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. Two forms of free speech. Brought to you by a blog and commented on by a Constitutional Centrist.

    Remember

    It’s Constitutionalism versus Socialism.

  2. “I have previously discussed Trump’s disgraceful comments regarding Omar…”

    That is because sensible people recognize that anti-American, anti-semites and terrorist loving individuals especially in high places should be hounded out of office. But we have a whole party that protects the worst of society so it appears bluntness is the only method.

    That seems to overly offend Professor Turley. He leans left and becomes soft when a leftist issue or person is attacked. He should maintain a more pro American type of dialogue where he doesn’t worry so much about offending just one side of the aisle. Of course I always consider that might be a necessity for him because his work and pay in part is dependent on not insulting the wrong people on the left.

  3. “The responsive chant “send her back” is as chilling as it is xenophobic.”

    I wonder if the words ‘send him back’ would be as chilling to the professor if the Professor was at a German university and the leadership was referring to the Austrian Adolph Hitler?

    1. Or what if it was a Russian immigrant politician trying to turn the US Socialist. Would “send him back” be assumed to be racist then, or would the political motivation be clear?

      1. Karen, without question it is political. Trump is not a racist and to my recollection there hasn’t been a Republican Presidential candidate running against a Democrat that hasn’t been called a racist by the Democratic left. The Democrats play the race card whenever they think it will prop up one of their dumb proposals.

        Many members on this blog likewise use the race card because intelligent discussion is beyond their ability.

        1. I remember all the throw grandma off the cliff, make poor kids starve, keep minorities from voting, and every Republican candidate is a racist Fascist. There seems to be instant amnesia among Leftists of their history of false accusations.

          An example of it is right here, where Jill has accused me of everything from wanting only conservatives to have the right to criticize the government, to requiring critics to leave the country. There is no reasoning with the constant flow of false accusations. They just keep repeating it until people believe it.

          I’m so tired of it.

          Leftist governments demonize and punish critics. I am very concerned that if Leftists take over the government, having thrown in openly for Socialism now, that they will take this behavior to the next level. I have a son whom Leftists find unworthy on the identity politics scale, being white, male, and hopefully a conservative when he becomes an adult. What kind of country will he have if Democrats get their way? The party doesn’t actually believe in equal opportunities and equal rights. Not by its actions.

          1. Karen, you are totally right. We have to expose the Democratic platform for what it is.

            Increase everyone’s taxes to pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants.

            Raise the price for fuel so middle class Americans pay more for everything and gas becomes unaffordable while at the same time raising taxes to pay for American debt. The very rich can support such a plan. They can still fly in private jets and buy whatever they want.

            Stop notifying ICE so that criminal illegal aliens can be released from jail over and over again until they kill someone from the middle class. The rich Democrats don’t have to live in those areas.

            Get rid of guns . The middle class can wait for a long time after calling the police because a criminal with an illegal gun is trying to kill them. If the middle class person is killed he can be considered lucky as he won’t have to pay the increased taxes. Nancy Pelosi can live in her large home with walls and all sorts of barriers and when an intruder comes she can have her own household “police” immediately protect her by killing the intruders with their legal guns.

            Democrats can pretend to be inclusive while in the largest Democratic controlled cities young blacks are killed in huge numbers if they don’t die of drugs the Democrats permit to be imported. Democrats love blacks so much that they encourage black abortions that to date is in the millions. That type of death rate sort of reminds me of the Nazi’s, Stalinists and Mao.

            Now the Democrats are debating how to make sure that if a baby is delivered they can keep it comfortable yet kill it if they want to.

            Democrats have perfected the art of virtue signalling while killing people.

      2. Oh, there’s a lot of Democrats out there who piled onto Russians and the Russian ethnicity, in the midst of the Russiagate hoax, and the mass media never said a peep about it. It was very bigoted.

        They only protect certain ethnic profiles when it suits them

        the one ethnic profile they never protect is called “white guy”

        1. I would amend that to cis gendered straight white guy conservative is the lowest valued on the identity politics scales.

          If you’re a transgender white identify as male Leftist Antifa member beating up someone elderly with a FSC certified scrap piece of wood diverted from a landfill, you’re all good.

      1. Thanks Peter, but it would not be fit to print in the Washington Post because what I said is true.

        “to my recollection there hasn’t been a Republican Presidential candidate running against a Democrat that hasn’t been called a racist by the Democratic left.”

        Tell us what Republican Presidential candidate hasn’t been subjected to being called a racist by the left.

        1. An example of GOOGLE altering search results to benefit Democrats:

          If you search “every Republican presidential candidate has been called a racist”, you get a lot of links to articles about Trump is a racist. Skipping to page 10 of the search results, I got more Trump-is-a-racist and the Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party.

          No where was the actual, accurate answer to my query, which would be examples of all the previous Republican presidential candidates who were called a racist. In fact, the GOOGLE answer was all about Trump as president, with Leftist articles, and not a single conservative source about a Republican Presidential candidate.

          There were 118,000,000 results. Perhaps they buried the actual answer to my query in there somewhere. But the ranking of the answers was clearly Democrat.

          Dennis Prager just testified before the Senate on Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives. May something be done about this infringement on conservative free speech soon.

          If GOOGLE, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and Intagram are actually private, Democrat clubs, then they cannot enjoy the protections of a public square.

          https://youtu.be/llt6kiwKwVI

          1. Karen, Google bury’s the answer. I use Duck Duck Go which isn’t perfect but is better.

            The tech giants have taken sides and are actively using social media against conservatives and for Democrats. It’s easy to see as they remove postings from Antifa that are violent and hateful yet they block totally peaceful postings from Prager and other educational sites.

            1. Allan – I’ve noticed a sharp difference in GOOGLE recently. They are not trying to be subtle anymore. Every search query I’ve tried recently came back with millions of Left leaning anti-Trump publications. Articles that were easy to find before are now buried.

              1. Karen, go to Project Veritas and check out the new videos. The last video I am sure you saw but the new ones on Google and the others will be coming out soon. Better yet you could sign up for email notifications.

                He runs a fantastic organization and has done what few people are able to do.

                We shoulld all move away from Google.

          2. Here is an example I found using Duck Duck Go. I was searching using individual candidate’s names, so maybe that helped.

            “Something I have learned: If you are a Republican nominee for President – or President – you will be accused of being a racist,” Graham tweeted earlier this week. “[Rep.] John Lewis (D-Ga.) compared John McCain’s campaign to being like that of George Wallace. It comes with the territory unfortunately.”

            https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/453892-media-cried-wolf-calling-every-republican-a-racist-lost-its-bite

    2. How about those chants we heard from BLM like “F tha police” etc
      i’ve heard a lot of disgusting chants at political events and that one was not all that bad
      but what do i know, I’m a deplorable, a peasant out here in flyover
      not a snob from the coastal regions who deplores AMERICA

      1. Kurtz, did you ever look at that topographical map of Israel that I gave you an address for. I was curious as to what you think about the topography and how that affects all discussion.

