• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

BIG Lie at Fox About Google NOT Censoring Conservative Speech…Needs to Call Dennis Prager!!?

Google VP Karan Bhatia: Google isn’t politically biased and doesn’t censor conservative speech

From the very beginning, Google has always been about one thing above all else: knowledge. Even as the company has grown and evolved, our mission has remained the same: to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

A core part of our mission is our work to provide access to high-quality information for everyone.

Over the last few years, though, there have been accusations that tech companies like Google are censoring conservative speech by injecting political bias into our products. As the head of Google’s government affairs team, I’ll be testifying on this topic before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday afternoon where I’ll be clear: Google’s products are not politically biased.


Indeed, we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

At Google, we aim to serve users everywhere. We want all people – regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or political leanings – to find our products useful. That requires, above all, that we earn and maintain their trust.

Our users overwhelmingly trust us to deliver the most helpful and reliable information out there. Distorting results for political purposes would be antithetical to our mission and contrary to our business interests.

In Google Search, our focus is to make the extensive and diverse range of information on the web accessible to people around the world.

Every day, our search engine handles billions of searches of hundreds of billions of webpages. To manage this volume, we rely on an algorithmic approach and implement rigorous user testing and evaluation before we make any changes to our algorithms.

These algorithms don’t detect political perspectives, much less use them in any way to determine how webpages are ranked. Objective third-party studies – including, most recently, a comprehensive year-long assessment of Google News results by The Economist – have found no evidence of ideological bias in either direction.

We go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account.

While Google Search aims to index the web, our YouTube platform hosts content and strives to be a community where people can listen, share, connect and be successful. Here too we employ algorithms to help sort and recommend the millions of hours of video that users upload each day – again, political orientation does not factor into our ranking or recommendations.

We do have a responsibility to keep information that is detrimental to our users’ experience or to society off our platform. We post clear Community Guidelines that users must adhere to when posting content to YouTube, and we prohibit certain content from the platform, such as videos that incite violence on the basis of race or religion.

Such content, in my mind, is not conservative or liberal; it is not political speech; it is content that is dangerous to society and to our community of users. We see it as our right and our responsibility to remove it.

Operating at the scale we do, we’re bound to get criticism from both sides. And we do.

From time to time, for example, political advertising may violate our advertising guidelines – we’ve disallowed ads from both Democrats and Republicans.

From time to time, our Knowledge Panels in Search – which help you find quick facts when you search for information about topics like “Hillary Clinton” or “California Republican Party” – may reflect erroneous information from the web and need to be corrected.

We work hard to learn from our mistakes and constantly improve our products – but importantly, these mistakes have affected both parties and are not the product of bias.

We’re a company of more than 100,000 people increasingly stretched across 24 states in the U.S. and around the world, whose experiences reflect a broad range of backgrounds, religions and political affiliations.

Our employees’ diverse viewpoints are as broad as the 60 countries in which we operate, and we remain dedicated to creating the world’s best technology products that work equally well for everyone.

Ultimately, the growth of the Internet has fostered an unprecedented era of speech and the free flow of ideas.


I’m old enough to remember a time before the web, when our access to news was limited to a few TV channels and newspapers. Today, we have access to an astounding number of ideas, viewpoints and information.

I believe that the Internet and products like Search and YouTube have created opportunities for the expression of diverse political views and a more dynamic political discourse in America – for the benefit of everyone.



Response to MSNBC’s Fanatic Black Racist Liars of the Squad


by  John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Yesterday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and their “Squad” held a press conference to denounce President Trump’s attack on them. They got plenty of support from the press, which now routinely characterizes Trump’s tweetstorm against them as racist. Like, for example, the Associated Press and my home town newspaper the Star Tribune (“After being singled out by President Donald Trump with racist tweets….”).

The claim that Trump’s tweets were racist is false, as I wrote here. Apparently it is now “racist” to criticize “Congresswomen of color” as the Squad is often described. (For the record, AOC is paler than I am, and I am of Norwegian descent. But the meaning of words like “race” and “color” is flexible and mostly politically determined.)

This morning, President Trump again took to Twitter to renew his battle with the Squad:

Donald J. Trump


The Democrat Congresswomen have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate, & yet they get a free pass and a big embrace from the Democrat Party. Horrible anti-Israel, anti-USA, pro-terrorist & public…..

Donald J. Trump


…..shouting of the F…word, among many other terrible things, and the petrified Dems run for the hills. Why isn’t the House voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said? Because they are the Radical Left, and the Democrats are afraid to take them on. Sad!

Donald J. Trump


If you come after the President, the Country, the Flag – he’s going to defend himself. What the squad doesn’t like is that Donald Trump is enforcing the very laws that are on the books that were put there by Congress.” Jason Chaffetz. Also, buy Jason’s great new book, POWER GRAB!

Donald J. Trump


Our Country is Free, Beautiful and Very Successful. If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!

