Why Some Republicans Did’nt Vote for Anti-Bigotry Resolution

by Jack

It all started when freshman representative Ilhan Omar made some anti-Semitic remarks that went viral on the net.  Even a few democrats rebuked her, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.   Because her remarks were specifically targeted at our most loyal ally in the middle east, Israel, the GOP wanted to go on record, Omar’s remarks were her own and in no way reflect the view of the House of Representatives.

A GOP resolution was quickly drafted to condemn her comments, but democrats feared this would reflect poorly upon their party, so they added that all forms of bigotry, against everyone from Pacific Islanders to transgenders, was unacceptable.  This caused the resolution to go far afield from it’s original intent, to rebuke Omar and give reassurances to Israel our friendship remains steadfast.  Further more, after these peculiar amendments were added,  Omar’s name and her specific comments were not even mentioned at all.

“We’re here today because a member of this body issued a series of anti-Semitic statements,” Andy Biggs said in a floor speech on Thursday.   He spoke of the difference between justice and mercy, adding: “We now have a pattern and we begin to wonder how we extend mercy when justice cries out against one who is anti-Semitic.  It doesn’t help that Democratic leaders have attempted to rationalize and protect this individual.”

Rep. Brooks said he voted against the resolution because its “failure to specifically state opposition to discrimination against Caucasian-Americans and Christians, while reflective of Socialist Democrat priorities and values is, by omission, fatal to the bill.”  And Ken Buck of C0lorado criticized the resolution for failing “to address a problem that needed to be confronted.  “Anti-Semitism can’t be compared with any other hate speech without marginalizing the history of Jewish oppression,” he said. “I will not vote to overlook the anti-Semitism which has been covered up by the Democratic leadership.”

Rep. Ted Budd, reacting on Twitter, said that he voted against the resolution because it failed to name Ms. Omar or list her comments.

Ilhan Omar-D, is a Muslim immigrant from Somalia, her views on Israel mirrors that of many in her former country, but not the Minnesotans that she was elected to represent.

Omar is not new to controversy, “Hennepin County records show Omar applied for a marriage license in 2002 but never used it. It was not immediately known whom she planned to marry. Seven years later, Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in Eden Prairie, according to their marriage record. Elmi could not be reached for comment. Minnesota courts have no records of Omar and Elmi filing for divorce.    Her campaign flatly denied that Elmi is her brother. It would only say that she and Ahmed Hirsi, who is pictured in campaign literature is the father of their three children, are together and raising a family. The Star Tribune could not find records in Minnesota showing that the two ever married.”

Omar was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party line, which made her the first Somali American elected to legislative office in the United States. On November 6, 2018, she became the first naturalized citizen from Africa

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Why Some Republicans Did’nt Vote for Anti-Bigotry Resolution

  1. Libby says:

    “It all started when freshman representative Ilhan Omar made some anti-Semitic remarks that went viral on the net.”

    Again, you misrepresent. Actually …

    It all started when freshman representative Ilhan Omar made criticisms of Israel that were perceived as Anti-Semitic remarks ….

    Both she and OAC should probably back off … just a bit. They are youngsters, and need to get in some practice with the politicizing … and stay the hell off the bloody Twitter!

    “Wait, wait” had some fun with this highly substantive work of our House of Representatives. Would that you could take a similarly objective view of your party’s doings.

    • Post Scripts says:

      But Libby, I do take an objective view of my GOP, granted I don’t make it an obsession, but many times I have lowered the boom on them. Mostly its for gross incompetence, but sometimes for corruption.

  2. Harold says:

    Hummmm, did Libby just forget to mention this point?

    House passes anti-hate measure after Rep. Ilhan Omar’s controversial remarks.

