in the wings of crickets in Hawaii ( We see change all around us, happening today as it has happened in the past.

As for finding out what happened in the past without directly observing it, that is what I do as an archaeologist. I study a people known as the Taino, but I am not able to ask them questions about how they made their pottery or what food they ate. Instead I observe the existing pottery in the archaeological record, I form a hypothesis about how they were constructed, and then I test that hypothesis by looking at thin sections of the ceramic or trying to make it myself. I am able to determine what they ate not because of the food that is left — there is none — but the organic residue absorbed within the walls of the pot. This residue, once extracted, suggests the particular species of plants and animals that were utilized. I didn’t see them eat the fish, but I can find out the fish type due to previous experiments and the recovery of associated data.

Astronomers may not be able to “see” the distant galaxies, but they can collect radiation of specific sorts that indicates the presence of those galaxies. Researchers in countless fields are regularly able to learn about subjects too small, too distant, too fast, or too extreme to directly measure. Their results are infrequently challenged, why is it that evolutionary science is not rigorous because the research does not directly observe the processes discussed? 

JB: Evolution and Creation are two very polarizing theories. What I mean is that there is not a whole lot of room for middle ground. Not many people can both believe in the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth and believe in the Evolution of the species. What steps need to be taken in order bring these two groups closer together to become more tolerant of each other?

JV: Actually, many people believe in both. Gallup has often polled the American public and has regularly found that about 40% of people believe that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.” This is how my wife reconciles the two ideas in her head as well, by picking something along the lines of a compromise. It is the two most extreme ends of the debate that are intolerant. These two camps, the “no God” evolutionists and the “young Earth” creationists will never convert the members of the other side. They need to stop trying, as it only makes for ugliness that attracts the press. Everyone likes a good fight, and that is what people like Dawkins and Ham provide.

The two groups can be brought to a table to discuss their differences, though, and that is what I have been trying to do with the Darwin Day events presented here on campus.

JB: How would you address the issue of the Creation vs. Intelligent Design debate? Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing. If religion and scientific inquiry are to co-exist; is there room at the table for Biblical Creation as well?

JV: From what I have heard, read, and understand, creationism is exactly the same as ID. ID doesn’t have a specific deity directly associated with it, but it is proposed by Christians and not Buddhists, so one can easily see between the lines. Judge Jones, who ruled on the recent Dover case, calls ID the “prog-eny of creationism” and is nothing more than creation science in disguise. I would have to agree.

Religion and science can easily coexist. They are not usually looking at the same things. Science can also be used to study religion. There are faculty in the community that scientifically study the sociology and psychology of religion and its influence on people. There are many ways in which the two ideas can be combined. Student in my archaeology courses often research the ways in which the Maya practiced religion, for example.

In anthropology, we are open minded to all ways of thinking.  There is the room for Biblical Creation at that particular table, but sitting there with it is the idea that all humans were created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Taínos thought humans were produced through a wad of phlegm blown on to the back of a culture hero, and the resulting lump turned into a turtle. Who is to say they can’t believe that? There are many creation myths, why should one be given precedent over the others as the true story? There is only one successfully tested theory, though, and that is evolution.

JB: What made you decide to show a documentary video known more for its light-hearted, comedic approach to the Evolution/ ID debate as opposed to showing serious programs putting forth the evidence both sides present such as PBS’ 2001 Nova program Evolution and a pro-creation film such as Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution by Dr. Jobe Martin?

JV: Your question also provides the answer. I wanted to show the film last year because we had the rare opportunity to provide its Michiana premiere, and I continue to screen it for Darwin Day this year because of its light-hearted, comedic approach to a typically dry subject. We want to attract an audience and not make going to the event seem like homework. After the film, I was happy to see students continue to discuss its issues and themes. One of the roles of the Anthropology Club is to facilitate conversations between different people on this campus and in the community. The film helps to do that.

JB: Flock of Dodos seems to have the main thesis that proponents of ID are dodos because they place faith before science, but that scientists are also dodos because they have been unable to put their findings into a message that the layperson can understand. Do you agree with this?

JV: Absolutely.

JB: Next year would be Darwin’s 200th birthday. Do you have anything special planned for the bicentennial?

