Monitoring the ongoing antisemitism in the democrat party

How the Republican Party Became The Party of Racism
Michael Harriot
7/23/18

Here’s a joke: What’s the difference between a Klan rally and a Republican Convention?

Answer: The dress code.

Here’s another one: How white is the Republican Party?

According to Pew Research, 83 percent of the registered voters who identify as Republican are non-Hispanic whites. The Republican Party is whiter than Tilda Swinton riding a polar bear in a snowstorm to a Taylor Swift concert.

Why isn’t anyone laughing? Is this thing on?

And not only is the Grand Ole Party unapologetically white, recently it has been disposing of its dog whistles in favor of bullhorns, becoming more unabashedly racist every day. Aside from its leader excusing a white supremacist murder, calling Mexicans “rapists,” referring to “shithole countries” and settling multiple discrimination lawsuits, there is an abundance of evidence that shows the party’s racism.

Nearly half of the country (49 percent) believes Donald Trump is racist but 86 percent of Republicans say he is not, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. The same survey shows that 79 percent of Republicans approve of the way the president handles race. Other data points include:

52 percent of voters who supported Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election believed blacks are “less evolved” than whites, according to researchers at the Kellog School of Management.

In a 2018 YouGov poll, 59 percent of Republicans agreed: “If blacks would only try harder, they would be as well off as whites.”

The same YouGov poll revealed that 59 percent of self-identified Republicans believe blacks are treated fairly by the criminal justice system.
70 percent of Republicans agreed that increased diversity hurts whites.

Republican-appointed judges give black defendants longer jail sentences, according to a Harvard study released in May.

55 percent of white Republicans agreed “blacks have worse jobs, income and housing than white people” because “most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” according to the Washington Post’s review of data from the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center.

Nearly twice as many Republicans than Democrats (42 percent versus 24 percent) believe that blacks are lazier than whites, according to the same NORC poll.

Some would argue that having a racist as the head of a party doesn’t necessarily make the entire party racist, which is true. But there is not a single significant poll that shows Republican voters with lower negative feelings about non-white populations versus Democrats or independents. They have become the party of racism.

But how did the party get that way?

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: The Democrats are the real racists because the GOP is the party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. Surely you’ve read the oft-repeated anecdote about how the Republican Party ended slavery and most importantly, fought for the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

All of this is correct.

They say the best jokes are based in reality. So when accusations of racism enter into any political debate, conservatives invariably regurgitate those previously-mentioned bullet points from the recurring, well-rehearsed Republican comedy routine.

What they fail to mention, however, is that the party to which they refer to no longer exists. The only thing that remains of the original Republican Party is the name. And how the Grand Ole Party transformed itself from the party of Lincoln into the current version—a white, Southern party rife with racial resentment—has become a forgotten tale that takes advantage of America’s lack of historical knowledge and abundance of short-term memory when it comes to race.

It is true that the Republican Party was founded on the principles of anti-slavery. They were so in favor of ending America’s peculiar institution that they were often called “Black Republicans” as a slur. They also believed in welcoming immigrants with open arms, elected the first woman to Congress and supported black suffrage.

In fact, most blacks identified with the GOP from Reconstruction until the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Until Carol Mosely Braun’s election in 1992, every African American who served in the United States Senate belonged to the Republican Party. Twenty-one black men served in the House of Representatives before a black Democrat was elected. It was the party of progressive values.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was the party of the South. It was the party of social conservatism. It wanted to preserve slavery and segregation. It opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was the party of states rights, small government and Jim Crow.

The Democrats wouldn’t even allow blacks at the convention until 1924, mostly to appease the Southern base of the party still butthurt about losing the Civil War (they still haven’t gotten over that one). After the Civil War, the Democrats in the “Solid South” blamed Republicans for ending slavery and refused to vote for them.

Then something happened.

That something was racism.