    I guess Not everyone believes that Omar’s words were misrepresented
    In the nation’s capital, Ilhan Omar drew an intense backlash for a tweet that suggested American support for Israel was “all about the Benjamin’s baby” and a remark that pro-Israel activists pushed for “allegiance to a foreign country.” She was accused by some lawmakers, and rightly so as well as prominent Jewish groups of anti-Semitism and playing on toxic anti-Jewish stereotypes. (Wait, let me dodge, err explain this)

    So immediately, in response, the House of Representatives last week overwhelmingly approved a resolution condemning all hate, although the measure did not single out Omar. (Interesting, Liberal’s seem to have the response though of identifying who made comments from the other side on political charged comments)

    Omar has apologized (more of a political wait a moment, more like, let me dodge, err explain this) for suggesting/ actually saying that the United States’ connection to Israel is driven by money (Benjamin’s) from AIPAC, a prominent pro-Israel lobby group.

    So, I wonder who prompted that immediate placate to the left’s voting base?

    Rabbi Marcia Zimmerman of Temple Israel, a Reform Jewish congregation that is the oldest synagogue in this city, said many of members of her community have called her over the last month to say they were troubled by Omar’s comments’
    ” I don’t know the intention, but I know the impact. The words have been hurtful,” Zimmerman said, she added that the comments are especially problematic amid a recent spike in anti-Semitic incidents nationwide.

    Rabbi Zimmerman commented she is open to differing opinions about policies pertaining to Israel, and the Israeli government.

    “If she wants to have a conversation about lobbyists and money, let’s have that conversation,” Zimmerman said. “If she wants to have a conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let’s have that conversation.”
    But, the rabbi added, “In my mind, tweets are not the way that you communicate complex, complicated issues when you are a member of Congress

    Will Omar survive this? seems Minnesota boasts the largest Somali-American community in the U.S. — about 70,000 people, according to a Census Bureau estimate — and a robust community of Somalis live in Omar’s district, ( so common sense would suggest she is politically as safe as any Liberal California House Rep. or Senator) which covers Minneapolis and some of its suburbs. The district is filled with immigrants like Omar, a refugee who fled a Somali civil war with her family and sought asylum in the United States in 1995.

    Her district is also reliably blue. Hillary Clinton got 73 percent of the vote here in 2016, and Omar took close to 80 percent in November. She became one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, taking the seat previously held by Keith Ellison, the first Muslim man.

  3. J. Soden says:

    Not to worry. Omar will again display her anti-semitism at the next opportunity, and then the House Demwits will have to further explain their watered-down resolution. Tliab, Omar and o-c – the current Three Stooges in the House. Four, if you count Peloosi.
    However I must apologize to the Original Stooges. Those guys had way more intelligence and class . . . . . . .

  4. Chris says:

    I do think Omar should have been named in the resolution, instead of the vague “All Lives Matter” stance of the actual resolution.

    I also think if Republicans are serious about that believing she should have been named, then they should pass resolutions condemning similarly anti-Semitic and bigoted comments from other members of Congress, and even from the president himself.

    I showed some of the similarly anti-Semitic comments from Trump in another thread, and asked what the difference was between those comments and Omar’s. I did not get a response.

    I do think we need more criticism of bigotry, not less, and would be happy to see more resolutions condemning such bigotry on all sides. But I have reason to suspect congressional Republicans don’t really want that.

  5. Libby says:

    “In my mind, tweets are not the way that you communicate complex, complicated issues when you are a member of Congress.”

    Isn’t that what I said? She’s a clever girl; she’ll learn.

  6. J Soden says:

    An improvement in the selection process would be to remove the obligatory race and gender questions for those seeking admission.
    And abolish tenure to improve the on-campus learning!

  7. Chris says:

    Speaking of bigotry, the comments about the Christchurch shooting on this Breitbart are sickening in their bigotry, and they are sadly typical of the Breitbart comments section.

    https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1106405565910134784

    The shooter was motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, which Breitbart actively stokes and encourages in its articles. Comments like these are never taken down, moderated, or even criticized by the writers and editors of Breitbart. This site is frequently linked to by commenters here at Post Scripts, and was recently once again retweeted by the President of the United States.

    Websites like Breitbart don’t directly cause tragedies like the mosque shooting in Christchurch, but they certainly help create the environment that makes people like the shooter feel justified in thinking that there is a war between the West and Muslims as a group. They absolutely make this kind of violence more likely. It’s time to speak up against their active promotion of bigotry and stop pretending as if they are reliable sources of information.

    • J. Soden says:

      Loonie Lefties are quick to blame everything including the kitchen sink blockage on TheDonald when the REAL one to blame for the NZ attack is the shooter!

  8. Chris says:

    This is crazy. The president pivoted immediately from condemning the attack to talking about an “invasion” of immigrants–the same kind of false belief that motivated the Christchurch shooter.

    Per pool: Trump called the terror attack a “horrible, horrible thing” and said he called the PM to convey US “sorrow,” then turned to “crimes of all kinds coming through our southern border.” He added, “People hate the word invasion, but that’s what it is.”

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1106641548740100097

    This is after it was revealed that the shooter’s manifesto cited Trump as a “symbol of white identity…” Now, it’s true that the shooter made a number of ridiculous citations of inspiration in his manifesto, some designed to confuse journalists, but can anyone deny that Trump is admired and supported in white supremacist circles? They view him as the only one in US politics trying to get their number one policy priority, which is reducing non-white immigration. Trump was even more anti-Muslim than anti-Mexican throughout the campaign, pledging to end all Muslim immigration and put American Muslims on a national registry. This is the exact type of rhetoric that motivated this shooter as well as many others. The radicalization is coming directly from the top of our government. What an absolute disgrace to American values, and everyone who voted for him is complicit.

  9. Chris says:

    I did not “blame” anyone but the shooter. My comments were very clear, and as usual, you did not rebut them. Because you can’t.

    I explained where the shooter got the idea that he needed to protect his country from innocent people praying in a mosque. You cannot dispute this, because you know it is true.

  10. Chris says:

    Update on the Omar thing:

    Some far leftist idiot ambushed Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the 49 killed in Christchurch and started yelling at her that she was to blame for the attack because of her criticism of Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments. I’ve been arguing with far leftists on Twitter for the past day, and they all insist that Chelsea is an Islamophobe who implied that Omar wasn’t an American (she never implied that) and even blaming her for things like her mom’s vote to authorize Bush to begin the Iraq War. Meanwhile, they have no problem with Omar’s tweets.

    Extremists are wild.

    • Libby says:

      “I’ve been arguing with far leftists on Twitter for the past day, ….”

      You’ve been WHAT !!!!?

    • Peggy says:

      Chelsea was also attacked because her husband is a Jew. She’s as guilty by association as Trump is for having a Jewish daughter and son-in-law. The far-left demands everyone believe as they do, otherwise verbal and physical attacks are justified no matter who you are. Not even a pregnant woman or a president they didn’t vote for.

      Really interesting is right-wing republicans spoke out to defend Chelsea. I doubt the same defense would have happened by the left if she had been Trump’s daughter instead of Bill’s and Hillary’s.

      GOP lawmaker defends Chelsea Clinton after confrontation over New Zealand attacks:
      https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434463-gop-lawmaker-defends-chelsea-clinton-after-confrontation-over-new-zealand

      • Chris says:

        Chelsea was also attacked because her husband is a Jew. She’s as guilty by association as Trump is for having a Jewish daughter and son-in-law.

        I don’t understand. When has the far-left attacked Trump for having a Jewish daughter and son-in-law?

        • Post Scripts says:

          Hi Chris, I think I found an example of what you were searching for… “Rep. Joaquin Castro, during an appearance on CNN, insinuated that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner orchestrated the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. He refers to reporting about Kushner supplying a hit list to the Saudi’s but does not actually name any sources for the reporting.” Hmmm…is that close enough?

          • Chris says:

            Not really…that insinutation, however outlandish, is not at all based on Kushner being Jewish, it’s based on his close relationship with Saudi Arabia, something that has been very well documented and is only a Google search away.

            I asked for an example of someone on the left attacking Trump for having a Jewish son-in-law, not for having a son-in-law with a close relationship to Saudi Arabia.

      • Chris says:

        Peggy, I’ve seen a lot of center-leftists like myself defend Megan McCain from attacks from the far-left (as well as the attacks from Trumpists). I haven’t seen a lot of defense of, say, Ivanka, but I’m sure if someone came after Tiffany like that plenty of people on the left would be defending her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *