Tag Archives: Ilhan Omar

Roll Call Hit Piece Uses SPLC Disinformation to Smear Pro-Israel Conservative Groups

Originally published by PJ Media:

Roll Call is facing calls to retract after publishing a ridiculous hit piece smearing two conservative foreign policy groups based on disinformation gleaned from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing smear machine.

The article, written on Wednesday by Emily Kopp, former press intern for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, describes ACT for America and the Center for Security Policy as “anti-Muslim hate groups” that “peddle anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.” Kopp also accuses ACT for America of having ties to a neo-Nazi, based on an SPLC smear.

The groups were among twelve pro-Israel organizations that signed a letter addressed to Pelosi and Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, calling on them to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the Foreign Affairs Committee after she espoused a series of anti-Semitic tropes. The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a longtime pro-Israel advocacy group, spearheaded the effort. Most of the organizations that signed on are either Jewish groups or groups that have close ties to the Jewish community.

Wrote Kopp:

But the coalition behind the letter — described by conservative media to be “leading Jewish organizations” — includes groups that maintain no relationship to the American Jewish community and peddle anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

One of the groups was once found to have ties to a longtime neo-Nazi.

ACT for America’s “ties to a longtime neo-Nazi” consist entirely of an incident involving a white nationalist in Batesville, Ark., who tried to host a “March Against Sharia” event in their name in June 2017.

A statement on their website at the time read: “Act for America canceled the event as soon as it became aware the organizer is associated with white supremacist groups.” And that is the totality of their ties to neo-Nazis.

Kopp also hit ACT for America’s Brigitte Gabriel for “falsely” claiming that one-fifth of Muslims believe in a violent ideology, and for comparing peaceful Muslims to peaceful Germans during the Nazi regime, calling them “irrelevant.”

But according to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, only 86 percent of Muslims in the United States said that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam “are rarely or never justified.” That means up to 14 percent believe they are either sometimes or frequently justified. And who knows how many American Muslims in the remaining 86 percent believe violence against civilians is sometimes justified, albeit “rarely.” The numbers go up exponentially in countries with larger Muslim populations.

Kopp points out that both ACT for America and the Center for Security Policy have been classified by the discredited SPLC as “anti-Muslim hate groups.” Possibly worse, both groups, she notes, also have ties to {{{the Trump administration.}}}

The Center for Security Policy is a nonpartisan think tank founded by Frank Gaffney Jr., which Kopp says “has advocated for U.S. wars in the Middle East stretching back to the September 11, 2001 attacks.” And again, she cites the SPLC:

But the center has a history of stoking conspiratorial fears about the Muslim Brotherhood and “creeping Sharia” in order to make their case, according to the SPLC, which classifies the think tank as a hate group.

Gaffney has been accused of Islamophobic and xenophobic comments, including the denigration of immigrants and refugees.

“Critics say the president’s promotion of fringe anti-Muslim groups with hawkish foreign policy views raises wider questions about the Republican push to unseat Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” writes Kopp.

Hmmm. Who are these critics, I wonder? Democrats on Capitol Hill perhaps? And the SPLC?

A number of prominent pro-Israel conservatives reacted to Roll Call’s smears on Twitter:

The Center for Security Policy is led by Fred Fleitz, a former National Security Council chief of staff, CIA analyst, and House Intelligence Committee staff member.

Fleitz was incensed that Roll Call would use the SPLC as a credible source.

“I was proud to sign this letter as President of the Center for Security Policy, an organization that is pro-Israel and has taken a strong stand against a dangerous surge in anti-Antisemitism on the Left,” he said in a statement to Roll Call. “I was very disappointed that Roll Call included as credible sources discredited far-left organizations to smear the signers of this letter such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and J Street.”

Fleitz told PJ Media that Roll Call’s hit piece was “outrageous, especially its claim that ACT for America has ties to neo-Nazis.”

Via The Washington Free Beacon, here is the response to the controversy from Sarah Stern, EMET’s founder:

Rather than go high, Roll Call decided to go low. When reporting about the letter we authored to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Eliot Engel discussing Representative Ilhan Omar’s highly anti-Semitic comments, tweets and associations with a group tied to known terrorists, they made vicious, ad hominem attacks at some of our esteemed colleagues who are among the 12 signatories of the letter.

We find it revealing that Roll Call never reported on the substance of our letter, which is that Rep. Omar exposed her real sentiments when she delivered a fundraising speech two weeks ago before Islamic Relief USA, a “charity” that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and Israel. International banks Credit Suisse, UBS and HSBC have refused to do any banking with Islamic Relief because of fears of ties to terrorist financing.

