Ilhan Omar about to introduce pro-boycott (read: pro-BDS) resolution in Congress

If you had any doubts about Ilhan Omar’s Islamist and anti-Israel agenda in Congress, have a look at her latest attempt at legislation: House Resolution 496 (see pdf here).

The two screenshots below, which link to the articles, are from the Al-Monitor and the Forward, respectively.

From the Forward:

The bill was prepared by Omar, her fellow Muslim Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and Democrat John Lewis of Georgia, an African-American with a long history of civil rights activism. (This underscores the sad fact that the black community is becoming increasingly dismissive of Israel’s right to exist. The Black Muslims became explicit anti-Semites a long time ago.)

If you read the resolution, you’ll see that it’s clever, not mentioning BDS but instead describing boycotts that were harder to criticize; and also affirming Americans’ civil rights to boycott nations or companies—which doesn’t need affirming. But it also criticizes recent legislation created by several states to punish companies that cut ties with Israeli companies operating from the West Bank. (I happen to agree that states shouldn’t be regulating companies in this way.) That legislation has been declared unconstitutional several times, and so it’s up to state governments and then the courts to confect such legislation and then adjudicate its legality. Congress, as far as I know, can’t make a law that prohibits states from penalizing countries via boycotts.

To support the “social justice” of her resolution, Omar uses several examples of boycotts, of course leaving out BDS resolutions:

“(1) attempting to slow Japanese aggression in the Pacific by boycotting Imperial Japan in 1937 and 1938;

(2) boycotting Nazi Germany from March 1933 to October 1941 in response to the dehumanization of the Jewish people in the lead-up to the Holocaust;

(3) the United States Olympic Committee boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the preceding year; and

(4) leading the campaign in the 1980s to boycott South African goods in opposition to apartheid in that country;”

How convenient of Omar to use boycotts of Nazi Germany as a way to leverage boycotts of Israel!

But the legislative proviso is largely irrelevant, for the real point of Omar et al.’s legislation is exactly what you’d think: to publicly punish Israel by affirming BDS and to give a Congressional imprimatur to that punishment.  In fact, Omar has made that explicit in interviews. From the Forward (my emphasis):

Representative Ilhan Omar introduced on Tuesday a Congressional resolution defending the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

The resolution does not explicitly mention Israel, but does state that “all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad” and criticizes anti-boycott legislation that has been passed in more than half of the 50 states. (Some of those laws have been overturned for violating the First Amendment.)

“We are introducing a resolution … to really speak about the American values that support and believe in our ability to exercise our first amendment rights in regard to boycotting,” the Democrat from Minnesota told Al-Monitor. “And it is an opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement.”

The Al-Monitor quote is exact, and can be seen at the first link above.

Now this resolution doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of passing, much less even making it to the House floor: as the Forward says, “Democratic leaders are reportedly planning to soon introduce their own resolution condemning the BDS movement. That resolution has 340 co-sponsors.”  If you want to say that Omar is indeed making legislation rather than tweeting and making speeches, here’s one example of that “legislation”.

And the 340-Democrat-sponsored condemnation is just: BDS is basically an anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist movement, its leaders deeply infused with the desire to get rid of Israel as a nation. If you don’t already know that, I’ve already adduced lots of evidence in previous posts.

At any rate, let there be no mistake about Omar and Tlaib’s aims in Congress: to undermine and destroy Israel and, I think, to push an Islamist agenda. While I defend their right to do this, and condemn Trump’s racist remarks about the four Justice Democrat—who include Tlaib and Omar—I see these two as anti-Semites who will use their time in Congress to forward an agenda of Islamism.  (You could claim that, at least for Omar, this reflects the will of her constituents, but I don’t know what their will is, and of course their are non-Muslims in her district as well.)

Elder of Ziyon analyzes this call for boycotts and explains why it’s more anti-Jewish than anti-Israel:

Even if this resolution gets defeated, their underlying logic that implies that Israel is a violator of human rights on par with Nazi Germany will be debated in Congress and enshrined in the proceedings of Congress forever. As I have recently noted, the debate itself is what BDS is after, not the boycott – they want to normalize anti-Zionism and its antisemitic components as a mainstream opinion.

As I have noted in the past, BDS is explicitly antisemitic. The call to boycott “Israeli” goods does not extend to good created by Arab Israelis. The call to boycott “settlement” goods only applies to goods created by Israeli Jews, not Israeli Arabs. A look through the businesses in industrial parks in Mishor Adumim, Barkan, Atarot and other “settlements” show quite a few with Arab names, like Radwan Brothers Refrigeration and Air Conditioning or Khaled Ali Metals or the Shweiki Glass Factory.

None of them are on the lists of “Israeli” companies to boycott. Because they are not owned by Jews.

Note well that these companies are owned by Israeli Arabs, who are citizens of Israel and live behind the “Green Line”. But they’re not called “settlers”—only the Jews in that area are given that name. Regardless of what you think about Israelis in the West Bank—and I think that any two-state solution will have to displace some of them—the fact that the targets are Israeli Jewish but not Israeli Arab companies bespeaks not an attempt to undermine Israel, but to undermine Jews.

Just as I (and Omar) contend that Trump is racist, I also contend that Omar and Tlab are anti-Semitic, and have behaved in accordance with that view since taking office. It will be interesting to see how Ocasio-Cortez votes if this bill ever comes to the floor. One thing is sure: although she may vote in favor of it, or may abstain, she won’t vote against it. After all, that would cause fissures in “The Squad.” In the past, Ocasio-Cortez has avoided answering all questions about BDS, and has waffled on Israel, about which her knowledge seems sketchy, and has also waffled on a two-state solution, which she once approved but then babbled incoherently when asked if she still supported it.

The usual anti-Semitic organizations are of course in favor of Omar et al.’s bill: here’s the odious and ill named “Jewish Voice for Peace”, known for their anti-Semitic activities on college campuses.


  1. ladyatheist
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    She’s one person. Why demonize her? Especially when the Bigot-in-Chief has been making her into a target.

    • dd
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Our host, Dr. Coyne, is not demonizing, he is pointing out what Representative Omar is doing.

      And what she is doing can’t be that good if merely pointing it out, and taking issue with it, can be called “demonizing”.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

      Because she’s influential—some say she and the other Justice Democrats may represent the new face of the Democratic Party, and they certainly represent the Progressive wing of the Democratic. And, as I said yesterday, just because Trump doesn’t go after her doesn’t give her a free pass.

      As I keep telling people, don’t tell me what to write about, or what opinions to have. If you disagree or agree with her behavior, you’re welcome to do that.

