Mad Magazine: Overheard at the House Democrats' Sit-In

From Mad Magazine: Overheard at the House Democrats' Sit-In

Europe's Free Colleges? In France, the system is "a huge hypocrisy coupled with a profound injustice for the students" that "ends up excluding the weakest among us"

At the Paris Assas university years ago, I used to teach introduction to British and American Constitutional Law (no, not as a professor, as a teaching assistant);

when giving the (first-year) students their final grade, I was instructed to do as follows: give the top half students of the class a passing grade (above 50%), and give the bottom half of the students a failing grade (below). Those were the instructions, whether (say) 85% were outstanding (or at least passing) students or, conversely, whether 85% were terrible students…

In other words, the idea was that exactly half the "freshmen" at the university of law were to be expelled, so to speak, after that first year, no matter how good they might have been.

For those "progressives", both in Europe and in the United States, who are constantly looking to Europe for "free college" (as well as "health care for all"), the reality on the Old Continent can seem slightly different at times.

But do not take my word for it.

In Le Monde, in a period of only four months, we have seen articles on debates about the best policies (and whether colleges had the authority to choose among them), the intervention of politicians in the choice of how to prioritize among students, and, last but (definitely) not least, a report on the extent to which studies are at all effective in integrating the world of work…

In one recent article, Jean-Loup Salzmann, président de la Conférence des présidents d’université (CPU), and Gilles Roussel, président de l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, denounce the conditions high school students encounter in certain high-profile majors.

The idealism of the Republic cultivates its myths, not least that, ingrained in our society, which is to believe that every high school graduate, whatever his skills, he can access all university courses and succeed.

The reality is quite different!

Should we continue to accept this social mess by hiding behind a pseudo-myth of equality, which in the final analysis ends up excluding the weakest among us?

 … To those majors called "high voltage" (en tension) because they are the most popular with students, selection takes the form of a draw!

A Heresy

Who can understand that access to "high-voltage" majors is aawarded without taking into account the skills of the graduates, their grades, and their baccalaureate? No one.

That admission to a university major is done randomly and not on the qualifications of the candidates is a heresy and can only tarnish the image of the university and the quality of its degrees. Besides, the Ministry of eduction, in one unprecedented episode of frankness, recognized this when it congratulated itself for avoiding the draw in the areas of medicine and law.

A Right to Hear the Truth

It is irresponsible to suggest that a high school student can enroll in the sector of their choice without any prerequisites and without regard to employability at the end of the studies! Who can believe that a young person can succeed in languages ​​without a substantial baggage acquired during his high school years? This is not because the subject of law is not (yet) taught in high school that this material is accessible without a solid foundation of general knowledge, French language, or methodology!

You do not start from scratch when entering the university, you consolidate your previous gains to acquire new skills. Students and their families have the right to transparency and to the language of truth.

Let's put an end to this once and for all. The draw system is a huge hypocrisy coupled with a profound injustice for the students. The government must provide universities with the financial resources to increase the capacities of high potential insertion channels and allow them to guide the graduates according to their skills and to their professional projects.

En français : Jean-Loup Salzmann, président de la Conférence des présidents d’université (CPU) et Gilles Roussel, président de l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, dénoncent les conditions d’accès des futurs bacheliers dans les filières « sous tension ».

L’idéalisme républicain cultive ses mythes dont celui, bien ancré dans notre société, qui consiste à faire croire à chaque bachelier que, quelles que soient ses compétences, il pourra accéder à toutes les filières universitaires et y réussir. 

La réalité est toute autre !

Doit-on continuer à accepter ce gâchis social en se cachant derrière un pseudo-mythe de l’égalité, qui au bout du compte produit l’exclusion des plus fragiles ?

Ces jours-ci en effet, les futurs bacheliers prennent connaissance, via l’opaque système Admission post-bac (APB), des résultats d’affectation aux formations. Pour celles dites « en tension », parce qu’elles sont très prisées par les étudiants, la sélection prend la forme d’un tirage au sort !

A l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, par exemple, la moitié des 130 places disponibles en Sciences et techniques des activités physiques et sportives (Staps) vient d’être affectée en une journée seulement, alors que près de 2 000 futurs étudiants ont demandé, dans cet établissement, cette formation en premier choix.

Une hérésie

Qui peut comprendre que l’accès à des filières « en tension » se fasse sans prendre en compte les compétences des bacheliers, leurs résultats scolaires et/au baccalauréat ? Personne.

Qu’une admission dans une filière universitaire se fasse au hasard et non pas sur les qualités des candidats est une hérésie et ne peut que ternir l’image de l’université et de la qualité de ses diplômes. D’ailleurs le ministère, dans un accès de franchise inédit, le reconnaît en se félicitant d’avoir pu éviter le tirage au sort en médecine et en droit.

Face, d’une part, à l’augmentation du nombre de bacheliers choisissant l’université (100 000 de plus en trois ans) qui va continuer, et d’autre part, à la baisse des dépenses publiques par étudiant, il est temps que l’Etat prenne ses responsabilités.

Il est illusoire de croire que l’augmentation du nombre de places dans les filières « en tension » pourra à lui seul résoudre le problème : ce qui doit guider la programmation des capacités d’accueil ce sont les débouchés et les capacités d’insertion professionnelle des étudiants.

Droit au langage de vérité

Il est irresponsable de laisser croire à un lycéen qu’il peut s’inscrire dans la filière de son choix sans aucun prérequis et sans se soucier de son insertion professionnelle à terme ! Qui peut croire qu’un jeune peut réussir en langues sans avoir un bagage conséquent acquis durant ses années de lycée ? Ce n’est pas parce que le droit n’est pas (encore) enseigné au lycée que cette matière est accessible sans de solides bases de culture générale, en français ou en méthodologie !

On ne repart pas de zéro en accédant à l’université, on y consolide ses acquis pour acquérir de nouvelles compétences. Les lycéens et leurs familles ont droit à la transparence et au langage de vérité.

Finissons-en une fois pour toutes. Le tirage au sort est une vaste hypocrisie doublée d’une profonde injustice à l’égard des étudiants. Le gouvernement doit donner les moyens financiers aux universités d’augmenter les capacités d’accueil des filières à haut potentiel d’insertion et leur permettre d’orienter les bacheliers en fonction de leurs compétences et de leurs projets professionnels.

Cette orientation et les moyens qui l’accompagnent doivent mener une part de plus en plus importante de jeunes vers des études supérieures et permettre leur insertion professionnelle, aux bons niveaux de responsabilité et de rémunération.

A preview of Donald Trump's first 100 days in office

The BBC explains what

Republican Donald Trump has set out [as his priorities] in office [should he beat] Democrat Hillary Clinton in November's election.

U.S. History has not been, as Obama implies, 200 years of sustained mass migration—and it certainly hasn’t been 200 years of lawless open borders, which is his actual goal

The Supreme Court momentarily impeded President Obama’s attempt to “fundamentally transform America” last week with its 4-4 vote on his executive amnesty action plan 

reports Benny Huang.

When the court is deadlocked, previous decisions by lower courts are allowed to stand. In this case, Obama lost because the lower court found that his plan exceeded his executive authority, which is actually what Obama himself said before he decided to do it.

The evenly divided court apparently couldn’t make up its mind as to whether the president is permitted to act like a dictator and suspend laws he doesn’t like. That’s a tough question, you see, with half of our best legal minds leaning toward dictatorship. Scary.

After the ruling, President Obama held a press conference to assure the public that “comprehensive immigration reform” is still inevitable, if only delayed. He’s probably right about that. Like water on a rock, the Left just keeps wearing us down.

He began the press conference with a lot of feel-good pap about the glories of immigration—while lumping legal migrants together with illegal aliens, as the Left always does. “…[O]ne of the reasons why America is such a diverse and inclusive nation is because we’re a nation of immigrants,” said the president. “Our Founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world. And for more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic and entrepreneurial.”

That’s the fifth grade version of history that I was taught in school too. My well-meaning teacher taught us that immigration is part of our national ethos. We learned about Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and looked at a lot of pictures of young women wearing babushkas, staring out from the decks of ocean liners. It was all nice and corny.

Obama has seized on that familiar history lesson for his own advantage, clearly implying that unfettered immigration is all-American—which renders opposition to it un-American. Make no mistake about it, the president’s appeal to the Founders (whom he hates, by the way) and our supposed tradition of immigration is an attack on his opponents’ patriotism.

Usually when people talk about the Founders’ intentions they are referring to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or its offspring, the Bill of Rights. Nothing in any of those documents even hints that the Founders “conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”

Thomas Jefferson’s philosophical brief to King George doesn’t mention it. The Bill of Rights enshrines in law many freedoms, most of which are under siege in Obama’s America, but it does not include a “right” to immigrate. The Constitution even empowers Congress (not the Executive!) to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” (Article I, Section 8) Congress did their duty and established an immigration code, which happens to be very liberal, but the president has nonetheless sought to nullify it via executive order because some people still can’t come in the right way.

By empowering Congress to regulate immigration, the Constitution necessarily implies that we have the prerogative to set limits. We Americans are the gatekeepers because American immigration policy is supposed to benefit us. It doesn’t matter a lick if immigrants come here “looking for a better life.” If their addition to our society doesn’t make our lives better then we have no obligation to take them.

This idea is exactly the opposite of the Obama philosophy on immigration which says that anyone who can get here has a right to come in—except apparently devout Christians from Germany who want to homeschool their children.

Under Obama’s plan, newcomers don’t even have to go through a screening process to make sure that they don’t carry contagious diseases or terrorist sympathies. All they have to do is run across the border and Obama will be waiting there for them with a welfare check in one hand and a voter registration card in the other. If you oppose him, your patriotism is suspect.

Obama compounded his historical error with his reference to “wave after wave” of immigrants to our shores “for more than two centuries.” The truth is more complicated. Over the course of our history, Congress has used its rightful authority to adjust immigration levels as it saw fit. Sometimes immigration was a mighty river and sometimes a trickle. It has not been, as Obama implied, two hundred years of sustained mass migration—and it certainly hasn’t been two hundred years of lawless open borders, which is his actual goal.

There have really been two great “waves” of immigration to this country, and we’re living in one of them. The most recent began in 1965 with Ted Kennedy’s Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States opened its doors very wide indeed, accepting about 59 million immigrants over the course of fifty years. That’s more people than live in California, our most populous state, by the way, and it doesn’t include illegal aliens. Yet despite this very liberal policy, some people still can’t be bothered to come in the right way. Obama considers these people to be victims, probably because he views them and their children as potential voters. They are not victims, you are — the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.

The other “wave” occurred between the years 1880 and 1921. This is the much romanticized “Ellis Island” era of immigration. Though not without its problems, America managed this period of rapid change reasonably well because it subscribed to the melting pot model. These days, just saying that America is a melting pot is a “microaggression” on some college campuses.

An argument could be made that America needed the Ellis Island wave of immigrants because we were in the midst of westward expansion and rapid industrialization. In 1901, the United States became the world’s largest manufacturer, which was both the cause and effect of mass migration. There was certainly work in those days for anyone who wanted it—bridges and tunnels to be built, coal and ore to be extracted from the earth, and goods of every imaginable variety to be manufactured. New railroads were being laid across the continent, often by Irish and Chinese immigrants.
 
But that was then and this is now. America is becoming one big rust belt and yet we’re bringing in more immigrants than we did when we were a budding industrial power. It’s madness.

An alternative argument could also be made that we brought in those immigrants not because we needed them but because employers wanted them. The elite’s desires are not the same as the country’s needs, though the two are easily confused when the elite get to tell the story.

Employers have traditionally welcomed immigrants because immigration makes the workers fight each other for coveted jobs. In times of high immigration, wages tend to remain stagnant or even decline. Whenever the workers start getting uppity, employers seek labor in ever more exotic locales—first Ireland and Germany, then China and Italy, now Laos and Guatemala. The best way to make workers toil longer for less is to keep them in constant fear for their livelihood.

This idea that we are a nation of immigrants was advanced in no small part by exactly those employers. Call it corporate propaganda, if you will. I would compare it the diamond industry’s not-so-subtle suggestion to young men that spending two months salary on a diamond ring before proposing to a lady is some kind of obligatory right of passage. Though this practice may seem like an age old tradition it was actually conceived of in a DeBeers boardroom.