JV: The campus theme next year is “Revolutions in Thought”.  I hope there will be many events planned to commemorate evolutionary theory and other great changes (political, artistic, and otherwise) in our world and our history.

JB: It is a common argument that Creationism does not belong in a science class; it belongs in a philosophy class. How would you respond to a creationist who says that both creation and evolution are matters of faith: faith in God and faith in randomness? If the creation/ evolution debate really comes down to one faith (Biblical Christianity) vs. another faith (Secular Humanism), does evolution belong in a science class?

JV: Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence or proof. Science is the opposite, it is grounded on discovering data and testing predictions based on those data. Creation science and ID do not put forth new positive evidence. No hypotheses have been proposed to test the idea that creation is guided by a supernatural intelligence. It is for that reason that ID shouldn’t be in science classes.

JB: Recently, the Cobb County School District in Georgia lost a court battle over a science textbook sticker that read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered”. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove the sticker?

JV: If the sticker existed in a social vacuum, without the context of religion and politics, I would have no problems with it being placed on a textbook that discusses evolution. Every statement on the sticker is true, in the strictest sense. Evolution is a theory, and it may even yet be proven wrong, but that appears less likely as time passes and evidence mounts. All subjects, regardless of the discipline, should be studied carefully and critically considered. This is what I am trying to teach my classes. The social context of the sticker, however, is what made it such a problem.

JB: In a 1995 Time Magazine article The Evolution Wars, Dr. Richard Dawkins, a biologist teaching at Oxford University stated, “If there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian [Period], that would completely blow evolution out of the water.” What evidence would you need to see in order to leave evolution and become a creationist?

JV: If only we could test for the presence of a supernatural creator. We could then just ask him/her/them. I would like to know why, if the creation took place in a specific manner, do we have so many myths that differ? Why, as Edward Wilson has written, “would God have been so deceptive as to salt the earth with so much misleading evidence”? Until we ask those questions directly, I will continue to follow the research done by scientists that are now providing details about subjects previously unknown.

JB: Other than “we cannot see him”, how does one scientifically eliminate the possibility of a supernatural Creator?

JV: Scientific inquiry doesn’t entirely eliminate the presence of a supernatural force or amazing phenomenon. There are some researchers looking for Bigfoot and a Yeti. We haven’t found them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Discoveries and the testing of discoveries are the bread and butter of science. Shifts in current thinking based on new evidence is the way scientific fields work. Do you think that a scientist wouldn’t jump up and shout from the rooftops if he or she found evidence of a supernatural intelligent force that guided the evolution of life? That would be the greatest discovery of all time and would change all of our ideas and even our history. But creation science and ID don’t have the qualities of science. They can’t be tested. They may be right, but how are we to know?

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Jarrod Brigham | 6 Comments »

Alan Keyes: The Best Candidate You Don’t Know

Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2008

If you are a conservative, looking for the next Ronald Reagan, and disappointed with the current crop of candidates, why not support the man selected by Ronald Reagan himself?    

Some people believe that John McCain is the best option  for a terror warrior. While, McCain may have been a soldier, and may have supported President Bush, McCain does not have the endorsement of Ronald Reagan. Alan Keyes worked hard to fight state-sponsors of terrorism, but you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the words of Reagan, “Alan… as my Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations you opposed with every ounce of strength in your body all those who have served to foster and legitimize state-sponsored terrorism.” – Ronald Reagan.    

As important as terrorism, for social conservatives are the candidate’s moral standing. Unlike flip-floppers such as Romney and McCain or candidates that roll with the polls like Clinton and Obama, Alan Keyes believes in basing his positions on economic and social issues from a moral perspective.    

Keyes understands that we cannot solve poverty, mis-education, abortion, or any other of the controversial issues until we figure out a way to fix the American family. This is why I support Alan Keyes, above all else, Alan Keyes is the candidate for the American family.    