      Finally, it wasn’t just her, but two other Congressmen.

      • DW
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

        Not to mention that Omar and her “Squad” are extremely unpopular with the broad swath of the American public. Trump is playing the democrats by getting them to embrace the “Squad”. He’s going to tie every democrat to the “Squad” by getting them all on record defending the “Squad” from the big, mean, Trump.

        The democrats need to push back against these extremists hard. Defending them is playing directly into Trump’s (albeit small) hands.

        • Pelmon
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

          Exactly. And it is even worse. She is certainly guilty of fraud with campaign funds — the electoral commission spanked her for it. She is almost certainly guilty of tax fraud, filing at least two joint returns with her current husband while married to her first. This fat is not in dispute. And there is a plausible case the first marriage was part of an immigration fraud. All this on top of the anti Semitic stuff and the other remarks. She is a walking catastrophe for the Democrats, or anyone who wants to defeat Trump.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        She’s not influential enough to get this resolution passed. Every person who posts or talks about her amplifies her influence, so I’d rather ignore her.

        Yesterday, Trump’s Nazi followers chanted “Send her back.” Piling on the day after that just seems wrong to me.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          Let me make clear: I am opposed to this boycott. And I have bones to pick with Ilhan Omar and the other three members of what’s come to be known as “the squad.” But I will pick those bones with them after the 2020 election (if they’re still in office) — or, before that, if any of the potential Democratic nominees for president adopts any of their positions to which I am opposed.

          But until then, I will give no aid or comfort to Donald Trump in his effort to scapegoat these congresswomen to to demonize any other segment of the American polity.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

      One of the most obvious strategies the bigot in chief has is to try to isolate the antisemites among the Democrats from the rest of them.

      Ms Omar *must* be aware of this, yet she’s chosen to prioritise the destruction of Israel over defeating Trump. This reveals a great deal about her character, her ignorance of the issues, her indifference to the rights of Palestinians (whose interests have never been served by this idiotic boycott) and above all her hatred of Jews.

      The Democrats would be better off shutting down this debate immediately and expel her if she fails to inform herself about the issues.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

        I’m not sure she is aware of that tactic or not. As Dr. Coyne has pointed out before, Omar, OSC, et al are very good at building their profile on discipline media, but when it comes to the machinations of Capitol Hill, they frequently appear to have the political savvy of a tomato.

        • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

          social media, not discipline
          Silly autocorrect

        • darrelle
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink

          Good to see you around again bobsguitarshop.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, long time, no see.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        Now that they have the Supreme Court they want, and the embassy has been moved, the conservative Jews and Christians need better bait to stay with the Republicans. Enter a scary muslim who threatens Israel. Perfect.

        • EdwardM
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          She isn’t scary in the slightest. She’s a fool and one who puts us all at risk for another four years of Trump.

          • Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

            EM -that is what makes her scary!!

          • ladyatheist
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

            Then the true story is the way the Trumpers are making so much of her. We are being trolled by all sides.

          • ladyatheist
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

            Then the true story is the way the Trumpers are making so much of her. We are being trolled by all sides.

    • Posted July 19, 2019 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      When someone does something bad, we criticize them. It doesn’t matter who they are or whether other criticisms are valid.

      This is the exact logic SJWs use to place women and minorities beyond criticism.


  2. Charles Sawicki
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Displaying their hatred just gave Trump more ammunition to attack all Democrats. Disturbingly, his approval rating among Republicans went up 5 points to 75% after he attacked the 4 SJW Democrats. I thought that he could never be reelected, now I’m not sure.

    • Harrison
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      I don’t see what his approval among Republicans has to do with his overall electoral prospects. Who else were they gonna vote for?

  3. Malgorzata Koraszews
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink


  4. Deodand
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    What you have to remember is that once the Jews of Israel have been Beaten, Degraded and Slaughtered the ‘Left’ will go “Oops, that’s not what we wanted…” and then forget it while looking for their next focus…

  5. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    I agree fully with everything you say. I also believe she will get nowhere with this except with her followers…just like Trump. The big difference is only one. He is president of the country and what he does and says must be attacked by all of us and daily. She, for now only represents a very minority portion of Minnesota. She is getting far more press than her influence but that is also today’s platform. Anyone with an ax to grind gets to speak to the world and say whatever they want.

    Just think, she is one vote of 435. Even with her three pals it’s 4 of 435. I do not think Pelosi is going to loose much sleep. However, she should have a good private talk with these loose cannons. Right now they get lots of attention because of one guy. Every time one of them spits, it gets a Trump Tweet.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      Pelosi has talked to them in private. They don’t give a damn – to them, Pelosi is just some old Sticky standing in the way of their Revolution. They will never settle down for the ‘good of the Party’, because their goal is to hijack the Party for their own purposes.

      The leftist media will continue to heap an inordinate amount of fawning attention on these brats, and the TDS-afflicted left will continue to have apoplectic seizures with every taunting trump tweet.

      It’s time to give that squad of miscreants the boot before they drag us all down.

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        How do you suggest we do that? Are you suggesting joining the Trump rant of send them back? You are overstating the influence and simply jumping on the Trump wagon. Good luck with that.

        • Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:35 am | Permalink

          An opportunity to contain Omar was lost when the anti-semitism resolution became an anti-every-other-oppressed-group-especially-moslems resolution.

          Omar deserved formal censure by the House, but that’s not going to happen.

          Pelosi needs to go back to publicly distancing the Dems from the JDs. She can give them one last warning to toe the line, or they’ll be stripped of their committee seats, publicly denounced, and run against in the primaries.

          But they’ll never toe the line, as they are parasitizing a party they don’t respect. They need to be expelled now before they propagate and destroy the host.

          • Ken Phelps
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

            ++ If there is one thing the Democrats need to learn from Satan’s little Helpers, it’s PLAY FU**KING HARDBALL – within your party and without.

          • Nicolaas Stempels
            Posted July 20, 2019 at 1:42 am | Permalink

            As far as anti-semitism goes, I think the JD’s differ, Ms Omar obviously is, but I doubt Ms AOC is, and Ms Pressley is definitely not.

            • Posted July 20, 2019 at 9:23 am | Permalink

              Comrade Alexandria enthusiastically supports BDS, and her SDA added it to the party platform while chanting the PLO slogan, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

              On Frontline, she spoke of the “occupation of Palestine” but could not elaborate.

              She’s chummy with Linda Sarsour, and vigorously defended her BFF Omar’s vile anti-semitism.

              Her flippant use of the term ‘concentration camp’ and the phrase “never again” was opportunistic and insulting to Jews.