It’s the same with the American immigration ethos. Though we have been led to believe that America has always been open to absolutely anyone who wants to come here for a better life, that just isn’t the case. Our immigration policy has sometimes been liberal and sometimes conservative, but it has never been boundless. Our current president and his party don’t want any limits, nor do they want an orderly screening system. They want a free-for-all—and they’ll probably get it.

Immigration is certainly part of our history, though not because it had to be that way. The number of immigrants admitted was determined by a tug-of-war between employers and the working public. When the employers had their way, the flood gates were thrown open, whether we needed them or not. When workers had their way, the flood gates were closed.

Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration was narrowly upheld but the fight is not over. The Left hasn’t given up and neither should we.

The UK's Probable Future Prime Minister Was Hounded by America's IRS For So Long That, in Disgust, He Renounced His Dual American Citizenship Last Year

Thanks to the IRS, one of Britain's most famous politicians — indeed, following Brexit, London's former mayor is on the frontline to becoming the UK's next prime minister — was hounded into renouncing his American citizenship last year, reported The Economist in February 2015 (bumped).

BORIS JOHNSON, [then] the mayor of London, is British-American by birth—and by temperament. He mixes the can-do frontier spirit with self-deprecating wit. After being sacked as a shadow cabinet minister, he said: “There are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters.” He is relentlessly optimistic. “Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3,” he once promised.

Yet Mr Johnson (pictured) is so fed up with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that he is renouncing his US citizenship. He says he wants to affirm his commitment to Britain—a wise move for a man who hopes to be prime minister some day. But he has also talked of “getting a divorce from America” because of its “incredible doctrine of global taxation”. He became American by “an accident of birth”: his father was studying in New York. Half a century later this made Johnson junior liable for American capital-gains tax on the sale of his primary home, in north London; Britain levies no such tax. He harrumphed last year that this was “absolutely outrageous” and said he wouldn’t pay. (He later settled for an undisclosed sum.)

The number of Americans giving up their passports has shot up, from less than 1,000 a year in the late 2000s to a record 3,415 in 2014. A new spur is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) of 2010, which makes it a lot harder for Americans overseas to get (or keep) bank accounts, pensions and mortgages, because foreign financial firms don’t want the administrative hassles that FATCA throws up. The law also increases filing requirements for citizens—and thus stokes fears that honest mistakes will be punished.

A neighbour of this correspondent, who was born in America but moved to Britain as a child, recently received a huge bill from the IRS, out of the blue, for many years of unfiled taxes. He had not realised that he owed anything; he had always paid taxes promptly in Britain. The IRS was so aggressive that he feared he might lose his technology business; he even discussed divorce with his wife as a way to shield their assets. In the end, he settled for a six-figure sum. He, too, has since renounced his citizenship.

Related: • Keeping the IRS happy grew ever more time-consuming and costly, until it became intolerable
• A massive breach of the Fourth Amendment: The vast majority of those renouncing citizenship are middle-class Americans, living overseas, fully compliant with their U.S. tax obligations

Moreover: Check out 46 photographs of Boris Johnson
to see whether he appears more British or more American

Following David Cameron's Resignation in the Wake of the Brexit Debacle, Who Will Be the UK's Next Prime Minister?

The Daily Telegraph explains how the conservatives will choose their next leader and the country's next prime minister.

Related: Boris Johnson, The UK's Probable Future Prime Minister, Was Hounded by America's IRS For So Long That, in Disgust, He Renounced His Dual American Citizenship Last Year

Update: the last time a partly-American PM lorded over No. 10, it was a fellow by the name of Winston…

America's Savior and the World's Last Hope, According to German Magazine: "Hillary Clinton must protect the world from Donald Trump"

Here is what THE MISSION is, according to Der Spiegel:

Hillary Clinton must protect the world from Donald Trump

This is of course what the MSM, both in America and abroad, has been hoping as well as working for — giving Trump $2 billion in free advertising, ending the GOP debates after The Donald emerged ahead — finding a Republican candidate so awful that whomever the Democrats nominated would look good (like a savior) in comparison.

Bill Clinton's wife is AMERICA'S LAST HOPE, explains Holger Stark:

The bloody Orlando attack has enabled Donald Trump's candidacy of fear and escalation.  Hillary Clinton is the only one, who can stop him — however, her election campaign is not igniting, as the people distrust her.

More Spiegel coverage over the years…

The MSM does not want to admit that the Orlando attack was homo-on-homo violence—as well as Muslim-on-homo violence and Democrat-on-homo violence

It doesn't matter who goes on a killing rampage

notes Benny Huang acidly,

liberals will scapegoat Christian conservatives.

Zack Ford of the ThinkProgress blog really ought to invest in a dictionary. As the editor of the left-wing blog’s LGBT section, he took the lead in blaming Christians, conservatives, and traditionalists for the deaths of 49 people in Orlando last week while simultaneously braying about conservatives “scapegoating” radical Islam.

Note to Zack Ford: it’s not scapegoating to blame radical Islam when a radical Islamist shoots up a nightclub. It is scapegoating to blame Christians when a radical Islamist shoots up a night club. Scapegoating, by definition, is blaming the innocent.

His revolting article represents everything that’s wrong with the American Left condensed into ten paragraphs. Ford’s diatribe with what may be a “white privilege” claim, a charge of hypocrisy, or both. “On Sunday, police arrested a man by the name of James Wesley Howell as he was on his way to the Los Angeles Pride festival in West Hollywood,” Ford wrote. “In his car were three assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, a stockpile of ammunition, and the ingredients necessary to make an explosive device…Howell is white, and he’s from Indiana.”

Yes, that’s all true. On the same day that Omar Mateen carried out the biggest mass shooting in American history, another completely unrelated massacre was planned for another homosexual event on the other side of the country. But Ford’s conclusion isn’t immediately evident. Is he suggesting that conservatives don’t care about terrorism when the perp is a white guy from a red state? I would counter that no one really cares about foiled terrorist attacks, especially when there’s a successful one in the news. If Howell had succeeded and Mateen had failed, we’d be talking about Howell instead. Or is he suggesting that Howell’s plot proves that the Orlando attack could just as easily have been carried out by a right-wing white guy? I suspect that his point is the latter.

Ford neglects to tell his readers that James Wesley Howell is in fact bisexual and apparently an accused child molester. Howell’s bisexuality is not the subject of rumor. He has openly dated men and once pointed a gun at one of his boyfriends. Howell is also no conservative but in fact a supporter of the insurgent Bernie Sanders. (No surprise there—Bernie fans are notoriously violent.) By failing to mention these pertinent facts, Ford leaves the impression that Howell is some kind of heartland “homophobe.” Readers are left to draw their own conclusions as to his religious affiliation, but what religion do most white Midwesterners ascribe to? If that’s not scapegoating, nothing is.
 
But back to the terrorist attack that wasn’t prevented. The story of what happened at the Pulse nightclub appeared at first to be ready-made for the Left to demagogue. The targeted demographic—homosexuals—was clearly and immediately recognized as a certified victim group. But as the facts rolled in it became more and more difficult for the Left to paint the picture it wanted. The shooter was a religious bigot, which the narrative demanded, but of the wrong religion. Liberals were hoping for a Southern Baptist or a Mormon perhaps—two denominations which have never, to my knowledge, carried out any terrorist attacks. A Muslim wouldn’t fit the bill because Muslims are also on the Left’s list of designated victim groups. It just doesn’t work to have members of multiple grievance constituencies on opposite sides of a shooting.

Then we learned that Mateen was a registered Democrat. Well that’s, uh, problematic. Even worse, he was also the son of Afghan immigrants and almost certainly homosexual or bisexual. All indicators suggest that Omar Mateen lived a furtive double life—married to a woman while cruising for men on the side. Besides having a “gay” dating app on his phone, he was apparently a regular at Pulse where witnesses say he tried picking up guys. One man who knew Mateen during his time at Indian River State College says that Mateen asked him out romantically. They apparently went to “gay” bars after class. According to Mateen’s ex-wife he also had “homosexual tendencies.”

It’s difficult to make all of these pieces fit together just the way the Left wants them to but that isn’t stopping them from giving it the old college try. Anderson Cooper, himself a homosexual, grilled Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi about the shooting, casting blame on her because she defended Florida’s traditional marriage amendment in court—which she was legally obligated to do—and because her Twitter account hadn’t been sufficiently celebratory during Gay Pride Month. It’s all her fault—and your fault, my fault, Pat McCrory’s fault, and so on. If you are a traditionalist of any kind (except the Muslim kind, I guess) you’re to blame.

If Anderson Cooper were a reporter rather than an agenda-pushing homosexual activist, he might inform his viewers of what really happened. But he’s a hack, completely devoid of professionalism. No wonder he’s gotten so far in the journalism field.

Here’s what a real reporter would have said: on June 12, 2016, two “gay” Democrats, acting independently of each other, attempted to create carnage at two homosexual gatherings on opposite coasts. One attack was thwarted, the other wasn’t. One of these “gay” Democrats was a Muslim, which is relevant because he apparently phoned the police in the midst of his killing spree to pledge his allegiance to ISIS. The other “gay” Democrat terrorist was not a Muslim.

Why is that so difficult to say? Because Anderson Cooper doesn’t want to admit that the Orlando attack was homo-on-homo violence—as well as Muslim-on-homo violence and Democrat-on-homo violence. People might get the impression that homosexuals have more to fear from their own community than from the windmills they have traditionally tilted at—the pro-family movement, Maggie Gallagher, the Catholic Church, etc.

But the conclusion is inescapable. Besides the danger homosexuals face of contracting AIDS and other diseases from people who supposedly “love” them, there’s also the fact that the homosexual underworld is seedy and dangerous, replete with shady characters who struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues. Jeffrey Dahmer, anyone? He killed seventeen “gay” men all by himself—which is seventeen more than Jerry Falwell ever killed. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 young men, most of whom were lured to his home with free drinks.

Perhaps the most famous victim of faux “homophobia” is Matthew Shepard, the meth-saturated party boy from Wyoming who was murdered in 1998. Though the media originally reported his slaying as a crime of bigotry, he was actually killed by another meth-head who had probably once been Shepard’s sexual partner.

Related: The story of Matthew Shepard's life and death bears no resemblance to what actually happened

The true story of Matthew Shepard was uncovered by the “gay” journalist Stephen Jimenez in his 2013 book “The Book of Matt.” … Neither [of his killers] was a “homophobe” and [the one who dealt the deadly blows, Aaron McKinney] was actually a homosexual. He was known to engage in acts of prostitution with men in order to raise money for his habit and apparently felt guilty that he took some enjoyment in it.

Related: Jedi Mind Tricks and Two Sides to the Delusional Coin:
On the one hand liberals embrace lies as truth,
while on the other they reject truth as lies

 … Matthew Shepard wasn’t murdered for being “gay.” He was murdered because he traveled in the local drug scene as well as the local “gay” scene—which often overlapped. He spent his time with lowlifes and was eventually killed by one of them. It’s still a sad story but without the “homophobia” angle it’s just another unremarkable murder among 16,974 that same year.

Related: “Fake but accurate” seems to be the liberals' guiding philosophy—
usually cultivated at the expense of actual people, their lives, and their reputations

The Orlando spree killing happened only a week ago and already it’s being used for maximum effect to demonize opponents of the homosexual agenda. Remind me again—how is it my fault when a “gay” Muslim Democrat goes on a rampage? There’s no conceivable rationalization that could make Omar Mateen’s guilt stick to me.

If the homosexual community wants to lash out at someone in their time of mourning, they should look to the Islamists, or better yet they could look inward at the rot that pervades their own community. Fat chance, I know.

But Isn't Being a SJW Supposed to Get Oppressed Females Interested in You and (Thereby) Get You Laid?!

Through the pen of Scott Adams, a Social Justice Warrior in Dilbert's office wishes to show an attractive co-worker (Alice) to what extent he makes common cause with women…

Who Are the True Authoritarians? People on the Right or People on the Left?

Listen to their words and watch their actions

writes a shocked Benny Huang. It turns out that

there's nothing liberal about "liberals."

In what is being called “the mother of all corrections,” the American Journal of Political Science has  admitted that the results of a study it published were unintentionally misrepresented. The study, “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies,” purported to show that conservatives are marked by an authoritarian streak. After the study had garnered much scholarly attention, Steven Ludeke and Stig H. R. Rasmussen of the University of Southern Denmark noticed that the data did not support the published results. The correct conclusion is that liberals, particularly economic liberals, lean toward authoritarianism.

This study, which was found worthy enough to be cited 45 times before the correction, will probably disappear down the old memory hole. It doesn’t fit the narrative—and for that it must die.

Not that I put much stock in the study; not now and not before the erroneous conclusion was noticed and corrected. …

Study or no study, people on the Left clearly exhibit symptoms of authoritarianism. Did we really need the American Journal of Political Science to tell us that? I certainly didn’t. To know the Left’s true nature just listen to their words and, more importantly, watch their actions. As columnist George Will once wrote:

“[S]ince the 1960s, liberalism has been concerned with who thinks what, who acts when, who lives where and who feels how.” 

Brilliant!

If you want to observe authoritarian liberals in their natural habitat just visit New York City. The government there has tried, and in many cases succeeded, in clamping down on everything from Big Gulps to baby formula. Exercising your Second Amendment right is laborious and expensive. It’s illegal to donate prepared food to homeless shelters because the city government can’t determine the salt, fat, and fiber content. Smoking is illegal almost everywhere, cigarettes cost more than $13 a pack, and e-cigarettes, which have no harmful externalities, are also banned in many public places. You can be slapped with a $250,000 fine for “misgendering” someone. It’s illegal to refuse to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman. Urinating in public, on the other hand, has been decriminalized because laws against it are, you guessed it, racist.

Now do you believe the results of the study?

The question remains of how the study’s conclusions could have been so badly blundered. The answer, I believe, is confirmation bias. The authors admitted that they expected “P” scores (measuring psychoticism) to be associated with “conservative political attitudes, particularly for militarism and social conservatism.” Seek and ye shall find!

 … “liberal” [is] an ill-fitting adjective, one that I stopped using for a little while because the thugs who claim it don’t deserve it. I dropped my boycott of the word “liberal” after realizing that, in order to communicate effectively, I had to use words as they are commonly understood. It’s just another example of how our lexicon has been perverted to portray people on the Left in a positive light.

How about referring to them as drama queens?

Language is often deliberately altered to avoid associating authoritarianism with the Left. Ever wonder why the Nazis are so rarely referred to by their full name—the National Socialist German Workers’ Party? Whether or not the Nazis were a left-wing party is a debate for another day but the fact remains that that was their name.

People on the Left avoid using it because they wouldn’t want any of the Nazis’ hard-earned toxicity to rub off on two of their most beloved words—socialist and worker. They dismiss the party’s name with the help of the No True Scotsman fallacy—it’s literally impossible for authoritarians to be on the Left, you see, because people on the Left can’t be authoritarian. Authoritarians are always and everywhere right-wingers.

The notion (or misconception, really) that conservatives are little Gestapo agents at heart emerged not long after the end of World War II. …

See also: Every Republican Presidential Candidate Is Hitler (How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State)
and: Mitt Hitler and Double Standards
(Godwin's Law Applies to Thee, But Not to Me)

… How it must disconcert some people to have a new study conclude that liberals are the real authoritarians. Anyone who thought the study had value before is now stuck with the revised conclusion. It’s science!

The study tells us, for example, that economic liberals—those most obsessed with banishing economic inequality—tend to exhibit authoritarian tendencies. That doesn’t surprise me at all. Class warriors like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders aren’t heroic. Their policies are wrong-headed and they don’t care how many eggs they have to crack to make their elusive omelet.

What’s so wrong with economic equality? Besides the fact that it not nearly as fair as it sounds, it also has an adversarial relationship to freedom. …

 … The brutal and endless process of economic leveling cannot be achieved without the heavy hand of the state to act as its enforcement mechanism. Economic equality requires a perpetual policing of people’s decisions, mandating nearly as much as it prohibits. This person must hire that person and must pay her this hourly wage. This person must pay for that person’s birth control pills. That person must lend this person this much money at this interest rate. This person must not earn more than this sum of money in a given year or else pay exorbitant taxes. This person must pay for his own college education but also that person’s college education because that person can’t afford it.

 … This is what authoritarianism looks like. It’s petty, it’s suffocating, and it’s done by people who consider themselves to be a force for good.

Displaying His Cleverness, Smarter-Than-Thou SJW Character Finds Racism in the Scott Adams Dilbert Office

Thanks to Scott Adams, Dilbert's office welcomes a Social Justice Warrior

Disney is sharing the keys to its new Magic Kingdom in Shanghai with China's Communist Party

On Thursday,

the Walt Disney Company … opened its $5.5 billion Shanghai Disney Resort, a theme park and hotel complex that represents a hard-fought victory in China for the singularly American entertainment conglomerate

reports Brooks Barnes in the New York Times.

The park — Disney’s first on the Chinese mainland — was held up as nothing less than a historic symbol of United States-China relations. … So far, the park here has suffered none of the cultural missteps that marred Disney openings in France and Hong Kong over the decades.

In a previous lengthy report (slideshow) written by Barnes with David Barboza, it turns out that several rides were left out.

Disney substantially dialed back its demands. In addition to handing over a large piece of the profit, the control-obsessed company would give the government a role in running the park. Disney was also prepared to drop its longstanding insistence on a television channel.

 … But Disney is sharing the keys to the Magic Kingdom with the Communist Party. While that partnership has made it easier to get things done in China, it has also given the government influence over everything from the price of admission to the types of rides at the park.

 … Worried that importing classic rides would reek of cultural imperialism, Disney left out stalwarts such as Space Mountain, the Jungle Cruise and It’s a Small World. Instead, 80 percent of the Shanghai rides, like the “Tron” lightcycle roller coaster, are unique, a move that pleased executives at the company’s Chinese partner, the state-owned Shanghai Shendi Group, who made multiple trips to Disney headquarters in California to hash out blueprint details.

Disney then ran with the idea, infusing the park with Chinese elements. The Shanghai resort’s signature restaurant, the Wandering Moon Teahouse has rooms designed to represent different areas of the country. The restaurant is billed as honoring the “restless, creative spirit” of Chinese poets.

From a more general viewpoint,

the Chinese government is growing more assertive and nationalistic. Emboldened by the size and breadth of its economy, China is stepping up its demands, pressuring companies to lower their prices, hand over proprietary technology and help advance the country’s development goals, even if that means financing the growth of local rivals.IBM has promised to share technology with China. 

LinkedIn has agreed to censor content inside the country. Even Google has been scrounging for a way back into China, after withdrawing in 2010 in the face of accusations of government censorship and intrusions by state-backed hackers

 … In October 1998, Mr. Eisner met Zhu Rongji, who had just been named prime minister, at China’s leadership compound in Beijing. [Disney’s chief executive at the time, Michael D. Eisner,] apologized for “Kundun,” calling it a “stupid mistake,” according to a transcript of the meeting.

“This film was a form of insult to our friends, but other than journalists, very few people in the world ever saw it,” Mr. Eisner said during the meeting. (“Kundun” bombed, taking in just $5.7 million against a production budget of about $30 million.)

Mr. Eisner said the company had learned a lesson. And he introduced Mr. Iger, then Disney’s international president, as the person who would carry on negotiations for a theme park. The Chinese prime minister responded favorably. Land in Shanghai, he said, had already been set aside.

… Disney needs to avoid getting lost in translation, an especially difficult proposition in China. It is a deeply American brand trying to break into a country where the government wants to suppress Western ideals.

 … Disney is going to extraordinary lengths to prove its commitment to China and the Communist Party. During a 2010 meeting with China’s propaganda minister, Mr. Iger pledged to use the company’s global platform to “introduce more about China to the world.” And he has done just that.

 … “When global brands ask me what they need to do to improve their chances in China, I often paraphrase John F. Kennedy: Ask not what China can do for your business, but what your business can do for China,” said John A. Quelch, who teaches at Harvard Business School and has extensive experience in China. “They need to demonstrate that they are willing to promote things the government is interested in.”

Mr. Iger is trying especially to give Shanghai Disney some Chinese flair. He instructed park designers to infuse as many Chinese elements as possible.

 … Mr. Iger even came up with a new slogan for the Shanghai resort, calling it “authentically Disney and distinctly Chinese.” He repeats the phrase constantly when talking about the site, and Disney executives in Shanghai have posted it around their offices. It is supposed to be a sign of respect for China and its people.

Apologizing for a(n allegedly) Chinese-unfriendly film?! That is life in Hollywood for ya. (While continuing the unending line of movies bashing American conservatives, naturally…)

You can read all about it in Hollywood's Offerings Promise Only to Get More Anti-American.

"It's fascinating to listen to people’s interpretations of your story" [Steven Soderbergh] — except when they are conservative Americans!

And especially when they are members of the communist bureaucracy's élite.

The easiest thing for MSM reporters to check and know for sure—that this was another attack in a gun free zone—is mentioned nowhere in the media

Friday singer Christina Grimmie’s was murdered in a gun-free zone in Orlando

writes the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Early [Sunday] morning, at least 50 people were fatally shot at an Orlando night club — also a gun-free zone.  In both cases the media has yet to report that these attacks occurred where general citizens couldn’t defend themselves.

Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point). Alternatively, they will move on to another place without uniformed officers.

In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets.

It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves (here, here, and here).

 … Media discussions today on assault weapons, background checks, but not relevant to the case here.  But the easiest thing for these reporters to check and know for sure, that this was another attack in a gun free zone, is never mentioned once anywhere in the media.  Hillary Clinton and President Obama both used the attack to call for more gun control. 

Related: my dispassionate in-depth examination of the history of gun control —
What Is to Blame for the Shootings? Does the Blame Lie with
the Right to Bear Arms Or Can It Be Found Elsewhere?

Doesn't the Number of 50 Dead at the Orlando Nightclub Turn Out to Be Misleading?

Are you (somewhat) surprised about the round number of exactly 50 dead from the Orlando nightclub?

So am I.

A coincidence like that is not unheard of, of course, but it turns out that the number is (slightly) misleading.

A day after the massacre, it turns out the number of dead was actually 49.

Not much of a change, agreed, but still: Why the number 50, then?

The media seem to have decided again to include the mass murderer among the "victims."

(Which is technically true, insofar as you are counting the "dead" per se.)

Now why would I use the word "again"?

Don't you remember United Airlines Flight 93? It took forever to design a memorial for the 40 heroes aboard the plane who fought back against the hijackers on September 11, 2001, making it crash in a Pennsylvania field instead of on its intended target.

And when a design was finally chosen, not only did it seem to resemble, deliberately or not, a red crescent, it seems like the number chosen to honor the victims was 44.

Why? Because among the dead were the four terrorists, naturally…

Apart form that, Dalrock points out on his website that When seconds counted, the police were only three hours away:

… so far it looks to me that whoever was in charge failed in a major way.  My guess is that he or she became fixated on the idea that this was just another hostage scenario, and ignored all evidence that this was a terror attack for a full three hours. … Something doesn’t make sense here, and I strongly suspect we are going to learn in the coming days that the police response was terribly botched.  

In the meantime, let us get back to the Apologizer-in-Chief. In the wake numerous instances of political correctness (shookhran to Ed Driscoll and Stephen Green of Instapundit), the New York Post's John Podhoretz laments that

Here again, and horribly, we have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.

He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.

So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

That’s just disgusting. There’s no other word for it.

America’s national attitude toward LGBT people didn’t shoot up the Pulse nightclub. This country’s national attitude has undergone a sea change in the past 20 years, by the way, in case the president hasn’t noticed.

An Islamist terrorist waging war against the United States killed and injured 103 people on our soil. We Americans do not bear collective responsibility for this attack. Quite the opposite.

The attack on the Pulse nightclub was an attack on us all, no less than the World Trade Center attack.

To suggest we must look inward to explain this is not only unseemly but practically an act of conscious misdirection on the president’ s part to direct out attention away from Omar Mateen’s phone call [in which he called the cops to pledge his fealty to ISIS].

True to form, the president spoke more words about the scourge of guns than about the threat of terror. In doing so, he actually retards rather than advances the cause of gun control he so passionately advocates.

Related: my dispassionate in-depth examination of the history of gun control —
What Is to Blame for the Shootings? Does the Blame Lie with
the Right to Bear Arms Or Can It Be Found Elsewhere?

Ted Cruz: "The next few days will be sadly predictable; Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject"

“Enough is enough. What we need is for every American – Democrat and Republican – to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.”

Polistick's Matthew K. Burke shows how Ted Cruz (who in November introduced a bill that would prohibit refugees from any country which is controlled in part by a terror group from entering the United States) gets straight to the point:

Ted Cruz issued a statement on Sunday in response to the Islamic terrorist attack against attendees at a homosexual nightclub in Orlando over the weekend, declaring that “our nation is at war” and that Democrats and Republicans should unite around the common goal of defeating radical Islamic terrorism.

Ted Cruz predicted in his statement that “The next few days will be sadly predictable,” that Democrats Obama and Hillary Clinton will continue to be unwilling to mouth the words “radical Islamic terrorism” and that they will use the terrorist attack in Orlando, like they have others before it, towards their goal of eventually eliminating rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats – from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton – will refuse to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.

Even though Cruz’s prediction was delivered in a timely manner on Sunday, his prophecy was already fulfilled after Democrat after Democrat, as well as the Democrat Media Complex, repeatedly blamed “the gun” for the terrorist attack — or anything other than radical Islam.

After offering his condolences to the victims and their families, Cruz called for a “time of action” and proclaimed that “all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando.”
Cruz also pushed for passage of the Expatriate Terrorist Act, “so that ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad.”

 Progressive leftist news and commentary websites were licking their chops on Sunday, salivating over another opportunity push for the obliteration of Second Amendment rights, after…

Read Ted Cruz’s entire statement below: 

It is a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, and who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates. We need to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, so that known ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad. We need a President who is serious – who will identify the enemy by name and do everything necessary to defeat it.

The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats – from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton – will refuse to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.

Enough is enough. What we need is for every American – Democrat and Republican – to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.

ISIS doesn’t just target soldiers. They don’t just target Republicans. Or Jews. They also target Christians and fellow Muslims. They target each and every one of us. As we saw this morning, they target the gay and lesbian community. Their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American.

For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn’t share their faith or sexual orientation. If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.

Today, all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando. All of us should lift them up in prayer, demand action, and if you have any information about the Orlando shooter or potential radical Islamic terror plots, please act to keep us safe by using the FBI tips website: https://tips.fbi.gov.

Meanwhile, Red State's Susan Wright notes that

Saturday night’s mass shooting at the Pulse Orlando nightclub in Florida has created a sticky predicament for social justice warriors …

Abandon political correctness.

That one had to go down hard for liberals. …

Texas senator has voiced the position Democrats and social justice warriors are faced with: Do they stand up for one special interest group – LGBT individuals – and condemn the ideology that calls for their murder, or do they stand for the Muslim community and the religious system that drove Omar Mateen to commit this heinous crime against the LGBT community?

I’m envisioning fevered, secret meetings in someone’s safe space, as they decide which group they’re more willing to hang out to dry.

Either way, as they wring their hands and desperately try to find some way to blame this on Christians, ISIS are likely planning their next attack.

Related: my dispassionate in-depth examination of the history of gun control —
What Is to Blame for the Shootings? Does the Blame Lie with
the Right to Bear Arms Or Can It Be Found Elsewhere?

Build more luscious public toilets, recommends a Danish Sexologist, so more people will feel comfortable using them to masturbate

Think about this the next time liberals call you a hater or a reactionary for not giving into the craze of allowing transgenders (i.e., men) into public bathrooms.

WARNING while scrolling (sloooowly) down: 
Photo from Danish newspaper below (at end of text) NSFW!!!

According to a Danish poll, reports Metro Express, 11% of Danish men have masturbated in public bathrooms, as have 9% of their female counterparts. Meanwhile, one Danish man in 8 and 9% of Danish women have had sex with a partner in a public toilet.

And just when you didn't think you could get a more "open" society, a Danish sexologist says it's a shame we don't build our public bathrooms accordingly:

We should build some luscious public toilets, which could act as aphrodisiac booths or masturbation-loos, so women too would feel comfortable masturbating inside. Indeed, more women than men feel stressed out, and when we get orgasms we secrete brain substances that work in an anti stressful manner. 

Brave new world…

Det er en skam mener sexologen:

Man burde lave nogle lækre offentlige toiletter, som kunne fungere som elskovsbokse eller onani-lokummer, så kvinder også gad onanere på de offentlige toiletter. Der er nemlig flere kvinder end mænd, der stresser, og når vi får orgasme udskiller hjernen stoffer, der virker antistressende.

Det siger Jakob Olrik.

Calvin & Hobbes: Bill Watterson's Comment on the 26th Amendment

Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Complete androgyny is the Left’s ultimate goal even if some of their useful idiots don’t know it yet

We're entering a sexless world where men and women are meaningless categories 

says Benny Huang (a tip o' the hat to Maggie's Farm's Bird Dog).

Using the “wrong” pronoun in casual conversation can cost you big bucks these days—even when it happens to be the right one. Gresham-Barlow School District in Oregon was forced to cough up $60,000 to a teacher who prefers the pronoun “they” because she “identifies” as neither male nor female. The teacher, Leo Soell, was granted damages in order to compensate her for the emotional distress of being “misgendered.” For the uninitiated, “misgendering” is nothing more than using the correct pronoun to refer to a person who prefers to be called something else. In the old days we just called it good grammar.

 … “Civil rights” is no longer about parity between men and women or the moral equivalence of same-sex relationships vis-à-vis opposite-sex relationships. Even the idea that men can be women (and vice versa) has lost its novelty. Now it’s about the abolition of sex itself.

For everyone’s sake I hope we have finally reached peak insanity.

There are a million variations on the concept of gender identity with exciting new ones being introduced all the time. Besides men who think they are women (and vice versa), there are also genderqueer, two-spirit, and intersex people. There are transmasculine people, who are not the same as transmen, just as there are transfeminine people, who are not the same as transwomen.

Most of my female readers will be shocked to learn that they’re actually ciswomen. A ciswoman is a woman who believes she’s a woman. Nearly every woman you’ve ever met is a ciswoman, which makes you wonder what the superfluous prefix is for.

Answer: to drive home the idea that there are different kinds of women, some of whom are male. We call those transwomen. Ciswomen and transwomen are two equally valid categories of women with neither group considered more deserving of the “woman” title than the other.

This whole movement, I am convinced, can only lead to complete androgyny—that ambiguous gray area between the masculine and feminine spheres. It is the Left’s ultimate goal even if some of their useful idiots don’t know it yet. We’ll get there one Lifetime television special at a time.

 … Feminists absolutely abhor masculinity, except among women. They attack all symbols of masculinity as exclusionary, misogynistic, and chauvinistic. They seek out boys clubs to annihilate them, often by the brute force of slanderous rape claims. See the Rolling Stone rape hoax or the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. Nor do feminists care for femininity, except among men. Anything that is soft, pink, or glittery sends them into fits of rage—which kind of makes me wonder why they’re called “feminists” in the first place.


In order to understand just how we got here and where we’re going, allow me to invoke a metaphor. Think of men as forks and women as spoons. Within the last hundred years or so we have come to see the two utensils as different in form and function but nonetheless a complementary matched set. But then along came the feminists who declared that spoons can do anything that forks can do! That statement isn’t technically true (and neither is its inverse) but we accepted it because every time we disputed it we were accused of hating spoons. We defended ourselves from the charge only to have our pleas fall on deaf ears.

Then came the homosexuals who decided that forks and spoons weren’t really complementary at all. Two forks or two spoons were just as good as the traditional fork-spoon combo because, in the final analysis, they’re all just tableware. This assertion was a tougher sell because most people could see that forks and spoons are inherently different. The homosexuals dismissed these substantive differences by comparing them to superficial differences such as the color of the eating utensils. So now when we sit down to eat we no longer expect to find a fork and spoon on the table and we blush with embarrassment to think that we ever did.
 
Then came the transgenders who proclaimed that sometimes a fork can actually be a spoon and vice versa. Looking like a fork, with all the defining characteristics of a fork, doesn’t necessarily mean that a utensil is a fork. Utensils are now free to “identify” as one or the other. Cut off the tines if that’s what it takes, or just leave them on—it doesn’t matter. From the moment the fork decides it’s a spoon that’s what it is. Each utensil’s word is final. All of us will be forced to use the fork as a spoon, to refer to it as a spoon, and to store it alongside the other spoons in the silverware drawer. If some of the other spoons don’t like it they need to get with the times.

As crazy as that sounds, we’re not done yet. The next step is to abolish the concepts of forkness and spoonness altogether. From now on we will all use sporks! Sporks are wonderful things because they’re interchangeable. No more messing around with two separate utensils when one will do the trick.

Call me old fashioned but I don’t want to eat all my meals with a spork. Sporks remind me of meals I’ve eaten at sketchy fried chicken restaurants. I want to live in a world in which all the forks are forks, all the spoons are spoons, and everyone knows the difference. They’re both beautiful in their own way and they both serve a purpose. Sporks are a lousy substitute.

If Hillary loses, America fails the progress test; It’s basically the Obama con job all over again, using sex rather than race

Hillary Clinton would have you believe she's the underdog in this race simply because she's a woman

writes Benny Huang (a tip o' the hat to Maggie's Farm's Bird Dog).

Hillary Clinton breathed new life into her “girl power” campaign when she complained last week in a New York Magazine interview about latent sexism. According to Mrs. Clinton, she’d encountered people at campaign events who told her

“I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.”

Yeah—said no one ever. It’s as if someone said to her “You’re awesome, I love you, but I’m just too sexist to check the box next to your name.” We’re supposed to believe that sexism is now so pervasive that even her supporters are affected. I’m sorry, but I’m not taking Hillary’s word for it.

But she wasn’t done fishing for pity. “Unpacking this, understanding it, is for writers like you,” she told the interviewer, Rebecca Traister. “I’m just trying to cope with it. Deal with it. Live through it.” Oh, okay. So now Hillary wants a medal for bravery too. It must be hard remaining stoic in the face of all the imaginary slights she is forced to endure on a daily basis.

Her anecdote has got to be one of the most self-serving I have ever heard, just too perfect to be genuine. Stories like this one cast her as the underdog taking on the sexist establishment. Who would ever guess that she is the establishment and arguably the most powerful woman who’s ever lived? Poor Hillary, she’s up against tough odds; you know, with the Democratic superdelegates lined up to vote for her and corporate America bankrolling her campaign.

In order for her candidacy to be a notable “first,” Hillary Clinton must be seen as smashing through the proverbial glass ceiling. Otherwise, where’s the accomplishment? The solution is to invent sexism where it doesn’t really exist; hence the invented quote she relayed to New York Magazine. She’s trying to turn the 2016 election into a test of how far we have progressed as a nation in terms of women’s rights. If she loses, America fails the test. It’s basically the Obama con job all over again, using sex rather than race.

 … If the New York Magazine interview is any indicator, the sex-based campaign is back like Freddy Krueger. I guess when all you’ve got is the woman card, you just keep playing it over and over again. Every moment she spends discussing the historic “first” that awaits us if we just have the courage to elect her is a moment she doesn’t have to spend talking about her email server, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Lolita Express, her speeches to Wall Street execs, or her voting record.

 … But let’s unravel what [Nancy] Pelosi’s saying. Apparently Hillary has a great record on national security—except for the biggest national security vote of her life when she signed on to a “grotesque mistake.” But no matter! The important thing here is that we elect a woman, regardless of her voting record. Girl power!

 … For the remainder of the campaign, Hillary is going to stick with what she knows—identity politics. She’s come so far and the future’s looking bright for her. Only two things stand between her and the White House—the FBI and a very weak candidate named Donald Trump. From now until November—and likely for the rest of her political career—Hillary Clinton will do nothing but play that tattered woman card, ceaselessly and without shame.