In his own words, Keyes states, “We need to start addressing the real underlying cause of these challenges and to recapture a sense of the moral foundation, so that we can restore the moral discipline, restore the sense of commitment to true family life that then provides the basis for economic strength in our communities, for better performance for our children in our schools, for a greater sense of responsibility on the part of parents toward those children, and so forth and so on. We know that these are the keys to real progress, and it’s time we got out and voted like we know.” Until Americans are ready to face that fact that we have a moral problem, not an economic problem, we will not begin to solve our problems.     My voters speak of a candidates ability to work with other nations. Senators do not work with the leaders of other nations, neither do Representatives, Governors, or even first ladies; but Ambassadors do. In 1983, Alan Keyes was appointed by Reagan to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.    

If you are a Reagan conservative, ask yourself this: what positions did Reagan appoint John McCain to? What positions did Reagan appoint Mitt Romney to? What positions did Reagan appoint Ron Paul to? If we want a return to the conservative glory years, we need to elect the only person who served in the Reagan administration: Ambassador Alan Keyes.    

Some fans of MSNBC might remember Keyes from his show “Alan Keyes is Making Sense”. Why is his show no longer on air? He was a victim of MSNBC caving in to  pro-Palestinian activists and homosexual activists. Imagine a candidate taking heat for standing up for Israel and traditional marriage. Compare that with John McCain’s endorsement from the New York Times. There is a reason why liberals fear voices like Keyes and bolster the message  of John McCain.    

Imagine a candidate who wants to end abortion, not end pro-life advocates freedom of speech. Imagine a candidate that wants to end income taxes, instead of voting against the Bush tax cuts. Imagine a candidate that is pro-immigration, yet against colonization.    

In Alan Keyes, conservatives have a candidate that is pro-life, not just for fetuses, but he is against Euthanasia and stem-cell research. We have a candidate that will fight against a kindergartener’s “right” to sex education and their “right” to view pornography in the school library. We have a candidate that wants to enforce the immigration laws already on the books, not create new laws that aren’t going to be enforced anyways.    

I cannot say it any better than Reagan, “Alan reflects the values and bedrock principles of this great nation—the values of family and home and community and church. Our greatest treasure is our precious moral heritage, the basic values of faith and family that makes ours… a great nation.” 

Jarrod Brigham 

Posted in Jarrod Brigham | 4 Comments »

Is The Smoking Ban A Victory for Safety or Big Brother?

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2008

As of January 1st, our campus became smoke free. Some of us, who could not understand why smokers did not understand what “No smoking with 10 feet of entrance” meant, see this as a victory for clean air, clean lungs, and general well-being.
However, there is a flip side to this decision, as there always is. There are those of us who see this policy as one more freedom that is being taken away by “big brother”

As an asthmatic, I was happy to see this policy enacted, not just on campus but throughout our county. It is nice to walk into a restaurant and not have to walk through the smoking section in order to reach the non-smoking section, I never could figure that one out. It is also nice to walk into a building on campus and not have to hold my breath as I passed by all the inconsiderate people who felt the need to share their carcinogens with the rest of us.

I can remember champions of individual liberties encouraging me to join their crusade to stop “big government” from taking away another individual liberty. Sadly, while I support freedom and individual liberty, I sat that particular fight out because I was not going to stand up for the rights of smokers. Similar to the way proponents of free speech are not often up for volunteering to fight for the free speech rights of the Klan to use an extreme example.

It does seem ironic that the majority of the people clamoring for the smoking ban (government intrusion on individual rights) also are up in arms about things in the Patriot Act (government intrusion on individual rights).

Thankfully or regretfully, depending on your position, here on our campus, enforcement does not seem to be an issue.
The official policy reads, “Violations of the policy will be addressed through existing processes already in place for students, faculty, and staff”. It goes on, “Tobacco users are expected to voluntarily comply with the policy.”

Apparently the authors of this policy did not see how well tobacco users on this campus complied with the “10 feet from the entrance” policy. The most laughable part of the policy is how the university calls for student enforcement. “Anyone who observes a possible violation may courteously and without confrontation inform the individual of the tobacco-free policy (and here is the best part) and attempt to offer an information sheet [about the policy]. Are they kidding? Who is going to confront (without confrontation, mind you) a fellow student blatantly ignoring the policy?

Our campus security guards have more important things to do than be campus nannies. This policy will not be enforced unless the punishment becomes a fine, which will make the campus money, the same way parking tickets do.
In answer to the question posed in the headline: The new smoking ban is a victory for big brother, not safety. We have again, ceded liberties for someone’s notion of the common good. Maybe Judge Andrew Napolitano was correct, we are a nation of sheep and eventually we will give up all individual liberty in the name of the common good.