      2. Kurtz, you’re inserting a “What about?”. ‘Because BLM mobs chanted “F the police”, Trump is perfectly justified in leading racist chants’. ..That’s how dumb it gets..!

        1. politics is all about “whataboutisms” in the end.

          the issues of fairness and equal treatment always implicate “whataboutisms”

          sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

  4. “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.”

    One has to wonder why Professor Turley didn’t include the fact that Trump later banned Epstein from Mar a Lago.

    Professor is ’the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ what you advocate or do you think omission of important facts doesn’t hinder the part that says ’the whole truth’?

      1. That may be good enough for someone that only dabbles but it is not good enough for a Law Professor at a top Law School who is writing on a regular basis for major publications. Was your education that shallow or incomplete that you don’t understand that experts have to maintain high standards? This is not an insult because not everyone is educated the way Professor Turley was.

        1. Turley is a busy guy. His articles for The Hill often get over a thousand comments. His other articles — in USA Today and elsewhere — are widely read. By comparison, this blog doesn’t get a lot of attention. And most people already know about Trump’s banning of Epstein. Anyway, take it up with Jonathan. I’m sure that he’d love to hear from you.

          1. Anonymous, I recognize that you are used to low quality in everything you do. This omission of Turley’s was a big one, one that he would severely criticize another or a student that committed such an ommission. To you it’s routine. To Turely it is dangerous to his reputation. You continue to expose you intellectual failings.

            1. And it’s already yesterday’s news.

              No one who matters will care, Allan. And who knows, maybe JT will do an update. I won’t be holding my breath. But it’s possible.

              1. “And it’s already yesterday’s news.”

                By the time you say it, it is always yesterday’s news.

                We study history, yesterday’s news, to help us figure out things in the present and prevent us from making the same mistakes previously made. That doesn’t matter to you because every new day is a new slate for you so you can repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That is why your intellect remains at such a low level.

    1. Epstein was a common figure at wealthy parties for decades.

      The news wouldn’t be if anyone associated with Epstein or invited him anywhere decades ago. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Rather, the news would be if anyone visited orgy island and participated in illegal acts with minors, or anyone unwilling, knew about illegal acts, or associated with him after his conviction. I wouldn’t even blame anyone who stood by him during the case, if they believed him innocent. But once that horrid plea deal happened, and the evidence came out, everyone knew his guilt.

  5. “We look to 1995 not to incriminate a kid, but to answer questions about what Omar did 14 years later as an adult U.S. citizen.

    Please read the verified evidence below — and read it alongside the three years of verified evidence published by Scott Johnson, Preya Samsundar, and myself (our work is linked here). The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

    To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.

    ———————-

    The proceeding information was given to me by multiple sources within the Minneapolis Somali community. The verifiable evidence corroborating their information follows below:

    In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

    That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.

    Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

    Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

    Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

    Ilhan and Ahmed married in 2009, presumably to benefit in some way from a fraudulent marriage. They did not divorce until 2017….”

    continued —->

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php

    1. “The answers to those questions about 2009 appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

      To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

    2. “In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family.

      That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.”

  6. Did Trump tell Omar to return to Somalia until she understood how to fix its problems because she was black, or because she is trying to recreate the same problems here that drove her and her family out of Somalia, and later Kenya? Some Republicans chant, “Send her back” for which of the above reasons? This is the critical question that neither the media, nor our esteemed Professor, ask. They assume.

    Ilhan Omar brought anti-semitism and pro-socialism with her from Somalia. Having come from a violent country where female genital mutilation is the norm, as well as human rights abuses, she wishes to change the United States into a socialist country. She has made her support of the Democratic Socialists of America quite clear. She emigrated from a dystopia, and seeks to turn the United States into a dystopia.

    She stands accused of engaging in marriage fraud with her own brother to become an American citizen. If the fraud is proven, she may very well lose her citizenship status.

    I have asked Leftists before if they hate our country, why not leave. If they want to live in a socialist country, why not live in one? Why seek out the freest country in the world, and then try to dissolve those freedoms, and turn a capitalist land of opportunity, into a socialist impoverished state?

    I think it is a valid point that after fleeing Socialist Somalia, she seeks to turn America Socialist. I think Somalia was Socialist until the 90’s. Did she learn nothing?

    This is like when Democrats move from high tax blue states to low tax red states, and immediately resume voting for the very same tax and spend policies that drove either them, or their employers, to relocate in the first place. That’s why their new neighbors wish they would go back to CA or NY. Not because of whatever skin color they possess, but rather that they came from a dysfunctional state and are turning their own prosperous state dysfunctional, too. Like locusts. Benefit from low taxes, and then destroy them for everyone already living there.

    Trump said she should return to her original country, fix it’s problems, and then come back and show us how it’s done. He did not say to leave permanently. The point is that she learned nothing from the problems of her country of origin, and instead is trying to create many of the same problems here.

    The problem is that she’s black, and her country of origin is black majority Somalia, with black majority Kenya in between. While Texans openly wish all the time that Democrats would go back to California, it is very difficult to tell Omar to go back to Somalia, learn how to fix its problems, and then come back a wiser person. It can be construed as telling someone to go back to Somalia because she is black. In reality, if a Russian ex-pat emigrated here, became a politician, and tried to turn the United States socialist, it would be a rallying cry among cry among critics to go back to Russia. It would be completely obvious that it had nothing to do with race. Rather, if he liked Socialism so much, why try to turn capitalist America socialist? Why not go back to Russia and return it to its grim USSR days?

    It is extremely tricky to make the point clear, to a hostile press, that Democratic Socialist Ilhan Omar should have learned why Socialism caused so many problems for Somalia, as well as its current issues, rather than try to turn Capitalist United States Socialist, too. It will be taken as anti-immigrant or racist. However, “go back to CA” is a common refrain in low tax states struggling with the creation of Democrat Sanctuary Cities, and higher taxes.

    I would never support any racist reason to reject an immigrant. However, I absolutely understand the frustration of people recreating the very problems that drove them from a country, state or city, and ruining it for the people who had established a functioning country, state, or city.

    It is just an opinion, however. Our laws protect speech, and free movement. Democrats are free to descend upon red states and ruin their low taxes. Red state residents are free to complain bitterly about it.

    1. Karen,
      I would propose that Omar has planned this as the other three have. Once in, they know that they can’t be touched or questioned without the race card used. This is all part of their game. It will be interesting to see how The President plays it.

      1. She may be using race to deflect from the valid criticism that she and her family fled a Socialist, failing country, and now is trying to turn the US socialist. She is recreating many of the problems that drove her from her country.

        I also think it is very difficult to explain this concept to a hostile media. It would be unfair if Omar is shielded from such sincere criticism because she is black, and her country of origin is black majority. Does that meant that the logic does not apply to her?

        I think instead of telling her she should go learn from her country’s problems, he should have phrased it as learning about her country’s problems from here in the US, or perhaps touring Somalia as an adult but not going back to live there. Otherwise, it’s a free bone to the press and critics.

        It seems likely to me that “send her back” is along the same lines of “send Democrats back to CA” along with the issue of her immigration fraud.

        Conservatives do not want Socialism here. We certainly don’t want people leaving failed Socialist countries and importing it here, dooming us, too.

        One of the solutions is to improve our education, so that young people graduate high school with the facts about socialism. For any young person to think Socialism is a good idea is a total condemnation of the public education/indoctrination system.

      2. Jim, you got it. The President is an expert at handling this type of problem even if it can irritate some of his supporters. It is his style that permits him to get around what is otherwise forbidden and leads to being forced to yield.

    2. “She emigrated…and seeks to turn the United States into a dystopia.”

      Typical nonsense from the long-winded, Karen.

      1. Perhaps you should learn about Socialist countries, their failure, deprivation, and human rights abuses. Making profit illegal tends to create dissent, which is violently squashed.

        Don’t bother bringing up Scandinavia, as I’ve already posted multiple times Scandinavian leaders explaining to American Democrats that they are not Socialist, but free market economies.

        I oppose any regime that leads of millions of people and destroyed individual liberties. That is a definition of dystopia to me. Why not you?

        1. Don’t presume to know things that you don’t — or can’t know.

          You’re whipped up into a ridiculous frenzy…

          1. Can’t tell which one of the slothful anonymous’s you are or the one’s before because there is no context. Karen has a lot of good points, but you don’t wish to point out the bad ones. Why?

            We all wish to learn so help us in that endeavor.

              1. It didn’t say anything other than repeat the reason for the question. Moreover it didn’t apply to what Karen said in specific. I guess that means you have no answer and perhaps the one that needs to learn is you.

          2. I don’t think “ridiculous frenzy” means what you think it means.

            Democrats should stop making up slurs to try to shut down honest criticism.

            I think it’s clear to all that you did not address any of my points, and resorted to ad hominem again.

            If you believe that Socialism can exist along with individual rights, and not create a dystopia, then make your case. Be aware that Scandinavia is on record as not being Socialist.

            Here is a list of Socialist states for you to choose from in Wikipedia:

            Current:
            People’s Republic of China (now using limited capitalism under a totalitarian government because socialist economy was failing)
            Republic of Cuba (socialist economy failing)
            Lao People’s Democratic Republic
            Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam had to back away from socialism because its economy is failing. It is not a market economy working towards socialism)

            Former, failed Socialist Countries
            Afghanistan
            Albania
            Angola
            Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
            Benin
            Bulgaria
            Cambodia
            Congo
            Czechoslovakia
            Ethiopia
            East Germany
            Hungary
            North Korea
            Mongolia
            Mozambique
            Poland
            Romania
            Somalia
            Soviet Union
            Ukrainian SSR
            North Vietnam
            South Yemen
            Yugoslavia

            (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/10/26/North-Koreas-socialist-system-has-collapsed-activist-says/2551540567297/) “Kim Jong Il has realized the socialist system cannot be rehabilitated, having seen Kim Jong Il’s failure several times”

            Democrats do like to mock conservative horror of Socialism (http://holodomorct.org).

            Go on, then. Are you up to the task of making the case for socialism in light of the above list? The 3 current socialist countries are all resorting to some limited capitalism due to economic failure. All of the other socialist countries completely folded under the Socialist experiment.

            What kind of fool repeats the Socialist experiment of 23 failed countries, and 3 current countries already utilizing some forms of capitalism? Leftists, that’s who.

            Conservatives are not the ones trying to repeat an experiment that has failed every single time it has been tried, leading to deprivation, poverty, hunger, loss of rights, and human rights abuses. Leftists are, just like the Leftist governments that helmed 23 failed countries and 3 more on the way to leaving the experiment.

            Conservatives look at the facts of Socialist countries, and oppose repeating such a devastating mistake here. Leftists seek to proceed in spite of the failures. That’s irresponsible and foolish.

            1. Anonymous, Karen is ripping you apart and you have no answers except repetition and reliance on someone elses workproduct that isn’t even on point.

              Then again socialism leads to one’s workproduct to gradually disappear.

                1. No, for the most part you have not been able to respond to her points. She made one major error that someone corrected but so far that is it. When one is unable to argue point by point and relies on generalizations along with anonimity so one can’t tell who is involved in the debate they lose the debate.

                    1. “It doesn’t mean you are correct.”

                      No it doesn’t but I am willing to discuss these things in a search for the truth. That is something you are unable to do.

            2. Karen, I benefitted from a socialized university education in the Deep South of the good old USA and did not relinquish my freedom. You’re full of s….

              Modern countries are mostly market economies who’s excesses are smoothed out by socialistic policies. There are virtually zero pure capitalist or socialist governments.

              1. “Karen, I benefitted from a socialized university education in the Deep South of the good old USA ”

                You apparently didn’t benefit enough. You seem to have memorized a little and then stopped learning relying upon the ignorance that remained in your head. Your learning process apparently stopped somewhere around age 21.

        2. “The decades-long Republican strategy of tying Democratic proposals to ‘socialism’”

          Washington Post
          Published on Jun 20, 2019

          “Ahead of the 2020 elections, Republicans are again trying to contrast themselves with Democrats by linking Democratic policy proposals to “socialism.” Will it work?”

          1. Democrats openly supporting Socialism or the Democratic Socialists of America are not being wronged by being called supporters of socialism.

            You do not libel garbage when you say it stinks.

            1. From your earlier comment, Karen S:

              “I don’t think “ridiculous frenzy” means what you think it means.”

              Yes. It does.

              1. So, you cannot defend any of the current or failed Socialist countries? Then I have proven my case on why I believe promoting Socialism here in the US would usher in dystopia.

                Thank you for, once again, avoiding my facts, thereby proving my point.

                1. Karen S said: “Thank you for, once again, avoiding my facts, thereby proving my point.”

                  Saying it, doesn’t make it so, but it obviously makes you feel better.

                  1. That is almost exactly what I said. You avoided Karen’s facts.

                    Debate:
                    “Importance of Rebuttal

                    In debating, each team will present points in favour of their case. They will also spend some time criticising the arguments presented by the other team. This is called Rebuttal.

                    There are a few things to remember about Rebuttal:

                    Logic – to say that the other side is wrong is not enough. You have to show why the other side is wrong. This is best done by taking a main point of the other side’s argument and showing that is does not make sense. A lof of the thinking for this needs to be done quickly and this is one of the most challenging aspects of debating.
                    Pick the important points – try to rebut the most important points of the other side’s case. You will find that after a while these are easer to spot. One obvious spot to find them is when the first speaker of the other team outlines briefly what the rest of the team will say.”