              Tlaib is also openly anti-semitic, but less obsessed about it as Omar.

              I get the impression Pressley just hates people in general.

              • Posted July 20, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

                I should add that AOC refused an invitation to tour Auschwitz guided by a survivor, calling the offer a “right-wing attack” against her.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        I would think the practical thing that Pelosi needs to do is to very publicly rebuke this resolution, and to make clear that the main Democratic congress are distancing themselves from those behind it. It’s damage control time.

        • Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:24 am | Permalink

          What Mark said.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      Her resolution probably won’t even come to the floor.

      • eric
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        Nope. Meanwhile, the anti-BDS bill probably will.

  6. DW
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    I’m sure this will convince everyone that she isn’t an anti-semite…

    Who the heck is running the democratic party these days? You don’t have someone already credibly accused of anti-semitism introduce something like this. If you’re going to do this, you have someone like Jerrie Nadler or Adam Schiff.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      But, that is not the way it works in the House, at least when the democrats are in control. If you stomp down decent because you don’t like it, what have you got? Not a democratic system. Just because the republicans no longer practice this, does not mean the other side should give it up. If you do, then you have joined the other side.

      • DW
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        I think, perhaps, you misunderstood me. A party is supposed to communicate together before introducing resolutions. You don’t have just one congressman introduce a resolution out of the blue if you want it to actually pass. You need to do the legwork beforehand, and part of that is getting your own party on board.

        If you’re running a party and you decide together that you want to get a resolution supporting BDS, you then decide, as a party, who will introduce it. For something like this, you want a Jewish member to introduce it to insulate the resolution from charges of anti-semitism.

        I don’t know what happened to Pelosi. Ten years ago, she ran the house democrats like a finely tooled machine. Today, it seems the lunatics are running the asylum.

        • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

          Umm. . . the Democrats didn’t want Omar’s resolution and she did. So she went ahead and introduced it. It’s not Pelosi’s fault that she can’t talk the Justice Democrats out of their lunacy. And it’s not she who’s the lunatic here.

          • DW
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:07 am | Permalink

            But that is Pelosi’s fault. She consistently defended Omar.

            Why do you think Omar feels she can get away with proposing this openly? Pelosi began to mildly rebuke her, then less than a week later and Pelosi is back to meekly defending her. From their perspective, the Squad feel like they’re holding all the cards. Even the Speaker of the House is bending the knee to them.

          • ladyatheist
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

            That’s how Congress works. I’m okay with that. All kinds of silly resolutions get introduced at the federal and state level that have zero chance of passing. I don’t find it threatening at all.

            Rand Paul putting the kibosh on funding for 9/11 first-responders though…. that actually hurts people.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

          You know not what you are talking about. Did you not just see the Green resolution on impeachment. Nobody wanted that but it got a vote.

          • DW
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

            Before accusing someone of ignorance, you should get your facts straight. For something “Nobody wanted”, the green new deal had 94 co-sponsors in the House and 12 in the Senate. Included in that are ALL of the Senators that are currently running for President.

            (Also, btw, it never got a vote in the House because once people read it, they realized that it was insanity. It only got a vote in the Senate because the Republicans wanted to embarrass the democrats even further)

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:31 am | Permalink

              You do not understand. When I said Green resolution I am talking about congressmen Green. I said impeachment. He wanted a vote on impeachment and he got it. this just happened a couple of days ago. Not talking about the Green New Deal….

              • DW
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

                I don’t believe he’s gotten another vote yet. It was introduced about six months ago, and it went down 66-355.

                Regardless, unless it’s something with overwhelming support, nothing gets to the full house without the Speaker’s agreement. So the only time you see votes on things that “nobody wants”, it’s usually to prove the point that nobody wants it.

                The fact that she has to allow these votes that she does not even support shows how weak Pelosi has become.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink


                Rep. Green’s impeachment resolution came up again yesterday and was tabled, with 137 Democrats joining all the House Republicans in voting to do so. Ninety-five Democrats voted to allow it to proceed.

              • Pelmon
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

                95 votes. So it is false that “nobody” wanted it.

  7. Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    With their narcissism and revolutionary zealotry, Omar, AOC, and the other two Mean Girls are doing everything in their power to get trump reelected.

    No sooner had Pelosi wisely taken the Mean Girls down a notch, Trump cleverly lured her and the rest of the Dems into defending & embracing them.*

    That’s now further emboldened them, as witnessed here by Omar escalating her vile anti-semitism.

    Those four are not true Democrats, but rather far left extremists. A rift is coming for the Democratic Party; might as well get it over with now, by publicly disassociating from “The Squad”. Strip them of their committee seats, and primary their asses next year.


    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      In order to primary someone, it’s generally has to be done against an unpopular incumbent. What makes you think that applies here? Do you think their views are at odds with their constituents?

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        Primaries, especially in safe districts, have very low voter turnout — comprised mostly of party activists. Among the universe of all registered Democrats, these four may be less liked, especially now that they’ve revealed their true selves. Omar does have the support a large Somali immigrant base, which surely approves of her Islamist & anti-semitic agenda.

        The JDs intend to primary numerous black congressional reps who aren’t activist enough for their taste. This is a radical putsch in the making; it needs to be aggressively nipped in the bud.

    • Harrison
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      If Trump had any strategy in mind at all with his statement, and it wasn’t simply another thoughtless croaking of his Id, then it’s more likely that his Baldrick-esque “cunning plan” was more on the level of “the Democrats are fighting so I’ll add fuel to the fire to amp it up.”

      Well that backfired like every other brilliant Trump strategy. Any tactician in the world would argue that a divided enemy is easier to beat than a united one, but Trumpists have to bend over backward to argue that up is down and black is white, and Trump uniting his enemies is actual a brilliant move; the brilliantest, bigliest move.

      Nobody ever taught Trump the old adage “never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.” It’s advice that he’s too stupid to understand and too impulsive to heed if he could.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:23 am | Permalink

        Pelosi was not making a mistake by framing i squadristi as beyond the Democratic Pale.

        A Democratic Party unified behind the front of socialist, anti-semite, race-baiting, open-borders advocating extremists is far easier for Trump to beat than one’s that’s disassociated from all that.

        Trump may be mentally ill, but he is far from stupid, and a master at sh*t-stirring to his own advantage. Underestimate him at your own peril.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:25 am | Permalink

        I don’t think it backfired though. I think there are a truly disturbing number of people in America(and anywhere really) to whom ‘if you don’t like it fuck off back to your own country’ is how they feel every time they see an immigrant breathe a word of criticism about the country they live in.

        And the reason Trump picked on these four(if there was reasoning behind what he said, rather than some kind of instinctive hate-seeking laser-guidance system) is because he knew they would react with pride and strength and would display contempt for him.
        Which would only serve to rile his base even more, because Trump has made himself their avatar – any reaction to Trump is seen as a reaction to his base too.

        He has a psychopath’s understanding about how to manipulate people into hating one another. It’s like that nasty jock kid at school who knew just how to get the crowd on their side; who instinctively understood how to control the flow of loathing. When he shuts his eyes I’d imagine he ‘sees’ hatred like Neo sees the Matrix.

      • JB
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        I have no basis for this guess, but I’ll guess anyway: I’m betting someone close to Trump decided that forcing Dems to defend the Squad would help Trump. He liked it, so he tweeted something he KNEW would force Pelosi et al. to defend the Four. Whether it works in the long run or not, time will tell. But he clearly thinks it will.

        In fact, in typical Trump fashion, he even tweeted that this was his intention (because he can’t leave the obvious unsaid).

  8. rickflick
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    If you ask me, I think she’s just sunk her ship. I don’t think many outside her bubble are going to buy that crap.

  9. John Harshman
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink


    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Yes, spreading Islam.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        A further clarification to that term, if I may — using politics to spread Islam.

  10. Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Quite pathetic to see someone like this telling Israelis to “go back to where they came from”.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

      She didn’t.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

        The BDS movement does, as do propagandists everywhere. That’s the mindset behind the whole thing: Jews don’t belong in Israel, Jerusalem is a holy city only to Muslims and Christians.

        (But I accept that the point that she did not literally say that, and didn’t mean to imply that she did.)

  11. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    What is important is that the BDS ‘movement is indeed not like to other boycotts mentioned.
    As out host pointed out many times, ‘anti-zionist’ implies ‘anti-semite’ (‘jew-hater’ would be a more precise term from several pov’s) nowadays. The fact that only Jewish companies are targeted only reinforces that.
    It is distressing that these three (Ms Omar, Ms Tlaib and Mr Lewis) are considered the ‘progressive face’ of the Democratic party. As some mentioned above, their odious anti-semitism might well be instrumental in losing the 2020 election to Mr Trump.
    I hope they get some really strong push-back, and I hope for a clear message that the Democratic party does not support anti-semitism, and therefore condemns BDS.

  12. Eli Siegel
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    The Squad is giving 2020 to Trump.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      And the Dems seem oblivious to that reality.

      • tomh
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        “And the Dems seem oblivious to that reality.”

        Opinions are not reality.

        • Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

          They are in the minds of those who hold them 🙂 Check back in when Trump wins another term.

          • tomh
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

            Well, that’s OK, you have your own definition of reality. There are other opinions about why Trump will win. Personally, I think if the Democrats allow the old-guard, GOP-lite Dems, like Pelosi and Biden ramrod the 2020 election effort, the Democrats are doomed. Check back in when Trump wins another term.

            • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

              Yes, my cynical reality is that the Dems will likely shoot themselves in the foot one way or another, and assist Trump; they will lose if they nominate an old white guy; or a woman; or a minority; or a gay. That narrows the field considerably. Any of these folks would be far better than Trump, as would our (Colorado’s) two candidates. However, Hickenlooper does not have a snowball’s chance, and Bennett’s chances are not much better despite an endorsement by George Will. Both are thoughtful politicos, with the odd characteristic of actually admitting error and changing a position. Of course, the US electorate seems not to care too much for politicians who actually think before they speak.

            • Posted July 20, 2019 at 9:41 am | Permalink

              While never a certainty, it’s a safe bet that a candidate or party, which runs on policies & proposals that a solid majority of the electorate oppose, will lose.

    • Pelmon
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      Only if the Democrats accede. Pelosi should read Omar out of the party. Instead she embraced her.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        I am not sure that the Dems have to accede. As long as this foursome keeps spouting off and producing stuff like this resolution, Trump will continue to make hay while the sun shines.

  13. Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    The only thing I see in this bill is an affirmation of Americans rights to engage in a boycott:

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
    2 (1) affirms that all Americans have the right to
    3 participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human
    4 rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First
    5 Amendment to the Constitution;
    6 (2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts
    7 to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at
    8 home and abroad; and
    9 (3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights
    10 leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve
    11 the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing
    12 antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

    It might be a boycott against Israel is the agenda but is there a compelling reason for abridging or limiting this right?

    • tomh
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      There seems to be a compelling reason for affirming this right. As of April, 2019, 27 states have enacted anti-boycott legislation.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      My two cents – they would be far more productive if they took back the House’s power to determine tariffs with other countries and get this power away from the president. He is the one with full boycott power simply through imposing tariffs. He also scraps a good treaty with Iran and boycotts the hell out of them. To what purpose?

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      Americans ALREADY have the right to engage in private boycotts. That doesn’t need affirmation. And if you think Omar was aiming this at something other than BDS, I believe you’re naive.

      Now what we don’t have the right to do, or so I and many courts think, is for state governments to forbid private companies from engaging in boycotts. They’ve tried that, but it’s been declared illegal. That part of the resolution is fine, but it’s just a resolution; the Congress can’t decree what the states can do in this case. That is up to the courts who interpret its legality and Constitutionality.

      • tomh
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        In regard to the laws, it’s not simply companies, many states have anti-boycott laws or policies that extend to individuals that enter into business contracts with states. US federal courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of anti-boycott laws in Kansas and Arizona, leading legislators in both states to scale back their laws to evade the courts. An Arkansas federal court dismissed an analogous challenge to its similar law. Other cases remain ongoing. In the meantime, over 250 million Americans live in states where laws prohibiting boycotts are enforced.

  14. Gasper
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.
    ―Will Rogers

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

      That one was Mr. Rogers, too. 🙂

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    I took an antiemetic last night and watched the Trump rally in North Carolina on Fox News. Trump spoke of policy barely at all, not a mention, for instance, of most Americans’ #1 concern, healthcare (even though the Trump administration has won a preliminary court ruling striking down Obamacare and its protections for those with pre-existing conditions).

    Instead, Trump spent a good 15 minutes scapegoating the four US congresswomen he had previously told to “go back to where they came from.” He named-checked each of them in turn, and each name was met by the crowd with a round of boos and jeers. When he got to Rep. Ilhan Omar, the crowd broke into the chant “send her back!” (just as Trump crowds still chant “Lock her up!” whenever Hillary’s name is mentioned).