In our case, this is another example of a policy without teeth that no one has any intention of enforcing. I hope that I am wrong for the sake of rules and order. On the other hand, I hope I am right since all I really want is for individual people to just be left alone.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Jarrod Brigham | 1 Comment »

It’s Not Too Late To Get On The Bandwagon.

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2008

You may have missed it over the Christmas break, but our Titans and Lady Titans have made vast improvements over last season. Both the men’s and women’s teams have already eclipsed their win totals from last year.

Most recently, the men  defeated McKendree University of Lebannon, Illinois 93-91 on a three-pointer by Qdar Owens with 6 seconds left. The win, their 12th on the season, places them in third place in the Chicagoland Collegiate Athletic Conference, just three games behind Robert Morris College, who the Titans will play on Feb. 9th. Last year, the Titans finished with an 11-18 record.

The Lady Titans have also been equally successful over the Christmas break. The women have won 7 of their last 9 games including a 63 point beat down of Mt. Marty College and a 36 point victory over the University of Michigan-Dearborn in the Marian College Classic.

Katie Hacker led five Lady Titans with double figures, scoring 21 in the victory over Mt. Marty. Jennifer VanderZanden scored 24 to lead the Lady Titans over UM-Dearborn.

The Lady Titans have won 10 games on the season putting them into third place in the CCAC, just two games back of Olivet Nazarene and St. Xavier whom the women will play on January 19th and February 5th respectively.

It is not too late to jump on the Titan bandwagon. The Titans still have plenty of time to win the conference in both the men’s and women’s divisions.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Jarrod Brigham | Leave a Comment »

The Progressive War on *Censored*

Posted by iusbvision on December 17, 2007

The Progressive War against God really heats up this time of year. Local school districts across the nation are brought to their knees as the well-government-funded American Civil Liberties Union demands they take out all references to the Almighty in their school programs. Christmas programs are changed to Holiday programs, Christmas break has become winter break, and Christmas cards are now friendship cards.

The battles between the ACLU and school districts will be fought out in the courts. As long as the judges follow the Constitution, the good guys will win.

There is a battle that is currently being fought in the free market. This is the fight that is to be fought by a simple majority. Apparently some retailers do not understand why it is that their sales skyrocket in the weeks between Thanksgiving and December 25th.

Some retailers have started instructing their clerks to only use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Some retailers have gone so far as to not allow their employees to use Merry Christmas or risk disciplinary action. The mega retailer Lowe’s has stopped selling Christmas Trees and now sells Holiday Trees. Tell me something, Lowe’s, what holiday do you think that tree is for? In some catalogs, you can find Family Trees instead of Christmas Trees.

It is too early to tell what retailers will be welcoming the CHRISTMAS dollars with their right hand while fighting the name Christmas with their left hand. In addition to asking you to be diligent with your Christmas shopping, I can remind you of the retailers that made the naughty list last year. Of course, if you are among the four percent of Americans who claim to be offended by the name Christmas, you can use this list to find the stores at which you will want to shop.

In 2006, a spokesperson for Best Buy, whose advertising rejected any reference to Christmas said, “We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period and we certainly need to be respectful to all of them.”

A spokesperson for Crate & Barrel stated, “Crate & Barrel has Jewish, Muslim, and atheist customers. We would definitely not say Merry Christmas. It’s all about holiday shopping, getting together with friends and family.”

On Barnes & Noble’s website, they advertised a holiday gift guide, holiday gift baskets, holiday sleds, and holiday delivery, but nary a mention of Christmas. Making matters worse, the stores are not allowed to put up Christmas trees and employees are not allowed to say Merry Christmas, even if the customers wishes the employee a Merry Christmas.

Pet smart, Eddie Bauer, Bloomingdales, KB Toys, Home Depot, Radio Shack, and J.C. Penny all replaced Christmas with Holiday in their stores, online, and in their advertising in 2006.

Some stores have gone above and beyond helping the Progressive War on Christmas. Christmas Charities have seen the full brunt of their attack. Some retailers, such as Target, Kohls, Toys R Us, Best Buy, Home Depot, Circuit City, and Barnes & Nobles have all banned the Salvation Army’s bell ringers. This should be compared with Wal-mart, which not only allowed the bell ringers, but encouraged their employees to participate by ringing bells themselves.

In the department store, Macy’s, one could find a Holiday Lane instead of a Christmas lane. Hanukkah did have its own section. Maybe this year, they will have an atheist aisle. If Macy’s did not do it for you, Bloomingdale’s showered its customers with the holiday spirit, but not the Christmas spirit.

There were plenty of companies who understood what holiday was the real driving force for their fourth quarter profits.
For example, M&M Mars candies made bags of red and green M&M’s complete with pictures of angels and Christmas Trees. Tractor Supply Company, T.J. Maxx, and Ace Hardware all had Christmas sales.

Kudos to Starbucks, whose owner is one of the primary benefactors for, for keeping Christmas in their stores.
Department stores, K-Mart and Sears also made sure to showcase the Christmas season as opposed to the generic holiday season.

Openly Christian stores, Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a made sure to go so far as to put up Nativity scenes in many locations.

So the question remains, why should it matter whether a store uses Christmas instead of holiday? It matters because Christmas is a Federal holiday. It matters because America is forgetting that it is a Christian nation. The Progressive movement to remove God from our culture is gaining momentum. They have infiltrated our schools and indoctrinated our children. That fight is for the courts. This fight is for the free market.

This is very exciting because it is a battle that is being fought where it should be fought. Traditionalists rally behind the free market and now it is the free market that can protect Christmas or destroy it. The question is whether or not Christians, Traditionalists, and Conservatives will put their money where their mouths are.

I encourage you to pick up the torch and join the rest of us in the crusade to save Christmas. Look at the retailers as you do your Christmas shopping this season and look at their advertising. Purchase Christmas trees, not holiday trees or family trees. The progressive assault is more subtle than any beast of the field, don’t let Christmas die on our generation. Use your Christmas break to take advantage of Christmas sales to give away Christmas presents. Ignore the holidays, celebrate Christmas.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Jarrod Brigham, Volume 4, Issue 7 | Leave a Comment »

Christmas Charities Need Your Help

Posted by iusbvision on December 17, 2007

Tis the season to be jolly, yes, but ’tis also the season to be giving. Christmas gives us an excellent opportunity to show that we really indeed are interested in giving to those less fortunate.
Right here in South Bend there are very serious needs that can be met with just a little effort on our part.
Women’s shelters are always in need of clothing and bath towels. There are distribution points here on campus that you can use to help others.

Anyone who really understands what the Christmas season is all about, understands that it is about giving, not receiving.
Take the Hope Rescue Mission for example. Multiple times students have donated a Saturday afternoon and braved the cold to collect food for the mission. These students, from this campus, had a wonderful time knocking on doors and asking for food. One might be surprised how generous the people of this town can be if someone just takes the initiative to ask them. For these students, there is no greater joy than seeing the expression on the faces of the people at the Hope Rescue Mission when they know that there are people out there who care about them.

When we arrived with a van full of food, many times the words “thank you” and “God bless you” are returned. I truly hope this does not come across the wrong way, but my Christmas wish is that everyone can give just a little of their time to help others. The joy that comes over one is a magnificent reward in itself.

Many people ask, which is better: time or money? The answer is both. All the money in the world, cannot be put to use if there are not volunteers to staff the projects. Conversely, all the volunteers in the world cannot distribute food, clothing, and medicine if the funds are not there.

Even the U.S. Armed Forces are getting into the action. Toys for Tots is a wonderful charity all about the children. How many times as a child did you open up presents that you did not like? Even the gift that was hated the most is more than what some children get. When you are out shopping this Christmas season, stop by the dollar store and pick up a toy for a child in need. Contrasted to the hundreds spent on friends and family, that dollar for a stranger means so much.

There is also the Salvation Army. Remember those bell ringers at the entrances of the malls who too many usually try to avoid making eye contact with? Give them a few coins even if only to make yourself feel good. Imagine how tough it must be for them standing for eight hours ringing a bell in the face of apathy. Be a blessing to them; it only costs fifty cents.
If you don’t have the funds to financially support one of the many local charities, a jolly Christmas attitude can make a difference. Opening doors for ladies, smiling at people when making eye contact and simply saying hello. Simple gestures can lift the spirits of someone else who may be able to then go on and do something wonderful for someone else.

No matter what your social, ethnic, economic, or political background, helping others is something we all can do.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Jarrod Brigham, Volume 4, Issue 7 | 1 Comment »

IUSB Titans 2007-2008 Campaign Now Underway

Posted by iusbvision on November 16, 2007

The IUSB Titans men’s and women’s basketball programs are underway for the 2007-2008 season.
There is a new man calling the plays for the men’s basketball program. Head Coach Dennis Parks takes over for Micah Shrewsberry after leading the Niles High School team to two divisional championships. Shrewsberry resigned in April in order to take the position of Coordinator of Basketball Operations at Butler University. Coach Parks takes over a Titan team that went 11-18 last year.

Head women’s basketball coach Steve Bruce returns for his second year this season. The Lady Titans are looking to rebound from an 8-22 season last year.

Both teams will need players to step up and fill roles left by productive seniors who graduated last year. The women’s team will need to replace the 9.1 points and 3.9 rebounds and steals per game provided by two-team all-CCAC honorable mention award winner, Stacy Spurgeon. Bruce will probably look to senior Jennifer VanderZanden to take up the slack. Last year Jennifer made the first team all-CCAC team for the second straight year.

The men’s team will need to replace all-CCAC first teamers Hubert Gentry and Jeremy Herring. Gentry and Herring were responsible for over 25 points and 11 boards per game. Keep your eye on senior, Dewey Brown who won honorable mention honors in the CCAC while scoring 13.4 points per game last year.

This season will be challenging for the Titans as they only have three upperclassmen, one senior and two juniors. The Lady Titans roster is bit more top heavy with nine upperclassmen including five seniors.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Jarrod Brigham | Leave a Comment »

Why I’m Willing to Throw Away the ‘08 Election

Posted by iusbvision on October 9, 2007

Anyone who knows me cannot doubt my conservative credentials. I am a card-carrying member of the RNC, but I am willing see President Hilary Clinton before I will vote for Rudi Giuliani.    

I know the phrase President Hilary Clinton sends evil chills down the spines of anyone who supports a strong military, free enterprise, and low taxes. However, should the election come down Rudi v. Mrs. Clinton, I will vote third party, preferably for former Gov. Mike Huckabee.    

There are multiple reasons why, and none of them are because Dr. James Dobson said so. I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone who is pro infanticide, also known as pro-choice. I know that Rudi has promised not to appoint liberal activist judges, but he has also told three wives “til death do us part”. His promises do not mean very much to me.    

Many conservatives do not trust Mitt Romney because he has flip-flopped on abortion and the exclusive right of marriage for homosexuals (heterosexuals have no such right). But, those same conservatives ignore the fact that as Mayor of New York, Rudi was for gun control, government payment of abortion up to the moment of birth, and special rights for homosexuals. Why is Romney a flip-flopper but Rudi is the candidate who can beat Hilary? Rudi is not trustworthy. The only conservative value that Rudi brings is leadership on the war on terror. There are other conservative candidates who also bring this and they are true conservatives, not a liberal in sheep’s clothing.   

Second, there are two main philosophies when it comes to voting in an election. One can vote for the lesser of the two evils or one can vote the person that you want to win. When social conservatives pull the lever for Rudi because they do not want Hilary, they are not voting for who they want to win. I am a proponent of the second philosophy.      

I vote for the person I want to win, not against the person I want to lose. This leads to partisan politics, voters vote for Republicans because they do not want to see a Democrat win. This foolishness abandons all control over the parties. Conservatives should tell the Republican Party who our candidate should be, not the other way around. What is the point of having a primary if we are going to vote only for the person most likely to defeat the other party’s nominee? The primary process is designed to pick the candidate you want to win, not the candidate that can best beat the other side.    

Third, I cannot see how any conservative can encourage the Republican Party to take a giant step left. The reason why Ronald Reagan was so popular with conservatives while losing the primary to Ford in 1976 was because he forced the Republican Party back to the right.    

