“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee” -Ilhan Omar
Ilhan Omar is often in the news for being one of first Muslim women elected to the House of Representatives. Her most important "first", however, is being one of the first mainstream US politicians (alongside Rashida Tlaib) to hold bare minimum anti-Zionist positions--openly declaring that Israel is an apartheid state, and hence unworthy of existence.
(Tlaib has courageously stated the "one-state solution"--abolishing Israel--is the only solution. Omar has not been courageous enough to endorse this bare-minimum anti-Zionist position yet. Positively, Tlaib is also among the leading voices calling for impeachment proceedings against Trump to move forward immediately--as, by this point, we have had enough evidence to impeach him for years).
Currently, Omar is being attacked not only by Zionists and Islamophobes in the Republican Party, but those in the Democratic Party as well. Democratic politicians in the House have moved forward to pass a resolution condemning her views. This will be the second time in nearly 60 days.
Why? Well, speaking the truth in today's political climate is not well-received by either party.
Omar is a member of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs. As part of her duty on this committee, she is bringing attention to the fact that countless US politicians have divided loyalties and many anti-American allegiances, which compromise their ability to serve in the US government.
"On Friday, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., called on Omar to apologize for "a vile, anti-Semitic slur" she made at a town hall event in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday where she suggested Israel demands "allegiance" from American lawmakers."
[Author's note: Eliot Engel is the CHAIR OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. He is Jewish and openly Zionist. It seems he is awfully offended that his gross conflict of interest by having an anti-American allegiance was called out.]
""I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country," the congresswoman from Minnesota said in a video of the event shared on Facebook.
She was joined at the event by Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and Mark Pocan, D-Wis."
..."Omar and Tlaib are the first Muslim women elected to Congress. Omar said she was concerned that because of their religion, "a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, (think) that everything we say about Israel (is) anti-Semitic because we are Muslim."
She said the charge of anti-Semitism is "designed to end the debate" about Israel's treatment of Palestinians."
[Author's note: a common Zionist tactic is to declare any criticism of Israel or Zionism as "anti-Semitism". Semitic is a language group--with the most commonly spoken being Arabic. Ironically, it seems Omar can speak Arabic.]
""The charge of dual loyalty not only raises the ominous specter of classic anti-Semitism, but it is also deeply insulting to the millions upon millions of patriotic Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who stand by our democratic ally, Israel," the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said in a statement."
[Author's note: AIPAC is the most powerful foreign interest group in the United States. To give one example of its influence, it is not required to register as an agent representing the interests of a foreign power under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, despite literally having Israel in its name. Meanwhile, things as innocent as the Japan National Tourism Organization and Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions are required to register.]
When Democrats (and Republicans) are making a bigger fuss out of Omar--a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee--saying it is not acceptable for politicians to have allegiances to foreign nations than they are over all of Trump's allegiances to Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other foreign nations, or the divided allegiances of countless Republican and Democratic Congressmen (INCLUDING THE CHAIR OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--WHO IS OPENLY ZIONIST), it gives a lot of credence to Omar's statement over who is controlling American lawmakers.
***
While doing a brief internet search, it seems most articles written on the topic of Omar's potential rebuke by Congress are dominated by Zionist sources.
To give visibility to some more reasonable articles, here is an article jam-packed with examples of tribalist behaviors by rightist politicians against Jews, and all of them escaped significant criticism. Now, when Omar engages in ANTI-TRIBALIST criticism of the tribalist attitude of Zionism and tribalist institution of apartheid, she is attacked by both the right and false left. That is because this issue is not about anger over displaying tribalism against Jews (something Omar has never done), but part of an overwhelming propaganda attempt to defend Israel.
"On Wednesday, however, the House Democratic leadership will try and formally censure Rep. Ilhan Omar — a black Somali-American Muslim woman who came to the United States as a refugee, and who, in recent days, has been compared to the 9/11 terrorists by Republicans in West Virginia and described as “filth” by an adviser to the president — for saying that she wanted “to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Her fellow congressional Democrats have said little or nothing about the aforementioned and shameful Republican record of anti-Semitism, but many have joined the pile-on against Omar. One of them — Rep. Juan Vargas — went out of his way to insist, rather revealingly, that “questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”
So my simple point is this: Whether or not you agree with Omar’s remarks, whether or not you were personally offended, anyone who tells you that these nonstop, bipartisan political attacks on her are about fighting anti-Semitism is gaslighting you."
This whole issue was never about "anti-Semitism"--Omar is merely doing her duty as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee by declaring it is unacceptable for government officials to have divided loyalties and hold allegiances to foreign nations. The fact that this can even be made into a controversy is insane and a testament to how much control Zionists have over our political discourse.