    I’ve called these Trump shindigs “Nuremberg rallies” before, which isn’t really fair — to Albert Speer’s dramatic staging and lighting and to Leni Riefenstahl’s excellent camerawork (but then the cameras at a Trump rally are confined to a raised pen set back from the stage, the better for Trump to point and encourage his crowd to boo and hiss and scream Lügenpresse!” at the assembled media.

    It also hasn’t been entirely fair to the Trump rallies, either. With all their chanting and booing and set routines, they generally have had the air of a midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, or of Gallagher smashing fruit with a sledge-sized mallet, or of the blue-rinse crowd in the big room at Caesar’s waiting to roar the first time Rickles called someone a “hockey puck.” The atmosphere has been that of WrestleMania, but less dignified.

    Last night was something else. I never dreamed we’d ever see such demagoguery from a sitting American president. Donald Trump last night resembled nothing so much as “Buzz” Windrip, the fictional US president in Sinclair Lewis’s novel It Can’t Happen Here.

    Most thoughtful people have considered at one time or another what they would have done had they been in Germany in 1933. The crowd at Trump’s rally last night needn’t wonder, and in any event would be the least likely to ask themselves that question in the first place.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Oh, the shame of it. You watched Fox?

      On a better note – I see the child molester did not get bail. No surprise there. On the other matter of released court matters, all I get so far is that Trump is guilty along with Cohen but can’t do anything with a sitting president. This is getting really lame.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Interesting account.

      I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that everything Trump is fake, including the fascism. He is too dumb and ignorant to manage anything more. The danger — and I think many underestimate this enormously — lies in what others make out of his mess.

      • Historian
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        “The danger — and I think many underestimate this enormously — lies in what others make out of his mess.”

        This is an astute point. It is understandable that public attention is focused on Trump and his supporters, who would have no trouble living under a fascist dictatorship. Yes, it can happen her. But, what flies under the radar is Trump’s packing the courts, not just the Supreme Court, with far right wing activists, many of them are religious and don’t accept evolution. Elie Mystal writes: “But Trump’s Court—the collection of judges and justices now swarming our judicial system, nominated and confirmed to lifetime appointments on his recommendation—will linger, like an infected wound poisoning the body politic even after the initial injury has scabbed over.” He goes on: “The characteristics of these new Trump judges are not limited to their hostility toward a woman’s right to choose. Trump promised anti-choice judges, and he has made good on that threat. But while tapping judges who can be trusted to oppose the Supreme Court precedent of Roe v. Wade, he has also dredged up those who share a nasty disrespect for any individual rights that don’t flow from God or the barrel of a gun.” Mystal profiles some of these judges. It is frightening. Mitch McConnell’s wet dream has become a reality.

        This means that Trumpism will live on long after Trump is gone and “the squad” is a faint memory at best. Faceless judges will destroy American democracy as we once knew it while most people will be clueless as to why this happened. There will be no return to a post-Trump America. Whether a better America will emerge when Trump is gone is dubious at best.

        • tomh
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

          As of today, 129, Trump-nominated, McConnell (Senate) confirmed federal judges, to the District, Appeals, and Supreme Courts, all with lifetime appointments. 52 more nominees waiting in the wings.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

          So far, Trump has appointed (and had confirmed) 129 federal judges (and there are another 119 vacancies pending). In eight years in office, Obama successfully appointed 334.

          That’s Mitch McConnell’s angle in the abomination that is Trump’s presidency.

          • rickflick
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

            How did Obama confirm so many judges? Must have been accomplished during his first term when the Democrats held the Senate.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

          I think that is indeed more the odious Mr McConnell’s doing than clownish Mr Trump’s.
          It has become clear that of the three, House Senate and president, the Senate is the most powerful, from nominating judges to impeachment, you name it. It is also the least democratic of them all, by far, very far. A Senate vote in Wyoming carries the weight of about 70 votes in CA, TX or NY.
          The Democrats should be concentrating on winning back the Senate. Admittedly an uphill battle, but much more important than the presidency.
          And they should not impeach Mr Trump, but Mr Barr.

        • Charles Sawicki
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

          These judges almost all support increasing the power of large corporations at the expense of citizens. Another effect of Trump appointments which will cause problems for decades. Just recently, the justice department tried to withhold data collected related to the abusive sale of addictive drugs by corporations. Some towns in WV with a few thousand residents have had millions of pills shipped to their pharmacies.
          More drug addicts and lax regulation produces more prisoners in corporate prisons and more corporate contributions for Republicans. A beautiful feedback system!

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, Trump reminds me of a line in a novel by one of those cheeky British novelists about a character who is “so phony even his hair, which looks like a wig, isn’t.” 🙂

        Interesting to see that Richard Spencer, who is slightly brighter than the average neo-Nazi (which is kinda like being the tallest midget in the circus) has come to the belated conclusion that Trump’s white-nationalism is phony.

        Trump is a “white supremacist” in the sense that, because he, Donald Trump, is white, perforce white must be the greatest, most stupendous race god ever created, and everything else is for “losers.” But he’s in it only for the self-aggrandizement and to incite that element of his base. Since he hasn’t yet figured out how to monetize it (which is the only thing he really cares about), his heart isn’t otherwise in it.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      Just a few minutes ago on TV I see Omar walking down the street with nearly 30 or more reporters trying to interview her about the thing last night you watched. It is nuts and pretty much out of control.

      Meanwhile, over in Puerto Rico they just about have a revolution going on – also thanks to Trump and what he has failed to do there.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      I felt the same way about it. Spreading the rumor that she married her brother? And the crowd chanting “Send her back” were chilling moments for me. We’re the frog in the saucepan, slowly being boiled to death.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

        I didn’t know any of that – I didn’t watch his fuhrer rally. That’s fucking disgusting. And btw, I’m similarly uncomfortable criticising her over this proposal, especially so soon after Trump united a crowd of people to shout ‘send her back’.

        I don’t particularly like her personally, but that’s irrelevant. It beggars belief and turns my stomach that this is going on in America.

      • Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:47 am | Permalink

        It’s more than a rumor: the evidence is suggestive that Omar did marry her brother to get into the country. But all discussion of it was quashed as ‘racist’.

        Of course, the regressive left readily attacks Ayaan Hirsi Ali for giving a false name to escape oppression and a forced marriage. Because It’s Okay When We Do It™

        • tomh
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

          Wow, so you’re just going to repeat a debunked, right-wing conspiracy theory, on a par with pizzagate? In addition to anything else, why would she commit a crime when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies qualify immigrants as eligible to apply for permanent residency status (and later become naturalized citizens) if they are the “spouse of a U.S. citizen” or the “brother or sister of a U.S. citizen.” ? This is Trump rally material.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

            Ilhan Omar came to the US as a war refugee at the age of 10.