Donald J. Trump


Those Tweets were NOT Racist. I don’t have a Racist bone in my body! The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game. Republicans should not show “weakness” and fall into their trap. This should be a vote on the filthy language, statements and lies told by the Democrat…..

Donald J. Trump


…..Congresswomen, who I truly believe, based on their actions, hate our Country. Get a list of the HORRIBLE things they have said. Omar is polling at 8%, Cortez at 21%. Nancy Pelosi tried to push them away, but now they are forever wedded to the Democrat Party. See you in 2020!

It is true, as Trump says, that the four Congresswomen are anti-American, far left, and disliked by most Americans. This is why Nancy Pelosi has tried to rein them in. Construing Trump’s attacks most charitably, and overlooking the fact that he was flat-out wrong in talking about the Squad returning to the countries from which they came (all but one were born in the U.S.), he evidently is trying to tie the unpopular far-left Democrats to the party’s tail in anticipation of next year’s elections, perhaps hoping the GOP can re-take the House.

Most Washington Republicans are either condemning the president’s attacks, or avoiding reporters. The RNC, on the other hand, has supported him by releasing a series of tweetsbacking up his criticisms with video clips of Squad members. Yesterday House Democrats introduced a resolution condemning “President Donald Trump’s racist comments.” The resolution is largely a paean to immigration. I assume it will be voted on imminently, and will pass. It will be interesting to see whether some House Republicans vote for it.

President Trump has defended himself quite ably on Twitter, but the percentage of Americans who get their news from Twitter is vanishingly small. What most Americans are seeing is a consensus expressed in the press that President Trump is a racist. Defending himself against that pervasive charge, soon to be embodied in a House resolution, is hardly the position the president wants to be in.

That said, having dug the hole as deep as it currently is, Trump may as well continue his efforts to make Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley the face of the Democratic Party. They are, as he says, far-left, socialist, dictator-supporting, America-hating anti-Semites.

President Trump Responds to NBC’s Black Racists of “the Squad”!

Lefty Black Feminists Launch Racist Attack Against White President Donald J. Trump!

In Our Ugly Era of Unisex, What Is A Man?

What Makes Men Men?

The Nature of a Man Is What He Is For

by J. Budziszewski,  Touchstone Magazine:            (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

am a little amused, because it may at first seem that Glenn Stanton and I disagree about everything. He argues that manhood is not natural; I argue that it is. However, this is not a real disagreement, because the term “natural” is used in different senses. Psychologists and sociologists generally use it to refer to what is spontaneous or comes easily for creatures of our nature. Ethical philosophers and theologians generally use it to refer to what reflects the flourishing or proper development of creatures of our nature, and that may come hard. I certainly don’t think males become men easily or spontaneously. But for their own good, I do think they need to become men. So manhood is natural in my sense, even though not in Glenn Stanton’s—and he and I agree about this.

So let us get on with our subject.

How to Know What Men Are

What is it to be a man?

And how can we know?

Some people say the best way to understand the nature of the human male is to consider the selection pressures which operated during his presumed rise from the apes. There are two problems with this strategy. The first is that, on this hypothesis, the only genes that are consistently passed on are the ones for traits that have adaptive value. But obviously this isn’t so. Tell me the adaptive value in seeking to know the meaning of life, or in the ability to be awed, humbled, and transported by the music of J. S. Bach. One eminent sociobiologist claims that we have genes for believing in God, which are adaptive because belief in God unites the social group. Apparently no one told him that believing different things about God can tear the group apart. Besides, why not just have genes for social unity?

The second problem is that, even if we did develop entirely by natural selection, we don’t know what selection pressures were operating. Neo-Darwinian theory cannot say how human males had to come out. All it can do is observe how they did come out, and then spin tales of how that might have happened. After all, the primates all came out differently. The chimpanzee is highly aggressive and dominated by males; the bonobo is less aggressive and dominated by females; and we are neither chimpanzees nor bonobos.

Other people say that the best way to understand the nature of the human male is simply to observe him. That’s better, but there are problems with this approach, too. The first problem is simple variation, because men (and women) are not all the same. For every generalization about either sex, there are exceptions. From this, a naïve observer may conclude that there is no such thing as male and female nature. But this is a mistake. The fact that most women are more nurturing than most men is much more than an accident. It arises from a genuine difference in the underlying reality, the difference between womanhood and manhood as such.

This difference is so powerful that men and women are influenced by it even when they defy it. For example, we say women are more nurturing. Yet some young women conceal their pregnancies, give birth in secret, then do away with the babies. Nothing more opposed to nurturance could be imagined. But wait—consider the ways in which these young women do away with their babies. How often they place them in trashcans and dumpsters, still alive! Why don’t they just kill them? That is what a man usually does if he wants to do away with a child. Perhaps a young woman imagines her baby resting in the dumpster, quietly and painlessly slipping into a death that is something like sleep. Or perhaps she imagines a fairy-tale ending in which some other woman finds her baby in the dumpster and brings him up as her own. No, the act is not nurturing, but even so, the inclination to nurture hasn’t precisely been destroyed; under the influence of other strong motives, it has been perverted. I daresay that such data are not captured by our psychological instruments. It is not enough to count things with a survey. One must see with the eyes of the heart.

