• 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

The Minnesota That Produced Omar

THE WASHINGTON POST DOES IT AGAIN

by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine

How much mileage did the Democrats get out of President Trump’s unpresidential tweet suggesting that four ultra-radical, America-bashing congresswomen leave the country? I’m not sure, but I know they didn’t get as much as they wanted.

Now, however, the Democrats and their media backers have a new card to play. At a Trump rally in North Carolina, some in the crowd responded to the president’s reference to the rads by chanting “send them home.”

Trump didn’t say this. He never has. Indeed, he has said he was uncomfortable with the chant.

No matter. The chanting gives a new lease on life to those who unfairly use Trump’s tweet against him.

Naturally, the Washington Post is at the forefront of this effort. Today’s edition features two front page stories about the North Carolina chanting, plus two more on page 6. There’s more in the op-ed section from the usual suspects.

In this post, I want to focus on just one of the news stories — an article by Felicia Sonmez, Rachel Bade, and Seung Min Kim called (in the paper edition) “N.C. Republicans split in response to ‘send her back’ chant at Trump rally.”

The article is dishonest at multiple levels. Its most glaring lack of respect for the truth is the claim that the crowd’s chant of “send her back” is “almost identical to [Trump’s] tweet Sunday telling the women to ‘go back’ [to the places they came from].”

This single, brief passage in the Post contains two instances of dishonesty. First, Trump didn’t tell the four rads to go back. He asked “why don’t they go back?” In quoting from Trump’s tweet, the Post omits the words that are inconsistent with its argument. He didn’t tell them to do anything. The Post is just making it up.

Second, any half-way intelligent person knows the difference between telling people to go back (which Trump didn’t do) and sending them back. To send the four rads back would involve forcibly deporting them. Telling them to go back would leave them free to go back or not. Suggesting that they go back (which is what Trump did) is more innocuous still.

Sommez, Bade and Seung Min Kim know the difference. Yet, they pretend there is virtually none. They are lying.

These three also take issue with Trump’s claim that the four rads hate America. They state: “None of the women has said they hate the United States.”

That’s right, and Trump has never said he’s a racist or that he hates any racial or ethnic group. Yet, pursuant to an editorial decision, the Post writes article after article claiming (sometimes in the headline) that Trump is a racist.

One can easily infer that the four rads hate America from the contempt they display towards the U.S. in their statements. Any half-way intelligent person knows that one can hate something or someone without using the word “hate.”

Even the premise of the Post’s article — its jumping off point for the attack on Trump — is fallacious. The supposed “split” among North Carolina Republicans the Post cites is between Sen. Thom Tillis and Rep. Mark Walker. But there is none.

According to the Post, Tillis said that Trump had no control over what some in the crowd chanted. Walker said the chanting was offensive and needs to stop before it defines the Republican Party.

There no inconsistency here. Both statements can be true.

Tillis’ statement is indisputable. The first part of Walker’s — that the chanting was offensive — is true as well, in my opinion.

The second part — that the chanting will define the GOP if it doesn’t stop — may be too alarmist. However, it will be true if the Washington Post has its way.

 

The Washington Post does it again

Comment from ghr… Actually, the fascistic left Washington Post and New York Times news prints are the major daily reporting sources offered by  the daily  lefty   news standards of Minnesota’s biggest  fascistic information  source, the StarTribune.

Honest folks in Minnesota still carrying some degree of truthful knowledge are quite aware fascistic leftism has generally  ruled the state since Dem Paul Wellstone’s  tenure “making America forever socialist”.

Yet, if he were alive, I don’t think he would ever be swimming in the same fascist pool as this creepy foreigner Omar and  the folks at today’s  StarTribune!

Getting to Know “Minnesota” Omar Better

DAVID STEINBERG: TYING UP LOOSE THREADS IN THE CURIOUS CASE

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

In four intensely reported investigative columns — here (August 13, 2018), here (October 23, 2018), here (October 30, 2018), and here (November 5, 2018), — David Steinberg has explored the evidence suggesting that Ilhan Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother in 2009. This is his fifth. He titles it “Meet Leila Elmi: The Missing Link Showing Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother.” Drawing on his research, interviews, and social media evidence he makes the case that Omar has engaged in a variety of fraudulent activities and willful misrepresentations related to her marital arrangements. He writes:

On October 22, 2008, the U.S. State Department stopped accepting applications for the Priority 3/Refugee Family Reunification program — the process by which refugees can apply for asylum if one family member is already a legal U.S. resident. State halted the program because DNA testing — primarily of Somalis — had concluded that perhaps 87 percent of applicants were fraudulently claiming family relationships.

Despite continuing war, Somalia of 2008 was not comparable to the open hell of the early 1990s, when an eight-year-old Ilhan and her family fled to Kenya’s Dadaab refugee camps. She lived there from 1991 until 1995, aged eight to 12. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services then helped Ilhan, her sister Sahra, and their father Nur Said receive asylum in the United States along with thousands of other Somalis.

The complicated moral question of fraud, let alone fault, among this 1990s wave of refugees escaping civil war will never be answered with accurate statistics. We will have to settle for adjectives like “widespread” and “rampant.” Yet the negative outcomes cannot be ignored. Even refugees with strong desire to assimilate with Western civic order are hampered by the possible discovery of conflicting documents. And compromising information becomes leverage in a community already difficult to police.

Twelve-year-old Ilhan had no say on the manner in which she arrived in the United States.

However, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (D-MN) is now under scrutiny for acts she took beginning in 2009 — not 1995. In 2009, Omar was a 26-year-old U.S. citizen. She had been a U.S. citizen for nearly nine years.

Additionally, the foreign national Omar apparently helped commit fraud was not fleeing hell in 2009, either. Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was a long-time citizen of the United Kingdom. He even possessed a high school diploma from the United States: Elmi attended a St. Paul, Minnesota high school for his senior year of 2002-2003, and graduated before returning to London.

We look to 1995 not to incriminate a kid, but to answer questions about what Omar did 14 years later as an adult U.S. citizen.

Please read the verified evidence below — and read it alongside the three years of verified evidence published by Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and myself (our work is linked here). The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.

———————-

The preceding information was given to me by multiple sources within the Minneapolis Somali community. The verifiable evidence corroborating their information follows below:

In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

Ilhan and Ahmed married in 2009, presumably to benefit in some way from a fraudulent marriage. They did not divorce until 2017.

Above: This chart summarizes how multiple sources in the Minneapolis Somali community describe key events in the life of MN Representative Ilhan Abdullahi Omar — whom these sources state was born as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.”

———————-

Confirming some of the above information, as it might appear on their 1995 U.S. immigration papers, is not difficult. A basic background search shows that “Nur Omar Mohamed,” “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar,” and “Sahra Noor” all received SSNs in 1995 or 1996 in Virginia. Verified address records show adult members of the Omars living at three addresses in Arlington, Virginia at that time: 1223 South Thomas Street, 1226 South Thomas Street, and 1107 South Thomas Street.

The United Kingdom records of the relevant individuals are similarly easy to find. Try with a simple Ancestry.com account and similar online tools: There appears to be only one “Leila Nur Said Elmi,” only one “Mohamed Nur Said Elmi,” and only one “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” in the UK.

The remaining evidence below verifies a sibling relationship between Ilhan and Ahmed.

————————

Sahra Noor is the only person Ilhan Omar has ever publicly identified as her sister. Ilhan and Sahra have also, publicly and often, referred to the same man as their father. And, per Preya Samsundar’s 2016 investigation, they both identified this man as “Nur Said”:

The above image, a screenshot of Sahra Noor’s confirmed Facebook account, was first published by Preya Samsundar in 2016.

He also identifies himself as “Nur Said”.

See below — this is a screenshot of his current Facebook account. As of this article’s publication, it is active and searchable by anyone online. (I have archived his page with archive.is):

Note this thumbnail of “Leyla Cilmi,” listed as a friend of Nur Said.

In 2018, as I published a series of articles investigating Ilhan’s past, this account name changed from “Leila Elmi” to “Leyla Cilmi.”

However, the URL did not change. It still refers to “leila.elmi”:

Below, see the 1997 marriage certificate for the only Leila Nur Said Elmi listed in the United Kingdom.

I retrieved this certified copy from a government records center in London in February of this year; note the date in the document’s lower right corner. This is a public record. Anyone can retrieve this document to verify its authenticity.

See that Leila attests to her father’s name being “Nur Said Elmi”:

So far, we have verifiable evidence that Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, Sahra Noor, and Leila Nur Said Elmi referring to their respective fathers as “Nur Said” or “Nur Said Elmi.”

Next, we have verifiable evidence showing the three are sisters, and are all referring to the same man.
——————–

See below: These two posts appeared on Ilhan Omar’s confirmed Instagram account in 2013 and 2015, respectively. (Instagram user “hameey” became the blue-checked “IlhanMN” account at some point in 2016. A cursory search through older posts on the “IlhanMN” account still reveals many instances of commenters addressing “IlhanMN” as “hameey.”)

In August 2016 — after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar originally broke the story about Ilhan’s curious marriage — the below post disappeared from Ilhan Omar’s Instagram account.

However, a source within the Minneapolis Somali community had downloaded much of Omar’s Instagram account before posts were deleted.

The source recently reviewed these two deleted posts, recognized their significance, and sent them to me via email. I made these emails available to Power Line to confirm how I received these posts, and to confirm that this particular source had provided several other pieces of information that had proven authentic and verifiable:

You are looking at what appears to be Leila Elmi, Nur Said, and Ilhan Omar — together. According to Ilhan, they are pictured on an August 2011 trip to East Africa.

Now, see below: You are looking at what appears to be Leila Elmi in white, Ilhan in black, and Ilhan’s amazing caption in red:

Further, the above post, with the #londontrip hashtag, depicts Ilhan Omar’s infamous 2015 trip to the UK. This is the same trip on which Ilhan was photographed with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi himself:

Below, see one more piece of evidence establishing Leila Elmi as Ilhan’s sister. This post is currently live, and I have archived it.

In December 2016, Ilhan reported that she was harassed by a cab driver while in Washington, D.C. attending meetings. She claimed that the cab driver called her “ISIS” and threatened to remove her hijab. A few days later, Ilhan filed a report with the D.C. Department of For-Hire Vehicles and the D.C. Office of Human Rights.

Ilhan initially stated that she was accompanied in the cab by her “sister.” A Star Tribune reporter in 2016 claimed to have a copy of her complaint, and that it stated she had been in the cab with her sister.

I few months ago, I received a copy of Ilhan’s report via FOIA request. The description of the person Ilhan had been in the cab with was redacted.

Suleiman Axoow, per his profile, is a frequent host of social events for the Washington, D.C. Somali-American community. On December 9, 2016, Suleiman Axoow stated that he was with Ilhan soon after the cab incident:

On Wednesday night I had an opportunity to have dinner with State Representative-Elect Ilhan Omar & her lovely sis Leila Elmi …

Check the “Edit History” on Suleiman’s Axoow’s post. He even initially included a link to the Leila Elmi/Leyla Cilmi account:

It is not plausible to believe that Axoow simply made a mistake.

One would have to believe that Axoow:

  1. Had dinner with Ilhan and a second woman;
  2. that the woman was introduced to him as any other person alive;
  3. and that a couple days later he made the 1-in-7-billion mistake of misremembering this woman as Ilhan Omar’s “lovely sis Leila Elmi.” A random name of a woman from England he has no clear reason to know.

Ilhan has steadfastly refused to give media the names of any of her siblings besides Sahra Noor. The only rational explanation: Leila Elmi was in the United States to visit Ilhan Omar, attended this dinner with her, and Ilhan (carelessly?) introduced her as Axoow describes.

We now have verifiable evidence that Ilhan Omar, Sahra Noor, and Leila Elmi are siblings with a father named Nur Said Elmi.

All that remains is to verify our sources’ claims that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is indeed Leila Nur Said Elmi’s brother.

————————-

We have a great, easy start: Leila and Ahmed already appear to be two of the only three “Nur Said Elmis” in the United Kingdom.

Next, view the marriage certificate again: It attests that Leila Nur Said Elmi lived in Camden, a borough of London, in 1997, and that she was 24 years old at the time.

Ahmed Nur Said Elmi was 12 in 1997. Per his own admission, he attended a school in Camden for students aged 11 to 18: Haverstock School. (See its address here; “Camden” is in the school’s URL: https://www.haverstock.camden.sch.uk/.)

This link on Ahmed’s confirmed Facebook account is currently live, and I have archived the page:

(Note that he lists his current location as “Nairobi, Kenya.” See here for definitive evidencethat Ahmed has recently been working in Nairobi with — of all people — Sahra Noor.)

Back in August 2016, Preya Samsundar posted two finds now worth revisiting:

  1. Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s Instagram post calling two young twin girls with a backpack from a primary school in Camden his “nieces.” Ilhan’s Instagram account “loved” the post.
  2. Ilhan’s Instagram post picturing herself with the same twin girls. Ilhan marked her location as “Camden Lock Village.” Ilhan also calls the girls “her nieces.” The post is yet another that is tagged #londontrip from 2015.

