Posts

Ilhan Omar, Leader of the Democratic Party

The anti-Semitic Congresswoman has hypnotized the Democrats, if not the world. My latest in PJ Media:

Just days ago, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) faced rebuke, albeit indirectly, from her own party in a resolution condemning anti-Semitism that had been developed as a response to her repeated anti-Semitic statements — including the bizarre and paranoid assertion that “Israel has hypnotized the world.” Today, it is clear that if anyone has hypnotized the world, or at least the Democrats, it is Omar herself. She stands victorious as the new master of the Democratic Party.

Omar’s victory is total. The anti-Semitism resolution was turned into a condemnation of “Islamophobia” and “white supremacism,” she remains on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the entire Democratic leadership has made it clear that they don’t dare cross her.

To be sure, the resolution as it was passed contained a condemnation of anti-Semitism, and even of accusations of dual loyalty, in which Omar had indulged when she railed against “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Nancy Pelosi, however, was quick to insist that the resolution wasn’t referring to Omar: “I thought the resolution should be largely issued to anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia, etc., anti-white supremacist, and that it should not mention her name … because it’s not about her.”

All right. So the resolution condemns the practice of “accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to the Jewish community than to the United States,” and states that this “constitutes anti-Semitism because it suggests that Jewish citizens cannot be patriotic Americans and trusted neighbors.” The resolution was conceived only after Omar denounced “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” But Pelosi says that the resolution doesn’t refer to Omar.

Indeed, it doesn’t. It was initially drawn up because of her, only her, but her supporters quickly demonstrated their power in the new, avowedly socialist, fanatically anti-Israel Democratic Party. Only then did the resolution get supplemented with references to the Dreyfus Affair (timely!) and to white supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville (relevant!).

Pelosi later explained that Omar’s words “were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude,” the poor victim just “didn’t have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people where these words have a history and a cultural impact that might have been unknown to her.”

Pelosi sounds as if she has been hypnotized.

And not just her: No one in the Democratic Party leadership has raised the slightest murmur of protest over the fact that Omar remains on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and has essentially suffered no consequences whatsoever for her open expressions of anti-Semitism. The clear lesson of the events of this past week is that the sclerotic Democratic Party establishment lacks the will to tangle with Omar, who is an exponent of a skilled and ruthless propaganda machine that has long been in the Democrats’ corner, but has never — until now — turned its brute force against the Democrats themselves.

What Pelosi and her cohorts learned this week is that if they cross Ilhan Omar, they will be accused of “racism” and “Islamophobia” just as swiftly and reflexively as those smear labels are applied to Republicans who dare to speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. The Democrats’ long record of support for mass Muslim migration into the U.S. and resolutely opposing any realistic analysis of the motivating ideology behind jihad violence counts for nothing if they get in the way.

This became clear when Omar’s staunch ally Linda Sarsour railed against Pelosi after the initial anti-Semitism resolution was announced. Pelosi, said Sarsour, was a “typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men. God forbid the men are upset — no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos.”

That’s the kind of rhetoric that Leftists have been using against conservatives for years. Pelosi must have been shocked beyond measure to find it used against her. And given the fact that for decades Leftists have demanded, and usually received, the capitulation of conservatives in the face of such rhetoric, Pelosi could do nothing else but capitulate herself.

And so Ilhan Omar is the new leader of the Democratic Party, complete with all her anti-Semitism. The next time she says something anti-Semitic, and she certainly will, there will be not the mildest statement of contradiction from Democratic leadership. What can they possibly say? She has already faced them down and won….

Read the rest here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

Islamic State: If Muslims ran America, black slave trade would have continued

“In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.”

The Islamic State message should be no surprise, given how blacks are treated throughout the Islamic world, despite the IS explaining that it’s more about slavery of the infidel than about race. One need only look at the racist genocide of blacks in Darfur and the slavery of blacks still going on in Islamic states, as well as the deep involvement of Arabs in the American black slave trade.

Jihad Watch reported about an Islamic State message to Ferguson protesters last year: “Hey blacks ISIS will save you”; and has also reported about instances that reveal the black-jihadi alliance in America. For example, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan accused whites of persecuting blacks, pointing out ominously that the Qur’an teaches that persecution is worse than slaughter (cf. Qur’an 2:191 and 2:217) , thereby justifying the slaughter of the alleged persecutors. Farrakhan then called for a bloody race war when he stated that he was looking for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!”

He was referencing police shootings of blacks, although whites get shot by police far more frequently than blacks do; more violent crimes are being committed by blacks; and blacks kill blacks in staggering numbers. But Farrakhan does not care about those inconvenient truths. Why? Because he is racist himself, and acquires money and fame from sensationalizing historic black victimization.

The Washington Post has also reported that the Islamic State, along with other jihadist movements, was taking advantage of the Ferguson crisis to recruit blacks for jihad.

The article stated: “All of the jihadists interviewed said Brown’s death confirms their beliefs that blacks are seen as second-class citizens by whites and especially by the police. ‘I think that blacks in the U.S. will look more towards Islam,’ said Anjem Choudary from Great Britain, co-founder of the banned ‘al-­Muhajiroun’ group.”

The fact that Muslims enslave blacks in Islamic states is nothing new, and now that the Islamic State has come out and stated that if Muslims ran America, “Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued”, where is Farrakhan in his condemnation of black slavery?

The Islamic State supported its position about slavery on Islamic theological grounds, and went on to blame the “emancipation and the end to black slavery on a corrupt Christianity that has gone soft and no longer lives according to the most brutal dictates of the Old Testament”. It goes on to state that “the clear difference between Muslims and the corrupt and deviant Jews and Christians is that Muslims are not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law”.

To be noted in the very telling article below: the Islamic State directs its most vitriolic rancor against Jews, but also states what it would have done to Native Americans and the Japanese.

Stacks of evidence reveal clearly that the West is at war with jihadists who base their atrocities on a literal reading of Islamic texts; yet the Pope and leftist leaders continue to deny the religious nature of this war, even as the Islamic religion inspires the very zeal that drives it on.

slave-trade-

“Islamic State: If Muslims Ran America, ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’”, by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, August 2, 2016:

In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

“The Islamic leadership would not have bypassed Allah’s permission to sell captured pagan humans, to teach them, and to convert them, as they worked hard for their masters in building a beautiful country,” the article reads.

Trading in black African slaves, the magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter His enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”….

….The Islamists blame emancipation and the end to black slavery on a corrupt Christianity that has gone soft and no longer lives according to the most brutal dictates of the Old Testament.

“The clear difference between Muslims and the corrupt and deviant Jews and Christians is that Muslims are not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law,” the authors claim.

“And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some ‘politically correct’ need to apologize years later.”

Along with African slavery, the Islamic State authors also state that “if it were the Muslims,” instead of Christians, who had “fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein.”

“The Japanese, for example, would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways – and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind. The Vietnamese would likewise be offered Islam or beds of napalm.”

As for the Native Americans, the article continues, after the slaughter of their men, “then the Muslims would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin.”

Finally, the Islamic State authors turn to the Jews, saving some of their most bitter vitriol for their sworn enemies..

“As for the treacherous Jews of Europe and elsewhere – those who would betray their covenant – then their post-pubescent males would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story, as their women would be made to serve their husbands’ and fathers’ killers.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Panic mode: Khizr Khan deletes Muslim immigration law firm website

CFR “terrorism theorist” Max Abrahms hits Trump for not distinguishing “law-abiding” Muslims from terrorists

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of captured Yazidi girls being led by Muslim women to be married to Islamists.