Trump Supporters Chant “Send Her Back” At North Carolina Rally [Update]

In one of the most disturbing moments of his presidency, Donald Trump stood before a huge crowd in Greenville, N.C. as his supporters chanted “send her back” in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). I have previously discussed Trump’s disgraceful comments regarding Omar and three other freshman members of Congress. While many of us condemned those statements, Trump’s popularity has actually risen with Republicans in the aftermath. Even Trump’s past association with Jeffrey Epstein have not had an impact. NBC just released the video below showing Trump partying with Epstein. Update: Trump says that he didn’t not agree with the chant.

At the rally, Trump declared:

We have the enthusiasm. Look at this. And by the way, thousands and thousands of people outside and people that couldn’t get in. Thousands. We’ve got all the enthusiasm, they’re fighting each other. They’ve gone so far left nobody wants to even think about it. So Representative Omar blamed the United States for the terrorist attacks on our country, saying that terrorism is a reaction to our involvement in other people’s affairs.

She smeared U.S. service members involved in Blackhawk Down. In other words, she slandered the brave Americans who were trying to keep peace in Somalia. Omar minimized the September 11th attacks on our homeland, saying some people did something. I don’t think so. Some people did something. Yeah. Some people did something alright.

She pleaded for compassion for ISIS recruits attempting to join the terrorist organization. Omar laughed that Americans speak of al-Qaida in a menacing tone and remarked that you don’t say ‘America’ with this intensity. You say ‘al-Qaida’ makes you proud. Al-Qaida makes you proud! You don’t speak that way about America. 

The responsive chant “send her back” is as chilling as it is xenophobic. One GOP member said the chant “would send chills down the spines of the Founding Fathers.” Omar is a U.S. citizen who is “home.” She has succeeded in coming to his country as a child and became a member of Congress. That is precisely what this country is meant to stand for. She is trying to make this country a better place. I disagree with many of her views and well as her comments. However, that is part of a debate that can occur between citizens. For the President to stand before thousands screaming “send her home” is a terrible stain on the office of the president.

It is remarkable to see the teflon coating on Trump’s poll numbers. NBC just released a video showing Trump laughing and partying with Epstein.

The November 1992 tape shows Donald Trump partying with Epstein at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. It was more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to felony prostitution charges in Florida.

309 thoughts on “Trump Supporters Chant “Send Her Back” At North Carolina Rally [Update]”

  1. Trump never advised deportation or removal of Omar’s status as a naturalized citizen yet the left and the press went after him as if he did. It was a lie but who on the left cares about the truth?

    Of course when it has to do with a person on the right actual attempts are made in Congress to remove naturalization without proof of any wrongdoing.

    “Yet when Democrats spearheaded deportation efforts against former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, the media was silent. In 2017, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) asked the White House to hand over Gorka’s immigration paperwork to the House Judiciary Committee. Gorka is a British-born Hungarian-American who was naturalized in 2012, five years before Nadler attempted to use state power to intimidate him.”

    State power is used to intimidate private private citizens or public workers by the left. That sort of reminds us of a number of despotic governments.

  2. Anon, Omar was 17 years old when she apparently signed her naturalization papers so the claim of the possibility of denaturalizing her is valid. You can’t see that and blame others for you lack of perception. You are wrong but your arrogance doesn’t permit you to face it.

    1. “Omar was 17 years old when she apparently signed her naturalization papers so the claim of the possibility of denaturalizing her is valid.” Anonymous @ 3:03 PM

      Get back to us when that happens.

      1. Follow more closely. The debate was whether or not it was possible, not whether or not it would happen.

        More likely is she will be charged with one of her crimes.

            1. What a messed mind you have. “anything is “possible.”” but in this case there are laws on the books that determine what is or isn’t possible. You remain factless.

                1. That is true, anything is always possible. That is the thinking process of an Amoeba which travels wherever the current takes it. Brain power of an Amoeba, zero. Brainpower of anonymous, zero.

