zybathegeek

Anti-semitism - The New Face of the Democrats

Rate this topic

81 posts in this topic

The new faces in the Democrat party have shifted from tolerance to intolerance, is would seem that they no longer espouse 'diversity is our strength', but espouse 'perversity is our strength' by not vigorously denouncing the anti-semitism of Tlaib et al in their ranks.

 

Whichever way your view it, the lack of vigorous denouncement signals an undeniable acceptance of what is espoused by Tlaib and her cohort.

 

Does the adoption of white costume at the latest SOTU signal a harking back to the old days of flaming crosses, hoods, and allowing another Grand Kleagle membership of their leadership ranks.?

 

Quote

freebeacon.com

 

Dem Rep. Rashida Tlaib Wrote Op-Ed For Farrakhan in 2006

 

Nic Rowan

3-4 minutes

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

BY:
February 11, 2019 10:57 am

 

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) wrote in 2006 an op-ed for the Final Call, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's publication known for espousing anti-Semitism.

 

Tlaib's piece focused on how legal immigrants should not be deported for minor criminal offenses, according to a report from journalist Jeryl Bier. At the end of her article, the now freshman congresswoman is identified as an "advocacy coordinator of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) in Detroit." Tlaib has not written in the Final Call since then.

 

Tlaib has come under fire since her election to Congress for ties to individuals and groups that have espoused anti-Semitic views. In January, she attended a private dinner after her swearing-in with Abbas Hamideh, a "Palestinian right of return" activist who has called Israel a "terrorist entity." Hamideh has also tweeted that Israel has a "delusional ISIS-like ideology" and that the creation of the country was a "crime."

 

In late January, Tlaib advocated against Sen. Marco Rubio's (Fla.) bill concerning Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel, which would allow state and local governments to boycott companies that boycott Israel. Tlaib called the bill an "anti-First Amendment, anti-speech bill," in an interview for the Intercept‘s "Deconstructed" podcast.

 

"Do you know what we’ve done in this country with the right to boycott, what we’ve done in this country with the right to speak up and to protest and to say we disagree with this country and their doings? You look at Apartheid. You look at all the, you know, anti-blackness in our country and what we’ve been able to try to do to push back against that, you know, I don’t even call it an anti-B — I call it anti-First Amendment, anti-speech bill," Tlaib said.

 

In further support of the BDS movement, Tlaib attempted to organize a congressional trip to the West Bank. The attempt was in opposition to an Israel trip traditionally organized for freshman members of Congress by AIPAC, a group that advocates pro-Israel policies.

 

"I want us to see that segregation [between Israelis and Palestinians] and how that has really harmed us being able to achieve real peace in that region," Tlaib told the Intercept before she took office. "I don’t think AIPAC provides a real, fair lens into this issue."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, BrianBM said:

She has a point on anti-BDS laws impinging on free speech.

A very good point. I also don't really see any anti-semiticism other than guilt by association. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BrianBM said:

She has a point on anti-BDS laws impinging on free speech.

Then challenge them in the proper court rather than an inflammatory court of public opinion that further promotes division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zybathegeek said:

Then challenge them in the proper court rather than an inflammatory court of public opinion that further promotes division.

She shouldn't talk about it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zybathegeek said:

Then challenge them in the proper court rather than an inflammatory court of public opinion that further promotes division.

Why is she wrong to discuss a free speech issue in public?  "Inflammatory?"  What item of public debate isn't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, BrianBM said:

Why is she wrong to discuss a free speech issue in public?  "Inflammatory?"  What item of public debate isn't? 

Idiom yes, odium no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

...and sometimes communication needs all the subtlety of a bus crash.

 

'reductio ad absurdum'

 

 

 

 

Edited by zybathegeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, RiverRaider said:

Let me guess...

 

The usual suspects are apologizing for the anti-semite.

 

Shocking

 

 

Worse, eulogizing by proxy, Farrakhan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.