Reagan’s campaign forced the Party to accept a philosophy of superior national defense, opposed the welfare system that reduced the incentive to work, and an endorsement of the Human Life Amendment. Even in his loss, Ronaldus Maximus impacted the future of the Republican Party for decades. All my life the Republican Party has stood for protecting those who cannot protect themselves and now my fellow conservatives are going to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-special rights for homosexuals candidate. They are going to do this in order to keep Hilary out of office even though she is to the right of Rudi on abortion!    

Conservatives have a responsibility to keep the Republican Party conservative.  Many years ago, it would have been un-thought of to have a nominee who would not fight to keep prayer in schools. Many years ago, it would have been un-thought of to have a nominee who would not fight against an un-Constitutional federal income tax. Those issues are now all but lost; I will not stand by and watch the protection of innocent life go down the same drain.    

I cannot bring myself to vote for any of the Republican front-runners. Rudi Giuliani is not a conservative and is barely a Republican. Fred Thompson will not support a federal amendment to support the traditional definition of marriage. I am all for states’ rights, but I do not want Indiana to have to recognize a phony marriage performed in Massachusetts. John McCain has never been a Conservative, so at least he is not a flip-flopper. I also cannot see how I can vote for Mitt Romney. As Governor of Massachusetts, he was elected by the people who have voted for Senators Kennedy and Kerry for over twenty years!    

My great hope is with Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, or Alan Keyes. I know that as it stands right now, none of them have a real chance to win the nomination, but they are true conservatives.     

As much as I loathe the idea of Mrs. Clinton as our next President, four years of socialism is a small price to pay in order to protect the future of the Republican Party. If we vote for Rudi, we are endorsing the misbehavior of the Party. If we vote for Rudi this election, who will the next nominee be: Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel? 

Jarrod Brigham 

Posted in Jarrod Brigham, Volume 4, Issue 4 | 2 Comments »

The Illegal Employment Loophole

Posted by iusbvision on September 12, 2007

How many of you are currently seeking employment, but are unable to find it? Do you believe your job is currently filled by someone working illegally? Have you ever taken the time to see why it is that businesses hire illegal workers? The secret is in the fine print.

Law abiding Americans are being scammed out of jobs by loopholes in the system of citizenship and employment verification. Here is how the scam works: There are certain people allowed in this country, but are not allowed to work, international students on student visas, for example. However, when a person applies for a job, in section 1 on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I9), an applicant can check one of three options: 1) A citizen or national of the United States; 2) Alien authorized to work; or 3) Lawful Permanent Resident.

The employer is required to ask for documentation proving the applicant’s identity. This can be any of a number of easily forged documents such as a social security card or a driver’s license, which by the way does not have “citizen” printed upon it.

However, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, under “Employee’s Responsibility Regarding Form I9”, it states, “The documentation presented is not required to substantiate information provided in Section 1. The employer must examine the document(s) and accept them if they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee who presents them. Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice.” 

This loophole allows for employers who are seeking illegal workers to hire them. As long as the documentation “reasonably appears to be genuine” then the business can hire that applicant. It is the subjective opinion of the Human Resources manager as to whether the documents reasonably appear to be genuine or not.

This loophole also allows an illegal applicant to bully the business into hiring them. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website also states, “Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice.” This means that if an employer challenges the documentation, a lawsuit could be in their future!

I spoke with one former HR associate who told me that the problem is widespread and well-known in the industry. Stereotypically, many Americans immediately point to Hispanics in the factories as the guilty party in this scam. While that does happen, it is not the only place. Another source explained that the Healthcare industry in South Bend is full of employees who have used this loophole to find employment. In that source’s experience, it is international students from Africa who are taking the jobs using the loophole.

This whole issue has created some strange bedfellows. It has brought together the conservative Wall Street Journal and the liberal New York Times. It has also brought together conservative talk radio and powerful liberal trade unions. Even here in South Bend, the mainstream media has ignored this problem. The same source who came to the IUSB Vision with this information gave the names of companies and the names of employees to WNDU, WSBT, and the South Bend Tribune. Remember you heard it from the Vision first.

Jarrod Brigham

Posted in Jarrod Brigham, Volume 4, Issue 2 | Leave a Comment »