          1. In your world denial prevails.

            In four intensely reported investigative columns — here (August 13, 2018), here (October 23, 2018), here (October 30, 2018), and here (November 5, 2018), — David Steinberg has explored the evidence suggesting that Ilhan Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother in 2009. This is his fifth. He titles it “Meet Leila Elmi: The Missing Link Showing Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother.” Drawing on his research, interviews, and social media evidence he makes the case that Omar has engaged in a variety of fraudulent activities and willful misrepresentations related to her marital arrangements. He writes:…


  3. Guardian News
    Published on Jul 19, 2019

    “The US representative Ilhan Omar is welcomed with cheers and support as she returns to Minnesota on Thursday after days of inflammatory attacks by Donald Trump. At the airport, supporters shouted their backing of the Somalian-born lawmaker. Meanwhile, Trump tried to distance himself from supporters’ chants of ‘send her back’ at a rally where he criticised Omar, as Republicans worry the incendiary mantra could set the tone for the 2020 campaign”

  4. If anyone has any question as to how bad the MSM has become they should read this article. It also adds a lot to multiple discussions that have occurred on the blog while offering some insight as to how far various people are willing to go to slime another.

    J’accuse — The New Yorker Is Trying to Silence Me

    by Alan M. Dershowitz
    July 18, 2019 at 4:00 am

    Alan Dershowitz. (Photo by John Lamparski/Getty Images for Hulu)

    I recently learned, from a source close to The New Yorker magazine, that its editor, David Remnick, has commissioned a hit piece against me for the explicit purpose of silencing my defense of President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the State of Israel. Remnick despises Trump and Netanyahu, and is well known for his strong anti-Israel bias. Remnick explicitly told people that I must be silenced because mine has been the most persuasive voice in favor of what Remnick feels pose dangers to values he holds dear, and that he will use the credibility of The New Yorker to accomplish this goal.

    The New Yorker used to be a great literary magazine. I read it for its short stories, profiles of literary figures, film and drama reviews, humorous vignettes, and clever cartoons. But since David Remnick took over as editor, left wing politics have trumped non-partisan literature. Profiles have become personal attacks on Remnick’s political enemies and hagiographies of his political friends.

    Among Remnick’s most persistent enemies are Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Ad hominem attacks on the Israeli Prime Minister include mocking his name (“Netanyahoo”) and calling him a “mendacious mouse.” Remnick consistently singles out Israel for condemnation, while ignoring real violations of human rights.

    An op-ed in the Jerusalem Post observed that “under Remnick’s reign, The New Yorker, and particularly Remnick himself, repeatedly and obsessively focuses on what Remnick perceives to be the failings of the state of Israel,” accusing it of “medievalism,” “apartheid” and “xenophobia.” Its one-sided views have been “posted prominently on the website of “Intifada – The Voice of Palestine.”

    The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has characterized Remnick’s writings as “almost frantic agitation” against the Netanyahu government. Israel and/or its leaders are scorned for being “bigoted,” “arrogant” and “stubborn,” and for displaying “ineptitude” and a penchant for “fantasy.” The Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, are “moderate and constructive.” Remnick’s attacks on President Trump are even more ad hominem, calling him “unhinged,” “chaotic,” “corrupt,” “infantile” and comparing him to Nero.

    The New Yorker’s reputation for objectivity, fairness and scrupulous fact checking has been replaced by a growing awareness that nothing it publishes should be taken as true without rigorous independent checking, especially when it comes to Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump. The same is true when it comes to public figures Remnick believes are supporters of his sworn enemies. I know, because Remnick has arranged for a like-minded attack journalist named Connie Bruck to target me in a mendacious hit piece designed to still my voice on Israel, Netanyahu, and Trump.

    Bruck is so emotional in her hatred toward those who say anything positive about Trump, that when her own stepson came out for the president, her family — according to the step-son — “singly excluded” him from family events “when the rest of the family was invited.”* Bruck’s antagonism toward Israel is reflected by the fact that the only Harvard Law School professor that she interviewed about me is a virulently anti-Israel radical, whose one-sided course on the Israel-Palestine conflict I strongly criticized.

    Another academic she interviewed is Robert Trivers, who compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

    Remnick’s decision to have this biased reporter to profile a man who has vigorously defended the legal rights of both Trump and Netanyahu makes it clear that he was commissioning a one-sided screed, rather than an objective profile.