Instead of focusing on the substance of Rep. Omar’s poor decision to speak before the group, whose leadership also has openly called for the murder of Jews, Roll Call’s first article on the subject is a smear against two of the 12 signatories of this letter.

We have known both the founders of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, and ACT for America, Brigitte Gabrielle, for years.  They are led by distinguished individuals who have fought against hate in all its forms, including anti-Semitism. We personally know they are compassionate, loving individuals. That is why it was important to have them join our group letter.

It is ironic that rather than respond to a real and obvious hatred, the anti-Semitism and Judeophobia that Ilhan Omar so obviously has, the author of this article tried to manufacture some fictitious bias of two such incredibly wonderful human beings.

The Roll Call article is not good journalism. If it were, they would have reported on the substance of the letter, a poor attempt to smear good people as a substitute to discussing the substance at hand: Rep. Omar’s vile anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish people and her decision to align herself with groups which openly have ties to terrorism.

That is where the debate is.

The EMET founder also wrote a letter to Roll Call editor Ed Timms decrying the shoddy journalism and demanding a retraction.

“It is also a very apparent conflict of interest that the author of this article, Emily Kopp, had once worked for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the people our letter had been addressed to,” wrote Stern.

The Left’s Long-Simmering Anti-Semitism Problem

The last week or so has seen the Democrat party in the USA racked by controversy by the anti-semitic statements from two new members of Congress: Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan.

Perhaps even more shocking than the statements that these two women made has been the leadership of the Democrat party’s ineptitude in dealing with them.

Everything seemed lined up for the House Democrat Caucus to condemn their statements and demand an apology, but that effort fell apart at the 11th hour, apparently because the Democrat members of the House couldn’t agree on the matter of anti-Semitism.

While shocking to some, this came as no surprise to me.

Why?

Because of my years of experience working at the Center for Security Policy.

From 2006 until about 2011, my primary responsibility at the Center for Security Policy was leading our Divest Terror Initiative. That initiative was chiefly focused on getting states to stop investing their taxpayer-supported pension systems in foreign companies that were doing business in and with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That initiative was very successful and resulted in some 26 states divesting their pension systems from Iran. The initiative was unfortunately derailed when President Obama struck the infamous deal with Iran over its nuclear program, substantially curtailing international sanctions against Iran, which were a key basis for the divestment movement.

Throughout the years I worked on the Divest Terror Initiative, I worked closely with outstanding organizations and talented individuals dedicated to the security of America’s ally, Israel.

This was a truly bipartisan effort, with state legislators from both parties sponsoring and supporting Iran divestment for a variety of reasons.

There was one aspect that I found troubling however.

During my work on the Initiative, I was exposed to a disturbing level of anti-semitism from young staffers across America who seemed to constantly throw out slurs in conversations about some of the allied organizations with which I worked.

I was exposed to labels such as “Hebes” and “The Tribe” to describe the good people who were leading on cutting off corporate life support for the ayatollahs.

In every instance—EVERY SINGLE ONE—the slurs came from Democrat staffers. And it was rampant. I never heard a single slur of this type from a Republican staffer.

I didn’t understand what to make of all this and kept it to myself for years, but now that the leadership of the House Democrat Caucus seems unwilling or unable to tackle this problem, sadly, the memories of all these slurs makes sense to me.

The Left has a serious bigotry problem and they need to confront it.

Center Joins Major Jewish Organizations in Demanding Rep. Ilhan Omar Be Removed From House Foreign Affairs Committee

Center for Security Policy President and CEO Fred Fleitz joined a group of major Jewish organizations in co-signing a March 4, 2019 letter to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel that demands newly-elected Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee because of her recent anti-Semitic tweets and statements and her address before Islamic Relief USA, an organization whose parent organization and chapters have documented ties to terrorist organizations.  Click HERE to read the letter.

Sarah Stern, founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a pro-Israel organization that spearheaded the letter, told the Washington Free Beacon that Omar’s “use of classic anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes has touched a nerve” across the American Jewish community.

The letter followed a standing room-only panel sponsored by the Center for Security Policy at last week’s CPAC conference on “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security which featured Rep. Scott Perry and Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz which discussed growing anti-Semitism on the Left and how Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have brought anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel into the U.S. Congress.  Click HERE to watch video of this important panel.

