Image 01 Image 03

In Order for Omar to Recognize Armenian Genocide a Resolution Must Include All ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

In Order for Omar to Recognize Armenian Genocide a Resolution Must Include All ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

Ma’am, believe it or not, you can condemn one genocide at a time.

Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire (present day Turkey) expelled and slaughtered 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. Academics consider it the first modern day genocide due to the Ottoman’s articulate organization of said genocide.

Turkey has fought against using the word genocide, but anyone with at least one brain cell knows it’s a classic case of genocide.

Our Congress passed a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide, 405-111. Three representatives, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), voted present. She provided a disgusting justification.

In order for Omar to recognize the Armenian genocide, we must acknowledge all “historical crimes against humanity,” including all genocides of the last century “along with earlier mass slaughters like the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide.”

Look, I know Omar is somewhat new to America. But someone needs to inform her that we have already condemned horrible actions in our past. We have condemned the slave trade, slavery, and the slaughter of Native Americans.

I noticed one major event did not make her criteria. I find it weird she did not mention the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II on American soil. A horrific decision by Democratic President FDR.

It wasn’t genocide, but a huge crime against humanity.

Unlike Turkey, we acknowledge the horrors of our past. We teach the truth in school. I love America, but I admit it’s not always been sunshine and rainbows.

A genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”

The treatment of Jews and the Holocaust during Nazi Germany mirrors the Armenian genocide. The Ottomans considered Armenians (Christians in general along with Jews) as second class citizens. The government only gave them prescribed freedoms. They could not build non-Muslim places of worship, which basically forced them into ghettos.

Not to mention the fact that Ottomans committed massacres against the Armenians and others before the genocide: Hamidian Massacres and Adana Massacre.

The Ottomans took the final step during WWI as they saw the beginning of the end of their empire.

It began with arrests and deportation of over 250 Armenian leaders and intellectuals on April 24, 1915. The Ottomans murdered all but a few.

Then other Armenians followed. The Ottomans could not hide the atrocities from the world since The New York Times reported on the genocide as it happened. The Grey Lady noted how the Ottomans executed the genocide with precision and order.

In other words, the ethnic cleansing of 1.5 Armenians did not just happen. The Ottomans put thought and effort into their plan to eliminate Armenians from the planet.

The death marches. The forced starvation. Forced labor. Sex slaves. Confiscation of property.

I’m ticked it took until now for our government to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Omar’s attempt to justify her present vote made my stomach churn just a little more.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Oh fun, we’re ginning up hatred of whitey due to the slave trade again, eh? Who originally enslaved those poor souls? And if we’re so upset about slavery, why don’t we focus our attention on the places where slavery is alive-and-well today. What do they have in common?

    pfg in reply to Paul. | October 30, 2019 at 6:55 pm

    And who better to know about – and practice it still – slavery than Muslims.

    The Atlantic Slave Trade was a Little League team compared the MLB of slavery, Muslims.


    The much larger and infinitely more barbaric Muslim slave trade began in about 711, capturing both whites and blacks in numbers much higher than those taken by the West, and Muslim slave-traders provided over 80 percent of those black slaves sold to the West. Of the slaves captured by Muslims for their own use, 80 to 90 percent died on the way to market. Of those shipped to North Africa for sale to Western slavers, about 30–50 percent died en route. Males slated for Muslim markets were castrated. Only 25 percent survived the operation. Their descendants in those nations are much smaller in number because most male African slaves were used as eunuchs and worked to death. Estimates of total black enslavement in Muslim nations range from 11 million to 32 million. Given the high mortality rate of capture and transport, the impact on black African tribes must have been genocidal.

    The Muslim Ottomans, the Barbary pirates, Crimean Tatars, and Turks enslaved European, Russian, Mediterranean, and Caucasus whites between the 15th and 19th centuries. According to The Islamic Trade in European Slaves by Emmet Scott, the most conservative estimate is 15 million white slaves. Women and boys were preferred. Most of the women were sold into sex slavery, while boys were castrated and used as eunuchs. Crimean Tatars, who enslaved about 3 million, gave older men of little value to Tatar youths, who killed them for sport.

    Why do we not hear a peep from any of these self-righteous social justice warriors about this travesty? Where is talk of reparations for whites or the many blacks enslaved by Muslim nations?