    The New Yorker apparently got the idea of using false allegations of sexual misconduct to silence me from another like-minded web attacker of pro-Israel advocates named Phillip Weiss, who wrote the following on his Mondoweiss website: “We have picked up news about the sexual allegations against Alan Dershowitz because Dershowitz is such an outspoken defender of Israel and the matter has inevitably affected his influence in the foreign policy arena.” Remnick has made similar statements about the need to reduce my influence and silence my voice.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with what I’ve been saying about Trump, Netanyahu, and Israel, every American should be outraged at this partisan effort by a giant of the media to stifle the marketplace of ideas by exploiting the past credibility of The New Yorker to try destroy the reputation of a public intellectual with whom they disagree. Let them publish articles challenging my views on their merits, instead of disseminating defamatory attacks that will be believed by partisans, regardless of overwhelming evidence that the accusations are false. This is the latest weapon in the partisan warfare that divides our nation. It is a misuse of freedom of the press to stifle the freedom of speech of those with whom one disagrees.

    But The New Yorker picked on the wrong innocent victim, because I have the will and resources to fight back against the falsehoods he is directing at me and those who want to hear my voice. The truth is my weapon in this war of words, and the truth is unequivocally on my side. So here are the indisputable facts that The New Yorker will either not publish or will distort.

    Four years ago, a woman who I had never met was “pressured” — her word — by her lawyers to falsely accuse me of having underage sex with her. They expected a big payday, but I was able to prove from travel records that I could not have been on the Caribbean island, New Mexico ranch, or other places where she perjuriously claimed we had met. She also claimed to have met Al and Tipper Gore, as well as Bill Clinton, on the island, but Secret Service and other records proved she had made up that story as well. She also made up stories about having underage sex with prominent political leaders — senators, ambassadors, prime ministers and other heads of state — but her own employment records prove conclusively that she was well above the age of consent when she falsely claimed to have met these men.

    My records led her own lawyer to admit in a recorded conversation that it would have been “impossible” for me to have been in those places and that his client was “simply wrong” about her accusations. An investigation by a former head of the FBI concluded that the accusations were disproved by the evidence. The judge struck the accusations and her lawyers withdrew them, admitting it was a “mistake.”

    Having seen the initial accusation demolished, her lawyer told people he was trolling for a second accuser because “two is better than one.” This time they “found” a real doozy: a woman who had tried to get the New York Post to publish her claim that she had sex tapes of Hillary and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson. She also wrote hundreds of pages of emails accusing several prominent people of having sex with her when she was in her 20s, but I was not among them — until she met the ethically challenged lawyer David Boies. I had never met this false accuser either, but her lawyer allowed this obviously mendacious or hallucinatory woman to submit a perjured affidavit accusing me.

    Two provably false accusations by women with long histories of lying about famous people are not better than one, especially when both were engineered by the same lawyer. Sometimes smoke does not mean fire; it means arson.

    So this is where the story stood: I had disproved these false accusations both in the courts of law and public opinion. No reasonably objective person examining the evidence would possibly conclude that I was guilty of any wrongdoing. The matter was closed. Until The New Yorker decided to resurrect these false allegations in an effort to silence me. He commissioned the hit piece from Bruck, who actually completed her article, subject only to fact checking, without even interviewing me or anyone who might say something positive about me. She ignored or minimized the evidence of my innocence. She relied on interviews with the lawyers of my false accusers and my political enemies. She did not question my accusers, simply accepting the unchallenged words of proven liars, taking them from court documents that are privileged and thus not subject to a defamation suit.

    I have been advised that The New Yorker’s policy, as expressed by Remnick, is that the magazine will not publish sex allegations against someone unless there are three credible independent sources. My source heard this directly from Mr. Remnick. Yet the proposed article doesn’t even come close to meeting that standard. In the first place, there are only two sources. They are anything but independent, since both women were groomed by the same lawyers to lie about me for financial gain. Moreover, both sources lack credibility. They each have documented histories of telling false stories about well-known people for financial gain.

    In every other “#MeToo” accusation reported by The New Yorker and other media, there was some corroboration or admission of the external facts: they had sex; they worked together; they knew each other. In my case there is absolutely no evidence I ever met these false accusers, because I did not.

    The question thus arises why The New Yorker is willing to violate its own standards by publishing false accusations against me that have no credibility or corroboration and are refuted by indisputable documentary evidence. The answer is obvious to those familiar with Remnick’s political misuse of his magazine to destroy his enemies, regardless of what compromise he must make with journalistic standards.

    Not content to falsely accuse me of sex crimes, Bruck trolled the internet and came across a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial website called, which both the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have declared to be anti-Semitic. This site accused me of beating and murdering my first wife. It showed “pictures” of her and my children, which were not them, but stereotypical Jews with long noses. No one would believe anything on this hate site — no one, that is, except a journalist prepared to use any dirt, regardless of its source and absurdity, against her target. Bruck has admitted using this discredited site as the original source for claiming in her article that I abused my first wife and “stripped” her of custody of my two sons. She even used the same words she found on the Holocaust denial site. The truth is that my first wife and I, who were married when I was 20 and she 19, grew apart. There was no abuse, and the court granted me custody based on the report of the social worker, and on his explicit finding that I committed “no misconduct.” But that boring story would not achieve The New Yorker’s goal of destroying me. So they went into the gutter and followed the lead of an anti-Semitic website.

    This is not journalism; it is defamation motivated not by a search for truth but a determination to destroy and silence a political enemy. Bruck’s reckless disregard for the truth has become all too typical of The New Yorker under Remnick. So has taking revenge against political enemies, especially those who have the temerity to fight back against The New Yorker.

    Since completing the first draft of this hit piece, Bruck has been given many documents and much information that disproves her thesis. Perhaps this will cause her to alter her false narrative in the final version. I have offered to meet face to face with her, but she has refused. I have told her that in a few days, the court will be unseating emails and a book manuscript that proves conclusively — in my accuser’s own words — that she never had sex with me. But The New Yorker refuses to wait to include these exculpatory documents in her story.

    I fully anticipate that Remnick and Bruck will redouble their attacks against me for calling them out. Bruck has already attacked me in emails for earlier public criticism I leveled against her. I expect more vengeful responses in the pages of the magazine.

    So when you read The New Yorker attack on me, read it with an understanding of its source, motive, and methodology. Remember that you are not reading The New Yorker of old that had well-earned credibility. You are reading a glossy version of the National Enquirer, with partisan and personal agendas. Only the clever cartoons are the same. On second thought, you might just want to skip the partisan articles and jump right to the cartoons.

    Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.



    The Deplorables on this thread were baffled by Turley’s inclusion of that Today’s Show video featuring Trump and Epstein. The posted video projects an image of these ‘playboys’ standing side by side with mischievous grins. Checking out young women at a party for cheerleaders. Trump was hosting this Palm Beach affair where Epstein happened to be.

    Epstein’s pre-trial hearings played out this week. It was sure to be the week’s biggest news story. Epstein remains a man of mysteries so the public is naturally interested. Even people who knew Epstein were not completely sure how rich Epstein was or how he made his money. Donald Trump may have been among those acquaintances.

    Bill Clinton spent more time with Epstein than Trump. Or so we’ve been told. And when the Epstein story broke, Trumpsters were gleeful. They presumed Bill Clinton would get burned for the time he spent with Epstein. Therefore the Epstein story should have been a blessing for Trump.

    By disgracing Bill, the Epstein case would embarrass every Democrat who voted for Hillary. We might have had a genuine pedophile as First Husband to the President. That might have ended Hillary’s presidency. Detractors could have charged she enabled Bill. Historians might have said we were lucky Hillary lost.

    So why didn’t Trump sit back this week and watch the Epstein case? That should have been a no-brainer for Trump. ‘Shut-up and let Epstein dominate the headlines’.

    InsteadTrump created a bigger story than Epstein. No American can remember a president using “Go back to where you came from” as a rallying cry. So of course this became a sensational headline. For good reason, too! No one should think that language is normal for a President. Yet Trump has supporters defending a blatantly racist phrase.

    It all goes back to Epstein. Logically Donald Trump should have laid-low this week. This would have been an excellent week for Trump to be seen as an adult. A responsible grandfather concerned for America. Why not play that role for once? Ronald Reagan played it quite convincingly. And even George W knew to hang low now and then. But that’s not Donald Trump. We’ve never seen that side to him.

    1. “The posted video projects an image of these ‘playboys’ standing side by side with mischievous grins.” -Hill

      That’s a great still of the two of them, isn’t it? A picture’s worth a thousand words, as it’s said.