Tracking and combatting this surge in anti-Semitism and hostility toward Israel on the Left is a new priority of Center in 2019.  Some recent articles published by the Center on this topic include:

Congresswoman Omar Must be Removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee

Last Year, This Top Democrat Said Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitism. Now He’s Silent

Family Matters: How a US Member of Congress was Raised by the Red-Green Axis

From Lebanon to Gaza: The Continuous Threat Tunnel Warfare Poses to Israel

Red-Green Axis Chokes on Omar’s Anti-Semitism

Overlooked Facts About Israel and the Palestinians

Rep. Ilhan Omar Cribbed from Al Jazeera while Grilling Elliott Abrams

The Center for Security Policy regards the recent surge in anti-Semitism and hostility toward Israel on the Left and in Congress as a threat to religious liberty and a deliberate effort to undermine the State of Israel and American support for it.  The Center plans additional articles and panels on this issue in the near future.

Family matters: How a US member of Congress was raised by the red-green axis

Most people’s worldviews are heavily influenced during their formative years. Those influences, and their roots, are important to discern among our national leaders.

The election of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is often seen as a celebration of diversity: An immigrant from the wasteland of Somalia, and one of the first two Muslim women, elected to the United States Congress.

Omar personifies the Red-Green Axis: an ideological and political combination of Marxism-Leninism and Islamism.

A look at Omar’s upbringing is a key to identifying her extremism, and where she wants to take the country that took in her and her family.

Family beholden to Communist-Islamist Somalia dictator

Somalian dictator Mohammed Siad Barre, whom the Omar family served.

Omar spent the first ten years of her life as a member of a family that owed its livelihood to the regime of Mohammed Siad Barre. Her family is described as “civil servants and educators” – all dependent on the regime and executing its orders.

Her father was a “teacher trainer.” Omar has never explained exactly what a “teacher trainer” in Somalia was or did in the Siad Barre government.

A teacher trainer in any revolutionary communist regime is the political commissar who trains teachers on how to indoctrinate children.

Congressman Omar’s father was a professional propagandist for the Communist-Islamist dictatorship. Of course, the sins of the father cannot be attributed to the child – unless the child carries on the father’s legacy.

This is why it’s so important to look at Ilhan Omar’s formative years.

Combination of Qur’an, Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini

After seizing power by coup d’etat in 1969, Siad Barre declared a Marxist-Leninist regime that he began to infuse with elements drawn from Islamist political thought. The United Nations country profile of Somalia explains:

“The theoretical underpinning of the state ideology combined aspects of the Qur’an with the influences of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini, but Siad Barre was pragmatic in its application. ‘Socialism is not a religion,’ he explained; ‘It is a political principle’ to organize government and manage production. Somalia’s alignment with communist states, coupled with its proclaimed adherence to scientific socialism, led to frequent accusations that the country had become a Soviet satellite. For all the rhetoric extolling scientific socialism, however, genuine Marxist sympathies were not deep-rooted in Somalia. But the ideology was acknowledged – partly in view of the country’s economic and military dependence on the Soviet Union – as the most convenient peg on which to hang a revolution introduced through a military coup that had supplanted a Western-oriented parliamentary democracy.”

To supplant that Western-oriented parliamentary democracy in a country defined most by tribes, Siad Barre needed – in addition to tough enforcement mechanisms like property confiscation and a powerful secret police – softer mechanisms like cadres of “teacher trainers.”

Training and indoctrination

The job of the teacher trainers was to indoctrinate teachers in the government-run school systems to impose that Qur’anic-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Mussolini hybrid.

Nur Omar Mohamed, father of Ilhan Omar, was one of those indoctrinators.

As Siad Barre consolidated control, “civil servants attended reorientation courses that combined professional training with political indoctrination, and those found to be incompetent or politically unreliable were fired,” according to the UN country profile. “A mass dismissal of civil servants in 1974, however, was dictated in part by economic pressures.”

Nur Omar Mohamed was loyal enough to save his job.

The regime set out to break apart traditional societal structures and atomize them into powerlessness, while it imposed its own central controls. For this, the teacher trainers were vital.

“Local councils, composed of military administrators and representatives appointed by the SRC [Supreme Revolutionary Council], were established under the Ministry of Interior at the regional, district, and village levels to advise the government on local conditions and to expedite its directives,” the UN country profile says.