            • tomh
              Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

              I know. The conspiracy theory is that she did this so her brother, who was a UK citizen, could get in.

              • EdwardM
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

                Well, it should be easy to clear up (I assume it has – this is the first I’ve heard of the nonsense). Marriage licenses are public documents. So….who is her brother married to?

              • Al
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

                Yes, it’s clearly a “conspiracy theory”, you can read it in that notorious purveyor of conspiracy theories, Minneapolis Star Tribune, the largest newspaper in Minnesota:


              • tomh
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

                Quite the mish-mash of uproven claims and allegations. Snopes has a more credible account.

                We found no public records or credible sources contradicting Omar’s account of her past, nor any substantive evidence corroborating claims that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage was otherwise fraudulent. In addition, some of the claims offered in support of the rumor don’t seem to add up.

                As someone mentioned in another comment, it is indeed akin to the birther smear. And whatever she says or produces it won’t be enough, much like Obama when he produced his birth certificate. The Republicans laughed at it and continued the smear.

              • Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

                Two of Omar’s unnamed brothers have been deleted from her bio; where she once had four, now there are two.

                The man listed on the marriage certificate has the same name and DOB as Omar’s brother found in school records. The brother has not been produced. The husband lives in the UK, and when approached by journalists, gave a false DOB (his true DOB having since been positively confirmed.)

                Although Omar claimed in her divorce filing that she’d had no contact with her husband since 2010, photos have been found placing the two together as late as 2016, including one of the ex-husband holding his “niece” — Omar’s newborn.

                A US congresswoman owes it to the public to clear up inconsistencies such as these, and not sweep them under the rug with accusations of racism.

              • EdwardM
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

                Thanks tomh for the link to the SNOPES article. To my mind this argument all by itself (which you mentioned previously) convinces me this claim is just another version of the birther crap;

                ” Also, if Ahmed Elmi were truly Omar’s brother, why would he have needed to take the drastic step of marrying her in order to secure a path to U.S. citizenship? U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies qualify immigrants as eligible to apply for permanent residency status (and later become naturalized citizens) if they are the “spouse of a U.S. citizen” or the “brother or sister of a U.S. citizen.” “

                (emphasis added)
                Why, indeed.

              • Eli
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

                EdwardM, if you had read the article in the largest newspaper of Omar’s own home state, Minnesota Star Tribune, you’d have found that
                “Siblings who petition for a U.S. visa for a noncitizen sibling have typically had to wait more than a dozen years to obtain the document, according to the U.S. State Department. Applications for a spouse carry a minimal waiting period…”

                Btw, tomh, the Star Tribune article is more recent than the Snopes one and includes new documents released last month. Again, I’m not convinced that there’s something there but I don’t see why Omar wouldn’t answer the questions posed by her home state paper.

              • tomh
                Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

                New documents having nothing to do with the brother rumors, but about a state probe of campaign finance violations, which, according to your article, “she has legally corrected the discrepancy.” The newspaper’s main complaint seems to be that she won’t provide them with lurid details of her private life.

                A question I would have for the rumor-mongers is, after supposedly going to all this trouble to arrange a path to citizenship for this person, why was nothing ever done? There is no evidence that this UK citizen ever moved forward towards American citizenship. Yet the whisper campaign continues – immigration fraud seem the rallying cry.

              • Posted July 20, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

                Also, if Ahmed Elmi were truly Omar’s brother, why would he have needed to take the drastic step of marrying her in order to secure a path to U.S. citizenship?

                One possibility is because the fast-track immigration policy for adult relatives had ended.

                But speculating as to motive is moot when the evidence is persuasive that Omar did indeed contract a sham marriage with her brother, committing perjury several times in the process.

                Did you bother reading anything other than the notoriously biased Snopes?

            • Nicolaas Stempels
              Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

              Well, according to Islamic doctrine Aisha was married at 5 and consummated (consumed?) at the ripe old age of 9.
              What is deplorable is that the US Minnesota voters apparently seemed fit to vote in a quack like Ms Omar, instead of a great mind like Ms Hirshi Ali.

          • Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

            Omar could clear up matters by explaining the coincidence of her ex-husband and her brother having the same name and date of birth*, and why her ex-husband posted a picture of himself holding her newborn infant, who he called his ‘niece’.**



            • ladyatheist
              Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

              I don’t see why a woman who was potentially the victim of child sex abuse should have to explain herself as if she was in the wrong. If there’s anyone who should be called to account, it would be her parents.

              Shaming a woman who may have been a child victim of a shady practice is itself a shady practice.

              • Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

                Where did you get that?

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

        “Spreading the rumor that she married her brother?”

        Seems rich coming from the guy who used to go on Howard Stern and essentially say he wanted to bang his own daughter.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

          Yes, this sounds like birther movement, part 2. Who gives a dam if the woman had six husbands. That is the concern of Minnesota is it not? So much print on such a person. Trump really knows how to push liberal buttons, there is nothing to it.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

            Where’s the LONG-FORM birth-certificate, HUH?!!1!!1!

          • Posted July 20, 2019 at 9:53 am | Permalink

            It may ‘sound like’ a hoax, but why not actually take a look at the evidence?

            And it matters quite a bit if a US congresswoman was gaming the system, making false statements on court documents, is contemptuous of our laws,
            and generally devious & mendacious.

    • Carl
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      Nice review Ken, and very entertaining. I prefer getting my Trump reports second hand because I can’t stand listening to a braying jackass for any length of time.

      To those who like painting “Fox News” with a broad brush – it isn’t all bad: Chris Wallace is the best news anchor on television.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:23 am | Permalink

        Wallace is good, and so is Shep Smith. (Judge Andrew Napolitano has also been very regarding the Mueller report.)

        It’s the prime-time talking-heads who are dishonest and repugnant.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

          Yes, Hannity lives about 3 feet up Trumps ass most of the time and only comes out to perform on TV. According to the book, SIEGE, Hannity is worth 3 to 4 hundred million. Trump sends as much as three hours a day on the phone with this guy.

          There are better places to waste your time than Fox.

    • Filippo
      Posted July 20, 2019 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . or of the blue-rinse crowd in the big room at Caesar’s waiting to roar the first time Rickles called someone a “hockey puck.”

      Another great Rickles line is, ” (fill in the blank) is great. Just ask him – he’ll tell you.” Applicable to any politico, especially Trump.

  16. DrBrydon
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I’ve got to say it: Maybe she just wants the Jews to go back to where they come from? [Meant as satire.]