The second problem with the “just observe” strategy is that it cannot tell the difference between how we are meant to be and how we are. For example, some observers say that by nature human males are pretty nearly but not quite monogamous. Most men like the idea of having a mate, but many men wander. Now it may be true in a statistical sense that large numbers of men lapse from monogamy. It is also true in a statistical sense that most people are sick some of the time. Do we say then that by nature human beings are almost but not quite healthy? No. What we say is that nature intended them to be healthy, but sometimes they lapse from nature’s intention. Why then don’t we say that nature intended men to be monogamous, but that sometimes they lapse from this intention, too? It is as though a physician who saw only broken arms assumed that if arms have no fractures there must be something wrong with them.

How could we correct such a misguided physician? By calling his attention to the purpose or function of the arms, to their proper work. Broken arms cannot do their work as well as intact ones; therefore, brokenness is not their natural state. The nature of a thing is not determined by how something happens to be, but by what it is for—by what it is designed to do and to become if everything goes well.

The Potentiality for Fatherhood

Very well, then: What are men and women for? In one respect they are for the same thing: being rational, they are for the knowledge of the truth, especially the truth about God. But there is a difference. A man is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentially fathers, and a woman is a rational being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers.

The idea of potentiality needs explanation, because potentiality is not the same thing as physical possibility. Consider a man who is infertile because of some disease. Although it is not physically possible for him to be a father, we should not say that he lacks the potentiality for fatherhood; as a man, he has the potentiality, but the disease has blocked its realization. It is just because he is a man, just because he is endowed with the potentiality for fatherhood, that the block to its physical realization is such an occasion for sorrow.

Another reason why the expression “potentiality for fatherhood” requires explanation is that although siring children is the most characteristic expression of fatherhood, it is far from its only expression. A man might sire a child yet fail in the greater perspective of fatherhood, because he fails to protect the mother, or because he fails to protect the child, or because he fails to give the child that father’s love which only he can give because it is different from a mother’s love.

We can carry this line of reasoning still further. A potentiality is something like a calling. It wants, so to speak, to develop; it demands, so to speak, a response. It is like an arrow, notched in the string and aimed at the target, even if it never takes flight. It intimates an inbuilt meaning and expresses an inbuilt purpose, which cannot help but influence the mind and will of every person imbued with them. Alice von Hildebrand has remarked that although not every woman is called to marry and bear physical children, “every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother.” I am saying that, for men, the reality is parallel. Not every man is called to marry and sire physical children, but every man, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological, or spiritual father.

Inside Manhood & Womanhood

Obviously I cannot speak from inside the experience of womanhood, because I am a man. Yet even a man can see that it is a very different thing to be a woman than to be a man. A man may deeply love his child, but he does not have a womb with which to carry the child in his body for nine months, or milk with which to nourish the child from his breasts. These experiences connect the mother with her child in an intimate, physical bond which we men can easily recognize, but which we cannot experience. In subtle ways they condition a mother’s emotional responses not only toward her child, but also toward herself and even toward everyone else.

They also make sense of certain other differences between men and women, differences for which each sex is sometimes wrongly criticized. For example, are women in general more protective of their bodies than men, and men less careful about their bodily safety than women? Of course they are. Women, who carry children, need to be more protective of their bodies. Men, to protect them, need to be less careful about their own safety. It isn’t that men, by being men, are more virtuous, or that women, by being women, are more virtuous. However, their most typical temptations are somewhat different from those of the other sex, and although they can have all the same virtues, their virtues have different inflections.

The other sexual differences make sense in this light, too. As Edith Stein reminds us, men are more prone to abstraction, and women are more prone to focus on the concrete. Men don’t mind what is impersonal, but women are more attuned to the nuances of relationships. A man tends to be a specialist and single-tasker; he develops certain qualities to an unusually high pitch, using them to do things in the world. A woman tends to be a generalist and multitasker; she inclines to a more rounded development of her abilities, using them to nurture the life around her.

The woman’s potentiality for motherhood ties all her qualities together and makes sense of her contrast with men. Consider just that multitasking capacity. In view of what it takes to run a home, doesn’t it make sense for her to have it? A woman must be a center of peace for her family, even though a hundred things are happening at once. But a man is designed more for the protection of the hearth and the people who surround it than for their nurture.

In speaking of the hearth, it may sound as though I am saying that women should never leave the kitchen. No. Although men gravitate to careers and women to motherhood, not all women will pursue an exclusively domestic life. Even so, the potentiality for motherhood explains why women who do pursue a career, and who have free choice of career, tend to choose careers that allow them to give first place to caring for their children. It also explains why they tend to choose careers that give greater scope to maternal qualities.

In fact, even when a well-balanced woman chooses a traditionally masculine career, she tends to perform it in ways that give scope to maternal qualities. A male lawyer tends to focus on the properties of the task itself. This is worthy, but it is all too easy for him to lose sight of the humanity of his clients. Can he learn to remember their humanity? Of course he can, but he is more likely to need the reminder in the first place. A female lawyer may find the abstract quality of the law somewhat alienating, even though it is necessary. On the other hand, she is much less likely to forget that she is dealing with human beings.

Outward & Inward Directedness

It is much more difficult to speak about fatherhood than about motherhood. Perhaps because the father’s connection with his children is not mediated by his body in the way that the mother’s is—or perhaps because paternal absenteeism and other forms of masculine failure are so conspicuous in our day—most of us have a dimmer idea of fatherhood than of motherhood. Open mockery of fathers has become a fixture in popular culture.

The difference between fatherhood and motherhood, hence between manhood and womanhood, involves a difference in the male and female modes of love for their children, but there is much more to it than that. The difference is both greater and deeper. Manhood in general is outward directed, and womanhood inward directed. This is no cliché; the distinction is quite subtle. Outward directedness, for example, is not the same as other-directedness, for many men prefer dealing with things. Inward-directedness is not same as self-directedness, for the genius of women includes caring for the
local circle.

If the contrast between outward and inward directedness sounds like a dig at male vanity or sexual promiscuity, or a gibe at female narcissism or emotional dependency, it isn’t that, either. Characteristics of those sorts are not the essence of the sexual difference; they are merely vices that result from the indulgence of temptations to which the two sexes are unequally susceptible. In speaking of outward and inward directedness, my intention is not to call attention to the corruptions, but to the good things that are sometimes corrupted. It is a good thing that an unmarried man pursues the beloved, whereas an unmarried woman makes herself attractive to pursuit; it is a good thing that a husband protects the home, whereas a wife establishes it on the hearth; it is a good thing that a father represents the family and oversees it, whereas a mother conducts the family and manages it.

Kings & Queens

Although the directive geniuses of the father and the mother are not the same, both of them truly rule the home. We may compare the father with a king reigning over a commonwealth, the mother with a queen. These potent archetypes express different inflections of glory, nobility, and self-command. Men joke about their wives telling them what to do. The joke would have no point unless two things were true: On one hand, they would not want their wives to be kings; on the other hand, they know their wives are really queens.

We sometimes say that fathers and mothers share and divide the different aspects of sovereignty between themselves in much the same way as the directive functions are divided in corporations. Is this a new idea? Far from it. In one of the letters of St. Paul to Timothy, we find him using a curious pair of words—a verb, proistemi, for what a husband characteristically does (1 Tim. 3:4,5,12), and a noun, oikodespotes, for what a wife characteristically is (1 Tim. 5:14). Both words indicate authority, but with a difference. The term used for the husband has a range of meanings that include standing before, presiding, superintending, protecting, maintaining, helping, succoring, and acting in the capacity of a patron—very much like a chairman of the board. But the term used for the woman means “ruler of the house”—literally, “despot of the house”—very much like the chief executive officer. So the idea is really very ancient.

When all goes well, fathers and mothers also exemplify and specialize in different aspects of wisdom. A wise father teaches his wife and family that in order to love, you must be strong; a wise mother teaches her husband and family that in order to be strong, you must love. She knows that even boldness needs humility; he knows that even humility needs to be bold. He is an animate symbol to his children of that justice which is tempered by mercy, she a living emblem of that mercy which is tempered by justice. A wise father knows when to say, “Ask your mother,” and a wise mother when to say, “Ask your father.” When they do this, they are not passing the buck, but sharing sovereignty. Each of them refracts a different hue from the glowing light of royalty.

Today it is almost embarrassing to have to hear things like I have been saying. Comparisons of fathers and mothers with kings and queens seem naïve, nostalgic, sentimental, and exaggerated. They make us squirm. There are strong reasons for this reaction, but they are bad ones. How many parents have lost their regal dignity, disbelieve in their authority, and confuse the proper humility of their office with being self-mocking and ironic? We have turned husbands and wives into androgynous “spouses,” fathers and mothers into interchangeable “parent figures.” We approach having a child like acquiring a pool table or wide-screen TV. Would it be fun? Would it be tedious? Would it be worth the expense? Fathers and mothers have need of recovering their sense of regal calling, taking up their ball and scepter, and ruling their dominions with love for their precious subjects. It is not for nothing that the king of a commonwealth is called “Sire”; humanly speaking, of the callings of fatherhood and kingship, the deeper and more primordial is fatherhood.

May it be needless to say that mothers and fathers must also recover the conviction of their need for each other. They must do this not only for their own sakes, but also for their young. Every child needs both kinds of love. It is not enough to provide an intermediate love that is half motherly and half fatherly, or an inconsistent love that is motherly at some times, fatherly at others. Nor is it enough to give one kind of love for real, while giving only a pretense or simulacrum of the other kind. Even though the two loves resemble each other, they are distinct, and neither can be imitated by anything else. Yes, it may be true heroism when, through no fault of one’s own, a father or a mother raises a child all alone; yet it is better not to be alone. No woman can fully take the place of a father, any more than any man can substitute for
a mother.

The Chivalric Element

These differences reach even further. For men, growing up is like joining a brotherhood. Today, our grasp of this fact is attenuated by the fact that we have lost our rites and customs of apprenticeship and coming of age. Yet men naturally desire to be something like knights, who not only do hard things, but in firm and fatherly manner train squires who attend them so that these young men can learn to do hard things, too. As I was in earnest before, about the calling of all men to extended fatherhood, so I am in earnest now, about the chivalric element in this calling. A man will more readily aspire to manhood if he can taste it; his life must have the flavor of valor. This is true of how he carries himself not only toward other men, but also toward women.

The fashion of the day is to think of medieval knights not as valiant but as cruel. Many were, yet even in that day, knighthood was more than a veneer for oppression. It was a great and noble ideal that did much to civilize a society still governed by a warrior caste and too often running with blood. Like the members of our own ruling class, different as it is, the members of that caste sometimes fought for the wrong things, fought in the wrong ways, or committed atrocities. All such perversions should be condemned. Yet let us not abuse the members of that caste just because they liked to fight. Are there not plenty of things to fight for in this world, and plenty of evils to oppose? Do we not even speak of the Church Militant?

After all, most men do not simply like to fight; they are too lazy for that. They like to fight when there is something worth fighting for. True, they sometimes make up things worth fighting for just to be able to fight for them, and one of the tasks of becoming a man is learning to resist that temptation. There are plenty of noble things to fight for without making them up. A woman may resisttemptation, but a man thinks of making war against it. A woman may seek to reside in the citadel of virtue, but a man thinks of capturing it. In the same martial spirit, a virtuous man desires to contend for just laws, to defend and protect sound traditions, to attack lies and fallacies with the weapons of frankness and reason, and yes, even to make gentle war for courtesy.

By the way, if it is right at times to fight, then it is also right in some ways to enjoy fighting, even though it is also right to grieve the evils incidental to the struggle and try to minimize them. A certain militancy and a certain vigilance are an essential part of manhood, and a man’s great project is not to do away with his impulse to fight, but to learn to fight nobly and generously—to refine the raw ore, burn away its dross, and make it into purified steel.

This is an ideal to which any man may aspire. It is wholly independent of what he does for a living, of how much education he has had, or of whether he is muscular or athletic. Medieval knights engaged their enemies physically, and there is always some need for that; that is why we have armies and police. Yet there are many ways to fight besides the physical. One may fight through a word in season, a clap on the shoulder, a quiet admonishment or commendation. One may wage war by bearing witness, by lifting the fallen, by refusing to countenance evil. One may do battle by admonishing idlers, by encouraging the faint-hearted, by helping the weak.

A Long Quest & a Difficult Journey

All this makes the achievement of manhood hard work, labor that requires a firm hand with the desires and devices of the heart. The best instance of a human male is not a glorified, walking packet of urges, but a man who, for the sake of the highest and greatest goods, commands himself, strengthens his brothers, and defends his sisters, regarding even the meanest of women as a lady. You may say this is not natural. I say it is natural, in the sense that only in this way does a being of his nature flourish.

Once upon a time the differences between men and women were not thought so strange. We have a long quest and a difficult journey to make before we can speak of them again with ease and gaiety. There are so many sweet and lovely things that our ears can no longer hear without odium, so many blameless things that can hardly be discussed without scandal. Just imagine the din that would erupt in the world if I were to praise and extol that great activity that comes so much more readily to the woman, and is slandered under the false name of being passive: Be it unto me as you have said! And if I were to compound the offense by pointing out that every last one of us, both man and woman, is feminine with respect to God—there would be an earthquake.

The journey back to the commonwealth of sense will be long and difficult, and we will meet trolls and enchanters on the way. I say: laugh at them. They will obstruct passage, demand tribute, and try to lure us into byways and bogs. But since we cannot become any more begrimed and bewitched than we already are in our day, why should that discourage us? With a smile on our lips, a song in our throats, a sword in our hands, and a prayer in our hearts, we may as well fight with good cheer.


America’s Major League FOUL BALL…ITS MEDIA!!

The media are a major contributor to the huge crisis at the border

A few months ago, most of the media, in collusion with other Democrats, were perpetuating the blatant falsehood that President Trump was just lying about the problems at the border.  The mantra that was continually spewed to the public was that it was a “manufactured crisis.”  The purpose of this lie is to indoctrinate the thought into the public’s mind that Trump and his supporters are racist.  The lie allowed Democrats to obstruct funding for the wall and obstruct the building of shelters and enforcing the law, making the crisis far worse.

It doesn’t matter that Trump is trying to enforce the laws Congress passed, that ICE and the border agents are doing their jobs.  The only reason this is happening is that Trump is a racist and he doesn’t want people who don’t look like him to come into the country.  Under Trump, the country continues to accept over one million people each year to legally become citizens.  These immigrants come in all colors.  Facts haven’t mattered in a long time to most of the media.  Electing Democrats is all that matters.

As the crisis has continually become more serious, the same people who say Trump was making up the crisis now blame Trump, the border guards, and DHS for the problem.  What a load of crap!  The crisis has been compounded because Democrats refuse to provide funds, refuse to enforce laws in sanctuary cities and states, and encourage families and unaccompanied children to take the dangerous journey by telling them they can come without risk.  Now the presidential candidates are offering free health care and promised they won’t be criminally charged.  It will just encourage more to come.

Many Democrats, including Obama, Schumer, Durbin, and Bill Clinton, have all talked about the need to rein in illegal immigration.  They have used the same words as Trump.  Yet they were not called racists, and Hollywood didn’t protest.  The hypocrisy is obvious, but as always, the facts are hidden from the public by most of the media.

Democrats had the White House from 2009 to 2016.  They had complete control of Congress in 2009 and 2010.  Yet they did not pass comprehensive immigration.  It appears they like immigration as an election issue.

Here are just a few examples of the lie about the manufactured crisis.

Pelosi and Schumer dismiss Trump’s ‘manufactured crisis’ on border security

After the media and Democrats continually lied about no crisis, Pelosi lied to the public that they never said there wasn’t a crisis at the border.  She knows that the media never hold Democrats to account for their blatant lies and inaction.

Nancy Pelosi: ‘We Have Never Not Said There Was a Crisis’ at U.S.-Mexico Border

Here are some things the media didn’t care about during the Obama-Biden eight-year reign that they pretend to care about now: separation of powers, the rule of law, children separated from their parents, children in cages, and deaths of immigrants on the border.

Doesn’t it indicate fake outrage when the media supported Obama no matter what he said or did?

Something journalists and Democrats didn’t care about when Obama was in office and don’t care about now is all the people who have been killed by illegal aliens each year.

President Obama compounded the immigration problem by dictatorially changing immigration law when he repeatedly said the Constitution wouldn’t allow him to do it.  Anyone with a brain the size of a pea knew that people weren’t going to send back the parents or other siblings who didn’t meet the criteria in DACA, but the media and other Democrats cheered for this violation of the separation of powers.

Obama officials rushed to explain photos from 2014 that went viral showing locked-up immigrant children — and Trump’s facilities look the same

President Obama Speaks on Immigration Reform

What’s more, “it’s meant the heartbreak of separated families,” the President stressed.

20 Times Breitbart Reported on Migrant Deaths During Obama-Biden Years and No One Cared

Why don’t the media report all the lives saved by border patrol agents each year?  The answer is that obviously it doesn’t fit the Democrat agenda to label Trump and his administration as racists, and the Democrat agenda is all that matters.  It would be inconvenient to tell the people the truth.

Border Patrol Agents Rescued 4300 Migrants from Life-Threatening Situations in 2018

Border Patrol agents carried out more than 4,300 rescues of illegal immigrants along or near the U.S. border with Mexico during Fiscal Year 2018, CBP officials reported on Friday. This is up from more than 3,400 the prior year.

Journalists and other Democrats always play the race card to gin up racial hate and violence in order to keep minorities on the plantation. They need their votes to win so they will do and say whatever is necessary to get those votes. The manufactured crisis lies, along with the lie about what Trump said at Charlottesville, are deplorable, irredeemable and disgusting.

Then, after journalists and other Democrats lie to trash Trump and divide the country, they lecture about how polarizing and divisive Trump is. They have trashed and lied about Republicans for decades in order to get votes so they should quit lying or implying that this all started because of Trump.

Here is a riddle: What two common characteristics do the following lies have in common?

Settled science lies, Russian Collusion lies, Obamacare lies, manufactured crisis lies, the hands up don’t shoot lie, the lie that Trump said some Nazis are good, the tax cuts only benefit the rich, and across the board income tax cuts cost the government money.

The first characteristic is that they are all obvious lies. The second is that they are all Democrat talking point lies to push the Democrat agenda and elect Democrats.

When will journalists do their job working for the American people instead of campaigning for Democrats and big government?

Getting to Know Today’s Dem Feminists Better

New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s marriage history

Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 22, 2019
Although she has legally corrected the discrepancy, she has declined to say anything about how or why it happened.

New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws.

Omar has denied the allegations in the past, dismissing them as “baseless rumors” first raised in an online Somali politics forum and championed by conservative bloggers during her 2016 campaign for the Minnesota House. But she said little then or since about Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, the former husband who swept into her life in 2009 before a 2011 separation.

The questions surfaced again this month in a state probe of campaign finance violations showing that Omar filed federal taxes in 2014 and 2015 with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while she was still legally married to but separated from Elmi.

Since the recent findings of the campaign finance board that discovered Omar had improperly used campaign money to pay a lawyer to fix her tax filings, the Star Tribune searched public records — including available databases, the marriage and divorce filing, business licenses, university records and other documents — and could find little publicly available information about Elmi. The search of records could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.

Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so. Hirsi did not reply to multiple calls, texts and e-mails. Social media posts indicate Elmi is in Africa. He did not respond to multiple e-mails.

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”

Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin issued a statement Friday asserting that the questions about her personal life are illegitimate:

“Since before she was elected to office, Ilhan has been the subject of conspiracy theories and false accusations about her personal life. Emboldened by a president who openly treats immigrants, refugees and Muslims as invaders, these attacks often stem from the presumption that Ilhan — like others who share those identities — is somehow illegitimate or not fully American.

“Ilhan has shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life — even when it is personally painful,” he continued. “Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

The questions have nevertheless persisted as a political threat over the years while the former war refugee from Somalia made history being elected to the Minnesota House and then winning a seat in Congress.

Her ascent as the nation’s first Somali-American lawmaker has won her global praise and given her an international platform to champion human rights, criticize Israel, and challenge the Trump administration’s immigration policies — positions that have drawn further ire and scrutiny from conservative critics.

Omar’s widely condemned statements about the influence of Israel and Jewish money in American politics have only upped the stakes for her critics, who are also often passionate defenders of the Israeli government.

Throughout it all, Omar’s public persona has been informed by her biography as a refugee overcoming racial and cultural barriers. Yet she has insisted on silence on some key details.

“It’s really strange, right, to prove a negative,” she told the Star Tribune in an interview in October, before she was elected to Congress. As for Elmi, she said, “If someone was asking me, do I have a brother by that name, I don’t. If someone was asking … are there court documents that are false … there is no truth to that.”

Beyond denying the provocative allegation that Elmi is her brother, Omar has shed little light on her married life, which began in 2002, when she wed Hirsi in their Muslim faith tradition.

The Star Tribune has sought to authenticate some of the most egregious allegations, using public records and available social media posts, which make up the bulk of the case against her.

Some of the original social media accounts linking Elmi to Omar after their split in 2011 appear to have been removed, and documents verifying the family relationships of refugees from war-torn countries with limited government record-keeping are notoriously hard to obtain, even by U.S. immigration authorities.

Omar declined to make her tax and immigration records available for this report.

What is known is that Omar, at the age of 19, sought a legal marriage license with Hirsi in Minnesota. Though they had three children together, they would not legally marry until January, 2018, after she had been in the Minnesota Legislature for a year and had dissolved the marriage in 2017 with Elmi.

After reaching what Omar called “an impasse in our life together,” she and Hirsi split for a period in 2008. They had two children at the time.

In February 2009, public records show that Omar legally married Elmi, who she has identified as a “British citizen.”

The relationship was brief. Omar said it ended in 2011, when she reconciled with Hirsi.

She gave birth to their third child the following June. She identified Hirsi as the father.

While Omar said she and Elmi had divorced in 2011 “in our faith tradition,” they would not legally divorce until December, 2017 — a month before she got legally married to Hirsi.

Imam Makram El-Amin of Masjid An-Nur in Minneapolis said an Islamic marriage must include the officiant and at least two witnesses, preferably one from each side of the family, to be a valid union. El-Amin, who did not perform Omar’s marriages, said he has credentials to sign a marriage certificate. But just like any wedding at a church or synagogue, it’s not legal in the state of Minnesota until processed by the county.

Similarly, an Islamic divorce requires two witnesses, ideally the same two who witnessed the marriage, plus a three-month waiting period, El-Amin said. The marriage can be then dissolved in the faith, although the divorce would require a Minnesota court to earn civil legal standing.

In her 2017 divorce, Omar attested that she had no contact with Elmi after their 2011 separation. Conservative activists say photos and other social media posted by Omar and Elmi on Instagram and Facebook suggest Omar may not be telling the truth. The Star Tribune has been unable to independently obtain the original posts, although images purporting to be screen grabs continue to populate right-leaning media sites such as Power Line Blog, PJ Media and Alpha News. They remain in public view.

One image featured on AlphaNewsMN depicts an Instagram photo purportedly posted by Elmi on June 12, 2012, the day after Omar gave birth to her third child. It shows a close-up picture of Elmi holding a newborn child the website says is Omar’s, based on accompanying text that ostensibly refers to the baby girl as “nieces.”

That and other Instagram photos have since been removed.

In her divorce, Omar said she had tried unsuccessfully to reach Elmi to respond to her court filings, including through social media. She also said that she did not know any other friends of family members who could contact him.