“Other institutional innovations included the organization (under Soviet direction) of the National Security Service (NSS), directed initially at halting the flow of professionals and dissidents out of the country and at counteracting attempts to settle disputes among the clans by traditional means,” according to the profile. The UN report continues:

“The newly formed Ministry of Information and National Guidance set up local political education bureaus to carry the government’s message to the people and used Somalia’s print and broadcast media for the ‘success of the socialist, revolutionary road.’ A censorship board, appointed by the ministry, tailored information to SRC guidelines.”

Was Ilhan Omar’s father a part of the “local political education bureaus”? We don’t yet know.  But those bureaus would have required teacher trainers in order to train the existing teachers about what to teach Somalian children.

Red-Green Axis in Somalia

Siad Barre was building what is now called a Red-Green Axis. That is the combination of the red of Communism with the green of Islam.

The UN country profile on Somalia continues:

“Somalia’s adherence to socialism became official on the first anniversary of the military coup when Siad Barre proclaimed that Somalia was a socialist state, despite the fact that the country had no history of class conflict in the Marxist sense. For purposes of Marxist analysis, therefore, tribalism was equated with class in a society struggling to liberate itself from distinctions imposed by lineage group affiliation. At the time, Siad Barre explained that the official ideology consisted of three elements: his own conception of community development based on the principle of self-reliance, a form of socialism based on Marxist principles, and Islam. These were subsumed under ‘scientific socialism,’ although such a definition was at variance with the Soviet and Chinese models to which reference was frequently made.

“One of the SRC’s first acts was to prohibit the existence of any political association. Under Soviet pressure to create a communist party structure to replace Somalia’s military regime, Siad Barre had announced as early as 1971 the SRC’s intention to establish a one-party state. The SRC already had begun organizing what was described as a “vanguard of the revolution” composed of members of a socialist elite drawn from the military and the civilian sectors. The National Public Relations Office (retitled the National Political Office in 1973) was formed to propagate scientific socialism with the support of the Ministry of Information and National Guidance through orientation centers that had been built around the country, generally as local selfhelp projects.

“The SRC convened a congress of the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP) in June 1976 and voted to establish the Supreme Council as the new party’s central committee. The council included the nineteen officers who composed the SRC, in addition to civilian advisers, heads of ministries, and other public figures. Civilians accounted for a majority of the Supreme Council’s seventy-three members. On July 1, 1976, the SRC dissolved itself, formally vesting power over the government in the SRSP under the direction of the Supreme Council.

“In theory the SRSP’s creation marked the end of military rule, but in practice real power over the party and the government remained with the small group of military officers who had been most influential in the SRC. Decision-making power resided with the new party’s politburo, a select committee of the Supreme Council that was composed of five former SRC members, including Siad Barre and his son-in-law, NSS chief Abdullah. Siad Barre was also secretary general of the SRSP, as well as chairman of the Council of Ministers, which had replaced the CSS in 1981. Military influence in the new government increased with the assignment of former SRC members to additional ministerial posts. The MOD circle also had wide representation on the Supreme Council and in other party organs. Upon the establishment of the SRSP, the National Political Office was abolished; local party leadership assumed its functions.”

Collapse

Siad Barre struggled to stay in power, shifting loyalties from the USSR to the United States by virtue of a strategic naval port, waging the Ogaden war against Soviet ally Ethiopia, and relying purely on foreign handouts to keep the economy moving.

Before long, he ratcheted up political repression, arresting prominent figures and even former allies, and setting Red Beret goon squads into the streets.

“Faced with saboteurs by day and sniper fire by night, Siad Barre ordered remaining units of the badly demoralized Red Berets to massacre civilians,” the UN profile report says. “By 1989 torture and murder became the order of the day in Mogadishu. On July 9, 1989, Somalia’s Italian-born Roman Catholic bishop, Salvatore Colombo, was gunned down in his church in Mogadishu by an unknown assassin. The order to murder the bishop, an outspoken critic of the regime, was widely believed to have had come from the presidential palace.”

Exhumed remains of victims of Somalia’s Isaaq Genocide, 1988-89. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

“On the heels of the bishop’s murder came the July 14 massacre, when the Red Berets slaughtered 450 Muslims demonstrating against the arrest of their spiritual leaders. More than 2,000 were seriously injured. The next day, forty-seven people, mainly from the Isaaq clan, were taken to Jasiira Beach west of the city and summarily executed,” according to the UN report.

The Isaaq genocide of 1988-89 exterminated between 60,000 and 100,000 Somalis.