After Democratic President Harry Truman’s desegregated the Army and the Democratic Party said they would support laws that ended Jim Crow, 35 delegates from the Deep South walked out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention and formed the Dixiecrat Party. They elected Strom Thurmond as their leader, who would never identify as a Democrat again.

In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops into Arkansas to desegregate Little Rock Central High School. In 1963, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, broke with the party ideology and used Eisenhower’s playbook to federalize the Alabama National Guard and force the desegregation at the University of Alabama.

Then came the breaking point that would basically change the party affiliation of Southern voters. Shortly before the election of 1964, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

The “Solid South” would never vote for a Democrat president again.

If Ku Klux Klan members started wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts, would that automatically make them a civil rights organization? Suppose Donald Trump changed his name to Malcolm X. Would he immediately become a human rights activist?

That’s what happened to the Republican Party.

Republicans would like you to believe that Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Democrats opposed it, which is only partially true. To understand the change in both parties’ ideology, all one has to do is count the votes.

There were 94 Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives. 7 voted for the bill.

There were 10 Southern Republicans in the House of Representatives. Zero voted for the bill.

Northern house Democrats voted in favor of the bill 145-9

Northern House Republicans favored the bill 138-24

Of the 21 Southern Senators (Democrat or Republican), only 1 voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act (A Texas Democrat).

As you can see, it wasn’t the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans who favored it. Everyone supported the Civil Rights Act except the South. It was Southern politicians from both parties who voted against the legislation. The reason Republicans say they supported the bill is that there weren’t very many Southern Republicans in Congress in 1964.

The Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2, 1964. In the presidential elections that year, 94 percent of nonwhite voters voted for Johnson boosting him to a win over Barry Goldwater.

But Goldwater, a Republican, managed to win five Southern states in that election, which was unheard of for a Republican. How did Goldwater do that? He won those states by opposing the Civil Rights Act.

After the bill passed, Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party, as did many Southern whites. In 1968, he teamed up with Richard Nixon, the 1968 Republican presidential candidate, and convinced Nixon that a Republican could win the South if he was willing to dog-whistle racism to the Southern voters.

Along with H.R. Haldeman, they developed the “Southern Strategy,” by emphasizing to white voters in the South that: “[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.”

Nixon won the 1968 election by carrying seven southern states, a remarkable feat for a Republican. In the 1972 election, he doubled down on the racist rhetoric and won every single state in the South.

Since that election, no Democratic candidate has won a majority of the old Confederate states formerly known as the “Solid South.” The old Confederate states fused into a Republican voting block few Democrats have been able to penetrate.

In 1981, Lee Atwater, the political campaign architect who refined the Southern Strategy for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, described the Republican party’s winning template:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. ... “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Not only did the pro-segregation, anti-black Southerners switch sides, but they brought their political ideology with them. The Democratic Party is now the progressive party that welcomes immigrants and the Republican Party has become the party of small government, law and order and conservatism. In 2016, 73 percent of white voters in the South voted Republican.

It is now the party of the alt-right. It is the party of the Willie Horton ad and birtherism. It is the party of Donald Trump, the “Muslim ban,” the border wall, David Duke and all the other white supremacists running for election on the Republican ticket in the midterm elections.

The racist candidates are expected to lose, but they could drag their party down with them.

It is the party of white people.

And none of this is to say that all Republicans are racist. There is a legitimate debate to be had about economic conservatism, small government and trickle-down economics (Well... Maybe not trickle-down economics), but the GOP has doubled down on racism. It has made a concerted effort to bring bigots into its big tent.

Republican leaders like Steve King (R-Iowa) now spout white supremacist theories asking what nonwhites have done for civilization. They appeal to Islamophobia and its anti-immigrant base by repeating rhetoric that has no basis in fact. They rally right-wing support under the guise of “patriotism” and “American values.”

But it is racism

It is the Republican Party.

So, while Black History facts credit Sean “Puffy/P. Diddy/Diddy/Puff Daddy/Brother Love” Combs with convincing people to wear bleached linen outfits to shindigs, his decadent bashes could never compare with the Republicans’ all-white party.

