The Chicago government is under fire for taking 13 months to file charges against the officer, even with the video evidence. A lawsuit was filed by a freelance journalist to order the release of video. And the charges were only announced at the deadline set by a judge for the video’s release.
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass noted that McDonald was shot in October 2014, and Emanuel was vying for re-election in the February 2015 vote.
“Rahm sat on the video, and kept sitting on it, all the way through his re-election, as black ministers and other African-American political figures rallied to his side to get out the black vote and deny that vote to Jesus ‘Chuy’ Garcia,” Kass wrote. “If the video had come out during the election campaign, Rahm Emanuel would not be mayor today.”
So Rahm suppressed a potentially career destroying video, and Hillary blamed a video for magically causing the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens while standing over his casket and simultaneously being complicit in suppressing its maker. But really, at this point, for both politicians’ Democratic supporters*, what difference does it make?
* Particularly in the television industry, appropriately enough.
A shocking new poll out on Americans’ growing cynicism about their federal government.
It’s not really surprising that after seven years of an administration of serial liars, empty promises and failed plans, an overwhelming percentage of the public does not trust elected officials, their politics or the government they’re supposed to be running.
What’s really shocking is that 19% of Americans still do.
Nearly one-in-five say they can always or most always trust that Washington crowd. Seriously? Who are these people? Cubs fans? Newly-arrived Martians? Rachel Maddowers?
Do you know five people who swallow everything they hear from the upside-down capital of our nation? How about two? ObamaCare is working really well? ISIS is on the run? The FBI is seriously probing Hillary Clinton’s email scam?
Nineteen percent trusting is actually among the lowest in almost six decades. People even had more trust in Jimmy Carter’s presidency. People had the most trust during the first year of Lyndon Johnson’s sudden presidency. But then came Vietnam and Richard Nixon.
The newest poll from the Pew Research Center is based on 6,000 interviews this fall. It confirms suspicions that most people have felt for some time. Trust in those institutions began sagging during the second term of George W. Bush. But has absolutely cratered during these past 2,499 days of Barack Obama’s hope and change.
Thrush basically has two gaslighting modes when bad news strikes Democrats — explain it away as “badass,” which is he he described Hillary’s now-infamous email server, and bored y’all, which was the mode he switched to when the Obamacare servers blew up in the fall of 2013, and today.
Insidiously and inadvertently, Barack Obama is alienating the people and moving the country to the right. If he keeps it up, by 2017 it will be a reactionary nation. But, counterintuitive as it seems, that is fine with Obama: Après nous le déluge.
And that’s precisely the reaction of his friends at the New Republic, who have discovered an even greater looming threat to mankind than ISIS or global warming — a (wait for it!) Republican White House.
Expect an increasing amount of rhetoric along those lines next year, especially if her operatives with bylines suspect that Hillary just might not have what it takes to make it to electoral nirvana next November.
Clinton, who wants to import thousands of Syrian refugees, told reporters in Reno that it would look bad not to let in Syrian refugees, and that might inflame Muslims against law enforcement.
“If you’re in law enforcement, … you want the people in the communities that you are looking to get information from to feel like they want to help you,” Clinton said at a Nevada roundtable. “And if the message from people who are running for president, for example, is that we don’t want to take any Muslims whatsoever, that’s not good for law enforcement.”
“Let’s not be casting this broad, negative rejection of everybody who might be Muslim. That is not smart to protect ourselves. And I want people to understand — that is a law enforcement issue,” Clinton added.
Translated: We’d better let every Muslim refugee in, otherwise Muslims already present in the U.S. will commit acts of terrorism and other violence. Well, that sounds logical.
Posted at by Elizabeth Price Foley on Nov 24, 2015 at 1:09 pm Link 60 Comments.
It hasn’t always looked like Erich Segal’s classic book, but the Clinton team is promoting “Bill and Hillary’s love story” in a new fundraiser that quotes the Democratic fundraiser calling her hubby, “the best company I know.”
The campaign provides five vintage stories of the couple to promote their love which was tested by Bill Clinton’s adultery with a former White House intern.
Then again, as Madchen Amick said in Dream Lover, “Psychopaths can love people, too.”
Sure he holds himself out as an “objective” journalist, but there are more important issues at stake – when a man’s tossed at least 75K into Hillary’s slush fund, he’s going to do whatever it takes to protect his investment.
The past is another country, wrote E M Forster, and the immediate post-9/11 period was a very different land from today’s America. Here, for example, is bigshot mainstream liberal Jonathan Alter writing in Newsweek (then owned by The Washington Post) that there were Muslim schoolchildren in the New York area who had prior knowledge of 9/11.
But the moment passed, and liberals stopped writing such stories, and then denied such stories had ever been written. And year on year more of the specifics of that day were disappeared – starting with the images of the men and women who hurled themselves from the upper floors of the Twin Towers for the chance to spend their final moments falling through clean, bright sky rather than in that hellish inferno. A soft-focus blur, a generalized sadness, a yellow ribbon or two is all that remains. Yet there were Muslims who cheered 9/11 in Oslo and in Yorkshire, and if like Donald Trump you live in New York City, you would have read and heard similar stories from your own neighborhood.
Many Americans remember images like those below, of Palestinians literally dancing in the streets and handing out candy to celebrate the death of thousands of Americans.
These celebrations did not represent all Arabs or Muslims, but they were certainly not isolated (nor were they confined to Arabs and Muslims; some leftists savored the spectacle as well). The footage caused so much public relations damage to the Palestinian cause that Yasser Arafat faked a blood donation in an attempt to save face.