Without Siad Barre dictator as their patron, the Omar family flees

By 1991, the Siad Barre regime collapsed as the country tore itself apart in civil war. Regime loyalists – families like Ilhan Omar’s – could find no safety any more in Somalia. They fled to Kenya, and ultimately made it to the United States.

When they moved to the United States in 1995, they brought their Red-Green ideological baggage with them.

Two years before, Congress, at the urging of the Clinton administration, abolished the law requiring that would-be immigrants declare whether they had belonged to a foreign Communist party. The Omar family was able to move to America without that important element of screening.

No sooner did the family settle in Minneapolis when Ilhan Omar, at age 14, began to get involved in politics. She interpreted for her grandfather, a Siad Barre servant, at political meetings. In high school, she became active in student politics.

From there, the Red-Green Axis import from Somalia, put down her own political roots, became a community organizer, and laid her path to the United States Congress.

Omar is not known to have been critical of the Siad Barre regime or the horrors it inflicted during her childhood in Somalia.

Rep. Ilhan Omar cribbed from Al Jazeera while grilling Elliott Abrams

A comparison of texts shows that Rep. Ilan Omar cribbed from Qatar’s state-owned Al Jazeera to script her diatribe against senior American diplomat Elliott Abrams.

Al Jazeera ran a story, “Who is Elliott Abrams, US special envoy for Venezuela?” on February 12. It had no byline.

Omar recycled the story in her scripted attack against Abrams at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 13. The video of the hearing shows that Omar did not publicly inform the Committee that she was quoting from a foreign state-funded propaganda source.

The key themes from the Al Jazeera article match with Omar’s comments to Abrams, and appear in the same order. Some of the phrasing is similar and sometimes identical. Here they are, for comparison:

First theme: Helping Nicaraguan contras and pardoned by Bush

Al Jazeera: “In 1991, he [Abrams] pleaded guilty to two counts of misleading Congress about the Reagan administration’s efforts to help the Nicaraguan guerrillas (known as the Contras) during a period when Congress had banned such aid. He was later pardoned by George HW Bush.”

Omar to Abrams: “Mr. Adams [sic], in 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Cortra [sic] affair, for which you were later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.”

Second theme: 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador

Al Jazeera: “A decade earlier, he sought to discredit witness accounts of a massacre in the indigenous El Salvador community of El Mozote and surrounding villages, in which Salvadoran troops rounded up men, women and children, gunned them down and set their homes on fire. Some 1,000 people were killed by soldiers of the Atlacatl Battalion, who had recently been trained by the US.”

Omar to Abrams: “On February 8, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about US policy in El Salvador. In that hearing, you dismissed as Communist propaganda report about the massacre of El Mozote, in which 800 civilians, including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by US-trained troops. During that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping a 12 year-old girl before they killed them. Girls before they killed them.”

Third theme: Fake narrative of supporting atrocities in the service of US interests

Al Jazeera: “‘Committed to mass killing in the service of what could be defined as US interests or even US whim. . . .'”

Omar to Abrams: “Yes or no: Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, if you believe they were serving US interests,  . . . The question I had for you is that, the interest – does the interest of the United States include protecting human rights and include protecting people against genocide?”

Fourth theme: Same countries cited

Al Jazeera: “. . . because, in fact, although it was being portrayed by Abrams and others at the time as a battle to prevent El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua from becoming wings of the Soviet Union . . .”

Omar, to Abrams: “. . . as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaraguay [sic]?”

Plagiarism

This writer, as a former graduate school professor, would have failed a student for cribbing words, facts, and narratives without citing the source. A quick check of online plagiarism detection services shows that Omar did plagiarize her material:

Elliott Abrams shows how to handle malicious lawmakers during hearings

President Trump’s point-man on Venezuela showed how to handle malicious Members of Congress during committee hearings.

The long-collegial House Foreign Affairs Committee predictably is turning into a circus since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to the prestigious panel last month.

At the February 13 hearing on Venezuela, Omar intended to rip up the bipartisan consensus to remove the Nicolas Maduro dictatorship from power and to support interim President Juan Guaidó.

Abrams, who has been grilled before congressional hearings since Omar was an infant, wouldn’t have it. One of President Reagan’s key people to defeat the Communists in Central America, Abrams stood up to a handful of lawmakers who supported the other side, and was convicted of two counts of “withholding information” from Congress.

So Abrams is a wise man to watch about how to handle Omar and others like her. Let’s go through the complete video of the Omar-Abrams exchange, as the Center transcribed it.