  17. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    She really is frustratingly charmless.

    There is no sense that she understands the consensual spect of democracies – the fact that you have to try and persuade people that you’re right rather than tell them that you are and criticise them if they don’t immediately agree.

    I think that aspect of liberal democracy, the part where you acknowledge that the people you disagree with, even despise, nevertheless have a right to vote, doesn’t occur to her. Grown up politicians, politicians who actually get shit done on a national, bi-partisan level and get elected to powerful, influential positions, recognise that compromise is not an ugly word; they factor in how they appear to everyone, not just the people who already agree with them, and they think pragmatically.

    I say it frustrates me that she’s charmless because there really was an open goal last week, when Trump attacked her in such an utterly despicable, disgusting fashion. If her reaction had been one of open, honest hurt, and pain, I can guarantee that she would have won the debate, and Trump would have shut up. Even Trump doesn’t repeatedly aim racist attacks at vulnerable, minority women who’ve openly demonstrated their hurt to the public. He knows that doesn’t make him look good.
    But her political instinct was to react with pugnacity, and to jut out her chin. Which is totally understandable but just made his supporters lean into Trump’s racism more.

    It’s frustrating because she’s so obviously in the right, and is so obviously wronged, but somehow Trump came out of that exchange stronger, or at least not weaker. And it’s exactly why he picked on these women; because he knows they’ll react in a way that comes across as ‘uppity’ to his repulsive base.

    It’s not fair to be frustrated with her for reacting with strength and determination to Trump’s attack, and yet at the same time I wish she’d just been a little more…calculating…and had thought about what kind of response would have made Trump look the worst.

    This, above everything, is what frustrates me most about this part of the Democratic party – it’s the sense that they don’t care about appealing to the broader electorate for 2020. If I was in the Dems I would be laser-focused on 2020; there would be little else on my mind. But so often they say things that actively hurt Democratic re-election chances, and double down on them.

    It’s like Trump is as much _their_ convenient foil as they are Trump’s.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Slightly off topic, and highly speculative: I’m convinced (from the moment the thought occurred to me) Mr Trump has been fantasizing about grabbing her by the part of her anatomy he likes to boast about grabbing.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        He can take her furniture shopping, and move on her like a bitch, but he’s not gonna get there.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

        Omar is spectacularly beautiful. He probably has some warped pull-her-pigtails schoolyard attraction going on with her.

        OTOH I think she can probably handle herself. I get the feeling she’d fuck him up quite badly if he tried to grab her by the Hello Kitty.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      “She really is frustratingly charmless.”

      So like Trump, but with better English.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        No, he’s a repulsive cryptofascist piece of shit. She’s just someone I find charmless. She frustrates me; but he makes me want to retch. I definitely didn’t intend to draw an equivalence there.

        I slightly regret being critical of her in the comment above. I meant every word, but this is a shit time to say it, especially since this resolution is only _debatably_ objectionable in the first place.

  18. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    You can say it’s “clever” that this bill doesn’t seem anti-Semitic on the face of it, and that it’s a wily effort on her part to introduce anti-Semitism into the bloodstream…or you could say that it doesn’t seem anti-Semitic because it’s not necessarily anti-Semitic, and it’s a bill about the right to boycott.

    There’s a point where you dislike someone so much that everything they do, everything that they’re even involved in, seems to have malign intent.

    • EdwardM
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      Well for my part, whenever a politician says anything it is a low risk bet that what they just said is not wholly true and that anyway there are ulterior reasons for saying it. In this case the politician has a history which reveals the motive. She isn’t fooling anyone.

    • Posted July 19, 2019 at 7:43 am | Permalink

      Read the part about the boycott list including only businesses owned by Jews, not by Israeli Arabs.

    • BJ
      Posted July 19, 2019 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

      If you read the part about how they only want to punish businesses owned by Israeli Jews but not Israeli Arabs — citizens of the same nation and in the same places — then I think to say that this isn’t antisemitism is willful ignorance or dishonesty. Maybe at some point you’re so keen to defend someone that you can’t see the merit behind any criticism of them.

  19. Jayso
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    I read the resolution and have to disagree with Jerry. The resolution seems to me simply to affirm the right of people to avoid doing business with companies (or countries) they find objectionable. That’s an important free-speech right. If you support Omar’s right to make her BDS case, which I assume everyone here does, no matter how objectionable they find it, it seems hard to find fault with this resolution. As Jerry notes, some states really are unfairly punishing companies that cut ties with certain Israeli companies.

  20. Randall Schenck
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I think one thing is now for sure. If they kick Trump out with the next vote he can easily be on his way to prison just as Cohen is now serving.

    They have legally obtained phone conversations of Cohen, Hope Hicks and Trump working out the deal on payments for the Stormy Daniels affair. This is one of the things that came out today with the release of court documents. I would think Hicks is now in deep shit.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      You mean the payments the Leader of the Free World denied knowing anything about when questioned by the press aboard Air Force One?

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      To quote Bill Maher, “She was the key to Trump’s successful campaign strategy — giving hope to hicks.”

  21. Jenny Haniver
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    With respect to Israel, I think it’s a mistake to speak of “The Squad” as being a monolithic bloc with each member marching in lock-step with the most extreme member/s and their policies. Ayanna Pressley is a Progressive to be sure and so holds positions that non-Progressives wouldn’t endorse, but In what I read, Pressley does not support BDS and has good relations with mainstream Jews:

    It also seems that one strain of (to me fallacious) condemnation of The Squad is that even though three were born in the US and the other is a naturalized citizen, their ‘immediate’ cultural roots are in foreign countries and they haven’t properly “assimilated”; their allegiance is to these other countries and cultures. Ayanna Pressley’s ancestors were forcibly brought here generations before The Donald’s forebears arrived on these shores; but since she’s black, but to Trump and his supporters, she’s not acculturated either and she needs to go back to Africa where she belongs. Africa is a continent not a country; to Trump et al., it’s a state of mind where all black people in the West need to return to. If that ain’t racist, I don’t know what is.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      The roots of Ayanna Pressley and AOC are American for generations.

      Rashida Tlaib’s parents immigrated from the Palestinian territories, but she seems to me to be as assimilated and full-bore Motor City as one of the Marvelettes or Vandellas. 🙂

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

        If one accepts the Trumpist qualifications for being a righteous Merican, Trump ought to go back where he came from. After all, his mother came from the Hebrides, and according to Trump his father was born in Germany, so Raus! Raus! Herr Drumpf. Then there’s Melania and her parents.