That’s no joke.

AIPAC Opens While Tensions Roil Over U.S. Policy Toward Israel

The annual AIPAC summit is usually a bipartisan lovefest for Israel. But this year it’s drawing attention to President Donald Trump’s contentious shift in U.S.-Israeli policy ahead of an election there, and a clash among Democrats over support for the Jewish state.

The pro-Israel lobbying group’s three-day meeting in Washington kicks off Sunday and will feature speeches from Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.

Conspicuously absent are the many congressional Democrats running -- or weighing a bid --for president.

Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, as well as Beto O’Rourke, Julián Castro and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, confirmed through their campaigns they won’t be attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.

While other candidates didn’t give a reason, Sanders policy director Josh Orton said the senator is “concerned about the platform AIPAC is providing for leaders who have expressed bigotry and oppose a two-state solution.”

Widening Gulf
Those remarks reflect the widening gulf between Democrats and Trump over the U.S. approach to Israel and increasing hostility toward Netanyahu from the American left given his hard-line policies toward Palestinians. Netanyahu is also scheduled and dine with Trump while in Washington.

Trump has made support for Israel a linchpin of his foreign policy and has embraced Netanyahu closely, even as the Israeli leader faces various scandals. He moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and on Thursday broke from decades of American policy by saying the U.S. should recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, land that the country seized from Syria in a 1967 war and later annexed.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!

177K
11:50 AM - Mar 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
73.8K people are talking about this
Trump denied the action on the Golan Heights was designed to aid Netanyahu, who is facing re-election on April 9 under the cloud of a corruption investigation. But it may benefit the president’s re-election bid as he seeks to energize evangelical Christians, a core of his voter base that views support for Israel as a litmus test.

Read more: Bribery Probe Could Cost Netanyahu Israel’s Election

A day after the tweet, the Republican Jewish Coalition announced that Trump would speak at its annual leadership conference in Las Vegas on April 6 -- just three days before the Israeli vote.

J Street, a pro-Israel group that advocates for a two-state solution to end the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, accused Netanyahu and Trump of making political decisions that are eroding the longstanding bipartisan consensus on Israel.

“This is just another in a series of decisions being made on this issue that is clearly intended to curry favor with the harder-right elements of the pro-Israel community -- whether it’s evangelical Christians or the right wing of the Jewish community,” J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in an interview after Trump’s Golan Heights move.

“These are decisions not being made in the best interest of the United States. It puts Democrats in the position of opposing what the president is doing and it turns all these issues into political footballs,” Ben-Ami said.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been beset by a generational intra-party battle over whether to maintain steadfast U.S. support for Israel if Netanyahu’s hard-line policies continue.

Turmoil Among Democrats
The debate turned acrimonious with comments earlier this year by first-term Representative Ilhan Omar suggesting that support for Israel was influenced by financial support by the pro-Israel lobby and in some cases amounted to “allegiance to a foreign country.”

The Minnesota lawmaker was accused by Republicans and many Democrats of trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, and the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry.

Many liberals defended Omar’s right to criticize Israel’s policies, including presidential contenders like Sanders, Harris and Warren. But criticism of Israel has caused heartburn among many Democrats who don’t want the U.S. to waver in its backing of the Jewish state.


“I am not a person who is in disagreement with our policies towards Israel, or Israel’s policies for that matter. And I don’t want my party to become the party of anti-Semitism,” said Democratic presidential candidate John Delaney, a former congressman from Maryland. “People have every right to say what they feel about our policies toward Israel or Israel’s policies. But I don’t think they should be framed in anti-Semitic language.”

Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump said Democrats, whom Jewish voters have traditionally backed by a wide margin in presidential elections, have “proven to be anti-Israel.”

“And it’s a disgrace,” he said. “I mean, I don’t know what’s happened to them. But they are totally anti-Israel. Frankly, I think they’re anti-Jewish.”

J Street ’s Ben-Ami countered that the most potent form of anti-Semitism was in the “nationalism and ethno-nationalism that the president and his supporters are giving cover to.”

“There is a distinction between being anti-Semitic and being critical of the government of Israel,” he said. “Blurring that distinction for political purposes is a real disgrace.”

Jewish Americans have overwhelmingly preferred Democratic candidates in presidential elections since at least 2000, according to exit poll data compiled since then by the Pew Research Center.

In 2016, they voted for Hillary Clinton by 71 percent to 24 percent, a larger share than any other religious affiliation. Clinton spoke at AIPAC in 2016, like other Democratic presidential nominees before her.

“While there’ll be disagreements over policy, the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans, including me, will be voting for a Democrat for president,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist. “Cycle after cycle Republicans say that they’re going to be the party of Jewish voters, and cycle after cycle the strategy fails.”

Surveys illustrate a growing partisan split on Israel since Netanyahu came to power in 2009.

A Pew Research Center poll last year found Democratic sympathies for Israel falling, to now be evenly divided in their sympathies between Israel and the Palestinians. Republicans sympathize with Israel over Palestinians by a margin of 79 percent to 6 percent.

An Economist/YouGov poll in September 2018 provided further evidence of the shift. Just 37 percent of Americans described Israel as “an ally,” compared with 47 percent in 2015. The change was driven by a decline among Democrats and Americans aged 18-29, of whom just 25 percent of both categories described Israel as “an ally.”

“There’s a transformation happening in the Democratic Party over Israel and US foreign policy,” said Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for Justice Democrats, a left-wing group with ties to Sanders and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young star on the left.

“There’s a generational divide and a younger, more diverse and more progressive Democratic Party is linking the fight for inclusivity at home with taking on Netanyahu’s Trump-like rhetoric and policies abroad.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-24/aipac-opens-while-tensions-roil-over-u-s-policy-toward-israel

Another conservative b s poster.

What you got to back that up? I can hardly wait.

Looks like nothing. More crickets.

This is a difficult issue involving many contradictions.

I've visited Israel and neighboring Lebanon & Egypt on several occasions. In Israel it isn't hard to identify the Moslem & Christian Palestinians who comprise a large part of the citizenry of that state. Their secondary status, both economically and socially is not hard to see.

However it is a good deal better than the status of either Christians or Jews in the neighboring countries.

With respect to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, I have long been of the opinion that Israel missed a golden opportunity, immediately following the 1967 War, to create a one state solution in a greater Israel, now comprising all of the former Palestine in a multicultural state with guarantees for all. I believe the intoxication attendant to their stunning victory in the 1967 war led the Israelis to a great error.

However, I also recognize that, from the perspective of the Jews of Israel, they have no other place to find safety or refuge, and understandably are reluctant to take risks on that question. Modern history has indeed taught them a very bitter lesson in that regard. It's hard to confidently second guess them in that area.

The bitter and continuing discord in the Middle East is the direct result of two primary factors; (1) the selfish duplicity and irresponsibility of European nations, particularly Britain and France, and (2) the failure of Moslem culture in the Middle East to create effective secular governments, able to tolerate other minorities in a reliable way.

In the days leading up to WWI, with the decaying Ottoman government in mind, along with their own colonial ambitions, Britain and France formally agreed on the division of the spoils of the then extant Ottoman Empire (which they actively planned to take down. Their joint effort at Gallipoli to invade Anatolia was one of the opening campaigns of WWI. They were defeated by a then little known Ottoman General (Mustafa Kemal) who emerged after the war as the leader of a new secular state in what became Turkey.

Meanwhile the British incited an Arab rebellion throughout the Middle East against the Ottoman Turks , promising them self-rule and autonomy for their efforts, while at the same time, promising Zionist Jews in Europe a "homeland" in Palestine. They ended up betraying both, establishing with the French their own colonial rule over what is now Lebanon, Syria Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. In the subsequent turmoil following WWII and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors to Palestine, Britain simply gave up and walked out, followed a few years later by the French - both exhausted by the human and economic effects of WWII.

Some situations simply don't permit "good" solutions for all elements of the problem. For the Israelis the choice is between bad and worse.

It's really a waste of time and energy to respond at length to a Russian troll.

Who is the troll, George?

Racist, Democrat journalist caught red-handed on hidden camera editing interview to create FAKE NEWS



WATCH: Comedy Central Show Edits Interview To Malign Jewish Veteran

In what surely should be unsurprising, a show on Comedy Central targeted an Australian Jewish military veteran after the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre by allegedly selectively editing an interview with him from months ago in order to color him as a radical and also breaking a reported pledge that the interview would not be on the same segment as any Nazi sympathizers or neo-Nazis. One problem: The Jewish veteran had taped the interview on his phone, and exposed the show’s maleficent deception.

On March 19, “The Jim Jefferies Show,” hosted by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies, aired a segment that limned Avi Yemini, who grew up in Australia, served in the Israel Defense Force, and now runs IDF Training, the largest Krav Maga training center in Australia, as a complete radical.

But on March 20, on his own YouTube page, as BoundingIntoComics reported, Yemini exposed the show with a response titled, “Hidden Camera: Jim Jefferies EXPOSED.” He stated:

So, a few months ago, Jim Jefferies’ producer contacted me and asked me to come on as a guest to his show. Now I agreed with two conditions: one, there will be no Neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers on the same segment, because I don’t want to be aligned to them and I don’t want to give them any legitimacy or anything like that. Common sense. The second one was that they don’t cut my answers from one question and put it to another.

Now, to my horror, but not my surprise, they did exactly both. Both those things. But they went even further. They connected me to the Christchurch shooter. To the terrorist. So it’s important to remember that this was filmed a few months ago, and not in response to the Christchurch massacre, as they seem to be alluding to here.

Luckily, I’m not an idiot, and I knew what their plan was all along. They flew me to Singapore, put me in a hotel for a couple of days there, what was I to expect? It was a set-up. So, what I did was, I got there, and I secretly put my phone down to record the entire segment.

Yemini revealed what he plans to do:

Now over the next few days I’m gonna release a bunch of little clips that are important that he specifically didn’t add to the piece. We filmed for about an hour, and there’s about three or four minutes where he’s included little snippets.

On his Youtube page, Yemini provided an example of Comedy Central’s alleged duplicity. In the segment that was aired, Jefferies asks, “What gives anyone the right to tell anyone where they can and can’t live?” Yemini responds, “When you import this culture, what do you think’s going to happen? Australia’s going to end up the same shithole that they came from, that they were escaping.”

But in the complete footage, Jefferies asks the same question, prompting Yemini to respond, “Borders?

Jefferies continues, “I know borders, but wouldn’t it just be nice if we got to a place in society, a utopia where we all just commit to this one idea?”

Yemini answers, “I think most sensible people would agree with you in theory, but in practice, it goes against human nature, it just doesn’t work.”

After presenting the preceding example on his YouTube page, Yemini snaps, “You bloody scumbag, Jim. You see those rubbish edits through the entire segment? I don’t even need to show you. You get my point. They put one answer to a different question.”

Then Yemini finishes Jefferies, showing how it is Jefferies himself who has no respect for Muslims. He states, “Today, what I really want to show you is how Jim Jefferies speaks about Islam, about their Prophet Muhammad, and about Muslim themselves when he thinks the cameras aren’t rolling or when he knows he can cut it out.” He shows this exchange:

Yemini: So Muhammad is considered the perfect man.

Jefferies: Right, yes.

Yemini: Okay—

Jefferies: Can I draw a picture of him?

Yemini: No, don’t you dare. Don’t you dare, I’ve got enough death threats on me. Jesus Christ.