Omar’s setup and Abrams’ intercept

Omar began with a personal attack on Abrams from his role in the Iran-Contra affair under President Reagan, essentially calling him a liar. Abrams wouldn’t take it. He started out politely, then threw it back at her. Here’s the dialogue:

OMAR: “Mr. Adams [sic], in 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Cortra [sic] affair, for which you were later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. I fail to understand, ah, why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give, ah, today, to be truthful.”

ABRAMS: “If I could respond to that – ”

OMAR: “Ah, em, it wasn’t a question.”

ABRAMS: “I would – ”

OMAR: “Ah, on February – ”

ABRAMS: “I’ve been attacked – ”

OMAR: “that was not a question. That was, I, I reserve the right to my time.”

ABRAMS: “It is not right – ”

OMAR: “That was not a question.”

ABRAMS: “– that this committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply.”

Omar tried a clumsy recovery. Abrams remained defiant.

Faced with an unflappable Abrams, Omar tried a clumsy, scripted recovery about a 1981 massacre in El Salvador against Communist FMLN guerrillas and local civilians. Omar continued, and, with Abrams constantly pushing back, she revealed that in her world, “no” means “yes.”

OMAR: “That was not a question. Thank you for your participation. On February 8, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about US policy in El Salvador. In that hearing, you dismissed as Communist propaganda report about the massacre of El Mozote, in which 800 civilians, including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by US-trained troops. During that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping a 12 year-old girl before they killed them. Girls before they killed them. You later said that the US policy in El Salvador was a ‘fabulous achievement.’ Yes or no, do you still think so?”

ABRAMS: “From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election, to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That’s a fabulous achievement.”

OMAR: “Yes or no: Do you think that massacre was a ‘fabulous achievement’ that happened under our watch?”

ABRAMS: “That is a ridiculous question, and I – ”

OMAR: “Yes or no.”

ABRAMS: “No.”

OMAR: “I – ”

ABRAMS: “I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman – ”

OMAR: “I will take that as a yes.”

ABRAMS: “I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.”

OMAR: “Yes or no: Would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, if you believe they were serving US interests, as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaraguay [sic]?”

ABRAMS: “I am not going to respond to that question. I’m sorry. I don’t think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions, and so I will not reply.”

Abrams got Omar to contradict her position, then ended on a high note.

Abrams got Omar to contradict her own opposition to US policy in Venezuela. Then he maneuvered her to end her allotted time on a high note, on his terms.

This was vintage Abrams.

Omar staunchly opposes the Trump administration’s opposition to the Maduro regime. Abrams got Omar to admit that Trump’s policy has merit. In refusing to take her bait from the Central America wars of the 1980s, and in objecting to her personal attacks on him, Abrams forced Omar to burn up her question time, allowing himself to end her session on his own high note.

OMAR: “Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question, because the American people want to know that any time we engage a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being farthered [sic]. That is my question. Will you make sure that human rights are not violated, and that we uphold international and human rights?”

ABRAMS: “I suppose there is a question in there, and the answer is that the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people’s effort to restore democracy to their country. That’s our policy.”

OMAR: “I don’t think anybody disputes that. The question I had for you is that, the interest – does the interest of the United States include protecting human rights and include protecting people against genocide?”

ABRAMS: “That is always the position of the United States.”

OMAR: “Thank you. I yield back my time.”

Footnote

Omar revealed her hand early. In showboating for the cameras, Omar showed that she did not know her basic subject matter, and had to read from a script. This is not unusual for a Member of Congress, but it was good to see.

Despite the script, Omar revealed carelessness. She did not know Abrams’ name, calling him “Adams.” She mis-pronounced key words and country names, saying “cortra” instead of “contra,” pronouncing El Salvador as if it began with a “Z,” and apparently blending Nicaragua with Paraguay to get “Nicaraguay.”

Many witnesses tend to stammer, falter, or even cave under pressure.

Abrams remained cordial but stood up for himself. In pushing back and remaining true, Abrams denied Omar the ability to attack his credibility unscathed, and to dominate her time with her false narrative. By building his own narrative to push Omar to say, “I don’t think anybody disputes that,” Abrams put Omar in the absurd position of appearing to oppose her own stance and to support Trump’s policy.

Red-Green Axis Chokes on Omar’s Anti-Semitism

Seems it’s been a little much for even the Democratic Party to stomach. And that’s saying a lot.

