“Jewish Leaders” in the Twin Cities – who vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and likely played the role they needed to play in getting her elected last week – express dismay that Ilhan “Minnesota Socialist Barbie” Omar lied through her impeccable teeth at them:

U.S. Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar this week reaffirmed her support for a pro-Palestinian movement to pressure Israel, rankling Jewish community leaders who say she contradicted remarks made at an August candidates forum.

Omar’s office told the website MuslimGirl.com on Sunday that she supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel but expressed “reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.” The Minnesota Democrat later reiterated her position in a series of text messages exchanged with a reporter for TC Jewfolk that were posted on its local news site.

Jewish community leaders previously expressed optimism after Omar criticized the BDS movement during an Aug. 6 Democratic candidates forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park — about a week before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party’s primary. Omar said she supported a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement wasn’t helpful in trying to achieve that goal. Pressed by moderator Mary Lahammer to specify “exactly where you stand on that,” Omar replied that the BDS movement was “counteractive” because it stopped both sides from coming together for “a conversation about how that’s going to be possible.”

Why, it’s almost as if she knew she’d never be held accountable for any lies she tells to get elected.

How might this have manifested itself elsewhere in her life?

Hmmm.

If only we had an institution – perhaps one with printing presses, and transmitters – staffed by people who considered “telling the truth about politicians to people” to be a monastic calling, or something like that?

Followers of the party that has undercut Israel for 40 years, many of whom cuddle up to Louis Farrakhan, and where Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar are leading emergent figures…

…says Donald Trump’s rhetoric promoted an anti-semitic attack.

Joe Doakes from Como Park sends one of his timeliest and, dare I say, brilliant emails:

Several Conservative commentators have made the same mistake recently.  They point to Democrat excesses and claim Republicans are now free to use harsher tactics because “the rules have changed.”  No, they haven’t.

Alinsky says: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”  Liberals do that when they accuse Conservatives of sexual assault, drunkenness, theft, animal abuse.  Those behaviors are against Conservatives values, against our rules, which makes Conservatives guilty of hypocrisy when we fail to follow our own rules.  Sarah Palin promoting family values while her own daughter had a baby out of wedlock was a perfect target for this sort of Liberal attack.

Conservatives generally fail when trying to do the same to Liberals because the whole point of being a Liberal is to reject the old rules, to tear down the old institutions, to defy the old ways of living.  It does no good to accuse Bill Clinton of being a womanizer because that’s not against the rules in Liberal circles, as shown by the behavior of Liberals from Kennedy to Weinstein.  The only time we’ve had much success making Liberals play by their own rules was getting Al Franken out of the Senate by forcing Liberals to apply their “MeToo” campaign against him, a fortuitous albeit unintended consequence of their attacks on President Trump.

But notice that Liberals won’t force Keith Ellison out of the race.  The “believe all women” rule is not as high in their victimology hierarchy as “protect Blacks from the consequences of their actions” and nowhere near as trendy as “First Muslim [fill in the blank].”  Liberals can’t be accused of hypocrisy for protecting Black Muslim Keith Ellison from the consequences of his actions and promoting him despite his behavior because doing so IS one of their rules.

Similarly, the fact that Liberals encourage violence against Conservatives does not mean Conservatives can encourage violence against Liberals.  The  first is perfectly consistent with the Liberal rule “the ends justify the means.”  That’s not a change we Conservatives can embrace while remaining true to our core values.

The rules haven’t changed.  The two sides are playing by different rules.  Probably always have been, we just didn’t mind so much in the past.

Now, that’s not to say Conservatives must keep playing by our traditional rules.  Maybe it’s time the rules DID change, on our side.  Maybe it’s time to take the gloves off and do a little brawling of our own.  It could be the Arne Carlson, Dave Durenberger style of “Conservative” was better suited for a Hubert Humphrey era and not so well suited for a Barak Obama, Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar era.  I’m perfectly willing to adapt tactics suitable to the times.  But not because of same false moral equivalence that doing so is justified by the other side’s changes, only because our new tactics make sense for us.