Omar is a crime against humanity

    oldgoat36 in reply to dystopia. | October 30, 2019 at 3:58 pm

    She is an evil woman, I fear for the information she gets in her position and uses for her “faith traditions”.
    How could anyone think she should be elected to Congress? Hate motivates almost every single thing she says.

    One more reason to remove her from office.

      Milhouse in reply to Hank. | October 30, 2019 at 6:54 pm

      She can only be expelled from the House by a 2/3 vote, and the House has a long-standing position that it can only expel a member for an offense committed since the last election. The House would certainly take the position that it cannot expel a member because it doesn’t like the way she votes.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 31, 2019 at 12:02 am

        “The House would certainly take the position that it cannot expel a member because it doesn’t like the way she votes.”

        Sure, just like they take the position a president cannot be impeached because they don’t like the “way he votes”.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 2:00 am

          They’re not proposing to impeach the president because of “how he votes”.

          But in any case you’re comparing apples and oranges. Expelling a member is not at all the same as impeaching an executive officer, and the rules don’t have to be the same. As I wrote, the House’s view is already that it can’t expel a member even for actual crimes unless they were committed since the last election. It hasn’t take an official position on expelling a member for voting the wrong way, because nobody’s ever proposed such an awful thing; but if such a proposal were ever to come up there is no doubt the House would officially say it can’t do that.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 2:41 am

          “They’re not proposing to impeach the president because of “how he votes”.”

          Don’t be silly. Were Trump a left wing democrat they would not be trying to impeach him. “how he votes” is just a way of saying what his politics are.

          I think everyone know the rules for impeachment and removal of a congress critter are different.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 3:51 pm

          That they hate him for his politics does not mean they’re trying to impeach him for them. They’re trying to impeach him for an alleged offense. Of course if he were on their side they wouldn’t care about it even if it were true, and they certainly wouldn’t bother making it up. That’s true and irrelevant.

          You are the one who brought up the proposed impeachment of Trump, and attempted to compare it to the idea we’re discussing, which is the expulsion of Omar for voting the wrong way. Since you just admitted that you know these are very different things, you were dishonest in bringing it up as if it were relevant.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 4:15 pm

          “That they hate him for his politics does not mean they’re trying to impeach him for them. They’re trying to impeach him for an alleged offense.”

          Alleged offense, LOL. You are way to the left of the IQ bell curve apparently. Most of you progs are.

          They are trying to impeach him because they hate him and his effectiveness. They could care less about any actual crime you idiot.

          elle in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 4:24 pm

          I find it interesting that Milhouse spends his time and energy informing us how Omar and her ilk are actually meeting the letter of the law. Hey Milhouse, I think your time would be better spent looking into what goes into a bug-out-bag and what passports you might need should these people ever gain true power in the US. When and if that happens, your efforts to educate them on the fine points of law will be met with a shove into the back of a cattle car.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 5:49 pm

          Barry, yes, alleged offense. That is what the whole thing is about — the attempt to find something to pin on him so they can get rid of him. If they didn’t think that was necessary they wouldn’t go to all this trouble to come up with one.

          Elle, what has that got to do with it? We are discussing Hank’s proposal that she be expelled from the House for her abstention from this vote, and nothing else. Are you one of those people whose position on anything is determined by whose ox is gored?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 6:22 pm

          Milhouse, No. They want him out because he is a highly effective foil to their attempt at turning this country into one party communist rule. That they must create a sham “offense” to fool the rubes doesn’t change the facts. It’s stupid to state anything otherwise.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | November 1, 2019 at 1:35 am

          And Barry continues to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. The Dems are proposing to impeach the president for an alleged offense. That is the simple and obvious fact. They cannot and do not propose to impeach him just for having the wrong politics, which is what Hank suggested the House do to Omar. You are here defending Hank’s suggestion, so you don’t get to move the goalposts, first by dragging in the impeachment in the first place despite your own admission that it’s a completely different kind of thing, and then by pretending that the impeachment, if and when it happens, will be for the president’s politics. You’re not so stupid as to confuse what they’re doing with why they’re doing it; you know the difference very well but are deliberately fudging it because you’re a deeply dishonest person.

        Virginia42 in reply to Milhouse. | October 31, 2019 at 7:05 am

        Yeah, they are pretty much trying to impeach Trump on the basis of “Orange Man Bad,” not an actual crime. Otherwise this revolving door idiocy of Schitt’s Star Chamber would have been done a long time ago.