Jefferies draws a picture of Muhammad and hands it to Yemini, saying, “There he is. He looks like a wobbly ghost.

Yemini, in an aside to crew members, “He’s finally going to understand after this **** comes out.

Another example: Jefferies: “I’m not a big fan of Islam. I think that wearing a burka is stupid and demeaning.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45096/comedy-central-show-edits-interview-malign-jewish-hank-berrien?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Thank you for posting. I am very busy, and don't have time to read this right now. Will read later, thank you.

Muslim Scholar Demonstrates Proper Technique for Beating Your Wife on Young Boy

“See dear brothers, this is how you beat your wife in Islam”
A video depicting a Muslim scholar demonstrating how to properly beat your wife caused controversy on social media Tuesday.

The video, which was shared by Pakistani-Canadian author Ali A. Rivzi on Twitter, shows a Qatari sociologist and scholar using his son to demonstrate how man should beat his wife.

“What is beating in Islam?” the scholar aksed. “The man must remind his wife, of what? Of his power,” the scholar said.

The scholar then began to act out a scene while his son played a fictional wife.

“Why don’t you listen to me?” he asked. “How many times did I tell you? How many times have I told you to listen?” the scholar told the young boy as he cracked a smile.

“Didn’t I tell you not to leave the house without permission?” he asked before turning to tell the camera and explaining, “This is a bit of intimidation.”

The scholar then started to talk about proper beating techniques, demonstrating on his son by hitting him on the shoulders.

“You see how to beat?” he asked the camera.

After grabbing his son by the shoulder and shaking him to complete the demonstration, the scholar then turned his attention back to the camera.

“See dear brothers, this is how you beat [your wife] in Islam,” the scholar tells the camera.

The scholar then explains why beating your wife is important in Islam.

“Dear brothers, why does a man beat a woman?” he asked. “Because some women love a manly man!”

“They love a man who makes himself a master!” he continued. “She herself loves an assertive man who is powerful, you see?”

Rizvi, who authored the book The Atheist Muslim, pointed out that Quran allows for this type of beating.

Reacting to the video on Twitter, Arabic Al Aan TV reporter Jenan Moussa called on her followers to report the YouTube account that originally posted the tutorial.

“Just when you thought have seen it all,” Moussa said. “A preacher makes a video using a child to demonstrate to men how to hit their wives ‘the proper way.'”

“Because all what the internet was still missing is a tutorial on how to beat your wife,” Moussa continued. “Seriously shocking.”

“Why is YouTube not not suspending this channel?” Moussa asked “This preacher made a tutorial on how to beat your wife!! Report this,” she told followers with a link to the original video.

The video comes as some progressive activists, particularly Linda Sarsour, have tried to tie Islam to American feminism and the “Women’s March” movement.

https://pluralist.com/muslim-scholar-releases-tutorial-how-to-properly-beat-your-wife/?fbclid=IwAR1iKbTuZek2WpM_lTND0qEEPp2nOB9BG9R0wbOckzKjsxukb97meFcfT3Q

Ilhan Omar Urges Release Of Jailed Muslim Brotherhood Leader, Report Says

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) advocated on Tuesday for releasing a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — which is designated by several nations as a terrorist organization.

"I recently met with @jkbadawy and @thefreedomi to talk about Hoda Abdelmonem, a political prisoner in Egypt," Omar tweeted from her official Congressional Twitter account. "I hope that Trump brings up her case in his meeting with the regime that has imprisoned her. We must work to #FreeHoda."

Conservative Review's Jordan Schachtel reported that Hoda Abdelmonem is "a senior member in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s women’s affiliate," adding that she "remains an influential figure and a senior leader in the Islamist outfit, and the campaign for her release has been a top priority item for Muslim Brotherhood-aligned individuals, groups, and governments."
Schachtel noted that Omar has "continued to show a preference for antagonistic U.S. adversaries and throwback Islamist leaders and groups, as opposed to U.S.-friendly Middle East nations and peaceful reform movements worldwide. She has become a regular on the CAIR speaking circuit. The terror-tied Islamist group raised mountains of cash for her congressional campaign."