First term Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) ignited a storm of controversy with a Tweet on Sunday 10 February 2019 that cast AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) as a Jewish lobby whose money buys a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy. In response to a Glenn Greenwald tweet invoking the familiar “dual loyalty” trope about U.S. support for Israel, Omar’s sly double entendre, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” roused even Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership to demand an apology from Omar…which she provided, sort of.

Declaring that “Anti-Semitism is real” and “I unequivocally apologize,” Omar then took it all back with her very next statement: “At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry. It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.” Then hours later, Omar was back on Twitter again, re-tweeting a thread with a former staffer on a failed congressional campaign who claimed his candidate accepted AIPAC money in return for issuing pro-Israel statements. Worse yet, the re-tweeted thread included explicit criticism of Pelosi for demanding Omar’s apology.

Condemnation of the Somali-American first-term Congresswoman’s vicious antisemitism continues to pour in from across the political spectrum. En route to a Texas rally on Monday 11 February, President Donald Trump weighed in to reporters aboard Air Force One, saying that Omar “should be ashamed of herself” for the “all about the Benjamins” comment. The next day, on Tuesday 12 February, Trump turned up the pressure on Omar even further when he called her apology “lame” and demanded “she should resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.” Speaking before a cabinet meeting that day, Trump indicated his understanding of the doctrinal nature of Islamic Jew-hatred, when he added that Omar’s comments were “deep seeded in her heart.”

Powerful Democratic party chairs, including Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), issued strong statements condemning Omar’s antisemitic attacks. It may be noted that Omar was recently named to a coveted position on the House Foreign Relations Committee, which, among other things, considers U.S. policy towards Israel. Even so, Speaker Pelosi hasn’t yet given any indication that she is reconsidering Omar’s appointment to the Foreign Relations Committee.

The current storm aside, however, it isn’t as though Omar hasn’t made perfectly clear her antisemitic beliefs for a long time. For example, in a November 16, 2012 tweet, Omar wrote, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Unsurprisingly, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR, the U.S. branch of the jihad terror group HAMAS), leapt to Omar’s defense following her most recent tweets, issuing a statement on Monday 11 February that admitted that “Anti-Semitism is real,” but then added that “it should not be used disingenuously as a tool to silence legitimate criticism of a foreign nation’s discriminatory policies. CAIR applauds Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their courage…”

CAIR, of course, along with a long list of Muslim Brotherhood front groups, was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS terror funding trial.

Coming full circle back to Congressional campaign donations, it might be noted that both of the newly-elected Muslim Representatives, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), have accepted thousands of dollars from not only CAIR/HAMAS, but from a slew of individuals who list affiliation with various other Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Among them are ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America, also an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case), MAS (Muslim American Society, founded by Muslim Brotherhood members), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Committee, which branched off from the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Islamic Center of Southern California), and MSA (Muslim Student Association, the first Muslim Brotherhood front group established in 1963 in the U.S.). Some of these Brotherhood-affiliated donors are senior officials of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood: for example, Rizwan Jaka, who donated to Omar’s 2018 congressional campaign, sits on the Board of Trustees for the ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society) Center, which is the hub of operations for the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Virginia and broader Capital area. Hatem Bazian, another donor to Omar’s campaign, is a regular speaker at the ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society) conferences. ICNA is a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood political umbrella group, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). One more: Zaki Barzinji, who donated to Omar’s 2018 campaign, is the scion of a notorious Muslim Brotherhood family. He is the grandson of Jamal Barzinji, who not only was among the founders of the jihad mosque, Dar al-Hijrah, but also played a key role in the founding of numerous U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought), ISNA, MSA and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust, also named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial). Zaki Barzinji himself has served as an ISNA Board member and is a former president of the Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA), which describes itself as “the youth organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”.

Finally, lest there remain any doubt about Rep. Omar’s actual antisemitic sentiments and affiliations, we see that she is scheduled to be a keynote speaker at an Islamic Relief USA dinner to benefit Yemen in Tampa, FL on 23 February 2019. There, she will share the program with IRUSA official Yousef Abdallah, who has displayed his own antisemitism in calling for violence against Jews on social media. Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA) is the U.S. branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) included on a 2014 list of terror groups. In a revealing post from 29 May 2018, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)’s writer, John Rossomando, published a photo of IRUSA Board Chairman Khaled Lamada flashing the four-finger Brotherhood sign alongside other known Brotherhood loyalists. Despite denials, Lamada’s associations and the photos that attest to them make clear that IRUSA is as closely-connected to the Muslim Brotherhood as its IRW parent.

