lol Rupert Murdoch/WSJ is concerned about how Ilha Omar might hurt the democratic party. lol Don't get me wrong the WSJ do luv some of the corporate Dems-- just like the Koch Bros were early funders of the Democratic Leadership Caucus which ol Bill Clinton was president of before running for President. Am I remembering correctly that the WSJ used to proclaim itself as the "Capitalist Tool"?
more WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ilhan-omars-history-of-america-11550259885?mod=hp_opin_pos1 Ilhan Omar’s History of America The United States as Cold War villain. 737 Comments By James Freeman Feb. 15, 2019 2:44 p.m. ET Not that it will make Israelis feel any better, but Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) doesn’t seem to like America all that much, either. Shortly after apologizing for anti-Semitic comments, the House freshman Democrat set about trashing America’s conduct during its successful Cold War against the Soviet empire. Rep. Omar’s views may not have been entirely clear to Minnesota voters last November. A public broadcasting report shortly before her November election to the U.S. House described her this way: But in a New York Times report almost two months after last year’s election, her experience in America didn’t exactly sound like a love affair: Many Americans are no doubt sorry our country didn’t live up to her expectations. But if Ms. Omar thought prosperity in America was guaranteed, the fault lies with those expectations. The real guarantee that has inspired millions of people to come to this land is the freedom to succeed or fail. And while Rep. Omar may claim that she “fell in love with democracy,” recent events suggest it was at best a temporary crush. How else to explain her recent tweet echoing the propaganda of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as he presides over a humanitarian disaster and prevents the restoration of that country’s democracy? Wrote Rep. Omar: There is no U.S.-backed coup. As the Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady explained recently, the Venezuelan constitution gives the democratically elected National Assembly the power to declare Mr. Maduro’s 2018 re-election invalid. “It did so at the time because the election didn’t meet minimum democratic standards. The Lima Group of Latin American nations, Canada, the Group of Seven leading industrial nations and the European Union all refused to recognize the election for the same reasons,” noted Ms. O’Grady, adding: The Venezuelan people are desperate to end the era of misery and hyperinflation. But this week Rep. Omar used an appearance on Capitol Hill by Elliott Abrams, the U.S. special envoy to Venezuela, to try to score political points on behalf of Mr. Maduro. RealClearPolitics has a video of the amazing exchange at the House foreign relations committee in which Rep. Omar essentially expressed the Marxist view of the Cold War. She attacked the former Reagan administration official for a 1982 atrocity in El Salvador by U.S.-backed forces that massacred hundreds of people. She didn’t mention that during the Cold War America’s communist foes massacred a hundred million people in atrocities too numerous to count. Here’s RealClear’s transcript: Rep. Omar wasn’t done. “Yes or no, would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide if you believed they were serving U.S. interests, as you did in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala?” she asked. Whose interest is Rep. Omar serving?
Yeah, it's pretty cool for her to wear that because of 9/11. She's showing Islam doesn't belong to the terrorists. Excellent.
Can you explain how Omar's calling out AIPAC for funneling in money to candidates to influence policy is anti-semitic when others do the same in regards to Saudi Arabia?
Because people don't say "the best of part of it is X" if they disagree with X If you want to clarify your position then feel free to do so.
Huh? Climate change is regarded as a worldwide emergency by the scientific community. Climate change and Trump's wall are not the same levels of emergency. One is an actual emergency, the other isn't.
I’ll pass, and side with the scientific communities decision to label climate change a emergency/crisis.
well then the first thing the next Democrat president should do is take that $3billion of unused amazon.com money that AOC saved us and start building a Trumpian-like wall around the island of Manhattan . . . which by then will be completely underwater according to climate "experts" like Jim Hansen: Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life? While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up." And so far, over the last 10 years, we've had 10 of the hottest years on record. Didn't he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, "Water by request only." Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you're prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you'll have signs in restaurants saying "Water by request only." When did he say this will happen? Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989. Does he still believe these things? Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn't change anything that he said then. https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/
Your too wrapped up in politics. This does nothing to discredit the scientific consensus of thousands of scientist who base their positions on their peer-reviewed studies.