          Milhouse in reply to Virginia42. | October 31, 2019 at 3:53 pm

          No. OMB is why they hate him, and why they’re desperately exploring for evidence of a crime, any crime, that he’s committed. But they exploring for such evidence, and any impeachment they attempt will be based on a (probably false) claim to have found it.

I’m ticked it took until now for our government to officially recognize the Armenian genocide.

Whatever for?

A few decades ago an American of recent Armenian extraction was carrying on to me about the %^#&* Jews and their %^#&* Holocaust, and was grousing that America didn’t make as big a deal about Armenia and Turkey.

I pointed out that unlike the Holocaust, the misadventures of Armenia, the Ottoman Empire, and Tsarist Russia of that period had nothing whatever to do with the United States or United States history, then or now. What he was demanding was that the US be perpetually outraged about arbitrary crimes everywhere and everywhen—obviously impractical, probably even ridiculous.

I suspect he may have thought some sort of payoff was possible, much like “reparations” for the slave trade, particularly if the UN could be forced to deal with that magic word, “genocide”. The key factor would be to get the US entangled, despite all logic, in the whole affair. Once the US—and, more importantly, US lawyers&mash;could be dragged in, all sorts of financially wonderful things could happen.

Personally, I think the US has more topical things to worry about; things it might actually be able to do something to ameliorate. Official outrage over somebody else’s disasters is just “virtue signaling” elevated to an unsustainable peak.

Another obvious complication is that Turkey is particularly sensitive about that word “genocide”, and jollying Turkey along somewhat has been a policy goal of the West since about 1945. Turkey was of vital importance to the effort to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating the rest of Europe. In fact, even though the Soviet Union is gone, Turkish containment of Russian expansion into the Mediterranean and the Balkans is still important, no matter how weird Erdogan gets.

    MajorWood in reply to tom_swift. | October 30, 2019 at 3:53 pm

    Sometime in the near distant future I suspect that Oberlin will be able to opine ab out the stupidity of getting involved in things that weren’t really their business. I am trying to think of one single instance where virtue signalling did not come with a huge unintended consequence. The most recent episode of Silicon Valley was a perfect example of someone creating a much larger problem by trying to fix a small one that was best ignored.

    I agree. One minor quibble. For centuries the Ottomans and Czarist Russia were mortal enemies – and that same enmity would later include Soviet Russia. We needn’t thank Turkey for acting in it’s own best interest by blocking Soviet expansionism into the Mediterranean.

    >> “They could not build non-Muslim places of worship, which basically forced them into ghettos.” <<

    I guess it's fair to say the Ottomans created the Turkish version of the Czar's Pale of Settlements?

      forksdad in reply to Tiki. | October 30, 2019 at 11:30 pm

      Absolutely! Can you imagine the devastation to western civilization without the contributions of the Turks? Why Christianity might reach the Holy Land. Millions of slaves would be out of work! Vienna would never have has the chance, they so foolishly rejected I might add to bask in the enrichment and diversity the Caliph so generously offered.

      Can you hear the Russian bogeyman coming now? The Cossacks hoof beats are coming closer and closer! Maybe the bad old bear would, I don’t know, stop those natural Europeans born in Syria or Sudan from enriching Europe.

    Anacleto Mitraglia in reply to tom_swift. | October 30, 2019 at 5:03 pm

    Russian expansion? In the Mediterranean? Please, feel free to explain. As of today, there’s one russian base in Syria, and countless Nato, 100% American run. And Nato has put troops and missiles in most of the former USSR countries and allies ( the last one being the pirate State of Macedonia).

      Yes, Russian expansion in the Mediterranean, as well as down towards the Persian Gulf. This has been a Russian goal for centuries, and it’s in our interests to prevent it.

      I don’t know what point you think you were making with the rest of your comment, so I can’t address it.

      “Russian expansion? In the Mediterranean? Please, feel free to explain.”

      Greece during and after WWII was a focal point for militant Stalinist expansionism. It’s up to you to learn more about Soviet expansionism.


      Putin made a deal with Assad. We’ll save your dictatorship, but at a price. The Russians now control Tartus like they control Crimea, Kaliningrad, South Ossetia and Transnistria. It’s theirs. Forever. Russia encircles NATO Europe by gaining Tartus.