                    1. “I don’t care, Allan.”

                      You have an overinflated ego. What makes you think I care what you think? I respond to you only to expose your ignorance. I don’t even care if you never see the comment. Do yourself an answer and save us both time. Don’t respond. Don’t read my replies.

                    2. “I still don’t care, Allan.”

                      Anonymous, if you didn’t care you wouldn’t have responded. I respond just to demonstrate what an A$$ you are.

        3. The “socialism” advocated by Sanders and Warren is Scandanavian style and involves health care, and education, not gulags and re-education camps.

    3. Karen,

      Trump is failing to uphold his oath of office by not explaining our Constitution to his followers. He took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution and he is breaking his oath by not explaining how his followers behavior is contrary to our Constitution.

      In the US, our Constitution protects the right to criticize our government. This right belongs to any person whether they are a citizen or not. No person is required to leave their nation because they don’t like our govt.

      Anyone who really believes that but doesn’t like every single member of Congress, will need to leave the US immediately. Criticizing a member of Congress is, by this made up rule, hating our government. The penalty for this failure to love a member of our government is to leave the country. Sounds more and more like everyone wants a passport from Saudi Arabia, not the US!

      “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”— Justice William O. Douglas”

      https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-american-anti-free-speech-protect-right-criticize-government/5683860

      People have an absolute right to be socialists. If you don’t like that political philosophy, make your argument against being a socialist. That’s what an Americans should do.

      In many of our allied nations, such as Saudi Arabia, everyone is required to remain silent about the abuses of the powerful. No doubt that is where the US is headed, but until the government does completely shut down freedom of speech, because someone holds a political opinion different from your own, there is no reason for them to leave the country.

      If they hate the government, (and I’m really not sure why you love a government which commits wars of aggression, deliberately murders civilians, commits torture, massive illegal spying and engages in indefinite detention, {but heh, someone’s gotta love those things!}), no one should be asked to leave, nor should it be thought necessary for them to leave.

      1. Jill:

        “Trump is failing to uphold his oath of office by not explaining our Constitution to his followers.” Please explain where, exactly, in the oath of office is states that Trump should explain the Constitution to his followers.

        If Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother, while remaining married to her Muslim husband, then she would lose her citizenship.

        That would be upholding the law, not ignoring it. Democrats do seem to have a problem with federal immigration law.

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        Examples of the Constitution:
        1st Amendment of Free Speech
        2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms
        Section 1 – Electoral College
        Uniform Rule of Naturalization
        Take care clause – the President must obey and enforce all laws (this includes federal immigration law)

        Now, I want you to just take a breath for a moment. Look at the above list. Is it Republicans, or Democrats who do not uphold the Constitution’s protections of free speech, right of individual citizens to bear arms, the electoral college that grants each state a say in the election rather than make a couple of the most populous states king/queen makers, uniform citizenship law, and that the President must enforce all laws, including federal immigration law.

        Are you able to be honest with yourself about who upholds the Constitution, and how seeks to undermine it in multiple areas?

        Conservatives wish to preserve the Constitution, especially individual rights. We believe that federal law applies to everyone, including illegal immigrants. We have a federal immigration system, which should be respected and enforced. However, even though Obama deported over a million people, Democrats cried anti-immigration when Trump ordered 2,000 people deported who had gone through the immigration court system, received deportation orders, and skipped. Most of these were criminals who had broken other laws, too.

        I am curious. Do Democrats believe that the immigration court is just an expensive waste of everyone’s time? We have judges, and bailiffs, and courts, and dockets with backlogs of years, but if you are adjudged to be deported in a court of law, that’s completely unfair, and should be ignored. Why have the court in the first place?

        1. Honestly, Jill, I don’t think you are a bad person, at all. I think you are trying to do what’s ethical. We just disagree on how to accomplish that. I do not think you realize the consequences of the policies you’ve supported. I am trying to convince you to consider that conservatives, too, want to do what is ethical, fair, and kind.

          What I have noticed is that you repeatedly attribute beliefs and opinions to me that are incorrect, sometimes wildly so. Instead of reading me with prejudice, take a deep breath, and read what I write with an open mind. I have done so with you, which is why I believe that your intentions are good, but that you routinely misunderstand my position.

          I also have made my argument against Socialism itself. I’ve contributed so many links over time to supporting facts for my opinion. I have never said that people do not have the right to be socialist, only that they are wrong. I have multiple times said that while I disagree with someone, I would defend their right to say what they think. I said that although I wish Democrats would stop leaving high tax states for low tax states, and then voting in sanctuary cities and high taxes all over again, they have the right to do this, while I have the right to complain about it.

          1. Karen,

            Here is what you said and I am applying it to you right now: “I have asked Leftists before if they hate our country, why not leave. ”

            That is BS. It shows a complete lack of understanding of leftists. It shows a complete lack of understanding about our own Constitutions wherein no one is required to “love” their leaders or even their nation.

            I have seen you be very unkind lately. I do not believe we share the same goals. You actually told me that I hated the US because I criticized the government. You actually told me I should leave the US on this account. That is not kind and I would never have said that to you.

            Today, I decided to hold you to your own words. If criticizing the government means you hate it and should just leave the US, then you must do as you say unto others and leave immediately.

            Of course I think that idea is BS, but if you are saying it, you should follow it. This subset of conservatism is what lead to McCarthyism. People lost jobs, homes, everything because of that cruelty. This is the ugly, ugly side of conservatism. This thinking has more recently, become the ugly, ugly side of liberals. This ugly, cruel and stupid way of acting in the world needs to end here and now. We will lose our freedom because of every citizen who thinks this way.

            1. Jill:

              “I have asked Leftists before if they hate our country, why not leave.” Please explain exactly how this requires anyone to leave or revokes their citizenship? Where did I say anyone HAD to leave against their will? Explain how this means they do not have the right to stay? Asking, out of curiosity, why anyone who hates this country stays here, is not requiring them to leave. I was honestly wondering why people who hate this country, stay. Or why the Democratic Socialists don’t live in China, Cuba, or Lao. I am allowed to wonder about it, or ask for an explanation.

              The obvious answer is that I never said anyone was required to leave, especially not for criticizing the government. Remember all those times I’ve said I would defend anyone’s right to say something I disagreed with?

              Do you understand now?

              If you claim that I said any critic of the country is required to leave, then you are being dishonest with either yourself, or others, both of which is wrong.

              As stated on the other thread about you hatefully burning the flag, I criticized Obama over Obamacare. Criticizing the government does not mean you hate the entire country, or that you are required to leave. Anyone asking why you don’t leave is not requiring or forcing you to do so. As has been explained to you in great detail, I came to the conclusion that you either hate America, or do not understand your own non verbal communication, because burning an item in such a fashion connotes hate.

              If you walked into a performance review to find your boss burning your photograph, I think you would grasp that he was not offering loving criticism. It is a hateful act. You either deny this, or don’t understand what you are doing. Although I asked you before if you hate the country, why not leave, and if you did, where better could you go, that did not require you to leave. Just like you have the first amendment right to hatefully burn a flag, I had a first amendment right to honestly ask why you stay.

              Get it? We BOTH have First Amendment rights. You can claim that burning the flag isn’t a hateful act towards our country, and I am perfectly free to disagree with you, and give you numerous examples where the flag was replaced with another object where the hate would be quite obvious. You are free to totally ignore those examples. You aren’t giving the flag a Viking or Hindu funeral.

              I have the right to view your act hateful, but legal. I have the right to wonder why you would stay, and if you left, where better you could go. You have the right to stay her and persist in hateful acts.

              Get it now? Ready to be honest with yourself yet?

              1. Me: Why don’t you vote Republican?
                X: I don’t have to vote Republican! I have the right to vote however I want!!!!
                Me: I know. What you talking about?
                X: You said we should all be required to vote Republican!!!!
                Me: Ummmm, no I didn’t. What are you talking about?
                X: You asked why I don’t vote Republican! That right there means we are all required to vote Republican.
                Me: No, it doesn’t. I just asked why you don’t vote Republican, because I wanted to know. You are free to vote however you like.
                X: So you therefore said that everyone is required to vote Republican.
                Me: Pounds head on desk. This is useless.

        2. Karen,

          You are mixed up in your response. Trump is not upholding his oath to the Constitution by not explaining to his followers that what they are doing actually runs contrary to our Constitution. Failing to explain this while listening to his followers take action against the Constitution, (which he swore an oath to uphold), is breaking his duty to “protect and defend” our Constitution.

          He needed to say to those chanters: you are free to chant as you choose but this chant runs contrary to our Constitution. Here is why it runs contrary:…. Instead he remained silent in the face of people who were taking actions that are contrary to our Constitution. He took not one step to protect and defend our Constitution. That’s a real violation of his oath of office.

          I can’t speak for Democrats as I am not one! However, I can say that the president is obligated to uphold the Constitution, period, end of story. I don’t see him doing that. I haven’t seen any president in recent history do this.

          If she violated our immigration laws, then there is a mechanism for enforcing those laws. No matter what, she still retains the right to criticize the government of the US. You are reserving the right to criticize the government to conservatives only. You are, after all, are denigrating and complaining about a member of Congress.

          In your way of thinking, if I were to apply it to a subset of conservatives such as yourself, you would need to leave this nation. Here you are criticizing a member of the government. This clearly shows that you hate our government. Why don’t you leave this nation right now???????, Obviously, by having a problem with a member of our govt. this means you hate our government and should not want to even be in the US!

          Seriously, I’m just applying your logic to the subset of conservatives who believe the way you do. If you believe this, you must apply it to yourself, otherwise that is being a giant hypocrite! I guess you need to start packing?

          1. Jill – no where in the Oath of Office does it state that the President must explain anything to anyone, including the Constitution. I included the Oath, verbatim, for you to read, since you do not know this.

            Democrats seek to undermine the Constitution in many areas, as explained above. I really wish Trump, or anyone, really, could explain the Constitution to every citizen of the United States, especially those who vote. I’ve used a list, and I can’t explain it to you, either, so how can you expect Trump to do so to his supporters and critics alike?

            Again, I never said anyone is required to leave, unless they broke immigration law and get deported.

            I can wish that Democrats didn’t leave high tax states for low tax ones, and then immediately vote for higher taxes, or for Omar not to flee a socialist country and then try to make us one, but as I said, they are free to do so. Multiple times have I stated my support for people to vote for or say things I disagree with. I also wish there were no open anti-semites in Congress, but the remedy for that is voting. Too bad more voters are not better informed.

            If you keep saying I require critics to leave, or that people don’t have the right to be Socialist, then you are being dishonest either with yourself, or with everyone else. Either way it’s bad.

            I am going to bold this, so hopefully you get it: The only way Ilhan Omar would be forced to leave the US would be if she was proven, in a court of law, to have committed immigration fraud through marrying her blood relative while remaining married to her Muslim husband. Get it? Anyone saying they wish she would learn from the mistakes of Socialism in Somalia before trying to remake our country into a socialist one, too, are expressing their Constitutional right of free speech. Anyone chanting anything at any rally for any political party, are expressing their Constitutional right of free speech.

            I have said multiple times above that it is very tricky wishing someone to go back to learn from the mistakes of their socialist country of origin if that person is black and the country is black majority. Too many would assume it racist. Obviously, too many assumed it was some sort of order. What he said was he wished she would go back, fix mistakes, and then return rather than make the same mistakes here. I do not think it was phrased well at all, as one has to be very careful where everything is judged by race. I obviously wish anti-semites would either not come, or abandon their hatred once they get here. It is my right to wish whatever I want to. That does not mean anyone could be forced to leave who has a legal right to be here.

            In a perfect world, Ilhan Omar would come to her senses and leave hate behind, as Ayan Hirsi Ali did, stay here, and be a voice for reason and good. Supporting anti-semitism and socialism are not good. She has the right to have these flaws in character and reasoning, and her constituents have the right to vote however they choose. I really hope they choose better next time, but that’s up to them. If they want a socialist anti-semite to represent them, then that’s their choice, just like I look poorly upon them for it. Makes you wonder what people are like there if they vote for an anti-semite.

            1. Karen wrote:

              “The only way Ilhan Omar would be forced to leave the US would be if she was proven, in a court of law, to have committed immigration fraud through marrying her blood relative while remaining married to her Muslim husband. Get it?”

              Not so, according to some.

              What’s the law on this? Do you know?

              From the following article: “If Omar did commit fraud in an effort to help Elmi, she would be charged for violating U.S. law as a U.S. citizen, not face deportation.”

              https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/stop-chanting-send-her-back-citizenship-isnt-conditional/

              Excerpt:

              Omar may have lied in her legal filing for divorce when she claimed she hadn’t had contact with husband Ahmed Nur Said Elmi since June 2011 and that she didn’t know how to reach him; some of Omar’s critics contend Elmi is her brother and that it was an effort at immigration fraud.

              It is worth noting that even if Omar committed immigration fraud to help Elmi, this would not repeal Omar’s citizenship that was granted in 2000. So far, no one has shown evidence Omar lied in her own application process for citizenship. If Omar did commit fraud in an effort to help Elmi, she would be charged for violating U.S. law as a U.S. citizen, not face deportation.

