From World Net Daily(not the tabloid site World News Daily), with h/t to Green Hell Blog, something that if proven is quite disturbing. Yet given the kind of treatment I’ve recently received at the hands of an eco-zealot who can’t tolerate my views on climate, I’m not surprised.
Some people have no scruples and no shame. – Anthony
Democrats attack Republican candidate’s children
By Art Robinson
In an effort to do my part in rescuing our country from the out-of-control Obama administration, last year I ran for Congress in Oregon’s 4th District against 12-term incumbent, far-left Democrat Peter DeFazio, co-founder of the House Progressive Caucus.
Although I won the nominations of the Republican, Independent and Constitution Parties and the endorsement of the Libertarian Party, a massive media smear campaign by DeFazio, paid for with money raised by MoveOn.org and from special interests favored by DeFazio in Washington, resulted in a 54.5 percent to 43.6 percent victory for DeFazio in a race that was expected to be much closer.
Although I had never run for public office before, I immediately announced my candidacy for Congress again in 2012.
However, when you take a stand for what’s right, sometimes there is retribution.On Nov. 4, 2010, as soon as the election results were in and they were sure their candidate had won, faculty administrators at Oregon State University gave new meaning to the term “political payback.”
They initiated an attack on my three children – Joshua, Bethany and Matthew – for the purpose of throwing them all out of the OSU graduate school, despite their outstanding academic and research accomplishments. OSU is a liberal socialist Democrat stronghold in Oregon that received a reported $27 million in earmark funding from my opponent, Peter DeFazio, and his Democrat colleagues during the last legislative session.
Read full story here: Democrats attack Republican candidate’s children
UPDATE: I decided to pull the direct link to the website that hurled unspeakable insults to me by an eco-zealot, they don’t deserve the traffic WUWT will generate for them. Such things are best handled by other means. So, I used WebCite to permanently log the website, and you can view it here, scroll all the way to the bottom and note “corrections”: http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl
UPDATE2: OSU has posted a statement which you can read here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark S says:
March 8, 2011 at 10:48 am
Not a drive by. I didn’t know that this was the Dr. Robinson of the Oregon Petition fame. I get the climate connection now. The piece is still horrible and unsubstantiated but I get why Anthony is giving it play now.
I think that after the OSU “investigation” statement there is plenty of substantiation. If they were not throwing those kids out, a simple statement “no changes are foreseen in the department graduate students during this academic year” would refute that the three graduate students were being thrown out. As is , they are confirming something fishy is going on that they do not discuss.
Lars Larson is a local (Oregon/Washington) radio talk show host and has a national show. Yesterday I caught his interview with Art and it ended with him promising to bring his son on the show to discuss what is going on at OSU. Art also said his son would sign whatever paperwork needed giving OSU permission to discuss his case. Wont have a chance to listen today but that’s going to be interesting.
This discussion has gone pretty far afield, so I’ll just add that I understand why Higganbotham doesn’t want to publicly engage at this point, but it sure would clear things up. Perhaps someone else will come forward and we can have this hashed out in detail.
It does kind of sound like OSU is protecting a “rogue department,” as many other have pointed out this kind of chain of events is not uncommon in academia.
Also, I seem to be seeing a pattern here and maybe someone else can corroborate: those who have experience with OSU seem to be saying it’s plausible (or in one case confirmed), mostly, and the harshest critics of the claims seem to be farther detached from the events.
Anything else I could say about certain participants in this discussion would likely just be inflammatory, so let’s leave it at that.
Following is a future scenario for when Anthony finally has to require that climate somehow be included in comments, in at least some remote form or another:
You’re an ill wind and a Nazi-Liberal bastard that blows nobody any good!
Oh yeah? Well you and your type are a herd of Commie-Conservative swine and a dark cloud gathering over everything.
Just what I’d expect from a neo-paleo cyclone of swirling revisionist, recidivist crapola –
You come a-blowin in here like a smelly old cold front and you don’t even know how it is that we’re used to talking to one another hereabouts!
There you go, trying to cloud things up again and not talking about data qua data, y’know?
Why don’t you just blow it on out your –
Oh yeah? Only thing blowing around here is your gale-force load of positivist collectivist swamp-gas-smellin’ breeziness –
Oh yeah? Well you’re a tsunami-scale, lying, not-from-around-here skunk!
What’s a skunk? You’re a rising-tide-level green mamba nancy boy who can’t take it!!
Waaah!
Boohoo!
You and your crowd don’t amount to a fart in a high wind!
Watch out! You may be skating on thin ice there –
Oh, you’re saying we’re running out of ice? Yeah, I thought you were one of them…
No I didn’t. We’re not running out of ice. At least I’m not running out of ice! Or booze either for that matter!
Me neither. (hiccup) Well, I’ll bet you probably voted for Millard Fillmore! You louse!!
I know what type you are! You probably voted for Warren G. Harding, you creep!!
Who the hell were they?
Damned if I know…I went to public school.
Well I didn’t go to public school and I don’t remember them either…
Well, you know, these things tend to go in cycles…
You mean sort of like climate…?
Yeah, like the climate.
Hmm. Maybe you got something there partner. Where’d you say you were from?
I didn’t.
Well we can’t talk any more anyhow…
Why not?
Cause I think that for now we just ran out of ways to use climate to insult each other.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Guess we’ll have to move on. Catch you later.
Later…
Mark S,
Your “unsubstantiated” bit I’m not understanding at all. The University isn’t denying all three are being tossed simultaneously by sheer coincidence and in fact they refuse to comment on such. What they will say is they aren’t a malicious bunch which flies directly in the face of “nothing to see here”. Have you even attended a courtroom before and not that fallacy shown on the glass teat? My father would have called this probable cause for investigation and once they start turning over rocks, without the cover of a Democrat power monopoly as has existed in America for the past 2 years, it’ll open up a mass grave. Trust me. The Canadian Conservatives under Brian Mulroney’s power monopoly did exactly the same thing and when it all came to light, that PC party was burned badly.
I’m certain if I evicted one minority, you couldn’t possibly have anything to legitimately say but if its three apartments I’m clearing, I’d expect having to answer for it. This is also such a case and the AGW political connection makes it doubly so for Andrew to be interested. Very interested. Most people’s weakness is found within their children and any culling of ideals starts therein.
My error at 5:43 AM on 8 March, reading:
.
…should have read:
.
Post in haste, repent at leisure.
To Hobo,
Unlike you, I did not find Dr. Robinson’s performance on the Rachel Maddow Show particularly impressive. Indeed I thought he did not answer many of her legitimate questions (such as the issue of his view on the handling of radioactive materials). Further, my research on Dr. Robinson (and the famous “Oregon Petition”) is less favorable than the glowing bio you provide. The following link provides a bio that is closer in my opinion to reality.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Note that his relationship with Dr. Pauling turned very sour and the Institute he founded, with its impressive title, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a small staff with very modest assets. From what I can ascertain the Institute did push the premise that “the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated”. So I don’t know why Dr. Robinson was so evasive on Maddow’s show when she raised this issue.
By the way, I would be very surprised if the faculty in the nuclear program at OSU lean toward the left. Also there are other inconsistencies in the statement by Dr. Robinson that bother me. However, as I have said already, I think a full investigation needs to be carried out into these allegations.
Robert E. Phelan says:
March 8, 2011 at 6:54 am
This may sound a little harsh, but I have to laugh at the non-Americans who post here expecting America and Americans to somehow be “better” then bemoan that we are not more like them. Johanna, above, seems to think that political values are somehow separable from the moral fiber of the individual. CAGW was never about science but rather is a struggle for souls. Those who refuse to see that likely sold their souls long ago.
——————————————————————
There you go again. Political values define a person’s integrity. You need to get out more, if you truly believe this. There are plenty of nutcases and sleazebags, and good people with whom I disagree, right across the political spectrum, in my decades of experience working in political environments with people who have all kinds of different views.
Suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your views ‘likely sold their souls long ago’ typifies the approach that makes it hard for people to change their minds on this issue. Few people want to align themselves with a bunch of slavering attack dogs.
charles the moderator,
This is a huge mistake, with all due respect.
WND is not a credible organization. And no, the fact that some guy named “Art” said it happened isn’t sufficient either.
Proof, please. Because I’m a WUWT supporter, and this reduces your credibility even in my eyes.
I’m certain I’m not the only one who feels that way.
Christoph
johanna says (March 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm): “Few people want to align themselves with a bunch of slavering attack dogs.”