If there had been celebrations like that in the U.S., they would have drawn instant attention and outrage. As John Hinderaker notes at Powerline, the Washington Post reported on Sep. 18, 2011 that “law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.” That seems to provide at least some basis for Trump’s claim that celebrations happened.
As Mark Steyn concludes his article, “There are two competing narratives here:”
If you loathe Trump, the story is: Trump’s suggestion of terrorist sympathizers among American Muslims is outrageous. But, if you’re minded to support Trump, the story is: Obama’s and Hillary’s and Kerry’s assertion that there are no terrorist sympathizers among Muslims is not only ludicrous but mendacious and deeply weird in its relentless insistence. Glenn Kessler’s “fact-check” confirms the latter.
Until the primary elections play themselves out in the coming months, low-information undecided voters are currently stuck between a choice of two highly flawed candidates leading their respective parties, each a product of years spent cocooned in the New York media bubble and its myopic funhouse mirrors. One made his money in New York real estate, the other through massive contributions from the media and Wall Street (including the Obama enablers at Goldman Sachs). Both in their own way are prone to speak in outrageous hyperbole because they have little fear of serious repercussions from their wild utterances. But as Steyn writes, given a choice between two crazed exaggerations — one where “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims celebrated on September 11th and another where “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” and given our current president’s ongoing escape into fantasyland, who would you count on to keep you safe in the coming years?
But Mrs. Clinton has a striking problem with young voters. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a solid plurality of young voters has a negative view of Mrs. Clinton. She did even worse in a Bloomberg Politics national poll. Here is a result to unnerve her Brooklyn campaign headquarters: Both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton get a 60 percent favorable rating with 18-to-29-year-olds. She gets 35 percent approval and 57 percent unfavorable.
SLOUCHING TOWARD BIDENHEM: Fox Poll: Six Republicans Would Beat Hillary Clinton. “Six GOP presidential candidates would beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, according to a Fox News poll released Sunday. Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) would do best against Clinton, 50 to 42 percent, pollsters found. Billionaire Donald Trump, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would also win hypothetical elections, according to the new poll, taken after more than 100 people were killed and more than 300 others injured in a wave of terrorist attacks in Paris. Clinton and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina would tie with 42 percent each.”
MEET THE PRESS PANEL ACCUSES AMERICANS OF ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA:’
Notice that ISIS does something terrible, and the overwhelming thrust of the conversation on Meet the Press is that the American people have done something wrong and must look inside their hearts and feel guilty over the overwhelming racism and Islamaphobia in their society. “News flash: We’re not the villains here,” Jim Geraghty reminds NBC.
It’s an odd world. Glamour magazine recently named the former Bruce Jenner as its Woman of the Year. In all respectable circles, she is of course now recognized as Caitlyn Jenner, after coming out as a woman. In this context, coming out is simply to be understood as an act of self-declaration. If a person self-identifies as X, Y or Z, then he, she, ze or hir has to be what he, she, ze or hir professes to be. If it’s a nightmare for grammarians, just think of the chaos in biology departments. . . .
This is a Euclidean axiom in the new geometry of gender and progressive thought. Names matter — what people are called, and what they themselves wish to be called, matters greatly. So if Jenner says “call me Caitlyn,” Hillary will not oppose the right-thinking baptism. . . .
ISIL is of course Islamic, and it is radical by any definition of that weary word. The president of France, François Hollande, declared war on radical Islam in the wake of its multiple ambushes on Paris’ defenceless citizens. He recognizes it for what it says it is — radical, Islamic and terroristic.
Yet in a debate on this very subject, Clinton refused to utter the phrase radical Islam, pushed vigorously against the idea of naming Islamic terror for what it is, even though ISIL itself wears its radical Islamist motivations, goals and methods with arrogant pride.
On Jenner’s right to call herself what she wants, Clinton is on board. On a fanatic organization brutalizing the Middle East and exporting terror to the capitals of the world, she declines.
She is one with U.S. President Barack Obama on this — they steadfastly refuse to call our enemies by their name. In other words, when it comes to words and concepts that correspond to unalterable reality, she will deny words their meaning to the point of refusing to say them. But on matters that Glamour magazine takes seriously, on which DNA itself has spoken, Clinton is one with all the buzz factories of trendy thought.
She was, it must be noted, for four years the secretary of state of the most powerful country on Earth, and now wishes to be its president. Heaven help us.
Liberals/progressives defend Islam so vigorously that they insist on qualifying “jihad” with the adjective “radical,” and they refuse to utter the (accurate) phrase “radical Islam.” How ironic that these liberals/progressives–who repeatedly evince an overt hostility to religion, and who wave the banner of “tolerance” in our faces, to the point of aggression–are so deeply committed to defending such intolerant, religiously motivated actions and beliefs.
Posted at by Elizabeth Price Foley on Nov 22, 2015 at 1:01 pm Link 59 Comments.
Say what you will about Dubya, but after Democrats talked Papa Bush into raising taxes, and watching Bill Clinton go into full “you f***ed up, you trusted us” mode by sticking the shiv in during the ’92 campaign in response, he knew enough not to raise taxes. If Jeb’s going to lose the nomination anyhow, apparently he’s decided that he wants to go out full RINO.
Who knows — maybe Hillary will call for the veep position?
Liberal Hollywood men effectively form a secret society that blackballs anyone with more natural estrogen than Caitlyn Jenner from becoming director of a major motion picture.
We learn this from Liberal female columnist Maureen Dowd, writing in the liberal New York Times Magazine. She’s alarmed that less than 2 percent of the top 100 movies boast a female director.
With this and the racism running rampant on both college campuses, and in Hollywood (just ask Spike Lee or the leftwing movie critic in your local paper), why are leftwing enclaves such hotbeds of racism and sexism?
(But given that, as President Obama likes to say, “there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change,” shouldn’t Democrats be working hard to permanently shutter such a non-essential highly energy-dependent industry that’s built on tax breaks for the wealthy?)
Most importantly for Colbert, he’s found a niche in offering what the Jimmys can’t really offer (particularly Fallon): consistent political satire and more substantive interviews with big political guests (his interview with Joe Biden as the vice president openly displayed his inner conflict on running for for president was widely-praised in this space and pretty much everywhere else). But therein lies the rub: most sit-downs with politicians don’t exactly result in riveting television (outliers like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to a lesser extent notwithstanding). And Colbert has shown almost no willingness to hit both sides of the aisle even close to equally… it’s simply not in his DNA.
Consequently, according to a Hollywood Reporter poll just released, Colbert has successfully alienated self-described Republicans who see what’s being offered on a nightly basis and exploring or staying with other options. And with the country as polarized as it is, the host is thereby saying goodbye to half his potential audience, which can’t be a sound business model.
Per The Hollywood Reporter‘s survey of 1000 late-night viewers aged 18-65, only 17 percent of those identified themselves as Republican watch Colbert, while attracting 47 percent of those who identify as Democrats, a 30-point gap. But more liberals watch late-night TV than stuffy, old conservatives, right? Guess again. In Kimmel’s case, the split is 34 percent Democrats, 33 percent Republicans. In Fallon’s case, it’s 36-31 Democrats.
Why so even-keeled? Because Kimmel and Fallon go through great lengths to be apolitical. To equally mock or simply find other props and topics to use for comedy outside of political humor and (oftentimes in Colbert’s case) commentary on how stupid/awful/inept Republicans are. It’s a smart approach if the goal is to reach as broad as audience as possible, something Colbert never cared to achieve going back to his Comedy Central days and The Colbert Report. In character, out of character… Colbert is Colbert. And that’s fine on Comedy Central, even downright expected. But network TV? Not so much…
The ratings result of said approach is now beginning to come to fruition as the bloom comes off the rose ten weeks since his debut.
Who could have seen this coming? Err, lots of people — including me. As I wrote a year and half ago when Colbert was first announced as Letterman’s successor, CBS forgot the lessons of the 1996 HBO movie The Late Shift, based on the best-selling book by the New York Times’ Bill Carter on how NBC forced Johnny Carson’s hand and pushed the increasingly isolated and emotionally brittle king of late night TV into retirement, and chose Jay Leno, rather than Carson’s hand-picked successor David Letterman to replace him:
What particularly makes The Late Shift such an interesting film is that when it was originally shot, it looked like CBS got the better of the deal, with Letterman dominating the ratings. As it turns out, according to the Internet Database:
Subsequent airings after the initial release have added an additional epilogue on how the Hugh Grant interview boosted Jay Leno’s ratings past David Letterman’s.
Thus Littlefield and Agoglia [the NBC executives who chose cheerful lovable Jay Leno over the cranky neurotic David Letterman to replace Carson], despite being portrayed as Machiavellian manipulators on massive scale, end up looking like rather smart guys, in spite of themselves.
* * * * * * * *
Letterman’s retirement would be the perfect time for CBS to find a host to replace who connects with Middle America, the massive audience that Letterman and CBS’s late night division chose to abandon. Instead, by going with Colbert, CBS chose to continue to alienate this large group of viewers. Or worse, “CBS Declares War on Heartland of America,” as Rush Limbaugh said yesterday. “Why would CBS hire such a divisive host who is already failing in Late Night?”, John Nolte pondered yesterday. “All about the left holding on to the culture.”
As I wrote last year, “The early-1990s CBS executives portrayed in The Late Shift left the former ‘Tiffany’ network shortly after hiring Letterman. Too bad their successors seemed determined to live out their predecessor’s mistakes, in a seemingly unending ideological loop.”
As national security becomes a bigger issue in the wake of the attacks in Paris, some Democratic strategists worry the issue could cause troubles for their Senate candidates in 2016 — and women candidates in particular.
Polling shows voters generally view Republicans stronger on national security issues than Democrats. But some Democratic strategists and pollsters add the issue is especially challenging for women, who do better at the ballot box when the economy and social issues are at the top of voters’ minds.
“Voters do look at gender,” said Celinda Lake, a prominent Democratic pollster. “Women do better when people are focused on domestic issues [rather] than foreign policy, on policies that require empathy and being in touch rather than toughness. So terrorism is tough for women and tough for Democrats.”
More than a half-dozen Democratic Senate candidates this cycle are women, some of whom are considered the top recruit in their respective race. And these female candidates’ successes will be essential to whether Democrats can net the five seats necessary to take control of the Senate.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s largest donor, Univision chairman Haim Saban*, said that he believes the government needs to increase its scrutiny of Muslims in the wake of recent terrorist threats to the United States.
The Islamic State “said, ‘We’re going to Paris,’ and they went to Paris. They’re saying they’re now going to Washington. Watch out, they might,” Saban told The Wrap, a publication that covers Hollywood, in a story published Wednesday. “I’m not suggesting we put Muslims through some kind of a torture room to get them to admit that they are or they’re not terrorists. But I am saying we should have more scrutiny.”
Saban also said that he is unsure if the screening process for Syrian refugees, which has taken center stage since last week’s terrorist attack in Paris, can sufficiently minimize the threat of terrorists entering the country by posing as refugees.
“Scrutinize every single individual. There is no data available from Syria. The country is completely in turmoil,” he said. “It’s all a judgment call of the person conducting the interview. So it’s too dangerous.”
*IE, the man who signs Jorge Ramos’ paychecks. Ramos was famously ejected by Donald Trump from a press conference in August when he attempted to grandstand on his favorite subject — unrestricted illegal immigration for all, ironically enough.
ACTUALLY, HER WHOLE CAMPAIGN IS BASED ON THAT PREMISE: Adam Carolla: Hillary Win Will Spark Sexism Protests: “Here will be the shift, everybody … you will watch the nice transition on our nation’s campuses go from the systemic racism to the systemic sexism. That will then become the theme. We can then enjoy … a nice four-year block of that.”
After CNN reporter Noah Gray left “the pen” to document a group of protesters who unveiled a sign reading “Migrant lives matter,” Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski turned to campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks and said: “Hey: Tell Noah, get back in the pen or he’s f—— blacklisted,” according to a recording of the incident.
As Gray went into the crowd to film reaction to the sign, which had already been taken down, Lewandowski confronted him directly: “Inside the pen, or I will pull your credentials. Media goes in the pen.” Lewandowski at first said the order was because of security, but then said: “I’m telling you. I’m telling you. Media stays in the pen.”
In May 2015, The New York Times published a much-discussed two-part story claiming, among other things, that nail salon workers in New York State are routinely exploited—earning wages as low as $10 per day.
Immediately after the first article appeared, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) started a regulatory crackdown on nail salons. The result has been to wreak havoc on this immigrant-dominated industry and to close off employment opportunities for undocumented workers.
And the New York Times story that inspired Cuomo’s crackdown broadly mischaracterized the nail salon industry. Manicurists are skilled employees whose labor is in high demand, and they have a good deal of bargaining power. Some of the men and women the Times reporter spoke with say she misquoted them or misrepresented their businesses.
Click above to watch a short documentary on the New York Times attack on the nail salon industry.
And thus the Gray Lady, hamstrung by its manic support of Hillary and Obama and a raging case of PC (but I repeat myself) has a minor story in which to divert itself from the real news of the day, in much the same way that the Howell Raines-era Times was obsessed with the Augusta National Golf Course in the immediate wake of 9/11.
Hillary Clinton is not well-liked by Colorado women, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
The poll found the former secretary of state trailing each of the top four GOP presidential candidates (Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) by double digits.
Even worse news for Clinton, who is making her womanhood a central part of her campaign and won’t stop reminding people of her gender, is that women in Colorado prefer nearly every top GOP candidate to her.
I think she’ll have trouble making that up with votes from men. . . .
Plus: “Clinton does especially poorly among white women, who went for Carson 52 percent to Clinton’s 42 percent.” Those racists.
THUGGERY: Clinton Goes after Laugh Factory Comedians for Making Fun of Her. “In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club. . . . Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a ‘prominent’ person inside Clinton’s campaign. ‘He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,’ Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up. He insists that the comedy stage is a sanctuary for freedom of speech no matter who is offended. ‘Just last night we had (Emmy-award winner) Dana Carvey doing Donald Trump and it was hilarious,’ Masada said.”
If only our college presidents were as committed to free speech as the owners of comedy clubs.
Which is why in the last decade, the left moved towards weaponizing anyone with the scarlet-R when it suits their purposes – and then forgetting all of their past accusations when political expediency demands it.
Sidney Blumenthal is all over the Benghazi affair. And Ms. Clinton’s long, strange, close relationship to this shadowy and increasingly untrusted figure might just keep her from winning the White House.
Last Friday, the State Department released emails showing that Mr. Blumenthal had reached out to Ms. Clinton on behalf of Jonathan Powell, ex-chief of staff to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Mr. Powell proposed establishing “below the radar” channels between insurgents and governments and making money off of it through an NGO of Mr. Powell’s. Ms. Clinton was receptive to the idea, according to the Daily Caller. When he was at The New Yorker, Mr. Blumenthal wrote an ass-kissing profile of Mr. Blair in which he called his subject, among other things, a man of “impeccable Oxford diction.”
Tina Brown, who hired Mr. Blumenthal at The New Yorker because he was close to the Clintons, later allegedly canned him for being too close to the Clintons.
To cite another striking example, Mr. Blumenthal sent then-Secretary of State Ms. Clinton reports on the political situation in Libya written by a former senior CIA officer, the recently deceased Tyler Drumheller. Those reports, which Mr. Blumenthal emailed to her in 2011 and 2012, apparently were intended to influence American policy toward Libya in a way favorable to a business project with which Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Drumheller were involved.
Congress is coming under intense pressure to block the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States following the deadly terrorist assault on Paris.
A wave of opposition to the refugees quickly formed on Monday, with Republican presidential hopefuls and more than a dozen governors warning that the humanitarian effort is a threat to national security.
With the administration suggesting that states might not have the power to refuse the refugees, the issue is moving quickly into the congressional arena.
Republican White House hopeful, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) should either “reject the importation of those fleeing the Middle East” or resign, while Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), another presidential candidate, proposed legislation that would impose an “immediate moratorium on visas for refugees” from countries with “jihadist movements.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another White House hopeful, said he will be introducing legislation that would ban all Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.
“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash.
“I have to say, particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”
With the calls for action mounting, GOP leaders could move to hold a vote on the refugee question before the Thanksgiving break, less than a week after the shocking slaughter in Paris.
Obama will probably veto it, but that won’t be good for the Dems’ 2016 prospects.
Just a little difference: Italian fascism had no ideological affinity with Catholicism. To the contrary, it was rooted in notions of the revival of the Roman Empire of the Caesars. In contrast, you can’t spell ISIS without “Islamic.” To say that we are at war with radical Islam is simply to acknowledge the manifest truth. For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to deny it is dangerous.
Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).
Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman’” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).
But other than that, totally nailed it once again, Chris.
If you believe, as progressives do, that human nature is not fixed, and hence is not a basis for understanding natural rights. And if you believe, as progressives do, that human beings are soft wax who receive their shape from the society that government shapes. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people receive their rights from the shaping government. And if you believe, as progressives do, that people are the sum of the social promptings they experience. Then it will seem sensible for government, including a university’s administration, to guarantee not freedom of speech but freedom from speech. From, that is, speech that might prompt its hearers to develop ideas inimical to progress, and might violate the universal entitlement to perpetual serenity.
On campuses so saturated with progressivism that they celebrate diversity in everything but thought, every day is a snow day: There are perishable snowflakes everywhere. The institutions have brought this on themselves. So, regarding the campuses’ current agonies, schadenfreude is not a guilty pleasure, it is obligatory.
We hear a lot about the Republicans’ Tea Party problem but almost nothing about the Democrats’ Maoist problem. What’s Bernie Sanders’s take on the goings-on at Missouri? What’s Hillary Clinton’s?
“We’ll soon learn whether the old-fashioned liberals have what it takes to stand up to the Maoists,” Hennessey concludes. “So far, it’s not looking good.” The previous iteration of this story, when the young Turks of the New Left attacked the staid New Deal-era Democrats in the 1960s didn’t end very well, either.
During the Democratic debate on Saturday, Hillary Clinton claimed that Republicans were against equal pay or equal work.
This is false.
No one is against equal pay for equal work (it’s also already the law). The problem for Clinton is that what she is referring to — the gender wage gap — is not about women making less money for doing the same job as men.
The wage gap compares the median salary of all women with the median salary of all men. But on aggregate, women work fewer hours than men, and take more time off from work. Women also tend to enter lower paying occupations than men. This is not a wage gap — it is more accurately described as an “earnings gap.”
Men and women make different career choices. There is no unspoken rule in American that allows companies to hire women for less money than they would pay men.
The only way to truly close the wage gap is to force women to make different choices — which is impossible — but Democrats don’t want to admit that.
At a press availability over the weekend about his new bombing campaign, the president kvetched about all those people who keep insisting that he ended the Iraq War: “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” It is true that the Bush administration had agreed to end our troop presence, and if we were going to stay, Obama had to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqis. Why it didn’t happen is a complicated question, and Iraqi resistance is part of the answer.
But Obama was perfectly content with the outcome. “The leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents,” according to a definitive account in The New Yorker by Dexter Filkins. Obama was “ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq,” Filkins writes. American officials negotiating with the Iraqis were left without guidance from the White House for months, and when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki offered to sign an executive agreement — bypassing the problematic Iraqi parliament — the administration said “no.”
Filkins quotes an Iraqi politician: “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible.” And why not? This was the fulfillment of Obama’s defining political promise. When we were out of Iraq entirely, he didn’t say how regrettable it was; he declared “mission accomplished.” It’s only after the ensuing disaster that we learn he was an innocent bystander. It may be that Iraq — after being largely pacified by 2009 — would have fallen apart even if we had maintained a residual force. But troops on the ground gave us the influence to restrain Maliki from his worst instincts.
And I suppose I should repeat my Iraq War history lesson: Things were going so well as late as 2010 that the Obama Administration was bragging about Iraq as one of its big foreign policy successes.
In the interest of historical accuracy, I think I’ll repeat this post again:
[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.
Woodward was also asked if it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011. Wallace points out that Obama has said that he tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement but did not succeed, but “A lot of people think he really didn’t want to keep any troops there.” Woodward agrees that Obama didn’t want to keep troops there and elaborates:
Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let’s keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.
We had some woeful laughs about the insurance policies metaphor. Everyone knows they make sense, but it’s still hard to get people to buy them. They want to think things might just work out, so why pay for the insurance? It’s the old “young invincibles” problem that underlies Obamcare.
Obama blew it in Iraq, which is in chaos, and in Syria, which is in chaos, and in Libya, which is in chaos. A little history:
As late as 2010, things were going so well in Iraq that Obama and Biden were bragging. Now, after Obama’s politically-motivated pullout and disengagement, the whole thing’s fallen apart. This is near-criminal neglect and incompetence, and an awful lot of people will pay a steep price for the Obama Administration’s fecklessness.
Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.
If, before the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa Saturday night, a Republican operative had been told that, in the wake of the Paris attacks: 1) Hillary Clinton would refuse to apply the phrase “radical Islam” to ISIS; 2) Bernie Sanders would maintain that climate change is a greater threat to national security than ISIS or Islamic terrorism in general; and 3) Martin O’Malley, with Clinton’s agreement, would insist that the U.S. stick to a proposal to admit 65,000 Syria refugees into the country. If a Republican operative had been told that, he would have been delighted at the prospect of future ads portraying Democrats as in denial about the threat Islamic radicalism poses to the United States.
HOW BAD WAS HILLARY’S ANSWER ON HER WALL STREET DONATIONS? So bad even the New York Times editorial board is raking her over the coals. “Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans.” Yeah, pretty sure it’s #2 there.
CLINTON TELLS GOP HOW TO DEFEAT HER: “Her answers were terrible, but they were terrible because there are no better ones. And this is the Republican opening: She cannot move very far away from the president, because she was his diplomatic steward for four years,” John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post.
The most bizarre part of the entire evening, however, had to be when Sanders challenged Clinton about all the Wall Street money she’s taken. She launched into an answer which invoked 9/11 and how proud she was to help them rebuild after the attacks.
“I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is.”
“I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild,” said Clinton, who represented New York from 2001 to 2009. “That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
At that point I was just staring at the television screen speechless. I was sort of hoping that Dickerson’s next question would be whether or not Hillary was smelling burnt hair at the moment because it sounded as if she’d had a stroke. I clearly wasn’t the only one, either. The bizarre, rambling 9/11 answer led to jaws dropping all over Twitter (you can see a list from the RNC here) including the Daily Beast:
“Clinton Is Having As Bad A Night As She Could Be Expected To Have, With ISIS Not America’s Fight And 9/11 Is Why I Took Wall Street $$” (Twitter.com, 11/14/15)
WASHINGTON POST:A defensive Hillary Clinton lost last night’s debate. “For the first 30 minutes of the two-hour debate, the former Secretary of State was on the defensive about everything from the Obama administration being caught off guard by the rise of the Islamic State to her 13-year-old vote for the Iraq war.”
Plus: “To be sure, Sanders did not look like a commander-in-chief. And his insistence that climate change is still our biggest national security threat made him look out of his depth and unserious in the face of global terrorism.”
And: “The Des Moines debate will ultimately be remembered for just one moment: Clinton playing both the gender card and invoking the Sept. 11 attacks to defend her coziness with and campaign cash from Wall Street.”
But as his time as a CBS correspondent, anchor of Face the Nation and writer for Slate and Time magazine Dickerson has advised Barack Obama to “destroy the GOP,” told Hillary Clinton she was “transparent” on the e-mail scandal, and urged the ultra-liberal Elizabeth Warren to join the 2016 race.
On the other hand, he chided the Benghazi committee for “fighting like cats and dogs” and called CNBC editor Rick Santelli’s rallying cry that inspired the Tea Party movement “clownish.”
I am not going to blame Barack Obama entirely for what happened in Paris Friday – but mostly. And that’s not just because he famously called ISIS the jayvee team, when they are now unequivocally the New York Yankees or the Manchester United of terror, repellent as that analogy may be (he started it).
But what is clear from the carnage at the Bataclan Theatre and elsewhere in Paris that we will be studying for weeks or months to come is that the West has no leader in our evident civilizational war – no Churchill, no Roosevelt, no DeGaulle, not even a George W. Bush. It’s certainly not Barack Obama, a ludicrous man who thinks the world’s greatest problem is climate change in the face of Islamic terror. This is the same man who oversaw, indeed instigated, a large scale American démarche for the first time since World War II.
And look what happened. Well, we all know. We are living at a time when the Islamic world is having a nervous breakdown, actually more like a violent psychotic break, in its encounter with modernity and is determined to bring us all down with it.
Plus a suggestion: “if you want to prove you are the right commander-in-chief, here’s an idea for you, Donald. Get on one of your private jets and fly to Paris. Act presidential, even if the actual president doesn’t.”
Read the whole thing — incidentally, I wonder if anyone is giving Hillary the same advice?
FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Obama Legacy in State Offices: A Shrinking Democratic Share. “While Mr. Obama’s 2008 election helped usher in a political resurgence for Democrats, the president today presides over a shrinking party whose control of elected offices at the state and local levels has declined precipitously. In January, Republicans will occupy 32 of the nation’s governorships, 10 more than they did in 2009. Democratic losses in state legislatures under Mr. Obama rank among the worst in the last 115 years, with 816 Democratic lawmakers losing their jobs and Republican control of legislatures doubling since the president took office — more seats lost than under any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.”
If the GOP is thinking of passing constitutional amendments, things are looking propitious. Plus: “The average age of the three top Democratic leaders in the House is 75, while the three most senior Republican leaders — with the new speaker of the House, Paul D. Ryan — average 48 years old. . . .In the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Rodham Clinton is 68; Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, is 74; and the biggest intrigue had been whether Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who turns 73 next week, would join them.” Martin O’Malley is 52, but he barely counts.
Related: DeBlasio’s Progressive Advocacy Group Gets Tepid Response. “Addressing members from around the country, Mr. de Blasio spoke of preparing for a sustained war on inequality — the very topic of the Dec. 6 forum, which organizers believed would be a harbinger of the group’s intent to play on the national stage. Those plans collapsed this week. The de Blasio-backed group canceled its event, explaining in a statement that it would redirect its energies into other methods of tackling inequality. On Wednesday, Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, acknowledged a more humbling reality: Not a single presidential candidate had agreed to attend.”
“It’s pretty clear at this point that Wasserman Schultz wants to bury the debates to protect Hillary,” Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air. “But that also makes clear that the DNC chair thinks Hillary needs protecting, too — a tacit admission, at least, that she’s a poor candidate who’s likely to blow a lead like she did in 2008. Shouldn’t that be a message to other Democrats that they’re heading into disaster … again?”
What are they going to do at this point? Biden has signaled he’s ready to spend more time with his family when January 2017 rolls around, and even if one of them makes a full court press on Saturday, I don’t think anyone in the audience at Drake University or the person watching at home* is going to confuse Martin O’Malley or 74-year old Bernie Sanders with then-47 year old Barack Obama in full budding rock star mode.
* I keed, I keed — but not by much, based on the above headline.
Subsidies, bailouts, tax complexity and protective regulations in general tend to tilt the playing field towards the large and politically connected. When Republicans note this, they risk upsetting some of their friends on K Street and in the boardrooms of those large firms, but they also begin to provide the moral defense for free enterprise. Free enterprise is fair, and it maximizes wealth in the economy. Crony capitalism is immoral, it corrupts both politics and business, and it robs from the rest of the economy to enrich insiders.
And as Fiorina points out time after time, no politician in recent memory is as caught up in cronyism as Hillary Clinton.
The Republican grassroots are all-in for this, but the leadership, well, we’ll see. . . .
NOAH ROTHMAN: A Plague Of Racial Hoaxes On College Campuses. “The incentive to invent episodes of discrimination is basically a form of Munchausen Syndrome; one that is exacerbated by the press that routinely doles out the attention that these hoaxers so desperately seek. The dangerous idea that someone who alleges they have been the victim of bigoted or sexually discriminatory violence has ‘the right to be believed’ — a notion irresponsibly lent credence by no less a figure than Hillary Clinton — has nurtured the idea among students that they can get away with these fabrications.”
“We asked her campaign for just a few more details on this,” CNN’s Jeff Zeleny said. “It seems so unusual that a Yale-educated lawyer who worked on the anti- war campaigns of [Eugene] McCarthy and [George] McGovern, who had just moved to Arkansas, whose husband was about to become the attorney general of the state, would decide to want to join the Marines. But the campaign said they’re not going to add any more comment onto this.”
Huh. I know everybody at Ms. Magazine would qualify as Democratic operatives with bylines, but I believe that in an effort to please both Obama and Hillary, they may be taking his “Jayvee” comparisons just a little too literally.
On the other hand, back a few years ago, when frequent PJM contributor David Solway was exploring “The ‘Unholy Alliance’ Between Islamic Jihad and Utopian Socialism,” and the American Spectator was running pieces on Mohamed Atta, socialist critic of capitalism, some on the left might have found these comparisons a tad extreme, so it’s good to see Ms. Magazine lending bipartisan support to these conservative critiques. As military historian Mackubin Thomas Owens wrote in September of 2002, “9/11 revealed an emerging geopolitical reality: that the world’s most important fault line is not between the rich and the poor, but between those who accept modernity and those who reject it,” which as Ms. Magazine noted last night, sums us both anti-modern ISIS and postmodern academia as well.
So why are monolithically Obama and Hillary-supporting “Progressive” enclaves such as academia such hotbeds of rape, sexism, and racism, anyhow? I’m sure Ms. Magazine will be getting on that topic any moment now.
For those without time, this particular video introduces the “Family Entertainment Protection Act,” which was cosponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson, and Evan Bayh (I’m pleased to note that none of these people currently serve in the Senate). Also: video games destroy children’s minds and souls! It’s like lead paint poisoning! …Yes, the comparison was explicitly made; yes, then-Senator Clinton was being serious about that.
If they listened to Jagger, they might learn something about life. Too triggering, I’m sure.
But is Mystal’s piece really a stealth anti-Hillary screed? “I’d much rather be governed by ‘spoiled children’ than confused old people who want all the benefits but can’t even apply for them unless sonny shows them how to ‘fax’ a .pdf on their ‘computerized telephone.’” I mean, he just summarized a bunch of the released Hillary emails . . .
TOM MAGUIRE HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMESabout Hillary’s “extensive” experience and resume. “As to whether Hillary’s resume is impressive, one might argue as to whether her failure to shepherd HillaryCare through a Democratic controlled Congress in 1993 was more impressive than her ‘reset’ of relations with Russia or her advocacy of beheading the Qadaffi regime in Libya with no plan to replace him. But of course, it is much harder to argue against the notion that Hillary’s resume is extensive. So this apparent error accidentally makes Republicans look cranky and unreasonable, but I am sure that is inadvertent. No, I’m not.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is demanding that Sen. Chuck Grassley drop his hold on dozens of State Department nominations, arguing the Iowa Republican is wasting money to try to bring down Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
“Why are nonpartisan public service positions being used as political pawns, especially if they are being blocked just because Senator Grassley doesn’t want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “How much money will Republicans in Congress waste to try to bring down Hillary Clinton? We don’t know all the numbers.”
Grassley has blocked nearly two dozen nominations—including roughly 20 foreign service officers. He’s cited a slow response from the administration over questions about Clinton’s use of a private email server and other State Department programs.
Reid called on Grassley to drop his objections, adding that it’s “troubling” that the Iowa Republican, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, would block the nominations.
“He admits that he’s blocking the promotion of these foreign service officers until he gets answers about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails and a woman by name of Huma Abedin,” he said, referring to the longtime Clinton aide.
Blocking Obama nominations, at this point, should be the default option.
DEMOCRATS: THE “GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN” PARTY? “What happens to the youth vote in 2016, with Democratic leadership looking more like the Soviet politburo on a parade review stand? It won’t automatically become Republican, of course, although finding a younger nominee as a contrast might capture more of their energy than usual for the GOP. It does mean that it’s very unlikely that Democrats can count on a millennial wave to lift them in November 2016, and that may be a huge problem for a party that has had two successive crushing defeats in national elections without Obama on the ticket.”
HILARY IS LOSING IN MINNESOTA. “Survey USA has released a new poll of voters in deep-blue Minnesota. The results should be alarming to Democrats everywhere. The poll shows just about every Republican tested–Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump–beating Hillary Clinton, if the election were held today. . . . What’s interesting is that these are mostly voters who pull the lever for Democrats. The same Survey USA poll shows Governor Mark Dayton, Senator Al Franken and Senator Amy Klobuchar with approval ratings of 52%, 55% and 60%, respectively. Yet Minnesotans really, really don’t like Barack Obama. He currently is under water by a stunning 37%/56% margin. And that’s no fluke: polls in recent years have generally shown him with poor approval ratings in the state, notwithstanding the fact that he carried it twice. It appears that the voters’ disapproval of the national Democrats is carrying over to Hillary Clinton.”
Well, she’s certainly not well-positioned to run as the candidate of change.
The most prescient thing said about this kind of student protest culture was an observation made by Ayn Rand back during the first go-around, in the 1960s. The purpose of all the marches and sit-ins and riots, she wrote, was to condition students to accept mob rule. Here we are fifty years later, and this is quickly becoming the openly declared purpose of universities.
This is higher ed’s time for choosing. If this is the new purpose of the universities—to nurture a crop of activists trained at whipping up angry mobs, and a generation of college graduates conditioned to submit to those mobs—then there is no longer any purpose served by these institutions. There is certainly no justification for the outrageous claim they are making on the economic resources of the average family, who sends their kids to schools whose tuition has been inflated by decades of government subsidies.
The universities have done this to themselves. They created the whole phenomenon of modern identity politics and Politically Correct rules to limit speech. They have fostered a totalitarian microculture in which conformity to those rules is considered natural and expected. Now that system is starting to eat them alive, from elite universities like Yale, all the way down to, er, less-than-elite ones like Mizzou.
They created this Frankenstein monster, and it’s up to them to kill it before it kills them.
I agree – it’s time for the rest of us to stand back and remember the sage advice frequently attributed to Napoleon: Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.
(Apologies for that previous sentence being rendered in sadly all too cisgender normative language.)
Any story about Ben Carson is presented from the media as a sort of “ah HAH!! Got him!” moment, while the reluctant coverage of everything Hillary is reported by every network but Fox News with an eye roll and an exasperated sigh, as if to say “ugh, the stupid Republicans are trying another stupid attack against virtuous Hillary.”
That makes a difference. A big one. It is a bias they never admit to, that they refuse to see, and that if you bring it up, they simply mock it. Because that’s what they do. But it is there, and Hewitt knows it, and Carson knows it, and the base knows it.
As a wise community organizer once said, get in their faces, and punch back twice as hard.
We’re now inclined to think we overstated matters when we began an editorial six weeks ago by asking rhetorically, “How big a problem is it that the two leading Republican candidates for president aren’t actually qualified to be president?” . . .
Consider Ben Carson’s campaign, which suggests organizational and communications skills that would be welcome in the Oval Office. Consider his positions on the issues of the day, which, while not as well-developed as they will have to become, seem basically consistent with a reformist, constitutionalist, American-exceptionalist governing conservatism. . . .
This doesn’t mean Ben Carson should be the Republican nominee or the next president. Most of us at The Weekly Standard, if we had to vote tomorrow, would probably check the box next to the name of someone other than Carson, someone more conventionally qualified for the job.
But there is something heartening about the fact that so many Republican primary voters have rallied to Carson—so many in fact that he’s now the Republican frontrunner. James Webb, another impressive American, found no support and little sympathy in the Democratic party. That Republicans respect Carson, wish him well, and even would like to support him is a sign of the general health of the GOP.
Carson’s not my first pick, though I’d vote for any of the GOP field over Hillary, Bernie or . . . oh, right, O’Malley.
Also in the same NewsBusters post, “In contrast to Todd, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos had a much more sobering assessment regarding the questions surrounding Carson’s personal biography during an appearance on Sunday’s Good Morning America:”
I think it’s going to be a question of whether the stories do stand up to further scrutiny. And whether they turn out to reveal a pattern of dishonesty or simply exaggerations that are being trumped up by the press, as Carson argues. That does remain to be seen.
DONALD TRUMP ‘SNL’ EPISODE BEATS HILLARY’S RATING BY 47%:“Trump gave ‘Saturday Night Live’ its largest rating of the season this weekend, beating the previous high: The episode hosted by Miley Cyrus with special guest Hillary Clinton. Trump’s episode was seen by 47 percent more viewers, according to Nielsen.”
Related: “Review: Trump on SNL Was Dull, Unfunny.” “Feels like they deliberately underwrote this show,” Greg Gutfeld theorizes.” “They deliberately wrote nothing, as a protest. It’s like a restaurant cook spitting on someone’s food.”
ADDITION THROUGH SUBTRACTION? “Overall, there’s nothing wrong with the Democrats that losing the presidency probably won’t fix, and by the same token, the best way for the Republicans to risk their majorities in the Senate, House, and governorships is to win the White House in 2016,” claims a Vox.com article titled “The Democrats’ woes are overstated.”
But will Hillary be willing to take one for the team? (And note that in 2011, it was conservatives who were reading the following year’s tea leaves and writing “winning by losing” articles, such as Noemie Emery’s piece in the Washington Examiner titled “For 2012, GOP’s best hope may be losing.”)
NOPE: For You, Volkswagen, Ze PR Battle Iz Not Yet Over. I recommend the stage-3 Hillary Clinton Defense. Stage 1: We didn’t do anything. Stage 2: If we did, it was a mistake. Stage 3: Emissions laws are stupid and nobody could be expected to understand them.
Zillah Eisenstein, a professor politics at Ithaca College, declared in a lecture last Friday that agriculture is “capitalist, racialized patriarchy.”
* * * * * * * *
Though an author of 12 books with titles such as Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism and her memoir Manmade Breast Cancers, Eisenstein has never worked in or studied agriculture. The professor explained that she was speaking as part of a seminar series on women in agriculture by stating, “[m]y point here is you’re thinking agriculture and I’m thinking capitalist racialized patriarchy.”
With those qualifications, she’s a shoe-in for the next Secretary of Agriculture in Barry, Bernie or Hillary’s administration.
The left is in the process of overreaching on an issue that the average voter cares about, deeply. People might be able to rationalize supporting same-sex marriage by telling themselves that, even if it’s not their thing, it makes no difference to them what gay couples do. But if you’re a woman using the locker room at the gym, it might matter quite a lot if a man who says he’s a woman on the inside is using the shower next to you.
We have reached a bizarre moment in our politics, where the “progressive” left resists having conservative speakers on a college campus because they make students feel “unsafe,” but insists that boys who identify as girls be allowed to shower with girls in the public schools, and misgivings must be educated away, or litigated into submission.
Plus some advice on getting Hillary and Bernie on the record on this topic. Read the whole thing.