Here is a brief article regarding the massive power of AIPAC and how Omar is taking a very bold step to challenge it:
"In 2005, Steven Rosen, then a senior official with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, sat down for dinner with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, then of the New Yorker. “You see this napkin?” Rosen asked Goldberg. “In twenty-four hours, [AIPAC] could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
I couldn’t help but be reminded of this anecdote after Rep. Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, was slammed by Democrats and Republicans alike over her suggestion, in a pair of tweets, that U.S. politicians back the state of Israel because of financial pressure from AIPAC (“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she declaimed)."
[...]"Rosen, after all, wasn’t the first AIPAC official to boast about the the raw power that “America’s bipartisan pro-Israel lobby” exercises in Washington, D.C. Go back earlier, to 1992, when then-AIPAC President David Steiner was caught on tape bragging that he had “cut a deal” with the George H.W. Bush White House to provide $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel. Steiner also claimed to be “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton administration over the appointment of pro-Israel cabinet members. AIPAC, he said, has “a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters … and they’re all going to get big jobs.”
Go back further, to 1984, when Sen. Charles Percy, a moderate Republican from Illinois, was defeated in his re-election campaign after he “incurred AIPAC’s wrath” by declining to sign onto an AIPAC-sponsored letter and daring to refer to Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat as more “moderate” than other Palestinian resistance figures. AIPAC contributors raised more than a million dollars to help defeat Percy. As Tom Dine, then-executive director of AIPAC, gloated in a speech shortly after the GOP senator’s defeat, “all the Jews, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians — those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire — got the message.”
Nearly four decades later, as members of the U.S. political and media classes pile onto Omar, are the rest of us supposed to pretend that AIPAC officials never said or did any of this? And are we also expected to forget that the New York Times’s Tom Friedman, a long-standing advocate for Israel in the American media, once described the standing ovations received by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, from members of Congress, as having been “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby”? Or that Goldberg, now editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and dubbed “the most influential journalist/blogger on matters related to Israel,” called AIPAC a “leviathan among lobbies, as influential in its sphere as the National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired Persons are in theirs”? Or that J.J. Goldberg, former editor of the Jewish weekly newspaper The Forward, said in 2002, in reference to AIPAC, “There is this image in Congress that you don’t cross these people or they take you down”?"
"What makes this whole row over Omar’s remarks so utterly bizarre is that so many leading Democrats, loudly and rightly, decry the pernicious and undeniable impact of special interests, lobbyists, and donations on a whole host of issues — from the role of Big Pharma and Big Finance; to influence-peddling by Saudi Arabia; to the “grip” that the NRA has on the debate over gun control, to quote Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal. But any mention of AIPAC and lobbying in favor of Israel? “Anti-Semitism!”
[...]Got that? It’s “offensive and wrong” to suggest the pro-Israel lobby tries to buy off politicians. But it’s totally fine to suggest the pro-gun lobby does. (The irony is that AIPAC’s leading lights haven’t been shy about making their own analogy with the NRA. [...)]
[...]“When people ask me how they can help Israel,” former Israeli prime minister and uber-hawk Ariel Sharon once told an audience in the United States, “I tell them: Help AIPAC.”"
***
And the most absurd thing about this whole mess? In recent years, Democrat voters identifying as 'liberal' are more sympathetic towards Palestinians than Israel.
Now you know why the Zionist lobby is so desperate to cut down heroic American upstarts like Omar and Tlaib.
***
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams[1]
It has been around two months since being sworn into office and already Omar has incensed the many politicians with anti-American allegiances who shamefully remain in office. With this in mind we may venture to say that, to date, she has been one of the most efficient US Congressmen to have ever been elected. If she is removed from her position on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as many Zionist Republicans are calling for, it will be a huge blow to the purpose of the Committee and irrefutable proof that Israel really does have near-total control over US foreign policy...
Make no mistake, Russia may be the most influential foreign power pulling Trump's strings, but Israel and the Zionist lobby have been the biggest foreign meddlers in US politics for decades.
Until now, exceedingly few--if any--mainstream US politicians have been courageous enough to state this obvious fact. And for Omar to do this in our present-day milieu of "alternative facts" and universal deceit is a revolutionary act, as the old saying goes.[2]
References
[1] John Adams, Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, December 1770. Printed in The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment, of the Independence of the United States of America by William Gordon (1788). Volume 1 of 4, page 296.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/06/18/facts-stubborn/
[2] This quote is often attributed to George Orwell, as it is perceived to capture the thesis of 1984, but the quote originates with earlier writings from other authors.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/24/truth-revolutionary/