The twin girls are, indeed, the daughters of Leila Nur Said Elmi. This can be confirmed by anyone through posts that are currently active on Mohamed Nur Said Elmi’s Facebook account.

We now have verifiable evidence that:

  1. Sahra Noor, Ilhan Omar, and Leila Elmi are siblings with a father named Nur Said Elmi.
  2. Leila Elmi and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi both lived in the same neighborhood of London, and know each other.
  3. Both Ilhan Omar and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi call Leila Elmi’s children “nieces.”

——————–

Earlier this year, a source gave me one more piece of information that would inform UK law enforcement — if granted a warrant — where to locate conclusive proof that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi married his sister Ilhan Omar.

Ahmed Nur Said Elmi apparently arrived in the United Kingdom in 1995 or 1996, only 10 or 11 years old, without a parent. Who looked after him until he arrived in the United States in 2002?

According to my sources, it was Leila.

There is no adoption record (which can be public in the UK); it would have been a “Kinship Care” or “Family and Friends Carer” arrangement. I am advised that Haverstock School would have records of student Ahmed Nur Said Elmi living at the same address as Leila Elmi with her listed as his guardian.

However, these two very recent posts — currently active on Instagram and archived — already put a nice bow on everything. Here are Leila and Ahmed calling each other “mum” and “son”:

—————-

On August 10, 2017, Ilhan swore under penalty of perjury — literally, she signed a half-inch or so under “penalty of perjury” — that she’d had zero contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011.

Further, Ilhan swore that she did not know where to find him, and that she did not know a single person who was likely to know his whereabouts. She did this to apply for a default divorce from Ahmed — a divorce where one spouse cannot be located and served.

Now, a tremendous amount of evidence — from this article and our prior articles — shows that Ilhan perhaps perjured herself eight times with her nine answers. Minnesota’s perjury statute allows for a sentence of up to five years — for each instance:

Yet this may be the least worrisome of her current legal exposures.

Consider the disturbingly inadequate evidence used to obtain FISA warrants on members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Consider that Democratic representatives have demanded that Attorney General William Barr release grand jury testimony — itself an illegal act.

Yet here we have:

  • Verifiable UK and U.S. marriage records
  • Verifiable address records
  • Time-stamped, traceable, archived online communications (Convictions and settlements based upon social media evidence are commonplace, Anthony Weiner being a notable example)
  • Background check confirmations of SSNs and birthdates
  • Archived court documents signed under penalty of perjury
  • Photos which can be examined to rule out digital manipulation
  • The 2019 Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board investigation, which found Omar filed illegal joint tax returns with a man who was not her husband in at least 2014 and 2015
  • Three years’ of evidence published across many articles — none of which has been shown to be incorrect, or have even been challenged with contradictory evidence from Rep. Omar or any other source
  • Perjury evidence that stands on its own — regardless of whom she married:
    • Long after June 2011, she was clearly in contact with the only man in either the U.S. or the UK with the same name and birthdate as the man she married. She was clearly in contact with several people who were in contact with him.
    • Further, Preya Samsundar did contact him, published how she managed to contact him, and published his email admitting to being photographed with Omar in London in 2015. To be clear: Omar was legally married to an “Ahmed Nur Said Elmi” at the time she was photographed next to a man who admits his name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and that he is in the photo.
    • Samsundar published all of this information on how to contact Ahmed Nur Said Elmi a few months before Omar swore to that nine-question court document.
  • Rep. Omar has refused all inquiries from her constituents, elected officials, and media outlets to provide any specific evidence contradicting even a single allegation suggested by three years of now-public information.
  • In fact, Omar has responded by making information less available:
    • In August 2016, after Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar posted the allegations, Omar’s verified social media accounts were taken offline.
    • Ahmed Nur Said Elmi’s social media accounts were also taken offline.
    • When the accounts returned, a large amount of potentially incriminating evidence had verifiably been deleted.
    • I found and published at least ten additional “before and after” instances of evidence still being deleted in 2018.
  • Omar has released carefully worded, Clintonian statements that denigrate those seeking answers from her as racists. Yet she has repeatedly refused to answer questions or issue anything other than public relations statements.
  • I have a large amount of information that we have not published for reasons including the protection of sources.

I believe Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and me, with our three years of articles, columns and posts, have provided more than enough evidence to give law enforcement authorities probable cause to open an investigation. Now would be the chance for law enforcement, and especially for Rep. Ilhan Omar’s House colleagues, to make a sincere stand against corruption and for the uniform application of the law.

David Steinberg was New York City Editor at PJMedia from 2009-2019, primarily handling coverage of Israel, homeland security, and political corruption. His investigation of Eric Cantor’s 2014 primary campaign is credited (ask Dave Brat!) with tipping the historic loss, perhaps the beginning of the “Trump Era.” As noted above, since 2018 Steinberg has published several articles of exclusive evidence covering Rep. Ilhan Omar’s past; they can be accessed here: https://bit.ly/2FJq529.

Follow David Steinberg on Twitter: https://twitter.com/realDSteinberg

 

David Steinberg: Tying up loose threads in the curious case

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.

 

But Lefties Google, Amazon, and Such GOPers Are All Killers of American Small Shops!

SLOW LEARNERS ON THE LEFT

by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

Some days—actually most days now that I think about it—the left hands you an easy win. Take the case of Book Culture, a four-location independent bookseller in New York City. Book Culture enjoys a reputation as a progressive bookstore, a certified outlet for all the literary needs of the wokerati. Trouble is, Book Culture is about to go under.

Why? I’ll let them explain it:

“Our four stores are in danger of closing soon and we need financial assistance or investment on an interim basis to help us find our footing. This is true in spite of the fact that business has been good and we are widely supported and appreciated,” [owner Chris Doeblin] wrote. “In the last 30 months the payroll costs for Book Culture have risen by 50% and it has been difficult to adapt quickly enough. We have now made the structural changes to our company and the cuts that will allow us to move ahead profitably once we find the financial resources we need.”

Now, why might their payroll costs have risen by 50 percent? What could possible explain this. It’s a complete mystery. Oh, wait. . .

Doeblin blamed payroll cost increases on the city’s minimum wage raise, which he says increased hourly wages for his employees “from $10 to $15.25 since December 2016” and forced him to initiate layoffs and reorganizing.

But but but—I was told minimum wage hikes would have no effect on businesses! You mean mandated higher payroll costs might make some businesses unviable? And how could a progressive outfit like Book Culture have had a clear conscience about paying a miserable $10 an hour before the mandate?

What remedy does Book Culture propose? A free labor market perhaps? Silly me. Of course you know the answer: government subsidies.

Doeblin explained to Gothamist what he believes the business needs to survive, and his larger ambitions to try to help other small businesses stay alive in an ever-changing city: “I think we need at least $500K in a term loan but I hope to find $750K to a $1M,” he said. “I would like the city to immediately [guarantee] such a loan and then embark on a serious plan to improve the odds of small business in New York. I would like to be on that panel too, because there is a lack of creative optimistic thinking and action.”

Here’s a serious plan: turn a profit, or close up.

 

 

Simon Says Dems Will Sell Us Pocahontas in 2020!

Handicapping the Dems’ ‘Bonfire of the Mediocrities’

by ROGER L. SIMON  at PJMedia:

With the standard caveat “It’s waaaay early” (is that enough a’s?) here’s my analysis of the Democrat horse race so far.

Who am I to do this? Well, I was among the first to publicly predict a Trump victory, but so what? I was taking a flyer then and am now. But so is everybody else. So here goes.

But before I start, you will note I channeled Tom Wolfe by calling this the “Bonfire of the Mediocrities” because I don’t think you could possibly find twenty-four duller individuals in a phone book (to channel William F. Buckley) than those running for the Democratic nomination. It’s stunning, actually, and a sad commentary all by itself about our politics. Where are the Bobby Kennedys of yesteryear? I’d even take Hubert Humphrey, I’m so desperate. The best and the brightest? This is more like the worst and the dimmest — and I’m not just talking about Bill de Blasio and Eric Swalwell.

Further, there may be “nothing new under the sun,” but I have yet to hear a single idea with even an iota of originality from any of those “mediocrity-crats.” Everything is recycled as if copied from the back pages of a Sears catalog circa 1932 — copied being the operative word.

But enough of burying my lede. If you’re going to take a flyer, take a flyer.

I PREDICT… drum roll… the Democratic candidate for 2020 will be… ta-dum… Elizabeth Warren.

Yes, yes, I know Joe Biden is currently the frontrunner in all the polls, but the man was last year’s news in 1983. Besides the obvious endless plagiarism, icky handsy behavior, and litany of corruption we all know about (Ukraine, etc.), can you imagine this dodderer negotiating with Xi Jinping? Trump’s already dubbed him a “dummy” and, like many of Donald’s nicknames, it may but rude, but it’s accurate.

Nevertheless, Joe might be better than number two in the polls, Bernie Sanders (aka Woody Guthrie without the talent), who is a communist himself. (Oops, sorry. Democratic socialist — please to call it research.) Maybe he could teach Xi the words to “This Land Is Your Land,” if not him, Putin. Speaking of which, imagine the kompromat the Russkies have on Bernie. It might turn Adam Schiff Republican. But never mind, neither of the oldsters will make it to the finish line.

And, yes, I know Ms. Warren has already been written off by Trump and a host of others as Fauxcahontas, but that was so 2018. It’s 2019 already and Warren is starting off pretty well. She’s number three in the new Morning Consult poll, beginning to separate herself from a field of soon-to-be also-rans, not quite three with a bullet but getting there.

Warren’s a hard campaigner and doesn’t come off as stupid, which in this field says a lot. She’s also the only woman with a shot, and that counts for even more in today’s Democratic Party that is panting for a female candidate. Pair her with one of the Castro brothers (not Raul, but Julian or Joaquin) and the Dems have a ticket that will satisfy all the moral narcissists from the Upper West Side to Pacific Palisades.

But can they beat Trump? Well, that’s another matter. But they can win the nomination because the real competition will not be able to run. Who is that, you ask? Well, none other than Michelle Obama, of course. Democrats are pining for her.

But there’s a problem. And a big one. In fact, it’s going to be a problem for the entire Democratic Party and those who can separate from it (like Warren, presumably) will be better off. I refer, of course, to Russia Probe 2.0 — far more dramatic than the first with actual arrests of principles in the offing — that is hurtling down the track like the runaway train at the end of Act 1 of Dr. Zhivago with Comrade Strelnikov at the helm.

Beware any officials (like several in the Obama administration) or politicians that are in its way. Just today we heard there were not just one, but two illicit dossiers being distributed in the fall of 2016, the newly-revealed one given by Obama State Department personnel to as yet unnamed friendly senators. (Ever wonder why Senator Warner has been so upset with William Barr lately… just thinking out loud here?)

Anyway… or should I say en todos modos… the real political action for the second half of 2019 will not be between the candidates, many of whose names will not even appear on Jeopardy. It will be about revealing the truth after two years of lies. Michelle will not want to get involved with this, for good reason. Neither will Oprah, by osmosis. Forget the popcorn. Get out the Beluga.

UPDATE: As a fellow Dartmouth grad, all I can say about Kirsten Gillibrand is she must have played one too many games of beer pong… with pool balls.

Roger L. Simon — co-founder and CEO emeritus of PJ Media — is an award-winning author and an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter. 

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/handicapping-the-dems-bonfire-of-the-mediocrities/

IF MEDIA DON’T WANT TO BE CALLED PROPAGANDISTS, THEY NEED TO STOP PUBLISHING CHINESE AND RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!!

The American media’s Trump-Russia hysteria of the last few years gains some real perspective when you consider that they are more than willing to take blood money to distribute publications that whitewash authoritarian crimes.
by Mark Hemingway  at the Federalist:

If you ever spend any time in the Washington D.C. area, there’s a good chance you’ll come across a publication known as China Daily. In appearance, it’s a newspaper. In reality, it is official propaganda from the Chinese government that Communist Party officials deem appropriate for influencing those inside the Beltway. You can find it all over downtown D.C. in newspaper boxes. Large stacks of free copies are also dropped off directly at offices all over the city.

Even better, if you subscribe to the Washington Post, you can get communist propaganda delivered straight to your doorstep for a fee. A few times a year, the Post comes wrapped in a special advertising supplement called China Watch that, again, does its best to approximate a legitimate newspaper. But underneath the masthead in fine print, it reads: “This supplement, prepared by China Daily, People’s Republic of China, did not involve the news or editorial departments of the Washington Post.”

Anyway, you may have recently heard about how two million people out of a population of seven million in Hong Kong recently protested in the streets against the Communist Party’s attempt to further snuff out their little pocket of freedom. Here’s how China Daily is reporting what happened:

Parents in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region took to the streets on Sunday to urge US politicians to not interfere with the SAR’s extradition amendments and its internal affairs.

The protest, organized by several Hong Kong social groups, also condemned foreign entities for misleading young people in the city.

Among these social groups was an alliance of more than 30 local political, business and legal dignitaries who support the proposed amendments to the SAR’s extradition law. They marched outside the US Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macao, calling on the US to stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs.

The whole article is a damnable lie, and yet, as far as I know, the brave truth-tellers at the Washington Post have been taking money to distribute this kind of bilge at least since 2011.

Of course, in recent years we’ve been subject to endless preening from journalists about “fake news” and their renewed commitment as truth tellers. The Washington Posteven adopted the slogan “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” We can argue what this metaphorical “darkness” is supposed to be, but democracy literally dies in oppressive communist regimes.

Further, the Post has spent the better part of a year attacking the Trump administration for its inadequate response to Saudi Arabia after the kingdom apparently killed one of the Post’s writers, Jamal Khashoggi. Regardless of the Post’s Pollyanna-ish denial of Khashoggi’s questionable activism masquerading as journalism, his murder was appalling and the Saudis’ general human rights record is terrible.

It’s not hard to see why the paper would be thundering about injustice here. However, that argument is harder to make when a venerable institution such as the Post is so untroubled by the world’s worst human rights abuser that it distributes their propaganda.

Just to wrap your head around the hypocrisy, note that last November 29, the Post published yet another advertising insert from China Watch:

Curtis Houck

Ohhh boy! The same @WashingtonPost that’s lecturing about press freedom after one of their columnists was murdered by the Saudis is STILL running Chinese propaganda inserts. They’ll claim it’s just an “Advertising Supplement,” but they’d stop if they were serious.

Khashoggi was murdered the previous month, and the Post was still in high dudgeon about it. But the timing of it again publishing Chinese propaganda was even more appalling. The day after the Post ran ChiCom propaganda, Time reported on how a “Uighur woman and mother of three told a Congressional committee this week that she was tortured and suffered the loss of a child in a mass internment camp, pressing the U.S. to take punitive action against China’s mass detention of the Muslim minority.”

Time magazine has a video of the woman’s wrenching testimony. The woman sobs as a translator recounts that “I thought that I would rather die than go through this torture.” Do note Time’s use of the genteel descriptor “internment camp” here, given the recent full-throated defense by many in the media of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez describing illegal immigrant detainment centers on America’s southwest border as “concentration camps.” One of these governments is actually detaining people against their will explicitly because of their religion and ethnicity, and if you’re unclear on which is which, you have a promising career in bartending ahead of you.

Of course, Uighurs are just the tip of the iceberg for a government that executes people on a mass scale, profits from harvesting the organs of political prisoners, sends people to labor camps for tweets it doesn’t like, and lets 1 billion people live in grinding poverty while the politically connected minority that runs the country has become some of the wealthiest people on earth.

The same day as the Time report, the Post, to its credit, ran its own damning coverage of Uighur human rights abuses. One could point to this as evidence that the Post advertising and editorial sections are operating independently, as they should.

But unlike lots of struggling newspapers, the Post is owned by the richest man in the world, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. It seems unlikely that they are going to fold if they refuse to run communist propaganda. If they’ve been running these advertising sections for years because the sum the Chinese government is paying is, in fact, significant enough to affect their bottom line in ways that would harm the paper, then there are legitimate questions about the Chinese buying influence that should be asked.

Of course, China isn’t the only problem here. State-owned publisher Rossiyskaya Gazetaalso publishes the English-language propaganda excerpt Russia Beyond — formerly known as Russia Beyond the Headlines — which is published as an advertising section in major newspapers all over the world. The New York Times confirmed it was still distributing Russia Beyond last year, and the Washington Post distributed it as late as 2015. A lengthy RealClearInvestigations report last year detailed how Russia Beyond is also repulsive propaganda:

It serves not only Russian national interests, but also the personal power plays of President Vladimir Putin. According to a study by the Institute of Modern Russia, a New York think tank run by Pavel Khodorkovsky, a Russia Beyond insert in the largest German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, featured an article attacking his father, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a onetime oligarch imprisoned and later pardoned by Putin.

‘In the words of Ulrich Schmid of the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the article is reminiscent of the Russian media’s ‘journalistic execution’ of Russia’s number one political prisoner,’ the institute said, referring to the elder Khodorkovsky. ‘In the article, Khodorkovsky is painted in the darkest colors as a Komsomol apparatchik, cynical businessman, and an interpreter of the Bible.’

Go ahead and read the whole thing. The American media’s Trump-Russia hysteria of the last few years gains some real perspective when you consider that they are more than willing to take blood money to distribute publications that whitewash authoritarian crimes. The Mueller investigation indicted 13 Russians involved with The Internet Research Agency, a Russian “troll factory” involved in social media and online misinformation campaigns.

Of course, the efficacy of such internet trolling, even when specifically targeted at influencing an election, is dubious. Nonetheless, if that rises to the level of meriting indictments, shouldn’t printed propaganda that gets implicit credibility from being bundled with major papers be treated as a serious concern?

To the extent that these papers have had to address the issue, the answers have been lackluster at best. When Tucker Carlson asked Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple about the Post publishing paid Russian propaganda when he has been so critical of the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, the response was embarrassing. “That’s a good question. I’ve got a lot to write about. I’m interested in that topic,” he said, before stammering through an unsatisfactory and evasive answer.

Certainly, the media are struggling these days and can be awfully defensive about accusations they are dishonest and grind partisan axes. So here’s a free tip to help them begin to recover their credibility: If you don’t want to be treated like propagandists, stop publishing actual propaganda on behalf of the worst people on earth.

Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator

Why Did Robert Mueller Become So Lefty Corrupt?

WHAT WAS MUELLER UP TO?

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

Robert Mueller turned in a disgraceful performance as Special Counsel, allowing himself and his staff to be used as a tool of the Democratic Party. He knew from an early stage that the core of what he was supposed to be investigating–“collusion”–did not exist. But he plowed forward, hoping to ensnare members of the Trump campaign or administration in process crimes. Meanwhile, he ignored the real scandal: the attempt by top-ranking officials at the FBI and CIA to swing the 2016 presidential election to Hillary Clinton, or, failing that, to disable the incoming Trump administration before it had a chance to get off the ground.

All the while, there has been a weird mystery about what, exactly, Mueller was instructed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to do. Byron York, who has followed the story closely, explains:

The 448-page Mueller report has been public for two months, so it might seem strange that the Justice Department’s original instructions to special counsel Robert Mueller, outlining what he was assigned to investigate, are still a secret. But they are. And now, it turns out those instructions were more extensive than previously known. Until now, it was widely understood that there had been two “scope memos” from DOJ to Mueller. Now, it turns out there was a third, as well.
***
On April 3, 2018, news broke that Rosenstein wrote a second scope memo to Mueller. Dated August 2, 2017 — just 10 weeks after the original appointing document — the second scope memo came to light as a result of court proceedings for the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. But most of it was blacked out. Still, the public could see that Rosenstein wrote that the original May 17, 2017 scope memo “was worded categorically in order to permit its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals. This [August 2] memorandum provides a more specific description of your authority.”

Rosenstein apparently went on to list several assignments, but only one was not blacked out. In that section, Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate allegations that Manafort “committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law,” as well as allegations that Manafort “committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.”

This is interesting because the first charge, investigating whether Manafort colluded with the Russians–he didn’t–fell within the commonly understood ambit of Mueller’s assignment. But the second–whether Manafort failed to register as a lobbyist for a foreign country, which at the time, years before he had any involvement in the Trump campaign, was common practice–had nothing to do with the “Russia investigation” as normally understood. It was a mandate to trap Manafort in an irrelevant offense, presumably with the intent of getting dirt on Donald Trump.

Manafort had no such dirt to give, so today he is imprisoned, in failing health, paying an extraordinary penalty for an offense for which many wealthy and powerful lobbyists have gone entirely unpunished. Manafort was singled out only because he had the temerity to serve in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. This suggests that the entire Mueller enterprise was corrupt from the beginning.

Whatever else Rosenstein told Mueller remains secret to this day.

Why?

Now there is more. The Justice Department has recently allowed members of some congressional committees to view the scope memos, and out of that has come the news that there was a third scope memo to Mueller. Dated October 20, 2017, its contents remain a secret. But its very existence suggests something was going on behind the scenes in the relationship of Mueller and his supervisors at the Justice Department.

Was Mueller heading off in new directions, with Rosenstein belatedly giving him authorization to proceed? Was Mueller proposing to investigate people or events not known when he was originally appointed? Was there something else?

At the moment, the third scope memo, like most of the second scope memo, remains a secret.

Given what we now know about Russiagate and Mueller’s partisan “investigation,” there is no reason for such secrecy. Americans deserve to know what Bob Mueller looked into, and–this is a separate question–why. This whole operation has zero credibility, and its basis needs to be exposed to the light of day.