                1. Karen states the obvious.

                  Omar isn’t going to be deported, just as there will be no “denaturalization.”

                  Go to law school, Karen. It’s something else you could do with your time, if only you had enough of it.

                2. “Denaturalization and deportation would be up to the courts to decide.” Says Karen S.

                  No kidding. SMH.

                  1. Karen beats you again. Karen made a valid point and you had no rebuttal. It’s OK for a blog but doesn’t demonstrate that you are knowledgeable.

                    1. LOL, Allan. Do you actually think about you say before it pops out of your mouth?

                    2. “LOL, Allan. Do you actually think about you say before it pops out of your mouth?”

                      Absolutely. Karen beat you again. Karen made a valid point and you had no rebuttal. It’s OK for a blog but doesn’t demonstrate that you are knowledgeable.

                    3. “Denaturalization and deportation would be up to the courts to decide.” Says Karen S.

                      Karen states the obvious and Allan thinks there’s something to rebut. LOL.

                      SMH. Again.

                    4. “Karen states the obvious and Allan thinks there’s something to rebut. LOL.”

                      You took out less than a dozen words from the multiple posts Karen made to prove yourself correct. That means the rest of her extensive postings are assumed correct and obvious or you would have shown multiple errors in her postings. You didn’t once again proving yourself an A$$.

            2. ” I do not think it was phrased well at all, as one has to be very careful where everything is judged by race. ”

              That problem is created by the left no matter what happens and as we have seen the problem gets worse when the Republicans refuse to directly face such stupid race baiting. Why should society adopt the idea that what leftists say is OK but if the other side says it it is racism?

              Normal people don’t see racists under there beds. Let’s be normal.

          2. Jill:

            “You are reserving the right to criticize the government to conservatives only.”

            Quote my exact words where I said only conservatives have the right to criticize our government.

      2. No one is required to leave because they don’t like our country.

        If Ilhan Omar is deported, it won’t be because she made anti-semite or anti-American comments. It would only be for immigration fraud. Just like everyone else who gets deported is not for criticism, but rather for breaking immigration laws. You know, those pesky laws the Constitution requires every President to uphold and enforce?

        1. Karen,

          You keep creating a straw man and applying it to me. I just spoke to the matter of immigration laws and that should be the end of the matter.

          This post by JT concerns people who do not believe in our Constitution and a president who breaks his oath of office by failing to protect and defend it.

          I see that you and others try to obfuscate this fact, but that is still the truth and it is a terrible place to be in our nation. Please deal with this openly and honestly because our country will fall by our own hand if our own people do not uphold our Constitution.

        2. Karen, I have difficulty understanding Jill’s interpretation of the Constitutiona requirements that she believes are set out for the President. “Trump is not upholding his oath to the Constitution by not explaining to his followers that what they are doing actually runs contrary to our Constitution.”

          If people are violating the Constitution then it is up to the Justice Department to file charges. But what has his followers done that is violating the Constitution?

          It is a crime to threaten the life of a House member but Republican Matt Gaetz’s life and that of his family have been continuously threatened in an extreme and continuous manner. The man was found in California and the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Andy Ngo was beaten by Antifa and the Portland police did nothing. They didn’t even help him when he went to the hospital. His civil rights were violated and he could have died. Pelosi called Trump a racist in front of the Congress which is directly forbidden. Her statement was not removed

    4. Karen you idiot. OMar was 10 when she came with her parents to America. She did not run some marriage scam at age 10. Nor was she old enough to formulate political theories about socialism. Somalia was embroiled in a revolution and like Ayaan Hirsi who wrote the excellent “Infidel”, she and her family lived in a refugee camp in Kenya. Karen ascribes agency to a 10 year old girl living under horrendous conditions sufficient to pull of some plot.

      Karen gets her news from the right wing slums of journalism which explains her constantly repeating BS.

        1. This time an anonymous got something right but because of the name may not have been noticed. The reason for this posting being good has nothing to do with the rhetoric of the anonymous poster rather the information provided at the citation, powerline. David Steinberg is reputable and an expert on the subject. He has been investigating for a long time. I repeat the citation for emphasis.

          https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php

      1. “Karen you idiot. OMar was 10 ”

        This anonymous sounds like the arrogant Anon who generally has a few true facts mixed with falsehoods. Does he bother to mention the actual law? No. Is he a skilled lawyer? No. He is just an arrogant fool that likes to spout off based on what he thinks not what is actually true.

        I admit I don’t know the answer to this question and it may very likely be a question where the answer can only be settled in court. Naturalized citizens unlike those that gain their citizenship through birth can have their citizenship revoked. One of the reasons is providing false information during the naturalization process. That apparently occurred when Omar was 17.

        1. Allan:

          “I admit I don’t know the answer to this question and it may very likely be a question where the answer can only be settled in court.” I agree. It would be a question for investigators and the court.

          It doesn’t matter how anti-semitic she is. Because of our First Amendment, she cannot be punished by the government for her speech. One of those examples of how one can disagree with what she says, but defend her right to say anything she wants.

      2. Anonymous – yes, I know. She was in a refugee camp in Kenya and came over as a kid. I did not say she came over as an adult. What are you talking about?

        There are multiple allegations of immigration fraud, including one in which she purportedly married her own brother to get him citizenship. There is also an allegation about her own immigration as a child under an assumed name. What has been alleged, but not yet proven, is that the Omar family was granted asylum. Ilhan assumed their name, and joined their party to immigrate.

        Both the allegations could be wild conspiracy theories, or any of them might be true. I have absolutely no idea, and would defer to an investigation, and, if warranted, the court. If she did really assume the Omar name, I don’t know how to prove that, especially since it would depend upon records searches in Somalia.

        With allegations, a rule of thumb is put up or shut up. If she did not engage in immigration fraud, then sue. On the other side, she should be investigated for immigration fraud if there is sufficient evidence. Either of those needs to happen to put the issue to rest.

        If she did not do it, then she will be found innocent.

        You act as if I want her deported. What I’ve actually said is that no one can send her out of the country, unless she was denaturalized and deported via the court system. If you are trying to say that immigration fraud to get her brother into the country would not lose her citizenship status, but rather get him deported instead and her a tax audit, and possible other charges, you are probably correct. However, if the allegation is proven that she came in under an assumed name earlier, then it might quality. I am not an attorney, so would defer to the court. As stated, it would be difficult to prove, and there is a high burden of proof.

        You said it would be impossible. Of course it’s not impossible. As I’ve said, there is a high burden of proof.

        There are multiple allegations of immigration fraud, which need to be investigated. I have absolutely no idea if she is guilty or innocent. I am answering the question of the only possibility that I know of for a citizen to be sent out of the country.

        Well, wait, I believe if a citizen engaged in a terrorist act and joined a foreign army, his or her citizenship could be revoked. Again, due process. So, I guess there are two ways that I can think of, rather than the one.

        https://theohiostar.com/2019/07/19/omar-silent-on-new-claims-that-she-has-a-different-real-name-and-entered-country-fraudulently/

  7. Ilhan Omar should be deported for committing immigration fraud

    ‘I am legally married to one and culturally to another’: How Ilhan Omar desperately tried to shut down accusations of bigamy amid claims she was briefly married to her BROTHER to ‘commit immigration fraud’ while she was still with her current husband

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7260557/How-Ilhan-Omar-desperately-tried-shut-rumors-married-BROTHER.html

    In 2016, Omar told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that she had married Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi (Husband 1) in their Muslim ‘faith tradition’ in 2002, and that after having two children, they divorced in their ‘faith tradition’ in 2008. No marriage certificate was issued, and there is no documentary evidence for the divorce.

    In 2009, Omar married a Somali immigrant to Britain named Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (Husband 2) in a wedding in an unglamorous suburban state registry. The officiator was a Christian minister named Wilecia Harris, now a pastor at the Great and Mighty Works Ministries in Richfield, Minn.

    And here’s the wedding certificate:

    http://alphanewsmn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/marriage-files.png

    A marriage certificate from 2009 appears to show her second marriage was officiated by a Christian minister at a Minnesota registry – despite her previous marriage and divorce being in strict accordance with Islamic tradition and shariah law

    1. I have attended Muslim weddings. I’m a woman, so I don’t think I counted as an official witness, but all of the home ceremonies I’ve attended were small. It was in Arabic, but I believe he asked both of their consent, and then they signed the marriage contract. I don’t think that counted as a legal marriage certificate in the US. It was long ago, but I remember a friend’s father was the officiant at one of them. He said all it takes to marry a couple is for the officiant to be a Muslim man, and for them to willingly sign. I have attended small ceremonies at home, where a Muslim man wed the couple according to their faith, and then later, they would go get a secular wedding, like with a justice of the peace, in order to get the documentation necessary for marital status in the US. There are also all in one weddings by an imam in a mosque.

      If an imam is licensed to perform weddings, then he would fill out a marriage certificate to get legal status. Otherwise, it was usually any Muslim man closely connected to the couple who oversaw the religious binding, and then they got a secular wedding later with a licensed officiant.

    2. I do not believe that a Muslim would “count” a Christian-officiated wedding unless there was also a Muslim marriage contract, entered into with a Muslim man officiating.

      I have attended a Muslim wedding in which a pastor joined the couple to get the legally binding marriage certificate, but this was after an at home ceremony after a Muslim already joined them with a marriage contract. I only saw this once, where the bride was born a Christian. The dual ceremonies were to please both of their families, but the woman became a Muslim.

      If Omar had a Christian ceremony, but no Muslim marriage contract, then her marriage would not be considered valid in her or any of her Muslim family’s eyes. I believe it would be a viable way to commit immigration fraud, while not suffering from the haram of actually marrying a blood relative. In the eyes of Islam, she was never actually married to her brother, and they (presumably) did not lie together. Rather, taqiyya would allow her to lie in legal documents in order to gain admittance as a citizen.

      The law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. I cannot understand why this was not promptly investigated. It should not be too hard to determine if the man in question was her blood relative or not, which would obviously be immigration fraud.

      Does the law apply the same, or not?

    3. ‘I am legally married to one and culturally to another’

      A Muslim woman is forbidden to have two husbands at the same time. That whole what’s good for the gander is good for the goose thing never caught on. Also, “culturally” is incorrect. The correct term would be “in accordance to her religion”.

      I suppose the closest analogy would be if a Catholic got divorced, and remarried. If she never got an annulment, then the Church would consider her still married, and would not recognize her later marriage. However, in this case, she would have remained with her Catholic spouse, and only used a later legal marriage for immigration fraud. To her brother.

    4. you know in Islam men can take mulitple wives. in america, they can cohabit with as many as they want, but there’s only one lawful marriage. usually the oldest wife is how they do it. anyhow, women can’t do the same in Islam. she may have violated the bigamy statute, however you slice and dice it

  8. NO, IT’S NOT NORMAL FOR PRESIDENTS TO LEAD HATE CHANTS

    THIS BECOMES A GIFT TO AMERICA’S ENEMIES

    Donald Trump was leading a hate chant. There is no way of spinning this. Trump has torn off whatever mask he was wearing and come out openly as a racist. In doing so Trump is not just fomenting racial violence, but destroying U S prestige in the world community.

    This development becomes a gift to American enemies. Russian trolls will play this to the max in their disinformation campaigns. Ironically those trolls will be targeting American minorities; telling them our president is indeed a blatant racist. The leftwing fringe will exploit this in countless memes: “Our president hates non-White, non-Christians”.

    Language like this could fuel endless conspiracy theories. Which Trump may, in fact, welcome. As a secret, plotting traitor, Trump seeks to fuel an atmosphere where truth is lost amid a whirlwind of rumors. That’s an evil Machiavellian pursuing a very evil scheme. And the comments here, by Trump defenders, illustrates how distorted the truth has already become.

            1. Trump is forcing the Republican Party to join his hate campaign. That, In itself, is highly disturbing.

              1. Peter, hate is a leftist characteristic. That is why Antifa and Black Lives Matter are so popular with many on the left and that is why some on the left are blind to the violence that leads people like Andy Ngo to be beaten up and hospitalized with a life threatening bleed.

              2. Hate is a matter of perspective. It’s also the gemini twin of love.

                You love something or someone, then you hate who’s out to destroy it or them.

                Hate is a highly evolved emotion, necessary for survival. Talk to a shrink about this sometime outside the ambit of politics and they will admit it.

    1. you say he’s seeding conspiracy theories and then you call him a secret traitor?

      just listen to yourself Peter,. get a grip!

  9. JT: “For the President to stand before thousands screaming ‘send her home’ is a terrible stain on the office of the president.”

    Is it as “terrible” of a “stain” as having the FBI investigate you for treason, really? The people are not only immune to the daily, infantile “cries” from the left, but they are also turned off by it.

    1. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ilhan-omar-may-have-broken-federal-tax-law-according-to-new-campaign-finance-report

      Ilhan Omar may have broken federal tax law, according to new campaign finance report

      A report released by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board shows that Rep. Ilhan Omar broke federal tax law by filing her taxes jointly with a man to whom she was not legally married.

      The Thursday report found that Omar filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Hirsi, her current husband, whom she did not legally marry until 2018.

      The Minnesota Democrat had originally married Hirsi in a religious ceremony in 2002, but the couple separated in 2008. Omar then legally married another man, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, in 2009. The two divorced according to their faith tradition in 2011, but Omar did not legally end the divorce until 2017.

      Omar got back together with Hirsi, her first husband, in 2012 but they were not legally married and eligible to file taxes together until 2018.

      The finding by the Minnesota Campaign Board means Omar tax returns were in violation of federal law. The IRS defers to state law to determine legal marriages for tax purposes, and the Minnesota Department of Revenue states it is unlawful for couples to file taxes jointly unless they are legally married under Minnesota law.

      The report was released after a complaint was filed in 2018 alleging Omar had committed campaign finance violations.

      Omar was forced to pay back $2,250 she had paid law firms from campaign funds for personal expenses. The report mentions that $1,500 related to personal joint tax filings by Omar and Hirsi.

      “The $2,250 payment was a reimbursement for two payments made by the Kjellberg Law Office. One payment of $750 was made to De Leon & Nestor, LLC for obtaining immigration records and one payment of $1,500 was made to Frederick & Rosen, Ltd. for services related to Mr. Hirsi’s and Rep. Omar’s filed joint tax returns of 2014 and 2015,” the report said.

      The campaign board ruled against Omar’s unlawful use of campaign funds, but it is unclear if she will face any penalties for violating federal tax law.

      The board ordered Omar on Thursday to personally pay a $500 civil fine, in addition to paying back $3,469 to her campaign over using campaign funds for personal expenses.

      They found five different occasions when Omar used campaign funds to pay for personal travel and hotel expenses in violation of Minnesota campaign law.

      Omar released a statement saying she would accept the board’s fine.

      “I’m glad this process is complete and that the Campaign Finance Board has come to a resolution on this matter. We have been collaborative in this process and are glad the report showed that none of the money was used for personal use, as was initially alleged,” Omar said.

    1. Yeah, let’s talk about “hatefulness” Rep. Omar. Let’s talk about YOUR hatefulness toward Israel and America.

      “VOTE HER OUT” is the new chant.

      1. “Vote her out” would have been a safer refrain. Although, if it is proven that she committed immigration fraud, she actually could be deported.

        The law is either blind, or its partial.

        1. “Although, if it is proven that she committed immigration fraud, she actually could be deported.” -Karen S

          From the following article: “If Omar did commit fraud in an effort to help Elmi, she would be charged for violating U.S. law as a U.S. citizen, not face deportation.”

          https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/stop-chanting-send-her-back-citizenship-isnt-conditional/

          Excerpt:

          Omar may have lied in her legal filing for divorce when she claimed she hadn’t had contact with husband Ahmed Nur Said Elmi since June 2011 and that she didn’t know how to reach him; some of Omar’s critics contend Elmi is her brother and that it was an effort at immigration fraud.

          It is worth noting that even if Omar committed immigration fraud to help Elmi, this would not repeal Omar’s citizenship that was granted in 2000. So far, no one has shown evidence Omar lied in her own application process for citizenship. If Omar did commit fraud in an effort to help Elmi, she would be charged for violating U.S. law as a U.S. citizen, not face deportation.

          1. I’m no lawyer. Perhaps there would be a defense for this. I disagree with your article based upon the following:

            Someone’s naturalized citizenship can, indeed be revoked. Once revoked, a denaturalized citizen would be subject to deportation. Omar is not a natural born citizen, and therefore she is not immune.

            Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have their citizenship stripped through a process called “denaturalization.” Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, since birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but they may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.

            This article covers the grounds for having one’s U.S. citizenship revoked, the basics of the denaturalization process, and defenses to denaturalization.

            Grounds for Denaturalization

            Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts: You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one’s real name or identity.
            Refusal to Testify Before Congress: You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years.
            Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.
            Dishonorable Military Discharge: Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault.

            https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

  10. Jonathan Turley wrote:

    “For the President to stand before thousands screaming “send her home” is a terrible stain on the office of the president.”

    Trump is a disgrace, as are those who embrace his ugly behavior.

    1. is a disgrace as are those….

      To relieve your antipathy towards America you can burn some US flags, throw cement laden milkshakes at gay journalists, blow up ICE Processing Centers, demean millions of Americans and shoot Republicans at Congressional baseball games as your ilk are fond of doing.

      Hate is not a family value, but you would have to have a loving family to understand

  11. Hillary & Matt Lauer did more than just discuss in the 1990s their contempt for millions of Americans aka “vast right wing conspiracy”. They covered for each other in blaming women being raped by them, since it was all for a $100 bill dragged around a trailer park just like Janes Carville said

    Trump stated what millions of Americans think: we are fed up with the Left twisting, contorting and denigrating Americans and so should you

    Matt Lauer sends his best

    1. Estovir – she was so twisty. She did not answer any of his questions. It was all deflect and blame someone else. I’ll bet she’s very experienced in such accusations.

      I do wish very much that the focus had been on sexual assault and misconduct, however, instead of his affair with an intern. It was long ago, so maybe I don’t remember all the details, but at the time, I was not even aware that there were serious allegations against him. I always felt uncomfortable that it seemed to be about an affair, which would have been a private matter. Harassment, and assault, however, are different matters. Later, I recall learning about those allegations, but at the time, the American people didn’t seem to learn what happened with them. It seemed like the other women were brushed aside.

      I was a lot younger, then, so maybe it’s just the length of time that’s passed that faded the other women into the background.

  12. “She is trying to make our country a better place?” Are you kidding me? If so, she sucks at her job!

    The chant which lasted a minute was not said by Trump. It was organic. NO one likes Omar. She hates our country and Jewish people. I agree “send her back to where she came from, change your country, then come back here and tell us what we’re doing wrong.” She is a disgrace to congress and women of any color or religion. And she loves Al-Qaida.

    Stop trying to push Epstein onto Trump. Just cause you know a sleazy millionaire doesn’t make you one. Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble. Stop with your bad opinions.

  13. Turley has proved to be just another idiot on the left. What the hell is wrong with these people ??…….UNSUBSCRIBING

  14. The rest of the story. “NBC pulled a video from its archives and noted that President Donald Trump was partying with alleged child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in 1992, but failed to mention that the man seen entering the estate with Epstein is Democrat Tom McMillen.
    The former Maryland representative is seen in the video entering Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida with Epstein and a woman. NBC first reported on the story, taped for Faith Daniels’ talk show, “A Closer Look.” The segment was on Trump’s life as a newly single man, NBC News reported.
    “I attended an NFL themed party put on by Mar-a-Lago in Nov. 1992 to promote the club in which the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphins cheerleaders were invited, along with “hundreds” of other guests,” McMillen said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The Bills were playing the Dolphins the next day. I used to see Epstein at social events but haven’t seen or talked to him in 20 years. I’m appalled by the accusations against him.” Daily Caller

    1. We know those people were in each other’s company a lot of times. I’ve been in situations with people whom I do not care for. There are photos of me of me being around these people.

      However, I can surely point out that I did not take 26 plane trips to see these people again.

Leave a Reply