      1. Of course more intelligent folk know that Trump threw Epstein out of Mar a Lago for inappropriate action and they are also aware of the 26 trips Clinton made to sex island based on pilot logs that have been reported.

    2. “InsteadTrump created a bigger story than Epstein. No American can remember a president using “Go back to where you came from” as a rallying cry. ”

      Peter, you are so naive. Nancy Pelosi was leading the Democratic House trying to put down a rebellion by the squad (the mob squad?). Trump’s comments made Pelosi side with the squad so now the face of the Democratic Party is the face of Omar who has a 9% support in recent polls. When the undecideds have to vote looking at Omar they will press whatever other button exists or not press any button leaving the rest for Trump.(Those undecideds include both Democrats and Republicans,)

  6. Can we ignore those Congresswomen’s race, gender, and religion, and recognize that it’s real simple: If someone relentlessly criticizes ANY country and never says anything positively about the country they choose to live in, what’s wrong with suggesting they go elsewhere?



    Nervous Republicans, from senior members of Congress to his own daughter Ivanka, urged President Trump on Thursday to repudiate the “send her back” chant directed at a Somali-born congresswoman during his speech the night before at a rally in North Carolina, amid widespread fears that the rally had veered into territory that could hurt their party in 2020.

    In response, Mr. Trump disavowed the behavior of his own supporters in comments to reporters at the White House and claimed that he had tried to contain it, an assertion clearly contradicted by video of the event.

    Mr. Trump said he was “not happy” with the chant directed at Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a freshman Democrat who is Muslim. At the rally Wednesday evening, he had been in the middle of denouncing her as an anti-American leftist who has spoken in “vicious, anti-Semitic screeds” when the chant was taken up by the crowd.

    Pressed on why he did not stop it, Mr. Trump said, “I think I did — I started speaking very quickly.” In fact, as the crowd roared “send her back,” Mr. Trump paused and looked around silently for more than 10 seconds as the scene unfolded in front of him, doing nothing to halt the chorus. “I didn’t say that,” he added. “They did.”

    Mr. Trump’s cleanup attempt reflected the misgivings of political allies who have warned him privately that however much his hard-core supporters in the arena might have enjoyed the moment, the president was playing with political fire, according to people briefed on the conversations.

    Among them were House Republican leaders, who pleaded with Vice President Mike Pence to distance the party from the message embraced by the crowd in Greenville, N.C. Mr. Pence conveyed that message directly to Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the exchange.

    Edited from: “Trump Disavows ‘Send Her Back’ Chant As GOP Frets Over Ugly Phrase”

    This evening’s New York Times

  8. And still more country-elevating rhetoric from Citizen Omar:

    “Ms. Omar has frequently called Mr. Trump a racist, including Sunday in the wake of his now-deleted comments on Twitter that she and other progressive freshmen House members should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came … come back and show us how it is done.”

    But she had not previously categorized all Trump supporters in the way the Daily Beast article did. If Ms. Omar did not agree with the headline she sent out, there was no obvious sign of that Sunday evening.

    Trump Is a Racist. If You Still Support Him, So Are You. via @thedailybeast
    — Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) July 14, 2019″

    Is there anything more pathetic than an obsequious sop who desperately wants love from those that so obviously hate him?

  9. I noticed how all of a sudden impeachment has quieted down. 332-95

    The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday against a measure to begin the impeachment process against President Donald Trump, the first necessary step to remove the president from office.

    The House voted 332-95 as Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green introduced the resolution after the House voted to condemn Trump over his “go back” comments towards four freshmen House Democrats.

        1. Mespo, what does this have to do with anything in the news?

          It looks like a desperate attempt to distract from the featured subject. Like you know very well the ‘Send Her Back’ chant was totally uncool. So here you are just posting music videos while pretending to make political commentary; hoping they take up enough physical space to water-down the dialogue.

          They don’t Trump supporters deplorables for nothing.

          1. Mespo, what does this have to do with anything in the news?

            And for these tired copy and paste tropes that you slam on all of us, George Soros and David Brock pay you how much? You really belong in the US House, Peter Shill, given your IQ < 70, though Sheila Jackson Lee need not feel threatened


Comments are closed.