“After a 200-year hiatus—since the Qing dynasty began to weaken, in the early nineteenth century—China is returning to the world stage as a great power,” wrote Robert Kaplan in the Atlantic. “That may be usual for China, but it is unusual for the West.”

Kaplan, in his piece titled “China: A World Power Again,” maintained that the period of Chinese weakness was an aberration, merely an interlude between natural eras of tianchao—Celestial Kingdom—grandeur.

There are many contemporary reasons—contracting economy, collapsing demography, crumbling politics—why Kaplan is wrong and why Beijing’s challenge to America and the international system will almost surely fall short.

But history also suggests China’s path to glory is impassable. As an initial matter, the popular conception of China rests on a gross misreading of the past. The country, in short, has never been dominant on “the world stage,” as Kaplan and others put it. And it won’t be anytime soon.

Democrats in Congress like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Nancy Pelosi, Jerold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and so many others all claimed without a scintilla of proof that Trump “colluded” with Russia. For two years, they pronounced him guilty in the court of public opinion.

Will they ever apologize?  Of course not. They will conjure some vacuous excuse and move on to the next accusation. They’re already doing it.

Many journalists were equally reckless and malevolent. Will network brass take action to punish those who so egregiously exaggerated or, in some cases, even lied to Americans? Not a chance.

Wow.

Here is the link to the Mueller Report as provided by Attorney General William Barr. It says, among other things, this:

“The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations.

 

In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff.

 

The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U. S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities’.”

What is not said here? There is no word about the role of then-President Obama and/or anyone in the Obama administration when it comes to the question of directing this entire effort to sabotage first the Trump campaign and then, when that failed, the Trump presidency itself.

Pardon me if I don’t join in the chorus of praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigatory efforts.

Certainly it comes as a relief that he correctly found no evidence of collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and quite properly did not charge the president for obstruction of justice.

But just because Mueller and his team of Hillary Clinton sycophants reached the right conclusions does not mean that they conducted a righteous investigation.

In that regard, given that the Special Counsel’s Office did not charge the persons who fabricated and used the Russia collusion fable to undermine Trump’s campaign and presidency, it would appear that, far from being impartial seekers of truth following the trail of evidence regardless of the political consequences, they were a get-Trump lynch party that simply ran out of rope.

Or maybe it was worse than that.

The total exoneration of President Trump and his campaign has given his voters a few days of smiles and happy headlines, but not deep satisfaction.

The claim that Donald Trump, his family, and his staff were traitors and Russian agents remains a sickening reminder of the corruption of our FBI, Department of Justice, and Barack Obama’s administration.

The debasement of our once free press into a state propaganda ministry is an ongoing assault on our country.

None of these problems are resolved with the end of Robert Mueller’s witch hunt.

The Russia collusion hoax has left the credibility of our justice system in tatters. We did, in fact, have Russian collusion to affect the outcome of 2016 the election—and it was entirely the handiwork of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Justice requires not only that the innocent are exonerated, but that the guilty are punished.  Will that happen?

Seven years ago – March 19, 2012 – Mohammed Merah pointed a gun at the head of 7-year-old Miriam Monsonego.

Before Miriam, Mohammed had murdered a Rabbi and his two little boys, six and three years old. The other children ran. He cornered Miriam, grabbed the little girl by her hair, and pulled the trigger.

Today, Mohammed Merah, Miriam’s killer, remains a hero to many Moslems in France.  When the New York Times ventured into a Moslem neighborhood in Toulouse, it had no trouble finding locals who praised the Moslem terrorist as a “hero” and a “martyr of Islam”.

Islamic family values are what motivated Merah’s horrific anti-Semitism – the family values Ilhan Omar was raised in during her childhood in Somalia.

Democrat “progressives” wonder how in the world could anyone still support President Donald Trump. So here are ten reasons why  much of the electorate probably does -- and will.

A recent article in a Beltway publication warned about a potential recession and considered how it might affect President Trump’s chances at re-election. The story began—no joke: “The luxury real estate market in Manhattan is sagging.”

It goes on to argue that softening in the real-estate market in high-tax Northeastern states is caused by the 2017 tax-reform law. Thus the claim is that because taxpayers can deduct only $10,000 in state and local taxes from their federal returns, America is heading for a recession.

Nonsense.

The tax-reform law stops high-tax states from burdening the rest of us with their irresponsible decisions. America is a marketplace where states are competing with each other, and New York is losing. Their loss is Florida’s gain—and Texas’ and South Carolina’s and Ohio’s and Indiana’s.

I would like to tell New Yorkers on behalf of the rest of America that our hearts go out to you for your sagging luxury real-estate market. But you did this to yourself, and you can fix it yourself. If you cut taxes and make state and local government efficient, maybe you can compete with Florida again.

When classical musicians audition for a symphony orchestra, they play behind a screen.  They are completely anonymous to the committee on the other side of it, who knows them only by a number.  They are prohibited from speaking to the committee.

Prior to the audition, the musician is given a list of classical repertoire pieces from which he or she will be asked to play a number of excerpts, anywhere from one to three minutes of each selection.  The selections of music will vary depending on the player's instrument.

This process is one of the fairest on the planet.  Not the age, sex, or race of the player is known to the committee who will be deciding which musicians will be chosen.  Candidates are selected on expertise, musical merit alone.

Obviously, the system of college admissions is the farthest from this level of fairness as it can possibly be, but what if it were reformed to be as fair?