Bwahahahaha! Good one, johanna!
Oh, wait, she’s serious?
I apologize for addressing my last comment to charles the moderator. I conflated this post with the other I was reading in another tab. I should have addressed it to Anthony, of course.
Still, I stand by what I said. WND lost credibility in my eyes years ago, despite it being largely how I discovered American conservative politics. At some point, though, I realized that a shocking percentage of stories WND pushed were inflammatory BS — emphasis on the “BS” part.
D. Malloy Dickson
March 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Thanks for brightening my cloudy day 🙂
D. Malloy Dickson (March 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm), thanks, I have saved your zingers for future use. 🙂
In defense of WorldNetDaily (WND), in general, I would suggest that one must tiptoe intellectually and cross check information independently, never dismissing “conspiracies” out of hand.
In the mid-1990’s I fell through an intense investigative rabbit hole studying about the death of Vince Foster and the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. Foster was murdered and, although I have suspicions about why, I do not know who. The OKC bombing was, simplistically, a sting operation with the BATF and the FBI unknowingly trying to lure each other into a crime.
Neither fact is hard to independently confirm, yet the MSM — and most conservatives as well — refused not only to conduct independent investigations, they regurgitated the government line in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or ignored the stories.
I experienced terrifying intellectual dissonance, trusting myself and my ability to evaluate information, yet never reading anything except snarky, dismissive asides in the MSM.
I finally went to DC and met Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, now the brilliantly analytical intl business editor for the London Telegraph, who wrote a compelling (but mis-titled) book about Foster’s death and the bombing. Hugh Sprunt’s “Citizen’s Independent Report” about Foster’s death is still downloadable and great reading for Baker Street irregulars. There’s much more for those willing to do their own thinking.
Joseph Farah of WND was around then with a magazine, Media Bypass, (badly edited) with a mix of crazy stuff and religious rants — as well as some informational diamonds.
Today, I don’t care where Obama was born, but, yeh, I don’t think it’s straightforward, simple. Do I believe the World Trade Center bldgs dropped like perfectly controlled implosions? There’s more to that story than we are being told, but I’m unwilling to devote time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Once upon a time, I was content to stop thinking when the squeaky clean, blue ribbon Warren Commission assured me that JFK was killed by a lone gunman with his “magic bullet:” “don’t look; nothing to see here.”
Hugh Sprunt lacked the now ubiquitous internet as well as the decade long tenacity of Steve McIntyre, but he is every bit as smart – and correct about the “facts.” WND (and a handful of other “conspiracy” sites) should not be dismissed out of hand, casually. ………Lady in Red
I think I just posted a comment that got lost in spam.
Pls retrieve it. ….Lady in Red
Reply: Please don’t clutter the board with requests such as this. If it’s there it would eventually get fished out with or without you asking. ~ ctm
Write the Daily Emerald Oregon paper, too. They seem to be oblivious to this.
http://www.dailyemerald.com
johanna says:
March 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm
There you go again. Political values define a person’s integrity.
Johanna, I’m going to ignore the “slavering attack dog” put-down/slur and try to explain something that I’m pretty sure you will be unable to understand, but which I’m willing to attempt at least once (keeping in mind the Chinese proverb “Who can discuss the snow and ice of winter with the insects of summer?”).
First, I did not equate political position with “integrity”. Many whom I would describe as enemies scrupulously live by the principles which they openly espouse. Bolsheviks, monarchists, Khmer Rouge, Taliban, National Socialists, creationists, atheists, apartheidists and racists of every hue and description can have integrity, but that does not mean that their principles are not repugnant, wrong and down-right evil. A person’s politics are of a piece with his views on the nature of man, society, earth and nature and the eternal and all of his perceptions pass through these filters. Neo-Malthusians like Erlich, Holdren, GLOBE Int’l, The Club of Rome and the CAGW crowd may hold their beliefs sincerely, but the notions that man is a pestilence on the earth, that his greed, selfishness and short-sightedness are the source of all evil and must be controlled by an enlightened elite toiling for the good of all are an abomination. This is not something to be compromised with.
CAGW is not about the science, it is about whether humans everywhere will be able to live in dignity, make their own decisions, control their own lives and destinies and be free to reach for the stars. It’s an American thing. You wouldn’t understand.
W. Falicoff says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm
W,
You can disagree about who came off better on the maddow show, it probably indicates ones leanings. Anyone who thinks MSNBC or Maddow is going to give a republican candidate a fair shake before the election, is definately left leaning. She tried to ambush him with out of context things he wrote many years ago is what i gathered from the show.
The sprinkling of radioactive material on the oceans probably came from his study of hormesis, in which studies have shown that higher levels of background radiation have good effects on the body. (I know nothing much about it). That may have been the context.
As far as the site you provide, sounds a bit left leaning. A quick look at what they say about “an inconvenient truth” may give one a clue. You and WUWT be the judge.
“An Inconvenient Truth” is promoted as offering “a passionate and inspirational look at one man’s fervent crusade to halt global warming’s deadly progress in its tracks by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it. That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on a last-ditch, all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his ‘traveling global warming show,’ Gore also proves himself to be one of the most misunderstood characters in modern American public life. Here he is seen as never before in the media – funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our ‘planetary emergency’ out to ordinary citizens before it’s too late.”
No mention of the fact the movie has been proven to be mostly fiction or controverial in any way. Which way do you think that site leans?
HOBO
Robert E Phelan said:
A person’s politics are of a piece with his views on the nature of man, society, earth and nature and the eternal and all of his perceptions pass through these filters. Neo-Malthusians like Erlich, Holdren, GLOBE Int’l, The Club of Rome and the CAGW crowd may hold their beliefs sincerely, but the notions that man is a pestilence on the earth, that his greed, selfishness and short-sightedness are the source of all evil and must be controlled by an enlightened elite toiling for the good of all are an abomination. This is not something to be compromised with.
CAGW is not about the science, it is about whether humans everywhere will be able to live in dignity, make their own decisions, control their own lives and destinies and be free to reach for the stars. It’s an American thing. You wouldn’t understand.
—————————————————————–
Robert, when you say ‘it’s an American thing’, you appear to believe that nobody else on the planet, or in recorded history, has any comprehension of, or commitment to, personal liberty – except Americans who share your particular views as of today.
While I cordially abhor the Poms when it comes to cricket and rugby, a few chaps like John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke did scratch out a few thoughts on these issues long before you were born. In England.
Questions about the autonomy of the individual versus the group have been argued for thousands of years, mostly in non-US countries, which is hardly surprising as the US was not even in existence for most of those debates. But hey – what would those furriners know!
I think that the Christian doctrine – hate the sin, not the sinner – is also apposite here.
If you really believe that a subset of the US population has a worldwide, pan historic, monopoly on truth, or integrity, then there is no point in arguing with you. But, I repeat, it is attitudes like yours that inhibit people from leaving the CAGW camp.
KVAL News asked Robinson what proof he has of the university discriminating against his children.
“I don’t have definitive proof,” Robinson said. “That is what I believe. Basically, I know what happened. I cannot tell you the motives of the people doing it.”
http://www.kval.com/news/local/117619993.html
—————————————————————-
Why would “skeptics” want proof when there is a chance to smear academics?
Apropos my earlier comment about the MSM gaming stories and facts, this filmed interview by a “just-put-on-administrative-leave” NPR executive about NPR’s refusal to cover the conflicting science about global warming (because “we” all know the answer) but only to cover the issue’s politics (so your congressman knows there are crazies out there) is a perfect example of a generalized, demonize-the-arguments with scorn and derision mentality. Most people will trust NPR and MSM and never, ever, think for themselves.
http://www.breitbart.tv/more-npr-video-we-only-cover-global-warming-deniers-as-political-story-not-scientific-story/
Always, and whatever: think! ….Lady in Red
Ian H. You published a death threat against the Governor of Wisconsin in the comments above.
Johanna:
You are probably a nice lady but I was sure you wouldn’t understand and you don’t. You’ve made quite a few erroneous assimptions about what I believe… and it would be a sucker.s bet to wager that my knowledge and understanding of intellectual history is any less than yours. You might be surprised to discover just how much the American experience shaped and inspired those Utilitarian thinkers. Read de Tocqueville and you’ll begin to get a glimmer of American Exceptionalism. Read Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish and you’ll get an idea of what the stakes are today.
Maybe they mooned the dean.
PS: He probably deserved it.