        And since the Marvelettes and the Vandellas are of African descent, just like Ayanna Pressley, they must go back to Africa; doesn’t matter when their ancestors came here. I’m convinced that Trump would like to abrogate the 14th Amendment, not just because he can then easily expel “brown immigrants” citizens or not, even those born here but also African Americans, or create an apartheid country.

        People may think this is wild hyperbole but with Trump anything is possible. It’d also make for a good novel or movie, but if a film it must be done by Kevin Willmott (who is black),the director of “CSA” the Confederate States of America, a satire premised on the South winning the Civil War. It’s a film I love, and it’s sooooo politically incorrect.

        I understand that in 2017, HBO aired something similar but it was a British production. I haven’t seen it. I’ll stick with CSA.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted July 18, 2019 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Thanks for the link to the movie, Jenny. I’d heard about it; now, I’ma watch it.

        • Nicolaas Stempels
          Posted July 20, 2019 at 3:31 am | Permalink

          Thanks, that was great.

  22. Eli
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Note also how Omar has dissimulated and misled her Jewish constituents when she was a candidate – she told them she was against BDS:

    Only after the election did she come out in support of it. This sort of mendacity shows how far she’s prepared to go to push her antisemitic agenda.

    And also her pro-BDS resolution may be a start of another ploy. For on the same day that she introduced it, she also announced her intention to visit Israel. However, Israel has a law banning entry of BDS advocates which I am sure she’s aware of. I guess her idea is to fly to Israel, get denied entry, perhaps detained temporarily at the airport, and then play the victim to hand-picked journalists complaining that “our ally is banning members of Congress”.

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      That’s important information, I think.

      Getting banned from Israel — great set up for more antisemitic grandstanding, playing straight into the hands of the far left, Trump, the Mullahs and terrorists of all flavours.

      • Eli
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, it’s a win-win for her. Either she gets banned and gets to play the victim card, accuse Israel of apartheid for “banning Muslim congresswomen” when others are welcome; or she is let in and then can propagandize inside, perhaps even go to one of those regular demonstrations when Palestinians get to throw stones and riot, and then she’ll get “accidentally” teargassed, creating a PR coup for herself.

        Apparently Netanyahu will get to decide whether she gets a waiver from the entry-ban law:

  23. EyeOfT
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Genuine question: do you think everyone who thinks that Israel in general and IDF in particular isn’t doing the best humanly possible job is an anti-Semite? Are there criticisms of Israel you do accept?

    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      Not a genuine question but one designed to get at me. No, of course I don’t think that those who criticize the IDF and Israel for not doing better is an anti-Semite. And yes, there are criticisms of Israel that I accept.

      Where did I ever say that anyone who doesn’t fulsomely praise Israel is an anti-Semite? Did you just read the post in which I wrote that a two-state solution will probably have to involve dismantling settlements? The critics who say that are critics I’m on the side of.

      But I do think that if you scratch any anti-Zionist, or any member of BDS or Jewish Voice for Peace, you’ll find an anti-Semite. Their goal is not the reformation of Israel, or a two state solution, but the end of Israel, perhaps through the euphemistic “one state” solution.

      • Eli
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, one of the co-sponsors of this resolution, congresswoman Rashida Tlaib proposes one state as the final solution. (formulation intended, given the history of Jewish life in Muslim-dominated countries).

      • Jayso
        Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        Jerry, this is not true. My father is Jewish and a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and I know for a fact that he is not an anti-Semite. You can disagree with him (I often do!), but to call him an anti-Semite without knowing him is unfair.

      • Posted July 19, 2019 at 7:30 am | Permalink

        Or one might even say (instead of a “one-state” solution): A Final Solution.


    • Posted July 18, 2019 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

      There is a simple answer to that. This is from International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, whose definition of antisemitism is now widely accepted:

      “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

      That such a thing should even need to be said is surprising enough, but it’s rejected by many, Corbyn’s Labour Party for eg., who feel entitled to stick to their guns and apply double standards wherever Jews are concerned.

      Would you question Pakistan’s or Bangladesh’s right to exist? While criticising Israeli policies and actions, would you be prepared to give a nod in the direction of China locking up a million Muslims or Syria killing thousands of Palestinian refugees, or Kuwait expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinian guest workers?

      (The “you” above is not intended to refer to the above commenter.)

    • BJ
      Posted July 19, 2019 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

      Criticism of Israel and/or the IDF, in and of itself, is of course not antisemitic. What is antisemitic is devoting such enormous time and resources to this criticism while ignoring far more deadly, oppressive regimes. Heck, there are at least ten in just the Middle East who kill far more people and oppress their own.

      People in BDS never seem to have time for Saudi Arabia, which has killed over 500,000 Yemenis and displaced several million more since just 2015. Or for those involved in the civil wars in several countries, where hundreds of thousands have died. No, just the Jewish nation. It’s always just the Jewish nation that gets their attention. That’s what makes it seem deeply antisemitic.

  24. SkeptiCalGuy
    Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m legit confused. I don’t understand the whole” right to exist” argument. I always though a countries right to exist depended upon its ability to defend itself or not. Sorry for sounding dumb or insensitive. Just trying to wrap my head around this mess.

    • EdwardM
      Posted July 18, 2019 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

      When they say “Israel” has no right to exist, they mean “Jews”. Same hatred that has haunted us for centuries. One had hoped that the horrors of mid-twentieth century Europe would be the last, but it appears we’re headed that at way again.

  25. Posted July 18, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Interesting data re resolutions vs laws passed and other legislation.

  26. Posted July 19, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    Speaking last summer [2018] to Jewish voters in her district during a Democratic primary debate, however, Omar said she opposed BDS because it would hurt efforts to achieve peace in Israel.

    “I believe right now with the BDS movement, it’s not helpful in getting that two-state solution,” Omar said from Beth El Synagogue. “I think the particular purpose for [BDS] is to make sure that there is pressure, and I think that pressure really is counteractive.”

    “In order for us to have a process of getting to a two-state solution, people have to be willing to come to the table and have a conversation about how that is going to be possible and I think that stops the dialogue,” Omar said. “I want to make sure that we are furthering policies and advocating for things that get people closer to having that conversation.”

    Omar’s statements at the Beth El Synagogue (video at top of this page), in St. Louis Park, MN (part of her 5th Minnesota Congressional District)

    This is my problem with Omar’s position (I disagree with BDS). She lied about her support for BDS during the campaign, and then immediately (less than a week) after her election, came out publicly in support of it.

    • Posted July 19, 2019 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

      Technically, in that quote, she never said she was in support of a two-state solution.


%d bloggers like this: