I took a nap this evening and didn’t watch the debate. Did Hillary explain what them meaning of ISIS is?
Townhall has found an honest campaign ad for Hillary. You can see it here.
Vote for me because I’m [insert identity]!
Certainly, Hillary Clinton has said one reason to vote for her is that she’s a woman, and some on the left have committed the sin of questioning whether that is a good enough reason. As a result, we’re beginning to see some interesting pushback from feminists. Michelle Goldberg, a Sanders support by the way, has a piece over at Slate complaining about how men are explaining Hillary to her.
Of course, people of good faith are going to disagree about individual examples of sexism. What’s immensely frustrating, however, is to realize how many ostensibly enlightened men think that gender can ever be totally disaggregated from Clinton’s efforts to become the first female president. They seem to believe that their class politics exempt them from taking sexism seriously. They certainly don’t care about female leadership.
I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise; as long as feminism has existed, left-wing men have dismissed it as a bourgeois triviality. Now we know how little things have changed.
Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, I, as an unenlightened male, will keep looking forward to the American equivalent of Margaret Thatcher arriving on our political scene.
Hillary Clinton’s Middle East policy will depend on what the meaning of ISIS is, but at this point, what difference does it make?
Hillary Clinton is testifying before the Benghazi Committee this morning.
At this point what difference does it make?
As reported by the New York Times, Mrs. Clinton’s gun control proposal contains these nonsense points.
A central issue in Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores. But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.
Mostly false. Gun sales between private parties do not require a federal background check. This includes face-to-face transactions at a gun show in most circumstances. However, if the gun show transaction (private party or dealer) involves the sale of a hand gun and the buyer is from out-of-state, the transaction must be made using a licensed gun dealer in the buyer’s home state which will result in a background check. Also, if the seller at the gun show is a licensed dealer, he must complete the usual check. The same restrictions apply to Internet sales (or classified ads in a newspaper).
Mrs. Clinton will suggest urging Congress to end another loophole, by which people with felony records who should be barred from obtaining a gun can get one if their background check is not completed within three days. That loophole was how Dylann Roof, the accused killer in Charleston, obtained his weapon despite a felony conviction for a drug arrest.
Mostly Nonsense. It is already a crime for a felon to posses a firearm. No felon is likely to answer truthfully about his background on the ATF transaction form. If he did, any dealer would stop the sale immediately without bothering to call in to the NICS. Rather than catching a significant number of felons, this could delay purchases by qualified buyers. Self-defense is a human right that predates the Second Amendment. Any government action aimed at impinging on that right should be subject to strict scrutiny. Perhaps some bad guys will get guns, but so will lots of women threatened by stalkers.
Why don’t the hoplophobes just cut to the chase and try to repeal the Second Amendment?
I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.