The Congresswoman from Iran

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
The Congresswoman from Iran
Ilhan Omar’s long record of siding with Iran and against America.
By Discover The Networks

Ilhan Omar, the freshman Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, recently called for the Trump administration to lift, as an act of mercy and goodwill, its economic sanctions against Iran, a nation that has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus pandemic. Retweeting a thread that blamed the American sanctions for the current shortage of medical supplies in Iran, Omar wrote: “We need to suspend these sanctions before more lives are lost.”

Omar’s opposition to U.S. sanctions against Iran long predates the coronavirus era. When President Trump first announced their enactment in May 2018, Omar was still a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. A few months later, following her election to Congress, she denounced the sanctions as a form of “economic warfare” that had “already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran.”

From listening to Omar, one would never know that the U.S. government has long abided by a policy – which continues to this day – permitting the sale of “agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to Iran” as a means of aiding the general population while punishing the theocratic regime in Tehran.

Omar was opposed not only to President Trump’s imposition of sanctions against Iran, but also to his 2018 decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran Nuclear Deal that the Obama administration had negotiated three years earlier. To refresh your memory, the following were among the more noteworthy provisions of that disastrous agreement:

– Iran was permitted to keep some 5,060 centrifuges, one-third of which would continue to spin in perpetuity.

– Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief – “some portion” of which, according to Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, “we should expect … would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now.”

– Russia and China were permitted to continue to supply Iran with weapons.

– Iran was given discretion to block international inspectors from military installations and was assured that it would be given 14 days’ notice for any request to visit any site.

– No American inspectors were given access to Iranian nuclear sites.

– Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program remained intact and unaffected.

– Iran was not required to disclose information about its past nuclear research and development.

– The U.S. agreed to provide technical assistance to help Iran develop its nuclear program, supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes.

– Sanctions were lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military, including a previously existing travel ban against Qasem Suleimani, leader of the terrorist Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

– Iran was not required to release American prisoners in its custody.

– The U.S. and its five negotiating partner nations agreed to provide Iranian nuclear leaders with training courses and workshops designed to strengthen their ability to prevent and respond to threats to their nuclear facilities and systems.

– Iran was not required to renounce terrorism against the United States.

– Iran was not required to affirm its “clear and unambiguous … recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”

– Whatever restrictions were placed on Iran’s nuclear program would all begin to expire – due to so-called “sunset clauses” – at various times over the ensuing 5 to 26 years.

Remarkably, all of this was perfectly fine with Ilhan Omar. The only thing that bothered her was the imposition of sanctions against an aspiring nuclear power whose leaders had repeatedly sworn their commitment to wiping the U.S. and Israel off the globe.

If you try to find an example of a single instance where Ilhan Omar has taken America’s side in its dealings with Iran, you won’t find one. Consider her reaction after President Trump ordered and carried out the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3. “I feel ill a little bit because of everything that is taking place,” Omar said during a press conference. “And I think every time I hear of conversations around [possible] war [with Iran], I find myself being stricken with PTSD” — presumably a reference to her family’s flight from the Somali Civil War in 1991. Remarkably, Soleimani’s tireless efforts at masterminding the murder of hundreds of American soldiers – and the maiming of thousands more – caused Omar no such psychological distress.

One of Omar’s legislative assistants today is Mahyar Sorour, who last year mounted an unsuccessful campaign for a board seat with NIAC Action, the sister group of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Last July, NIAC, echoing Ilhan Omar, avidly supported a Democratic House Resolution calling for the United States to return to compliance with the Iran Nuclear Deal. Moreover, NIAC’s founders and top officials have close ties to the Iranian regime. But none of this is enough to cause Omar to rethink her connections to NIAC.

Ilhan Omar is a member of the United States Congress, but she does not in any way protect and defend the interests of this country.

https://www.raptureforums.com/politics-culture-wars/the-congresswoman-from-iran/
 

TheRedeemed

Well-Known Member
This is the problem when people from other cultures enter Western politics.

They generally have no patriotism for their adopted country, even into the 2nd and 3rd generations.

How can any of them be trusted to do the right things in times of national emergencies?!
 

TimeWarpWife

Well-Known Member
As I posted in another thread, I don't understand Omar's loyalty to these Muslim religion and nations that would stone her to death for adultery, among other things. In those countries she'd never be allowed to hold public office, drive, have any say in anything, and could only go outside her house in the company of a male family member. I guess the most obvious explanation is that she's a liberal lunatic.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
As I posted in another thread, I don't understand Omar's loyalty to these Muslim religion and nations that would stone her to death for adultery, among other things. In those countries she'd never be allowed to hold public office, drive, have any say in anything, and could only go outside her house in the company of a male family member. I guess the most obvious explanation is that she's a liberal lunatic.
That's the real conundrum. If people like that actually had some self-awareness it would do them good. But they don't think with an objective train of thought, so we have skewed minds occupying positions they are not worthy of.
 

RobinMc

Well-Known Member
This is the problem when people from other cultures enter Western politics.

They generally have no patriotism for their adopted country, even into the 2nd and 3rd generations.

How can any of them be trusted to do the right things in times of national emergencies?!
They do not run for office for the good of their newly adopted country, that took them in and gave them a better life. They run to push their agenda, to make this country like the cesspool they left to come here. If they do not see this as a better life/country, why are they here?
The people in MN that voted her into office have a lot to answer to.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13308/ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib

  • "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." — Ilhan Omar, in a tweet, November 2012.
  • "When a politician singles out Jewish allies as 'evil,' but ignores every brutal theocratic regime in the area, it's certainly noteworthy...." — David Harsanyi, New York Post.
  • "With many Jews expressing distaste for an 'illiberal' Israel, it's little surprise that the bulk of American Jewry isn't overly bothered about the election of Socialists who are unsympathetic to the Jewish state or consider Zionism to be racist." — Commentator Jonathan Tobin.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history.

Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.

America's first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel's right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.

Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota's 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.

In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, "As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah." She continued:

"I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress."
Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbingreport that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an "apartheid regime," and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."

After the tweets came to light, Omar met with members of her congressional district's large Jewish population to address concerns over her position on Israel, as reported by Minneapolis's Star Tribune. During a Democratic Party candidates' forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park on August 6 — one week before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party's primary — Omar publicly criticized the anti-Israel BDS movement. In front of an audience of more than a thousand people, Omar said she supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement aimed at pressuring Israel was not 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."

Less than a week after being elected, however, Omar admitted that she supports the BDS movement. On November 11, Omar's office told the website MuslimGirl.com that she favors BDS against Israel:

"Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people's right to support it isn't criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution."
On November 12, Omar told TC Jewfolk, a website catering to the Jewish community in the Twin Cities, that her position on the BDS movement "has always been the same" and pointed to her vote as a state lawmaker against House bill HF 400, which prohibits the state from doing business with companies or organizations that boycott Israel.

In a recent interview with the Star Tribune, Omar characterized the controversy over her tweets about Israel as an effort to "stigmatize and shame me into saying something other than what I believed."

In a July 8, 2018 interview with ABC News, for a segment entitled, "Progressive Democrats Increasingly Criticize Israel, and Could Reap Political Rewards," Omar defended her tweets. She said the accusations of anti-Semitism "are without merit" and "rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe."

On September 22, Omar was the keynote speaker in Minneapolis at a fundraiser focused on providing monetary support for Palestinians in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. The US Department of State has officially designated Hamas a terrorist group. After the event, Omar tweeted:

"It was such an honor to attend the 'Dear Gaza' fundraiser ... I know Palestinians are resilient people, hateful protesters nor unjust occupation will dim their spirit."
Writing in the New York Post, political commentator David Harsanyi notedthat Omar's rhetoric had anti-Semitic undertones:

"Now, it isn't inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli political leadership or policies. The Democratic Party antagonism toward the Jewish state has been well-established over the past decade. But Omar used a well-worn anti-Semitic trope about the preternatural ability of a nefarious Jewish cabal to deceive the world....
"Omar had a chance to retract, or at least refine, her statement. Instead, she doubled down ... blaming Jewish Islamophobia for the backlash....
"To accuse the only democratic state in the Middle East, which grants more liberal rights to its Muslim citizens than any Arab nation, of being an 'apartheid regime' is, on an intellectual level, grossly disingenuous or incredibly ignorant. And when a politician singles out Jewish allies as 'evil,' but ignores every brutal theocratic regime in the area, it's certainly noteworthy....
"Omar's defenders will claim she's anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. 'Anti-Zionism' has been the preferred justification for Jew-hatred in institutions of education and within progressive activism for a long time. Now it's coming for politics. Democrats can either allow it to be normalized, or they can remain silent."
In Michigan, meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, won a largely uncontested race for the open seat in state's heavily Democratic 13th congressional district.

In Tlaib's acceptance speech, delivered with a Palestinian flag, she credited her victory to the Palestinian cause. "A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian," she said.

Like Omar, Tlaib has changed her positions on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During her race for the Democratic nomination in the state primary, Tlaib actively "sought out the support and received the endorsement of J Street." J Street is a left-leaning organization that is highly critical of the Israel government, and through "JStreetPAC," it also allocates financial support to those who back J Street's policies.

J Street endorsed Tlaib "based on her support for two states" with the JStreetPAC website claiming that she "believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority."

After her primary win on August 7, however, Tlaib radically shifted her positions on Israel, so much so that Haaretz suggested that she pulled a "bait-and-switch."

In an August 14 interview with In These Times magazine, Tlaib was asked whether she supported a one-state or two-state solution. She replied:

"One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work.... This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn't work."
Tlaib also declared her opposition to US aid for Israel, as well as her support for the BDS movement.

When asked why she accepted money from J Street, Tlaib said that the organization endorsed her because of her "personal story," not her policy "stances."

In an August 13 interview with Britain's Channel 4, Tlaib revealed that she subscribes to the specious concept of intersectionality, which posits that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally a dispute between "white supremacists" and "people of color."

When Tlaib was asked about her position on Israel, she replied, "I grew up in Detroit where every single corner of the district is a reminder of the civil rights movement."

When Tlaib was asked whether, once in Congress, she would vote to cut aid to Israel, she replied: "Absolutely. For me, US aid should be leverage."

On August 17, J Street withdrew its endorsement of Tlaib's candidacy. J Streetnoted:

"After closely consulting with Rashida Tlaib's campaign to clarify her most current views on various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we have come to the unfortunate conclusion that a significant divergence in perspectives requires JStreetPAC to withdraw our endorsement of her candidacy.
"While we have long championed the value of a wide range of voices in discussion of the conflict and related issues, we cannot endorse candidates who conclude that they can no longer publicly express unequivocal support for a two-state solution and other core principles to which our organization is dedicated."
Commentator Jonathan Tobin noted that many American Jews seemed indifferent to victories by these anti-Israel Democrats:

"The base of the Democratic Party has been profoundly influenced by intersectional arguments that, like Tlaib's slurs, view the Palestinian war on Israel as akin to the struggle for civil rights in the United States....
"For most [American Jews], Israel is, at best, just one among many issues they care about. At the moment, that means most American Jews are far more interested in evicting US President Donald Trump from the White House or expressing solidarity with illegal immigrants than about threats to Israel...
"With many Jews expressing distaste for an 'illiberal' Israel, it's little surprise that the bulk of American Jewry isn't overly bothered about the election of Socialists who are unsympathetic to the Jewish state or consider Zionism to be racist."
 

TheRedeemed

Well-Known Member
They do not run for office for the good of their newly adopted country, that took them in and gave them a better life. They run to push their agenda, to make this country like the cesspool they left to come here. If they do not see this as a better life/country, why are they here?
The people in MN that voted her into office have a lot to answer to.
Yep, they flee Islam to a country where it isn’t running the place, then when they get there the first thing they do is try to get the country to convert/become Islamic.
 
Top