      Always fun:

      Russia has always craved more open water ports for it’s navy (in addition to other motivations).

    MattMusson in reply to tom_swift. | October 31, 2019 at 8:26 am

    But Christians World Wide should have been outraged. Armenians were slaughtered because they were Christians. All the men were killed and the Women and Children were force marched to Syria where they were sold as Slaves.

    And, my Grandparents were alive at the time!

The Friendly Grizzly | October 30, 2019 at 3:41 pm

Meantime, how is she polling for re-election?

    So far she has no challenger in the only election that matters in her district, the D primary.

    As much as I dislike her she is a walking breathing shining example of Democrat Hypocrisy. She makes everyone else look good.

    I don’t believe she should be expelled from the House until after she is convicted of Immigration Fraud and sentenced to prison.

Not understanding why she’s not under investigation / indictment for false identity, polygamy, tax fraud, campaign finance fraud, et al. Removing her from office ought be easy with as many crimes as she’s racked up.

she’s arrogant enough to insist on ” conditions ” to obtain her ” recognition ” of a particular tragedy

am still unable to come up with any reason why we should give the remotest damn what she thinks about ANYTHING

go back to somalia–you belong in africa

Thinking people cannot be influenced by the votes of savages.

Two thoughts:

1) Why link to the NYTimes article to cite the resolution? You could link to the primary source:
Then readers could do things like see who voted how and what the resolution actually says. And not give clicks to the paywall-protected Times.

2) “405-111” Minor quibble. It was 405-11, not 111.

Anacleto Mitraglia | October 30, 2019 at 4:52 pm

I need a clarification on the nuances of American english. When she says “both” does she refer to 20th centurie’s and the previous ones, or to Holocaust and Armenian, that is: no Khmer rouge, no Holodomor, no Tutsi, no Eritreans – her own kind, almost – no South Sudan?

“. . . but anyone with at least one brain cell knows it’s a classic case of genocide.”

Bernard Lewis had less than one brain cell? Who knew?

legacyrepublican | October 30, 2019 at 5:45 pm

Would those crimes against humanity include the beheading of Coptic Christians by ISIS?

Japanese Internment?

What about the Holodomor? Mao’s cultural marxism revolution? Pohl Pot? Stalin’s purges? Rawanda?

Or the 60 million innocent human babies murdered right here in our ongoing abortion Holocaust?

Prime example of a malignant narcissist, this gal is.

I served in the finest Navy that ever existed.

She will never get the better of me. Not. Ever.

Oh, EZ. Got it. And f**k you very much. Hey here is a thought. Pick a country.

This treasonous snake should be jailed for stupidity:

“Hundreds of millions of were murdered in this country.” Sure there were. If the Europeans had murdered every single native in North America, it would have been as low as 2 million to possibly 15-20 million. And that’s not what happened. The progs are criminal and should be eliminated their selves.

    jb4 in reply to Barry. | October 31, 2019 at 8:37 pm

    In addition, up to 90% of of the tiny fraction of the “hundreds of millions” of Native American deaths that she claimed were from diseases like smallpox, hardly intentional or even well understood at the time.

      Milhouse in reply to jb4. | November 1, 2019 at 1:38 am

      Except for the ones that died in the one known example of the deliberate use of smallpox as a biological weapon, in Pittsburgh in the Seven Years’ War. If that ever really happened (the evidence is mixed).

I have a strong stomach. I have seen the “magic” riflemen like Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock can work on the human head. But that’s war. This isn’t.

Don’t look. If you click on the link you will see somethin will never forget. I had to look. It was my business.

I make light of it.

But really, what else are you going to do with it?

I am the nicest guy you will ever meet. Really. But if I witness what Gunny Hathcock witnessed in Vietnam I will beat you to death with a shovel and a smile on my face. I know that sounds ugly. I want it to sound ugly. So you don’t do it.

I have served with Somalis who are better than this.

Yes I know it’s not the same thing.

David Wood link

I can shoot.

She’s Muslim, so she’s speaking out of both sides of her mouth. The Muslim definition of “crimes against humanity” is quite different from ours, and includes successful defense against Muslim invasion. You see the same duplicity when Muslim spokesmen condemn “killing innocents”, without bothering to clarify that by the Islamic definition none of the dead people being referred to are innocent.

I am capable of not to hate. Hating does ugly things to your mind.