Rep. Omar, by her jihadist Muslim Brotherhood affiliations and multiple public statements, has shown herself to be deeply antisemitic. Her “apologies” ring hollow. Her hatred against Israel and the Jewish people is on display for all to see. It is highly unlikely she will have a genuine change of heart any time soon. Thus, it is time for Speaker Pelosi to remove her from the Foreign Relations Committee, at a minimum. Her continuing presence in the U.S. Congress is a stain on the nation. She should be disowned by the Democratic Party, recalled, and removed as soon as possible.

Congresswoman Omar Must be Removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee

House Democratic leaders, led by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, former Obama Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and Chelsea Clinton deserve credit for condemning the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tweets by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) over the weekend that suggested politicians are being paid off to support Israel, specifically by AIPAC. This transparently anti-Semitic trope was too much for House Democratic leaders who had been ignoring such religious bigotry by Rep. Omar and two other newly elected Democratic House members, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tlaib has called for a one-state solution that would destroy the state of Israel and made the notorious anti-Semitic “dual loyalties” charge against members of Congress who support Israel. Ocasio-Cortez has accused Israel of “occupying” Palestine and praised openly anti-Semitic UK Labor party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The statement by House Democratic leaders stated:

“Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception,” the statement said. “We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests. Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.

We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

This was a difficult step for Pelosi and her leadership team since they knew it would infuriate the far-left of their party which is increasingly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.  But Pelosi realizes that as much as she wants to tap into the energy of this wing of her party, Rep. Omar’s ugly tweets are a reminder of how far removed it is from the views of average Americans who regard Israel as one of America’s closest allies and reject anti-Semitism and other forms of religious bigotry.

In response to the controversy over her tweets, Rep. Omar claimed to “unequivocally apologize” but went on to “reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry.”  Omar’s swipe at AIPAC in her apology led many to question the sincerity of her contrition.

House Republicans are calling on Speaker Pelosi to take further action against Omar for her history of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by stripping her of her committee assignments, including her plum seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. At a minimum, I believe Pelosi must remove Rep. Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee and any other foreign policy, defense and homeland security committee because her hateful views will interfere with the work of these committees and do not represent the views of the American people. Pelosi put Omar on the Foreign Affairs Committee to energize her party’s Trump haters and to score points with the mainstream media which is enamored by newly-elected Reps. Omar and Tlaib. Speaker Pelosi must correct this mistake ASAP.

House GOP Condemns Democrats for Putting New Anti-Semitic Member on House Foreign Affairs Committee

Kudos to House Republicans for condemning the House Democratic leadership for giving newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar a coveted spot on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and calling on them to denounce Omar’s history of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel.  Click HERE to read the House GOP press release.

Two openly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic women recently were sworn in as members of the House of Representatives: Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich).  Both support the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement against Israel and were backed by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamist organizations.  Both played down their anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel during their congressional campaigns and were not called out on this by the mainstream media.  Linda Sarsour, a so-called Palestinian-American activist who is a notorious radical Islamist and anti-Semite, attended the swearing-in ceremonies of Reps. Omar and Tlaib.

Tlaib wants to do away with the State of Israel and renamed Israel “Palestine” on a map in her Capitol Hill office the day of her swearing in. Tlaib has embraced a one-state solution to bring about “peace” in the Middle East which would deny Jews the right to a sovereign nation.  She also wants to cut U.S. aid to Israel because she claims it “doesn’t fit the values of our country.”  Tlaib recently came under fire for making the notorious anti-Semitic “dual loyalties” charge against members of Congress who oppose the BDS movement.

Photo of Rep. Omar (right) with Linda Sarsour the day of Omar’s swearing-in.

Omar recently called Senator Marco Rubio’s anti-BDS bill “unconstitutional” and casually refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime.”  Like Sarsour, Omar has been close to anti-Semitic minister Louis Farrakhan.  She sent a tweet in 2012 that said: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  Scott Johnson, co-editor of the influential conservative Powerlineblog has described Omar “an Islamist hater of Israel.”

Think about that.  Nancy Pelosi has put an Islamist hater of Israel on the House committee that oversees U.S. foreign relations.   This speaks volumes about Pelosi’s leadership and how the Democratic Party is falling into the hands of far-left and anti-Semitic extremists.

Fighting this growing threat to religious freedom and U.S. national security is a priority of the Center for Security Policy in 2019.