Omar and Elmi used a Columbia Heights address on the marriage application. Three months later, Hirsi used the same address to obtain a business license for his One-on-One Cafe Lounge, public records show.

Omar declined to offer an account of their living arrangement at that time.

Siblings who petition for a U.S. visa for a noncitizen sibling have typically had to wait more than a dozen years to obtain the document, according to the U.S. State Department. Applications for a spouse carry a minimal waiting period, but Minnetonka-based immigration lawyer Steven Thal said examples of siblings fraudulently marrying to gain immigration benefits are nearly unheard of compared to cases of strangers marrying to get green cards.

“It is so rare that you would think that it would be more easily uncovered,” Thal said.

Omar’s relatives could also clear the air, but they have remained silent about her marriage to Elmi. She declined to make her family available for this story.

In 2016, her campaign provided the names of six siblings, but only their first names, citing their need for privacy. Elmi was not among them.

In October 2018, Omar showed a Star Tribune reporter cellphone photos of family immigration papers but would not share the actual documents.

Omar’s sister Sahra Noor was a high-profile executive of the Twin Cities health care nonprofit People’s Center Clinics & Services until 2018. She declined interview requests in 2016. She currently runs her own health care consultancy in Kenya. An e-mail to her was not returned and efforts to call her there were unsuccessful.

Over the years Elmi, who attended high school in St. Paul, has had occasional contact over the internet with other friends and acquaintances, including retired DFL activist and Minneapolis city worker Barb Lickness, who lived in the same downtown Minneapolis apartment building with Elmi around 2012, before he moved to London.

She described him as “friendly in a soft way,” and a neighbor who participated enthusiastically in the building’s social scene. She recalls that he was tall, dapper, and spoke with a pronounced British accent, indicative of a foreign upbringing. He never mentioned being married, Lickness said.

Lickness confirmed Elmi’s identity in an Instagram photo purportedly posted by Omar showing the two of them and three others posing in London in 2015. The photo is featured on several conservative media websites, but could not be verified by the Star Tribune.

What’s clear from the recently released documents of the campaign finance board is that the young upstart’s campaign was unprepared for any potential blowback from the questions surrounding Omar’s marriage to Elmi, first reported in 2016 on Somalispot.com, an online public affairs forum.

Omar created a “crisis committee” comprising a few DFL veteran operatives to try to respond. Their priority was preparing a dossier on their own candidate — a fairly typical task usually completed before a campaign, not after a primary victory.

“There was a lot of frustration that any of these things were not disclosed to any of the campaign staff when I decided to run for office. And so I think everybody who was doing this wanted to put a research file together that had the benefit of making sure that there weren’t any other dark things in my closet that I might not have told them about,” Omar said during a December deposition before the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

The board would eventually fine her $500 and require her to use her own money to pay lawyers who did personal tax work.

During the deposition, Omar suggested she is disconnected from details — unaware, for instance, that she violated tax law by filing a married-jointly return with the wrong husband.

Asked if she amended her tax filings, she replied, “I don’t think so.”

The board’s staff asked again. Omar replied, “I don’t recall doing any.”

Asked about using campaign money to take political trips, Omar said they were always approved by the Minnesota House, but then placed responsibility on her staff: “They always gave me an opinion that said, sure, this looks fine. Or at least that was my understanding that that’s what my staff was doing before they would commit me to doing anything.”

Carla Kjellberg, an attorney and political adviser during the crisis period, paints a different picture of Omar’s engagement level with details: “I did nothing, I want to make that clear, without Representative Omar’s authority. And she was in these meetings where those things were decided upon and I was directed to do that,” Kjellberg said during her own deposition.

Kjellberg declined to comment.

Campaign e-mails disclosed by the campaign finance board also show a concerted effort to quash the Elmi story. An August 2016 internal e-mail written by campaign spokesman Ben Goldfarb, a veteran DFL operative, suggested reaching out to political newsletter writer Blois Olson “and shut it down with him as we do with the Strib.”

The Star Tribune wrote about the controversy the next day under the headline, “Marriage discrepancy clouds Ilhan Omar’s historic primary victory.”

Omar expressed frustration over the controversy again last October, telling the Star Tribune in an interview that like many refugees without birth certificates, “anybody can accuse me of whatever they want and I don’t have a way to defend myself.”

Rep. Mohamud Noor, DFL-Minneapolis, lost to Omar in the primary before replacing her at the Legislature when she went to Congress. He compared the attacks on Omar to claims that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Because he took over Omar’s state legislative office phone number, Noor’s voice mail was getting filled with hateful, racist messages until Google removed the number when people conducted Google searches for Omar.

In the end, Noor said, Omar will be judged by what she does for her district.

“Initially there were missteps, and so much focus on her rather than on what she was doing,” Noor said. “She’s made some tremendous efforts to reconnect and re-engage and focus on the district.”

Star Tribune staff writers Eric Roper and Torey Van Oot contributed to this repor