"The Muslim Brotherhood is classified as a terrorist organization in several nations, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Russia, Egypt, and Bahrain. The group has spawned the likes of deceased Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS," Schachtel concluded. "Republicans in Congress continue to push legislation and directly appeal to President Trump to classify the MB as a foreign terrorist organization, given its tendency for violence and the group’s extremist, anti-American philosophy."

In 2016, Omar asked U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis for leniency and compassion in the sentencing of "9 Minnesota men charged with planning to join ISIS," Fox 9 reported.


"The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation," Omar wrote in her letter to the judge. "A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty."

Omar has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal since the day she took office in January.

Omar — who has refused to deny that she is an anti-Semite — has promoted numerous anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and used anti-Semitic tropes.

In early March, Omar accused a Jewish member of Congress of expecting her to have dual loyalties to Israel. Omar also stated that she believed her "Jewish colleagues" had "designed" a conspiracy against her where they planned to accuse her of being anti-Semitic "to end the debate" on Israel.

Omar has also refused to answer why she supports anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel.


Omar's anti-Semitism has led to her being condemned multiple times by Congress and to repeated public criticism from world leaders including President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as leaders in her own party.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) both blasted Omar at AIPAC this year, with Pelosi going as far as to suggest that Omar was "anti-American."

"I simply declare to be anti-Semitic is to be anti-American," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our country."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45517/ilhan-omar-urges-release-jailed-muslim-brotherhood-ryan-saavedra?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Ilhan Omar Trivializes 9/11 Terrorist Attacks: 'Some People Did Something'

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) trivialized the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history in a recent speech she gave at an event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which the United Arab Emirates has designated as a terrorist organization.

When speaking about the 9/11 terror attacks, which killed approximately 3,000 American citizens, Omar described the attacks as "some people did something."

"CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties," Omar said.

Omar was met by hundreds of protesters when she attended the March event in Los Angeles who expressed strong disapproval of her use of anti-Semitic tropes and promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Omar responded to the "very interesting" pro-Israel demonstrators by saying: "I don't think any of them realize that people like myself and many of the people in this room could care less about what they have to say."

Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

Here are some of the responses that Omar's comments received online:

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): "First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as 'some people who did something'. Unbelievable."

First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as “some people who did something”.

Unbelievable.

Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

Allie Beth Stuckey: "This is FAR WORSE than any misconstrued and decontextualized comments Candace has made, and yet will receive a polite nod and a golf clap from leftists."

This is FAR WORSE than any misconstrued and decontextualized comments Candace has made, and yet will receive a polite nod and a golf clap from leftists.

Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

Paul Sacca: "'Some people did something' sounds like a bake sale, but it does not really sound like a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people and altered the NYC skyline forever..."

"Some people did something" sounds like a bake sale, but it does not really sound like a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people and altered the NYC skyline forever...

Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

Gad Saad: "Am I allowed to post this snippet featuring Noble @IlhanMN without also criticizing Israel or in the spirit of fairness I should always criticize Israel when pointing out the love, peace, and tolerance of Noble Ones?"

Am I allowed to post this snippet featuring Noble @IlhanMN without also criticizing Israel or in the spirit of fairness I should always criticize Israel when pointing out the love, peace, and tolerance of Noble Ones?

Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers to it as “Some people did something”, then she goes on to justify the establishment of a terrorist organization (CAIR) on US soil.

It is worth noting that Omar has taken a lot of heat in the past after she advocated for leniency in the sentencing of men who were convicted of trying to join ISIS.

Last week, Omar urged the Trump administration to try to get a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) released from prison in Egypt.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45788/ilhan-omar-trivializes-911-terrorist-attacks-some-ryan-saavedra?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro