Call her "Professor Prejudice"
Iowa ivory tower intolerance

"First, voting for a candidate for president simply because she is a woman is a perfectly legitimate position."
- Sara Mitchell, Univ. of Iowa political science professor

That half-baked and hateful philosophical vomit was issued in the unfortunate academic's 1/22 Des Moines Register essay, "Why voting for a female president really matters."

And of course, such puerile claptrap is easily undone: Casting one's ballot for or against candidates based upon racial, religious, or gender considerations is flatly contrary to the ideal of individual merit carrying the day in democratic competition.

But, doubtless, sorry endorsers of Professor Prejudice's electoral bigotry would charge that the merit argument assumes historical equality and a 'level playing field' that in actuality never existed. Hence, they might further posit, the need for "marginalized communities" to vote identity interests.

In that thinking, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina are interchangeable. Elizabeth Warren and Phyllis Schlafly are indistinguishable.

I believe that ideas individuals have embraced and advocate, not relatively trivial, external identities they never authored, are the truest, most important determinants in elections and, yes, in life.

The alternative is separate drinking fountains.

Hold your hood high, Professor Prejudice.



(An earlier version of this piece misquoted the Register essay. That error has been corrected.)

She laughed: Remembering Hillary's original sin

Much focus of late has been on Bill Clinton's decades of alleged sexual predations and claims that Hillary enabled them by attacking victims and engineering cover ups.

Donald Trump cited these to cast doubts on Hillary's "woman card" campaign-trail playing. Bill did pay a settlement, and admit to a White House affair with 23 year-old intern Monica Lewinsky

Hillary quickly fell silent on the women matter, following Trump's words. And the recent reemergence of rape-accuser Juanita Broaddrick as a public voice ensures the subject continued visibility.

But I believe attention should also be accorded an incident that flickered briefly in the media, but was wrongly forgotten.

In 1975, the same year she was to marry Bill, 27 year-old Hillary Clinton was running the University of Arkansas legal aid clinic. In that capacity, she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor; the 41 year-old factory worker was accused of luring a 12 year-old girl into his car and raping her.

According to reports by the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton attacked the girl as regularly "looking for older men." fantasizing, and being emotionally unstable.

Hillary's was the usual 'slut, nut' courtroom character assassination tactic feminists and victims' advocates usually decry. 

I don't dispute that defense attorneys are obligated to provide the best cases for their clients without regard for personal opinions of actual guilt. The burden is rightly on the state to prove its allegation.

Hillary ultimately won Taylor a brief sentence, using a technicality to avoid admittance of bloody underwear of his that police had uncovered subsequent to the alleged crime. (She was personally convinced of Taylor's guilt, though he did pass a pre-trial lie detector test she'd arranged. She would later laugh that her belief in lie detectors' validity had ended with that.)

Now, if Hillary's campaign-trail claims of sympathy for victims were real, though she would in 1975 have carried out her legal obligation to the best of her ability, she would in later years be ashamed of her role.

But she wasn't.

In a June 2014 report (http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/) the Free Beacon told of a previously-unknown audio tape. It dated "from 1983 - 1987" -- years after the Taylor case had gone through trial.

(The Free Beacon advised readers "Her comments on the rape trial are part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-80s." The tape is embedded in the link above,)

On it, the site noted, Clinton conceded she had believed Taylor guilty, and admitted using a technicality to aid him in getting a reduced sentence. And, according to the Free Beacon, Hillary laughs at several points, recalling the police lab's inadvertent destruction of DNA evidence.

This, to me, is the important point: Hillary Clinton found her pivotal role in aiding a defendant she herself believed to be guilty of committing a sex crime against a 12 year-old girl to be humorous years after the fact.

She didn't feel remorseful. She didn't express any regret, or sympathy for the child victim.

She laughed.

Des Moines Register vs Iowa:
Trump Hate Begets Ugly Bedfellows

Remember Liz Mair? 

The Des Moines Register apparently now favors her, despite tweeted slurs of Iowa that resulted in Mair's last year's dismissal from the now-defunct Scott Walker effort.

What a difference a little time and a lot of shared prejudice has made. Besides, Mair is no longer affiliated with any Republican candidate, and is a vocal (if feckless) opponent of Trump. So, in Register columnist Jennifer Jacob's eyes, apparently, Mair is suddenly a reputable source. 

In her 1/17 column, "Attack! Why next two weeks could get nastier than ever" (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/16/attack-why-next-2-weeks-could-get-nastier-than-ever/78893360/), Jacobs quoted Mair to make a case against Trump's electoral viability. Without mentioning those inconvenient, unpleasant anti-Iowa tweets:

"Morons across America are astounded to learn that people from Iowa grow up rather government-dependent #agsubsidies #ethonol #brainless," Mair had tweeted on January 22, 2015. Two days later, she wrote, "The sooner we remove Iowa's frontrunning status, the better off America's politics and policy will be."

At that time, Jacobs wrote critically in her Register column of Mair's tweets; in fact, I've quoted them from that very column.

I understand Trump has criticized the Des Moines Register's coverage and ethics. And that the paper has seemingly pressed its every resource into action against him. Reporters, editors, columnists -- even cartoon and letter to the editor selections -- are unfailingly hostile to him.

But the paper is now quoting Liz Mair's anti-Trump animus without reminding Iowa readers of her tweets against the state, its caucuses, and its residents?

This dirtiness reinforces Trump's characterization of many political reporters as "dishonest."

CMNBC is reporting that before tonight's Clinton/Sanders face-off, Martin O'Malley will be featured in a one-man undercard debate.

Cruz doesn't get America
We Are One People

During Thursday night's South Carolina debate, Ted Cruz sneered that Donald Trump has "New York values," ones South Carolinians, he implied, understood to be alien and inimical to their own interests.

I was most reminded of when 1960s Freedom Riders from Northern regions traveled to the South to aid voter registration. Scattered voices then decried "outsiders," and "New York agitators."

Tellingly, the Cruz campaign is pursuing that regionally divisive scheme. Politico on 1/15 quoted Cruz surrogate Charlie Condon, former South Carolina attorney general. 

Of Trump, Condon said, "He's against traditional values. He's New York, and he's got to talk about that."

Whether we hail from the North, South, East, West -- or Midwest, which includes my home state of Iowa -- we are all Americans. We are one. 

Attack any of us, and you've attacked all of us.

Ted Cruz apparently doesn't get that. That's his problem; it needn't be ours.

Racial mythopoeia at the Des Moines Register 

In her 1/9 "6 things to watch for at the Black and Brown forum," Jennifer Jacobs blithely passes on a fiction beloved by Black Lives Matter-riding liberals for its political facility. 

"A string of deaths of black Americans at the hands of law enforcement dating to the 2014 killing of an unarmed black teenager by a white officer in Ferguson, Mo., has called attention to festering tensions between minority communities and police."

Criminal thug Michael Brown had, according to an Obama/Eric Holder Department of Justice investigation, violently attacked officer Darren Wilson -- then seated in his patrol car. Brown reached in, punching Wilson and grabbing for his service revolver, forensic investigators concluded. Gunpowder residue was found on Brown's hand.

Wilson fired in self-defense; he was cleared of wrongdoing allegations.

None of which is mentioned by Jacobs, the Register's Chief Political Reporter. Like the willfully deceitful agitators who confected the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" lie, Jacobs ladled from the same poisonously phony but politically advantageous sludge well.

Only last Thursday night, Philadelphia officer Jesse Hartnett -- like Wilson, sitting in his cruiser -- was assaulted by Edward Archer. Thrusting a pistol into Hartnett's window, Archer fired, attempting to execute the policeman.

Miraculously, Hartnett did not die. He was able to give chase, and wounded the fleeing assailant.

Archer later told authorities he had done it "in the name of Islam."

If her Michael Brown/Darren Wilson revisionism is any indication, the Register's Jacobs will one day misrepresent the recent Philadelphia assassination attempt as only "a white officer shooting a black suspect from behind."

Call a crime a crime.
MSM/pols cover for Clintons, attack victims and Trump

After Hillary Clinton attacked Donald Trump as "sexist" for several remarks he had made, the billionaire Republican candidate declared Bill Clinton's sordid past -- and Hillary's own role in routinely enabling it and viciously attacking her husband's alleged victims -- to be a legitimate campaign 2015 topic. 

The response to Trump's declaration from liberal politicos and their shills in the mainstream media showed their insensitivity and insincerity on this important matter.

"We have more things to worry about than Bill Clinton's sex life." 
Bernie Sanders, ABC's This Week 1/3.

"You say you're going to make us great again. Is part of making us great again getting down in the weeds with Bill Clinton and his sex life?"
- CNN New Day's Chris Cuomo, to Donald Trump 1/4.

"Sex life?"

Sexual harassment is not a legitimate, personal "sex life" matter. It is a crime, and the public has a right to know about it - just as we have the right to any other criminal or public records information. 

That is so for elected officials like Bill Clinton just as for any of the rest of us under the law.

Contrary to the implied assertions of Sanders, Cuomo, et al, victims of sexual harassment are hardly willing participants in their victimizers' "sex lives." They deserve relief, respect, and recognition as wronged individuals - not callous smears, winking euphemisms, and partisan disregard.

Even ostensibly consensual political office extramarital affairs are problematic in several ways: They cannot be known as fully consensual, given the inherent power imbalance between boss and employee. They can involve misuse of public funds. And, of course, such open up an elected figure to potential blackmail.

These are things the public has every right to know about, that we can make subsequent voting decisions accordingly.

Again, Bill Clinton's seamy offenses are of relevance in the 2015 nomination campaign due to candidate Hillary's enabling them and attacking his victims.

Sexual harassment, assault, and rape are crimes. They are not part of Bill Clinton's private "sex life," and should not be given a pass by Sanders, Cuomo, and other Hillary supporters.

Trump and Nader not 

so opposite          

  

by DC Larson                    

         

Legendary citizens' rights activist Ralph Nader and 

globally influential business titan Donald Trump 

might seem miles apart.

But I believet that in fundamental ways, they are not.

In 2004, I was Nader's paid Iowa coordinator. And in 

2000 and 2008, I volunteered for his third party and 

independent presidential campaigns. I also co -

founded the Iowa Green Party and served as its 

state Media Coordinator. I left the Greens in 2004 

to work for the independent Nader campaign.

I am proud of those efforts to open up the democratic 

process to more ideologically diverse citizen 

representation. 

Today, I support Republican nomination candidate Donald 

Trump. I will be caucusing for him here in Iowa, and only recently 

changed my registration from "independent" to "Republi -

can" for that very purpose.

I am motivated by the same reverence for long -

established Constitutional principles and safeguards 

that inspired my earlier toil for Nader. 

(Ralph Nader appreciates Trump's potential to disrupt the 

two-party status quo, I understand, though he himself 

does not endorse Trump's candidacy. Both men decry a 

major party structure that seeks through rule manipu -

lations and outright anti-voter actions to stifle genuine, 

meaningful citizen participation in government -- more on 

that, later. )

In advocating their causes, Nader and Trump each 

depend on the same Constitution as legal flooring. Both 

cite established Constitutional principles like national 

sovereignty and defending citizen liberty. 

Nader opposed the authority wielded by the World Trade 

Organization, that globally-oppressive, shadowy, and 

democratically unaccountable group that was empowered 

to rule over nations' locally passed environmental and 

workplace laws. 

Nader had for decades defended citizens against predatory 

corporate practices. He later turned that same public-interest 

spotlight on the major parties' indifference to citizen welfare and 

their lock on the electoral process. That last instantly enraged 

a Democrat Party that had long celebrated him. The icon was 

immediately ostracized, even falsely blamed for the 2000 

election's outcome.

Then, following the 2004 election, it was revealed that an 

under the table, state-by-state 'Stop Nader' scheme had 

been cooked up by Democrats at the national level. Across 

the country (including here in Iowa), nuisance suits were 

filed challenging Nader's ballot access. Their actual purpose 

was to drain his campaign of both funds and energies, 

and to stifle his independent voice.

We see today similar anti-public interest skullduggery as 

fading GOP dinosaurs and their news media cohorts join 

forces to kneecap not only Trump but his supporters and the 

very notion of stepping out of status quo formation.

Donald Trump challenges the ruling beltway party /

mainstream media machine that wheezes its dusty 

dictums at distant remove from actual American 

citizens. For evidence of that yawning divide, consider 

that national polls uniformly place Trump far ahead of 

his competitors despite the political press belittling and 

even vilifying Trump and his supporters at every 

opportunity.

Indeed, in reading recently of the establishment GOP 

(John Sununu, Bill Kristol, George Will, South Carolina 

Governor Nikki Haley) mounting attacks on the populist 

Trump campaign, and even organizing efforts to 

challenge his ballot status in some states, I am 

reminded of the Democrats' 2004 anti-Nader 

efforts.

One today reads of state Republican organizations 

seeking to challenge Trump's ballot status, and of the 

Virginia GOP effort to require primary voters to sign 

party 'loyalty oaths.' 

In his 2002 "Crashing the Party," Nader wrote, "In no 

Western democracy are the hurdles for candidates to 

access the ballot anywhere near as high as ours." 

For his part, Trump tweeted recently of the Virginia anti -

voter shenanigans, "It begins. Republican Party of 

Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow 

independent, unaffiliated, and new voters. BAD!"

Two other parallels: Both Nader and Trump opposed the 
George W. Bush administration's Iraq invasion. (I
was part of a pre-invasion bus caravan to Washington, DC
that joined some half-million marching through that city, 
urging against invasion.)

And each man has decried the unpatriotic motives that

lead American corporations' to relocate in foreign lands. 

Now, I have evolved a bit since my time working for 

Ralph Nader. While I still hold firm to the ideals that 

drove me, I've come to appreciate that without vigorously 

maintained and fiscally blooming national sovereignty, 

desired advancements are without guarantee. 

I understand, too, that national patriotism is not a 

negative, but a natural, healthy component of the public 

interest. Pride in one's country and concern for those 

genuinely in need are not at all mutually exclusive. 

It is entirely appropriate for Americans to be proud of 

national accomplishments, strengths, and ideals. To see 

the glass as half full and not half empty. To acknowledge 

historic mistakes and shortcomings, but to remember 

that such are deviations from our shared noble arc, and 

hardly define us. 

And that for any justice for American citizens to be 

meaningful, citizenship status must be clearly, legally 

defined, and not simply doled out indiscriminately.

America has traditionally been a force for justice in the 

world, a beacon of light. If it were otherwise, millions 

would not seek to live here. 

Donald Trump wants to return our country to a global 

position of unassailable strength and respect. And I will 

be as proud caucusing for him as I was endeavoring for 

Nader.

Formerly of Marshalltown, Waterloo's DC (David) Larson writes 

the retro-styled Eddie Atomic Space Adventure series. He was 

on the staffs of Pin Up America and Rockabilly magazines, and 

accumulated freelance credits including Counterpunch, Goldmine, 

USA Today, Daily Caller, No Depression, the Huffington Post, and 

American Thinker.

This essay appeared in other forms in Iowa papers the Marshalltown

Times-Republican and Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, as well as on
the author's political blog, AmericanSceneMagazine,blogspot.com.