Joe Doakes

Watching a group of anti-communist Cubanos in Miami send Nancy Pelosi running from a restaurant (the way mobs of howling snowflake liberal jackals have been doing with Republicans in recent weeks), I felt uneasy, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it; it wasn’t just a matter of “taking the high road”, because high roads mean nothing to Big Left or the machine it controls.

But Joe is dead on – even moreso than usual.  This plays into their hands.   You can’t win a morality play against an enemy that recognizes no morals.

MoviePass is a particularly dimwitted startup – it sells, basically, transit cards to movies, in theaters, allowing people admittance to n movies per month, which in the age of Netflix and Hulu seems a bit like selling season tickets to Jesse Ventura’s old Indoor Football league.

As one might expect, the company – which seems a throwback to the sort of startups that glutted the market and popular culture during the DotBomb era, before 9/11 – is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Which has led to one of the most brilliant – dare I say, Onion-like – bits of satire I’ve ever read:

We should let the privately owned MoviePass die, so a nationalized, public MoviePass can live.

Read the whole hilarious thing.

I’m already picturing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Amy Klobuchar or Maxine Waters or Ilhan Omar solemnly testifying before Congress about the moral imperative for the Federal Government…

…to transfer tax dollars to Hollywood.

Brilliant, brilliant satire.

UPDATE:   It just occured to me – what if the writer wasn’t being satirical?

Ilhan Omar – DFL endorsed candidate for Congress in the 5th CD – is a raving anti-semite.

State representative Ilhan Omar has yet to complete her first term in the Minnesota legislature, where she has accomplished approximately nothing of substance, though she has now secured the DFL endorsement to succeed Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison in Congress. In the brief Weekly Standard article “The anti-Israel seat,” I conclude with observations related to Omar’s frank hatred of Israel. She doesn’t sugarcoat it. She calls Israel an “apartheid regime.”

That is a defamatory falsehood with a shabby provenance. In Omar’s case, it is something more than an impulsive comment in a recent tweet. It represents her considered judgment. One can see it at work in her remarks on the floor of the Minnesota House in opposition to a bill (HF 400) opposing the boycott of Israel promoted by so-called BDS groups harking back to the “Zionism is racism” lie of the 1970’s.

And it’s fascinating how local media treats Omar’s anti-semitiem; exactly the same way as they treated her dubious family history.

It makes sense; their editors and producers know they’ll never get another invite to the Oceannarie if they do.

Conservatives watched, amused, yesterday as the DFL played a long, comical game of musical chairs with their candidacies.

And it’s going to continue until the filing deadline of 5PM today.

Keith Ellison jumped into the race for Attorney General – evidence he wants to run for Governor someday.  In turn, Ilhan Omar filed to run for Ellison’s slot in Congress.  Phyllis Kahn promptly filed to run for that seat, which she had held for roughly 200 years.  But wait!   Deb Hillstrom jumped in to the AG race, and Mike Freeman was making noises about jumping in as well.

In the meantime, Lori Swanson, along with retiring (again) congressman Rick Nolan, filed for governor.

And the day ended with rumors of a Franken filing.  The questions – which race (Probably CD5, said the rumor mill) and which Franken (the rumors mentioned both Al and Franni).

GOP pundits greeted the news with a little glee:

And some of it is justifiable.  The DFL has given up all pretense, at least among itself, of being anything but a Metro party.

And the idea of a primary with Lori Swanson and Tim Walz squaring off against Erin Murphy, splitting the Greater Minnesota vote, was certainly tantalizing (especially given the prospect of the Dem vote fraud machine being turned against the DFL).

I’m urging a little restraint, here.

It’s pretty clear the DFL is sliding toward Metro-only status.  If they lose CD8 and possibly CD1 this  year (both are more possible than at any time in years), and with the knowledge that Colin Peterson’s potemkin seat in CD7 will never be replaced by a Democrat again when he retires), it’ll really be official, even if they someday flip CD3.

So the good news is, the DFL is becoming a Metro-only party.

The bad news is, they’re ‘the Metro party.

Hennepin County is a vote machine; a DFL super-de-duper majority that’s only getting worse.  And if – if – the MNGO manages to flip enough swing voters statewide to counter that crushing mass of government employees and government clients, the DFL can always create more; there are a zillion refugees in the world, and the DFL, working through its non-profit clients, can always import more just-add-water DFL voters.

And if that doesn’t work?  Minneapolis’ cemeteries are full of potential DFL voters.

Call me a cynic, but I don’t know if the DFL can screw up enough to lose this state, sometimes.

Last week, after the collapse of the DFL effort (for now) to ram through a couple of gun control bills (including Rep. Linda Slocum’s gun grab bill, HF 3022), the names of several DFL legislators quietly disappeared from the “jackets” – the cover sheets that accompany the bills and list the signatures of Representatives who are “co-authoring” the bills.

We’ll come back to that.

Honesty Is For Non-Patricians!:   We’ve encountered Erin Maye Quade before.  Before she was an ultra-left DFLer from Apple Valley, she worked for “The Uptake”, the far-left media outlet.  There, she got busted years ago for giggling about her ability to edit video footage to make people appear to say things they hadn’t .

She squeaked into office – where she’s become a fixture in the DFL’s shrill Gang of Four – along with Peggy Flanagan, Jamie Becker-Finn and Ilhan Omar.    She’s also married to a “Moms Want Action” paid organizer – so her anti-gun credentials would appear to be solid.

Maybe too solid.

Last week, her name disappeared as a co-author of Slocum’s gun grab bill.    When quizzed about it, she responded that her inclusion was a clerical error by House staff.

The DFL Memory Hole:   Rob Doar of the MN Gun Owners Caucus went down to the Capitol to resolve the mystery.  Was it clerical error?

He shot a video.  And unlike the younger Maye, there was no editing involved to get the truth out:

https://youtu.be/4tXVfldIHAA

Here’s the signature (reversed from the video):

So many questions, here:

1. Why is Erin Maye Quade lying to her constituents?
2. Why is she distancing herself – and badly – from Rep. Slocum’s gun grab bill?
3. Will the people of Apple Valley put up with this kind of duplicity?

Stay tuned for more.

This flyer was apparently slipped under peoples’ doors in Cedar Riverside – a Minneapolis neighborhood with a large Somali population – “an hour before the caucuses” this past Tuesday:

Give it a read.

I don’t know about you, but to me it reads like someone who wants to caricature what they think an ignorant Republican might write like (and who perhaps isn’t nearly as literate as they think they are, themselves).

And I’m trying to wrap my heads around the idea of a bunch of (clearly white) bigots running around Cedar Riverside stuffing things “under peoples’ doors”…

…according to the person who posted the offending flyer…:

…who, as luck would have it, just happens to work for a DFL-affiliated Somali community group.

Slipping under doors?  Not distributed at caucus sites?

I dunno.  Seems fishy to me.

UPDATE:   Suffice to say, I have my questions:

Five’ll get you ten I get blocked forthwith.

UPDATE 2:  And one day later, it’s in an Ilhan Omar fundraising letter?   That was quick, verifying it’s not a hoax and all. .

Nothing fishy at all.

Here was the MN House vote on the Genital Mutilation bill yesterday.

The bill would – how can I put just the right point on this – hold parents responsible for the genital mutilation of their children, with felony charges against parents who facilitated any of the wide array of culturally-based, barbaric genital mutilation practices.

There were four “no” votes – all DFLers, naturally:

1. Rep. Rena Moran (D-St. Paul) who is noted as saying she thought it’d impose on a cultural value, like spanking; Ms. Moran (my “representative”) apparently confuses a swat on the ass with carving up girls’ sex organs.
   
2. Rep. Susan Allen (D-St. Paul)
   
3. Rep. Tina Liebling (D-Rochester), who is running for governor, and believes the law will separate families.
   
4. Rep. David Bly (D-Northfield – where else?)

Ilhan Omar and John Lesch – after getting headlines for criticizing author Mary Franson for ostensibly seeking headlines – voted yes.

First, the good news:  Rep. Mary Franson has introduced a bill that would expose parents who subject their children to ritual genital mutilation to felony charges and potential loss of custody.  It’s currently illegal for a doctor to perform the procedure; if passed into law, Franson’s bill would spread the onus to the parents.

This is a good thing – especially if you are remotely familiar with the procedure:

Farhio Khalif of Minneapolis…described in horrific detail how she was forced as a little girl in Somalia to undergo a ritual mutilation.

Farhio Khalif, with Rep. Franson. Photo courtesy Tim Pugmire at Minnesota Public Radio.

“My legs were tied each side. My hands were tied each side. I was blindfolded, and the ritual took place and it was painful. It was so painful I think I died or maybe I passed away,” Khalif recalled. “I don’t know what happened. But I remember waking back up, and I see blood all over the place.”

And awful as that sounds, that’s really only the half of it.  The law seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?

[“No-brainer” joke referencing Rep. John Lesch of HD 66A deleted – if only that were the problem].   Rep.  Lesch – representative from perhaps the least politically engaged district in the state, and a candidate for Attorney General – played for the cameras by…accusing Franson of playing for the cameras:

Despite bipartisan support for the bill, some Democrats suggested that parents could already be prosecuted without a new law…Rep. John Lesch, DFL-St. Paul, raised concerns that only Republicans had signed on as co-authors of the bill. Lesch said criminal law bills have traditionally been bipartisan.

The current law, to which Lesch and Somali DFL representative Ilhan Omar referred, makes abetting female circumcision a gross misdemeanor – like throwing a rock at a train.  Like, not really that much of a crime.

Several Republicans on the committee criticized both Omar and Lesch for questioning the motives of their colleague.

“This has absolutely nothing to do with the cameras in the room, with the headlines in the paper,” Franson said. “This is about saving children’s lives.”

With Lesch, and his bid for Mayor State Senate to go to Iraq Attorney General, it’s always about the cameras.

This needs to follow him through the AG race, assuming it actually gets to the starting gate.

Preya Samsundar continues to beat the stuffing out of the Twin Cities institutional media in reporting on Minneapolis DFL legislative candidate Ilhan Omar’s fuzzy marital history.

Only this time, she may have done it with the unwitting help of the City Pages’ DFLer-with-byline Cory Zurowski:

Whether or not Mr. Zurowski realizes it, he has shed new light into the Omar case. The story, which was originally published on Wednesday, October 26, Mr. Zurowski wrote that Ilhan Omar’s father is named “Nur Said Elmi Mohamed”. A day later, Zurowski’s article was changed and now Omar’s father’s name appears in the article as “Nur Omar Mohamed”.

Read the whole thing.

And then ask yourselves why nobody in the Twin Cities media is covering this story.

To use a Glenn Reynolds line, it helps if you think of reporters as Democrat operatives with bylines.  Who, in this case, don’t want to be barred from the Saint Paul Grill.

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is ordering a cup of coffee and a bagel.

Brian FURIOUS, liberal opionblogger for “”MinnesotaLIberalAlliance.blogspot.com”, walks into the coffee shop.

FURIOUS:  Merg!

BERG:  Oh, hey, Brian…

FURIOUS:  I am Brian Furious, defender of fact, crusader of truth!

BERG:  Right.  Or…hey, Brian.

FURIOUS:  Don’t you deny it!  You’ve been writing about Ilhan Omar!

BERG:  Well, mostly I’ve been doing a combination of writing about people writing about Ilhan Omar, and writing about people writing about people writing about Ilhan Omar.  There’s a bit of a difference.

FURIOUS:  What you did was engage in race-baiting, saying that if someone comes to the US they should learn our laws and abide by them,

BERG:  We’ll come back to the “race-baiting” red herring in a bit.  But as re the other bit – you mean, like “learn and abide by our laws” like everyone who comes to the US – or, for that matter, goes to other countries – is supposed to do?

FURIOUS:  That’s not news!

BERG:  Not sure what you mean.  It’s not news that immigrants, like citizens, are supposed to follow the law?

Or do you mean the Ilhan Omar story?   Because it seems like there just might be some news there.  Even the mainstream liberal media seems to think so.

FURIOUS:  But you admitted you probably wouldn’t adhere to laws requiring a marriage license!

BERG:  Well, yeah – like Ms. Omar, I believe that marriages in one’s faith tradition that ignore state licensing are perfectly legitimate.   And, by the way, it’s not “illegal” to eschew the state license.

Anyway, let me repeat the important part; I defended Ilhan Omar’s “marriage in her faith tradition“, while noting that her explanation still left some questions.

You seem to have trouble recognizing that fact.  Perhaps you’re racist?

FURIOUS:  You’re just saying it’s about being “foreign” is just taking a change to stoke anti-immigrant fears and is, yes, race-baiting!   You’re demeaning her, and with her other Somalis for whom she’s an emblem because of her ethnicity.  You’re claiming it’s her “foreign-ness” which is the problem. 

BERG:  Er, yeah – I’d heard you wrote that.  The thing is,  I’ve never mentioned Ilhan’s “foreign-ness”, never alluded to it in anything I’ve ever written or said, never even hinted about it.  It’s a fabrication.

FURIOUS:  No, it’s not!

BERG:  Well, given that I’m supporting Abimalik Askar – a Somali immigrant – in the race for the seat, let’s just say it’s kinda weird.   So – if Ms. Omar’s “foreign-ness” is a problem, wouldn’t that of Mr. Askar – who is from the exact same place – also be a problem?

FURIOUS:  Clearly, Askar is not Somali!

BERG:  He was born in Somalia, and immigrated to the US in 1993.

FURIOUS:  Then it stands to reason you hate him too!

BERG:  Er, no – I’ve interviewed him on my show, and I’ll do it again.  He’s a very sharp guy and is quite clearly the best candidate for the job of any ethnic origin.

FURIOUS:  But he’s a ReTHUGliican!  Clearly he must hate Somalis!

BERG:  Huh.  Hey – look!  A shiny object!

[BERG slips quietly away as FURIOUS furiously whips his head around]

[And SCENE]

Ilhan Omar has released a statement about the questions about her, at first and second and third glance, unusual marital history.

Faith:  I’m going to add bits and pieces of emphasis to Omar’s statement:

In 2002, when I was 19 years old, Ahmed Hirsi (whose name before he received citizenship was Ahmed Aden), the father of my children and love of my life, and I, applied for a marriage license, but we never finalized the application and thus were never legally married. In 2008, we decided to end our relationship in our faith tradition after reaching an impasse in our life together.

I entered into a relationship with a British citizen, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, and married him legally in 2009. Our relationship ended in 2011 and we divorced in our faith tradition. After that, he moved home to England. I have yet to legally divorce Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, but am in the process of doing so. Insinuations that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is my brother are absurd and offensive.

Since 2011, I am happy to say that I have reconciled with Ahmed Hirsi, we have married in our faith tradition and are raising our family together. Like all families, we have had our ups and downs but we are proud to have come through it together.

That’s multiple references to marriage and divorce in Islam’s “faith tradition”.

On the one hand, it could be just a way of saying “it’s a Muslim thing, all you khufar wouldn’t understand”.   Could be.

On the other hand?  As a militant Christian who, should he ever remarry, will not get a government marriage license, I can completely agree with the concept that one’s marriage is none of goverment’s damn business!

Of course, coming from a “progressive” DFLer – the party that believes government is your real mother – one might fairly wonder how genuine it is, but what the heck; on principle, that settles things, doesn’t it?

The Law:  Well no – no more than claiming religious strictures forbid you from paying taxes.

Scott Johnson, who dragged the mainstream media to this story last week, talked with an immigration attorney; the attorney has some questions:

1. Which faith leader presided over her faith tradition marriage in 2002?

2. Is there written documentation of this?

3. Which faith leader presided over her faith tradition divorce in 2008?

4. Is there written documentation of this?

5. How was custody handled for the children after her faith tradition divorce in 2008?

6. Was there documentation of this?

7. How did she meet her legal husband?

8. Did she sponsor her legal husband for a green card?

9. Did he use his green card status to receive financial assistance to attend university in the US?

10. Is her legal husband a US citizen now as he has now been married to a US citizen (Ms. Omar) for 6 years? (Query – Are there voter registration or other documents that could be checked to substantiate this? The UK does allow dual citizenship.)

11. If Ms. Omar did sponsor her legal husband for a green card, then she was required to complete an I-864 affidavit of support documenting financial sponsorship of the husband. At the time in 2009 I believe she was a student and had 3 children so she would not likely have had the financial means to meet the I-864 obligations at the time and would therefore need a joint financial sponsor. Who was that joint financial sponsor? It would need to be a US citizen or green card holder with appropriate income or assets.

12. It has been reported that her legal husband was living in government subsidized housing in Minneapolis. This is likely inconsistent with the requirements of I-864 financial sponsorship. Does Hennepin County do anything to verify financial sponsorship before providing government assistance and subsidies for housing? Does Hennepin County now have a claim for reimbursement against Ms. Omar and/or the joint financial sponsor?

13. She is now remarried to her cultural husband according to her statement. Who was the faith leader who presided over this remarriage? Is there written documentation of this?

14. What Islamic doctrine was used to allow Ms. Omar to divorce a man, then marry someone else, and then remarry the first man?

15. There is no dispute based on her statement that she is currently in a cultural/faith tradition marriage with one man while still being legally married to another man. What Islamic doctrine permits this? I am familiar with certain Muslim traditions that allow a man to have more than one wife but I have never heard of a doctrine that permits a wife to have more than one husband which is without dispute what she is saying her situation is now.

Muslims who immigrate to this country should follow the same laws the rest of us do (or lobby to change them, like some of the rest of us do).

Especially elected officials.

Even DFLers.

Conclusion: What, you think I have a conclusion?

Part of me wants to root for Omar on pure libertarian principle.

Part of me sees the DFL telling the citizenry “Let Me Explain:  Shut Up”.

I have a hunch we’re not completely done with this.

After Power Line broke the story of Ilhan Omar’s apparent sham marriage to her brother (which we touched on yesterday), Channel 9 notes that there seems to be no divorce on file between Ilhan Omar and the man who is apparently her brother.

Omar’s response:

“It matters that I am a woman. It matters that I am a Somali-American woman. It matters that I am a Muslim and immigrant woman…I know deeply that the people of District 60B oppose Donald Trump-style misogyny, racism, anti-immigration rhetoric and Islamophobic division.

Absent from the response:  any response, other than “you’re teh racist”.

Which will be fine in the DFL cesspool that is 60B, where a pair of novelty wind-up chattering teeth would get 65% of the vote if it had a “DFL” sticker on it.

(And today’s award for meaningless political chatter:

We stand together to build a more prosperous and equitable district and state.

As usual, in 60B as in most of Minneapolis, the only “prosperity” to come from the political process will be to politicians and their hangers-on.

Last week’s big Minnesota political news was the Ilhan Omar defeating 2343-term representative Phyllis Kahn in the DFL primary (the election that actually matters in that benighted part of Minneapolis, unfortunately).  The Minneapolis media turned cartwheels over The First Somali Woman nominee.

Scott Johnson found a story behind the story at Powerline:

A reader has written us to point out that the Somali website Somalispot[since deleted, but visible on Googlecache] posted information last week suggesting Omar’s involvement in marriage and immigration fraud. The post notes that Omar married Ahmed Hirsi in 2002. Hirsi is the father of Omar’s three children. Omar is depicted with Hirsi and their children on Omar’s campaign website here.

The post further notes that Omar married her brother Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, implying that the latter marriage assisted his entry into the United States. Her brother was a British citizen. “As soon as Ilhan Omar married him,” the post continues, “he started university at her [a]lma mater North Dakota State University where he graduated in 2012. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Minneapolis where he was living in a public housing complex and was later evicted. He then returned to the United Kingdom where he now lives.”

Let me note here that Omar’s marriage to her brother, if it occurred in fact, is illegal under Minnesota law. I believe it would be void ab initio, as though it never occurred. If it occurred, I infer that it must have taken place for dishonest purposes.

Seems like mindless gossip?  Perhaps even unfounded?

Well, maybe – but wait’ll you read the response from Noor’s spokesdroid.

If only we had some institution – perhaps with printing presses and transmitters, staffed with people who see themselves as high priests of information – that weren’t terrified of never getting to do lunch at the Saint Paul Grill to look into these sorts fo things