The Winner of the Iowa Caucus is...

Despite President Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican"), the infighting among the GOP presidential candidates as voting for in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary draws near, while profoundly disappointing, is perhaps to be expected. It is also getting boring, which is why most ordinary Americans find themselves disengaged from politics with good reason. The negatives ads that the GOP rivals are dropping on each other in Iowa are only a warmup for what the Obama reelection campaign a.k.a. the mainstream media will dish out in the fall.

But the vitriolic comments on the various right-of-center blogs (and sometimes on TV) have been unbelievable. Perhaps some are paid trolls from the opposition, but the hostility to Candidate A by someone who supports Candidate B (or C, D, or E) seems way out of bounds.  Express a preference for one candidate--that's great, go for it, knock yourself out--but hysterical diatribes are something else again.

And to what end? Granted this roster of candidates is far from A-list perhaps. The GOP has a strong roster of governors but unfortunately none of them are ready for this particular cycle. That's the reality. But once there is an official nominee, that person will be vested by default with a certain amount of stature. [As an aside, in an odd way it's kind of like a title switch in pro wrestling from back in the heyday of the 80s and 90s. Suddenly the challenger who "won" the belt (promoters call it "dropping the strap") who might have been viewed as a "jobber" or also-ran becomes elevated to the top of the card.]

Aren't most politicians full of it to a greater or lesser degree? That being said, to rescue the country from socialism and crony capitalism, one has unify around and to vote for whoever the Republicans eventually nominate, despite the flaws of that particular person. It's that simple. If you believe in personal freedom and economic freedom, the stakes are just too high.

Please remember, when you cast a presidential ballot, you're not just voting for one man or woman. You are voting for hundreds/thousands of officials who will carry out the president's policies. Does anyone want Obama to have four additional years, for example, to appoint radical leftists to the federal courts, let alone the Supreme Court?

A commenter on the InstaPundit blog put it well:

You know, I just wish that my friends on the Right—whom all say that they detest the policies of Barack Obama and his supporters—would just soldier their way through this next election. I’m afraid they will sit it out, in a electoral fit of pique because the nominee isn’t conservative enough or is too conservative or whatever.

After we get this gang (and I use that word intentionally) out of the Oval Office, then, my friends on the Right can form their Third Party, or push a candidate that they feel is “conservative enough” and so forth.

2012 is too important. And sitting out the election, or carping about a particular candidate…well, it just makes Axelrod smile. And it smooths the path not toward “Four More Years,” but “Four Worse Years.”

Along these similar lines, Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr is right on target in addressing dissatisfaction with the record of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown who only voted with the GOP leadership 75% of the time:

Next year is going to be a tough fight. Would you prefer someone who’s with you 75 percent of the time ... or 3 percent?

 And now the moonbats have settled on one of their own. Professor Elizabeth Warren is just so ... perfect. She’s a carpetbagger, from Oklahoma. And she teaches at (prepare to swoon) Harvard Law School. Yes, the home of Obama, Kagan and Patrick. What could possibly go wrong?

 You know that she bragged about providing the “intellectual foundations” to the filthy Occupy vermin who defecated on New York City police cars. More recently she said, “I don’t want to go to Washington to be a co-sponsor of some bland little bill nobody cares about.”

Nobody except the person who asks you to write a letter to the U.S. Naval Academy on behalf of their son. Or who needs some help getting Social Security for their aunt.

 This state already has one preening narcissist in the Senate. Do we really need another legend-in-her-own-mind limousine liberal?

 I know, it’s early, but all you Brown haters, be careful what you wish for. Do you really want six years of buyer’s remorse?

Appeals Court Reinstates Political Discrimination Lawsuit

As we mentioned in a prior post about James Franco, adjunct or part-time college faculty (i.e., without tenure or job security) usually have to navigate a public relations minefield in terms of student evaluations to make sure their contracts get renewed.

Getting a college teaching job (and especially qualifing for a full-time or tenured positon) often requires a strong publishing track record, but there's a Catch-22 in relation to political ideology: Try getting hired or promoted in academia if you have right-of-center publications or activity. In general, fuggedaboutit.

So anyone who supports the First Amendment should applaud the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit for reinstating a political discrimination case for trial in federal district court.

As a result of the appellate panel's ruling, Teresa Wagner "who alleges she was denied a job at the University of Iowa College of Law because of her conservative politics can proceed with a discrimination lawsuit against the school’s former dean," The Wall Street Journal reports.

Wagner, a registered Republican and known social conservative, was a part-time instructor at the college's Writing Resource Center who was turned down for a full-time gig despite apparently having the appropriate credentials and recommendations. A lower court judge had dismissed the case but the appeals court determined that there was enough of a dispute over whether then law school dean Carolyn Jones “would have made the same hiring decisions in the absence of Wagner’s political affiliations and beliefs” to put the case back on the trial docket.

According to the On Brief blog, there is only one registered Republican among the 50 faculty members at Iowa's law school.

Justice Department: Vote Early, Vote Late, Vote Often

In daily life, we in general have to assume good faith in our transactions with others, otherwise as a practical matter we'll be consumed with doubt and unable to get things done.

But can anyone attribute good faith to th U.S. Justice (so-called) Department?

The latest outrage is that DOJ rejected South Carolina's voter ID law on the basis of alleged "racial disparities" according to Assistant AG Thomas Perez. Relying on the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the agency will likely block similar measures recently enacted in other states.

This phony-baloney decision really amounts to the DOJ under Eric Holder simply wanting to make vote rigging and vote fraud easier just in time for the 2012 presidential election. Again, as we have mentioned previously, if you need to show a picture ID for mundane activities such as getting on a plane, buying booze or cigarettes, picking up a package at UPS or the Post Office, or in some cases completing a credit card transaction, why in the world should any reasonable person oppose showing a driver's license or other valid photo identification at the polls? And isn't it an insult to any individual or group to assume that they can't get it together to obtain a photo ID?

Presenting a picture ID at the polls was "endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot," the WSJ adds.

The DOJ action based on make-believe discrimination defies common sense. But it comes from the same fantasy world federal government that fails to enforce immigration law but sues states that do.

Earlier this week (before the South Carolina decision was announced, although the handwriting was on the wall), The Wall Street Journal decried Holder's use of the race card to oppose voter ID in a recent speech:

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional....

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.

Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn't produce a single eligible voter who'd been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.

Texas is apparently next on the chopping block. DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams recommends that "The way to save Texas voter ID is to withdraw the objection, immediately, and file in federal court on Tuesday.  The way to save South Carolina voter ID is to file in court immediately.  Stop wasting time with the corrupt leftist bureaucrats at the Justice Department."

Hopefully South Carolina, Texas, and other similar situated states will immediately use all the legal means at their disposal to overturn the DOJ bureaucracy.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Chris Christie Schools Mika Brzezsinki on Liberal Bias

Although the payroll tax cut debate is (for now) moot, America's Governor, Chris Christie, staged an intervention for Obama worshipper Mika Brzezsinki on Morning Joe on Tuesday.

Brzezsinki is hardly the only "journalist" in the media that defines compromise as caving to the Democrats and the administration, however.

Does anyone know why Christie watches this lame show every day?

Fesitivus for the Rest of Us...

Happy Festivus!
 

Surveillance Video: Alleged Copper Thief Takes Fall

Copper thievery seems to be a crime wave in America. A Miami police official told local media that "copper theft has become a major national security and public safety issue."

The Coalition Against Copper Theft explains:

Since commodity prices for copper have more than doubled in the past two years, the theft of copper from telephone lines, electrical substations, highway infrastructure and residential homes has grown exponentially. A conservative estimate by the Department of Energy indicates copper wire theft costs this nation almost $1 billion per year. More importantly is the human cost with a clear and definitive link between stealing copper and illegal drug use, primarily methamphetamines.

In this Miami school surveillance video, a burglar falls about 25 feet in his attempt to cop some coppper. The suspect, who crawled away from the scene, is still at large.

Wisconsin Teacher Threatened for Speaking Out

A Wisconsin teacher who exercised her First Amendment rights to support Scott Walker and oppose the attempt to unseat him in the recall effort is being harassed and threatened by union operatives using "Saul Alinsky" tactics:




BigGovernment.com notes the irony: "We could have sworn we recently read something about teachers unions in various states working to curb school bullying. Apparently they don’t practice what they preach."

The sky actually didn't fall after Walker's modest collective bargaining reforms went into effect: