The unholy adulation of the Left for Linda Sarsour

I’m at a loss to understand the admiration of thinking liberals (the operant word is “thinking”)—and especially some Jews—for the odious hijabi Linda Sarsour.  Although she did help raise money to repair a vandalized Jewish cemetery, I’m absolutely convinced that this act was done simply to give her credibility. For in all other ways, her actions border on anti-Semitic: she’s anti-Zionist (and remember that Zionism is not approbation for all of Israel’s actions, but simply a desire for a Jewish homeland—the existence of Israel), a supporter of the BDS movement, whose implicit goal is to wipe Israel off the map, and a supporter of sharia law. And of course there are her odious tw**ts, including this one:

She had an arranged marriage at 17, covers herself out of modesty, and has touted Saudi Arabia’s sharia law multiple times, yet she calls herself a feminist—and people buy it! She was one of the leaders of the Women’s March on Washington, and is much beloved by the Regressive Left. Yes, she’s someone who says things like this:

Need I point out that in Israel women get 14 weeks of paid maternity leave—and they can drive there, too?

Below is a video of a student asking Sarsour about her Hirsi Ali tweet (which Sarsour deleted). Listen to her smarmy and evasive answer, in which she first questions the student’s right to even ask the question because he’s a “young white man,” then she says that the tweet “never happened” because it’s not on her Twitter feed (that’s because she deleted it). Then she says that she “did or did not tweet” what the man claimed. She slyly says she was in her twenties when it “might or might not” have appeared, and that young people do “stupid shit”, which is a non-admission admission. The woman simply can’t be honest. (By the way, the tweet at issue came out in 2011, when Sarsour was 31; she was not “in her twenties”. I think 31 is beyond the age of “doing stupid shit.”)

A new article by James Kirchick at Tablet ,”On Linda Sarsour’s politics of hate and the pathos of her Jewish enablers“, discusses not only Sarsour’s views, but why Jews and non-Jewish progressives buy into them. I’ll give two quotes from the piece, the first on Sarsour:

“If what is being asked of me by those who pronounce themselves and call themselves Zionist is that I, as a Palestinian American, have to somehow leave out a part of my identity so you can be welcomed in a space to work on justice, then that’s not going to be the right space for you,” Sarsour proclaimed in April at an event supporting the boycott, sanctions, and divestment movement against Israel. “We, as Palestinian Americans, as Arab Americans, as Muslim Americans, we will not change who we are to make anybody feel comfortable.”

Sarsour has been nothing if not honest about who she is and what she’s doing. Either she leaves the progressive movement or the “Zionists” do. She is able to get away with her crude intolerance—against Jews, women, “whites” and anyone else who doesn’t embrace her hatreds—because in the victimhood Olympics that overdetermines so much of today’s left-wing politics, Muslims are agreed to rank highest. In their quest to locate “authentic” Muslim leaders, progressives all too often behave like the “Orientalists” they claim to despise, settling on individuals like Sarsour to the exclusion of genuinely progressive Muslims, that is, those who don’t call for ripping out the vaginas of people with whom they disagree. And like many a self-appointed community “spokesperson,” Sarsour is starting to behave like a huckster, recently using her social media platform to raise tens of thousands of dollars on behalf of a Muslim woman in Ohio who claims to be the victim of a hate crime, an assertion at variance with that of the police. [JAC: see story here.] Sarsour’s sketchy behavior, furiously casting aspersions on the cops while tweeting “no one knows exactly what happened,” earned her a Twitter rebuke from Courtney Love, who called Sarsour “a vile disgrace to women and all mankind” as well as an “anti-Semite, anti-American fraud.”

As is her wont, Sarsour accused Love of “veiled anti-Muslim rhetoric”—illustrating how the accusation of “Islamophobia,” veiled or not, has become a catchall term promiscuously deployed against anyone who raises concerns about hate and bigotry, no matter how vile, on the part of Muslims, or criticizes any of the regressive attitudes and behaviors toward Jews, women, gays and other minority groups that are prevalent in Muslim countries and communities. The point of the term “Islamophobia” as used by Sarsour and her sympathizers is very often a self-interested and dishonest one—namely, to delegitimize critics by lumping them in with fringe racists and bigots.

And on the rising anti-Semitism in Europe:

For a specific example of what European Jews are worried about, consider a recent story in the London Times, which is hardly an isolated case. A 14-year-old Jewish boy—the grandson of Holocaust survivors—was “beaten and abused by Muslim classmates at a leading school in Berlin because he was Jewish.” Confronted by the boy’s parents to address this bullying, teachers replied that “his tormentors could not be blamed for their actions, which they said were the result of views expressed in their homes.” Rather than suspend the offending students, “teachers finally asked [the victim] not to enter the same classroom as one bully so as not to provoke him.”

Here we have a tragic example of how people who consider themselves to be progressives are downplaying if not ignoring violence against Jews so as not to offend the sensibilities of communities that proclaim themselves to be hostile both to Jews and the wider panoply of liberal values. It is indicative of a broader reluctance in many quarters to talk honestly about how Islam is changing Europe, a reluctance that stems in part from fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

One sees this mentality at play in the ADL’s skirting the question of Islam entirely in its poll on European anti-Semitism, in the Obama administration’s repeated insistence that the people murdered at a Paris kosher supermarket by an avowed Islamist in 2015 were victims of a “random” assault on “a bunch of folks in a deli,” in the French hesitation to acknowledge the anti-Semitic motives that animated the Muslim murderer of a 67-year-old Orthodox Jewish woman, in the 204 American writers who signed an open letter denouncing the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo as racists. And it can also be seen now in the fact that so few on the left are willing to call out the people in their midst who are, unashamedly, bigots in progressive clothing.

At first I found it impossible to believe that Obama called the Jews murdered in the Paris supermarket “a bunch of folks in a deli”, but, sure enough, here it is—and in an interview with Obama at Vox!:

“Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

And it wasn’t “random”, either: they were shot because they were Jews.

The admiration of Sarsour is a sure sign that Leftists have lost their way, for her Palestinian roots (she was born in Brooklyn to immigrants from Palestine) somehow efface all her regressive stands. If you hate Israel, especially if you’re a person of color (Sarsour really isn’t: look at her!), you’re golden. All that matters is that you can claim some connection to a group that can claim oppression. Of course, Jews never count as members of such a group!


  1. Posted June 16, 2017 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    If Sarsour posted that tweet when she was 31 she was nearly twice the age she was when she got married.

  2. Posted June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I agree with Jerry’s view on Linda Sarsour. what I don’t understand is what she gains for all this? Hugs

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      LOTS of attention, and perhaps she wants to bring down Israel.

    • fizziks
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      She probably thinks that she will go to heaven for advancing the interests of Islam in the West. That’s some pretty great gain, if you actually believe it.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

        Thanks. I am not a believer but she is doing too much harm to qualify. Hugs

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

      It’s easy to go for the kind of admiration she cultivates. If you rile up and support regressive thinking, you will be adored by their masses. It’s much harder to call for reason and be ostracized and threatened (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

      She sort of reminds me of those women one could meet in the 70s who slammed women who had a job outside the home or used “Ms” in front of their last name.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

        Thanks. Hugs

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

        Housewifery and sammich-making are the true feminism.

        • Posted June 17, 2017 at 5:59 am | Permalink

          At least, it harms no one. I even think that a housewife can be a feminist, if her decision to be a full-time homemaker is a result of free choice by her and her partner, and if she acknowledges the right of other families to make different choices, be it for both partners working or for the male becoming a “house-husband”.

    • nicky
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      I suspect -no, I have no facts, just a suspicion- that she is a Saudi or Wahabi shill. How could one otherwise defend the indefensible, the Saudi regime, which is hardly better than IS.

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      I’m guessing she’s getting her PR done to probably run for Congress or Senate in 2018 and/or get a book deal.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        I hope she doesn’t manage either of them. Hugs

  3. Rita
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    The Obama quote does sound strange,but the best one is when Obama said, “We tortured some folks”.

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Torturing ‘folks’ makes it sound wholesome – like a Grant Wood painting of a water-boarding.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

      There is a defence in that the line Obama was pushing was initially the same one pushed by the French government. However, it later became clear that the Islamist killer specifically chose that deli because it was frequented by Jews. By the time Obama used it in the Vox interview, the truth was known. One of Obama’s faults was a tendency to regressiveness (is that a word? – it is now!).

    • Posted June 17, 2017 at 5:25 am | Permalink

      To me, it does not sound strange at all. Even before he was elected the first time, his speeches showed his views and his openness in expressing them. Now, when he is no longer in the limelight, the spell of his charisma is dissipating and more people are seeing his true image.

      (And if someone wants to say that Obama was nevertheless far better than Trump, I’d answer that I do not consider this an achievement worthy of any prize.)

  4. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    “she did help raise money to repair a vandalized Jewish cemetery”
    Given the fixed action patterns from the regressives, some may choose to attack Sarsour for this action.

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

      Or may Sarsour just thinks that the only good Jews are dead Jews.

      • Posted June 17, 2017 at 5:25 am | Permalink

        + 1

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 17, 2017 at 7:55 am | Permalink

          I know liberal Jews who adore Sarsour too. It makes me a little more sadder inside.

  5. Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    I consider myself a leftist (with a small “l”), but I consider this individual to be repugnant, stupid and wrong on all counts. I totally understand your complaint, Professor.

  6. Larry Cook
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    It shouldn’t be impossible to believe that Obama said that if you had listened to him throughout his presidency with a skeptical ear instead of allowing your desire that he be the wonderful open-minded liberal you wish he was to clutter up your hearing. Nobody is immune from hearing what he wants to hear.

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      Lay off the insults toward the host, okay?

      • Larry Cook
        Posted June 16, 2017 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        I didn’t mean to insult you. I respect your opinions even though I sometimes disagree. I was trying to point out that you overlook things that Obama did that you would be very hard on Trump about. I’m no Trump fan, but I didn’t like Obama either. Sometimes it seems as if you, as well as many liberals, are reacting toward Trump as if he’s already done all the things you think he’s liable to do, yet you forgive Obama things he actually did. If I communicated that in a wise-guy manner, I apologize. I’m from New York and I tend to be direct.

    • nicky
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      In a sense one could defend Obama there, he mentioned Zealots (though not Islamic zealots), and it was random in the sense they were ‘random jews’ (which, of course is not really random), not pro-Israel activists.
      Note, we’ve also seen ‘random’ infidels in general are targeted. Albeit not always very random infidels: gays, Jews, Americans, young girls going to a ‘degenerate’ show, etc.

      His pussyfooting about Islam is one of the very few reproaches one can make against Obama, immo.

  7. Chris P
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised no one ever mentions how the Left conveniently ignores how we have a case of a white woman(as Jerry said, just look at her!) threatening to rip off the vagina of a black woman who is an abuse-survivor. Maybe I missed it.

    Can you imagine the outrage from the Left if Ayaan Hirsi Ali was an ally of theirs and Sarsour was a conservative Christian, and said the same thing?

    Everything is about race with the regressive Left, except when it’s convenient for them to ignore the racial angle. For the record, while I think Sarsour is a repugnant character, I don’t believe she is a racist.

    It seems that being Muslim, especially if you’re a hijabi, confers honorary “person of color” status even on the whitest of Muslims.

    • nicky
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      I think it was mentioned more than once on this website (including by our host) and elsewhere too.
      However, I agree it should be pointed out to a much wider audience, including the ‘regressive left’.

      • BJ
        Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        They won’t care. Hirsi Ali is hated among them, and Sarsour, no matter her skin color, is a “person of color” because she is Muslim. Add to this their obsession with disregarding any and all actions by Islamists that make them look bad, and you’ve got nothing left.

  8. Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    A little-known fact about Linda Sarsour: there are no little-known facts about Linda Sarsour.

    I can’t abide the woman but – is it me and my contempt for her faux-left da’wa? – isn’t she utterly charmless?

    • nicky
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Dermot, with all due respect, I think there are quite a few things we do not know about Sarsour.
      Is she a paid Saudi shill, or just a religious fanatic doing Dawa? Does she actually believe what she’s saying? Was there an ulterior motive re the Jewish cemetery, did she not know the US is the exception in the civilised world re paid maternity leave (even poor South Africa has 16 weeks), etc. etc.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        Fair enough, Nicky. You hear enough about these types who pop up in the public conversation to suspect all you do. And none of it would surprise me.

        None of this detracts from my constant amazement that people like her can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

        • Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

          Senator Claire McCaskill springs to mind, given her atrocious demeanour towards Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani yesterday.

    • Kevin
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      Charmless with a Confederate flag wrapped around her empty head.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        Which makes me think, Kevin, of ideal theist dinner parlour game fantasy. Who would you invite?

        Pastor Wilson who co-starred in the Hitchens doc? Yes, on the basis of his love for P.G.Wodehouse: he must have some sort of sense of humour. Rabbi Wolpe? Yeah, just about, sufficiently rational to be interesting and insufficiently disfaithful to dismiss the tribal chains that bind him. W.L.Craig? No, demonstrably a snake-oil salesman with letters after his name. Abu Bakr al-Baghadi? Yup, as long as he brings the falafel, chole, shiraz and fesenjan and agrees to explain the End Times (Graham Wood will be particularly helpful in persuading his attendance). Dinesh d’Souza? No, straight-up creepiositude. Ayman al-Zawahiri, yup. How good did those Dunkin’ Donuts taste as you watched the WTC towers fall? (A true story).

        Unfortunately, it’s all men. But what what can you expect from theology? Everyone to the sauna for dessert!

      • Posted June 17, 2017 at 6:23 am | Permalink

        + 1

        Of course, Sarsour’s statements would be as odious if she were barehead. But the fact that she covers her head is telltale. I disagree with Prof. Coyne that you can wear the Islamic headscarf and still be a good person. To me, if you wear hijab, you either are a bad person yourself or are under the control of bad persons, be it your husband/father, the Islamist thugs controlling your neighborhood, your theocratic regime, or the sum of all authority figures who have brainwashed you that Allah is watching your head and will sentence you to internal torture if He sees hair.

        If a woman has freely chosen to wear this piece of cloth, emblem of male supremacy and banner of jihad, this tells us all we need to know about her views, and we need not listen anything more. If she is forced to wear it, then again we need not listen to her, because she is deprived of her autonomy, and we do not know when she expresses her real views and when she feels obliged to repeat the views of her Islamist master(s). There is a bright side in the cultural regression that brought back the hijab, namely, that we know whom to avoid.

  9. dd
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Once you see that progressive-ism is a religion…call it secular fundamentalism, the admiration for Ms. Sarsour becomes a tad more clear.

    What she does is to grant absolution for their sin of being, well, white and privileged, etc.

    I think she, and others adept at this, understand these dynamics.

  10. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    While disagreeing with the 204 writers mentioned above, I don’t think they at all characterized the Charlie Hebdo folk as racist in their open letter.

    James Kirchick fails to mention that the 204 writers above specifically were objecting to giving ‘PEN/Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award’ to the Charlie magazine.
    Some of the initiators of the statement have elsewhere said things that call Charlie Hebdo racist, but they statement itself never comes close to doing so. The wording of disapproval of Charlie is fairly mild and never essentializing. They accuse Charlie of being gratuitously offensive, and needlessly exacerbating further conflict.

    (The statement reads “However, there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding
    such expression.” and they later said they were uncomfortable with “not simply conveying support for freedom of expression, but also valorizing selectively offensive material”.)

    Where I think they go wrong is failing to note that Charlie spent a huge amount of time skewering the French racist right-wing, figures like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and that its major calling card is iconoclasm. And the actions of the surviving Charlie writers really were super-courageous in the best sense of that word(!!), which IMO justifies “lionizing” them.

    One of the earliest signees of the statement seems to me to be somewhat Regressive Left- that would be Francine Prose (I don’t really know that much about her. I hear good things about her book on Anne Frank.)
    However, the signees include several writers I admire including playwright Wallace Shawn and novelists Russell Banks and Kathryn Harrison. There are also three or four Indian writers of Hindu descent on the list.

    It is gross imprecision (at the very least) to refer to “the 204 American writers who signed an open letter denouncing the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo as racists”

    • Craw
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      “they(SIC) statement itself never comes close to doing so”

      It does though, since it calls CH allegedly “selective offense” “anti-Arab”. That is an accusation of racism on its face, and also inferentially from the contortions you have to go through to assert CH was “selective[ly] offensive” against Arabs. It’s a baseless accusation against CH.

      • JonLynnHarvey
        Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        Well, they are certainly wrong that Hebdo is selectively offensive.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        It’s not, because Arabs do get selectively offended.

    • nicky
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

      One should not forget that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ was the successor of ‘Harakiri’, subtitled ‘journal bete et mechant’, the latter can be translated as ‘stupid and nasty paper’. The ‘nastiness and stupidity’ was a kind of Art, embraced to make their profoundly anti-racist point.
      I’m sure many of those 204 hadn’t a clue what they were talking about.

      • Posted June 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        Moazzem Begg, ex-Guantanamo inmate and AQ supporter as free to litter the airwaves of Britain as Khuram Butt, the London Bridge attacker, tried a new tactic on Twitter the other day.

        He posted some bad taste (only if you have no sense of humour) CH cartoon about the Manchester attacks and sneeringly asked free speech advocates whether they were going to retweet it. So they did. I am unaware of any atheists burning down French consulates in revenge.

        Perhaps this marks a new turn in AQ strategy: an alliance with J. S. Millites to intimidate nerdy scribblers. Doesn’t seem to be the most effective idea AQ has come up with.

    • Taz
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      There are also three or four Indian writers of Hindu descent on the list.

      How is this relevant?

      • Posted June 17, 2017 at 5:49 am | Permalink

        Maybe they chose to integrate into the CTRL-Left culture initially developed by self-hating white people.

  11. fizziks
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    I remember lots of otherwise reasonable people saying that it was ok that she was the co-chair of the women’s march, because, well, they really didn’t have a good reason except, you know, Trump.

  12. Leigh
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Those of us of a certain age with Irish ancestry grew up knowing individuals who were American citizens in name only. They were born here, their bodies existed in the US, but their heart and soul lived in Ireland, and they lived and breathed revolution. Sarsour reminds me of such people – an American in name only. Since I do not know this person, I don’t know if I am being fair to her. She does not seem to have any interest in solving our shared problems – she seems only interested in protecting her identity as a hyphenated American.

    I consider myself a feminist. I would not put Sarsour in that category.

  13. Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    I would heartily support Linda Sarsour wearing the niqab.

    • Craw
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

      If the hijab is a symbol of empowerment then why isn’t the burka a sign of even more empowerment?

  14. Heather Hastie
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    I would like to know if Sarsour would continue with her activities if her husband didn’t approve of her behaviour/actions.

    I would like to know what her husband’s opinion is on whether she wears the hijab, and what Sarsour would do if she didn’t want to wear it but he wanted her to.

    I would like to know how much attention she’d get if she didn’t choose to wear the hijab, especially given how white her skin is. How much of her decision to wear the hijab is for effect?

    I would like to know whether she has any compassion for the millions of women who don’t want to wear the hijab or some other form of prescribed clothing like the burqa or niqab, but don’t have a choice.

    I would like to know whether she thinks women should be able to choose what they wear for themselves. If not, why not?

    I would like to know whether she thinks advocating violence against any woman (or anyone else) via “a$$ whippin'”is acceptable behaviour for anyone at any age.

    I would like to know who the f*** she thinks she is to be telling others what to do?

    • Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      I would like to ‘like’ Heather Hastie’s comment. 🙂

    • BJ
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      I think most of these questions can be answered by her unyielding support for Sharia law.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:13 pm | Permalink


    • Carey Haug
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      She reminds me a little of Phyliss Schafly who had a great career and much notoriety telling other women they should not have a career.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted June 16, 2017 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

        She was a ghastly woman too. I wrote a post about her when she died. She’d just finished a book praising Trump.

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 6:19 am | Permalink

      Good questions.
      The answer would seem to be religious belief.
      And all the answers would be in the negative due to those religious beliefs.

  15. Jeremy Tarone
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I think 31 is beyond the age of “doing stupid shit.”

    I don’t think there’s an age at which we stop doing stupid things, although lots of us try to do less. But I certainly take the point that Sarsour seems unable to be honest.

    • Taz
      Posted June 16, 2017 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      I think the point was that 31 is beyond the age of using youth as an excuse for doing stupid shit.

      • Jeremy Tarone
        Posted June 17, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I am aware of the general context.
        I was commenting on the one statement:
        ‘I think 31 is beyond the age of “doing stupid shit.”’

        I have known some very responsible teens with good heads on their shoulders and some middle aged and retirement aged people who did some seriously stupid shit all their lives.
        I am just pointing out the obvious, that there is no age limit on people doing stupid shit.

  16. Scote
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    [quote]”especially if you’re a person of color (Sarsour really isn’t: look at her!)”[/quote]

    You had me 100% right up to that quote.

    You likely have some pretty well thought out things to say on the topic of race as a social construct, and perhaps about how both jews and Palestinians both have the same geographic origins and are technically “Semitic” and should both equally be considered people of color or not, but I don’t think that quote really sums up what I speculate you may have to say on the topic. Instead, it reads more like a simplistic “She has light skin so she can’t be a person of color!”

    • Posted June 17, 2017 at 6:04 am | Permalink

      I do think that those who have light skin can’t be people of color.

    • Michael Waterhouse
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 6:17 am | Permalink

      So color has no bearing on the matter of ‘person of color’?
      What does then?

      • Craw
        Posted June 17, 2017 at 1:42 pm | Permalink


        Blacks with the “wrong” politics are routinely told they aren’t really black. Just as Sarsour implies Hirsi Ali isn’t a real woman.

    • Scote
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      Do either of you think that, say, an albino black man is a “white person” when it comes to how they are treated by racists? No, of course they aren’t. Racists hate people who are different than them – color is a convenient identifier, but racists aren’t going to give someone a pass just because of light skin if they can still find a reason to lump them in with other people of color.

      While I do find many of Sarsour’s positions to be odious, divisive and regressive, I don’t find any valid reason to dispute that she’s a “minority” in the US, nor do I think it is valid to try to take away her minority status because she has light skin any more than Sarsour has any valid reason to try to take away Hirsi Ali’s vagina because Sarsour disagrees with Ali’s position on women’s rights.

  17. Craw
    Posted June 16, 2017 at 10:33 pm | Permalink


    Sarsour will run for congress.
    She will be the Democrat candidate in a safe dem district, essentially selected by the party machine.
    She will be puffed up by the Democrats, especially prominent left wing female Democrats.
    Her critics will be vilified as “racist, sexist, islamophobic”. Possibly homophobic too, for good measure.

    Welcome to the basket of deplorables folks.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      Perhaps, but moderate Muslims may react against her. When a minority of conservative Muslims tried to bring the option of trying Muslims under Sharia law in Ontario a few years ago, moderate muslims spoke out against it, saying how they came here to escape that. However, having said that, the liberal landscape has changed so much, that perhaps those moderate Muslims would find themselves vilified by liberals these days.

      • Craw
        Posted June 17, 2017 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

        Those advocates of sharia did not have someone as media savvy (and dishonest) as Sarsour. There was no “sharia with a human face” figure. Plus she isn’t advocating separate laws — yet.

        Look at the post today (Saturday) about how the dem women senators treated Hirsi Ali. They’d fawn over Sarsour.

        So I stick to my dismal predictions! 😦

  18. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted June 17, 2017 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Australia has 18 weeks paid maternity leave, New Zealand has 16 I think.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am | Permalink

      Canada has 18 weeks as well. We need more holidays though.

    • Gareth
      Posted June 17, 2017 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      The ‘west’ in general has paid maternity leave, universal healthcare etc. In fact most of the world does. The US is exceptional in many ways and not always for the better.
      That she thinks he contrasting the US with SA says something about the ‘west’ vs Islam just reveals how parochial and US-centric she is.

      • Gareth
        Posted June 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

        Most of the world has paid maternity leave that is, not universal healthcare.

  19. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted June 17, 2017 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    The thing is, the clock spring is winding, pressure on the lever of the clicker is pressing, there will come a point when that wound spring will unload, when the point is reached in the clicker, and wham, the push back may more extreme than we would want.
    But, there will be a push back, people will only take shit for so long.
    I hope.

  20. Jon Gallant
    Posted June 17, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Kirchick notes that “Sarsour is starting to behave like a huckster”. No surprise there. Remember Ward Churchill, who topped off his career (now ended) as a fake academic with lucrative speaker invitations from pop-Left campus groups? Invitations for Ms. Sarsour will no doubt pour in from such programs. They are a playground for hucksters that St. Bernardino of Siena, the patron saint of advertising, could not have imagined in his most ecstatic visions.

  21. Posted June 18, 2017 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on CROSSROADS – innocence in warzones.

%d bloggers like this: