Rep. Ilhan Omar Ignores Harassment of Jewish Students at UCLA, Berates Chancellor for Not Protecting Anti-Israel Encampment
“At the hearing, Ilhan Omar downplays the disturbing video of a Jewish student at UCLA being physically blocked from walking on campus by a group of mask-wearing Hamas supporters”
The chancellor of UCLA appeared before Congress this week. When Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) got a chance to question him, her entire focus was on the rights of the anti-Israel students who occupied an encampment and his failure to ‘protect’ them.
She seemed particularly incensed that these students were subjected to a screen showing the horrors of the October 7th attacks. She also suddenly cares very deeply about free speech rights.
Of course, Jewish students at the school who have been harassed got no concern in her remarks.
At the hearing, Ilhan Omar downplays the disturbing video of a Jewish student at UCLA being physically blocked from walking on campus by a group of mask-wearing Hamas supporters, suggesting the Jewish student could have used an alternate route.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 23, 2024
Ilhan Omar spoke up in fury today about screens placed on campus grounds, broadcasting the atrocities committed on Oct 7 to Hamas-supporting students.
The fact that her fury wasn’t directed at those who committed the actual atrocities says it all.
This can’t be real life.
— Tali Goldsheft (@TaliGoldsheft) May 23, 2024
The New York Post reports:
Rep. Ilhan Omar dismisses harassment of Jewish UCLA student by anti-Israel protesters
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Thursday downplayed the harassment of a Jewish student by anti-Israel protesters on the campus of UCLA and castigated the university for not doing more to protect the agitators.
The “Squad” congresswoman shrugged off a viral video of the April incident, in which several masked protesters are seen physically blocking the student, who is wearing a Star of David necklace, as he tries to walk to his class on the UCLA campus.
“Just for clarification, that video we just watched, we saw people moving around,” Omar said after the video was played during a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitic encampments on college campuses.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, one of three university leaders testifying at the hearing, was the target of Omar’s odd line of questioning that followed.
“Was it possible, do you think, for that student to be able to get into campus? Was that student actually being blocked from entering campus?” the Minnesota Democrat asked Block.
“Well, that was in the middle of campus,” Block responded. “They’re not being blocked from being on campus, maybe being blocked from a pathway on campus.”
“He should be allowed to pass,” the chancellor asserted. “I mean, any part of campus is open to students, so blocking him was really inappropriate.”
This is the incident that Omar is downplaying.
Jewish student wearing a Star of David necklace DENIED entry to his own university because he is JEWISH.
“I’m a UCLA student. I deserve to go here. We pay tuition. This is our school and they are not letting me walk in.”
Masked activists refused to let the student enter.… pic.twitter.com/MeOjg8hTf4
— Afshine Emrani MD FACC (@afshineemrani) April 29, 2024
This part of her commentary from the Daily Mail is nothing short of mind-blowing:
‘You could have prevented this by protecting these students’ First Amendment right to assemble,’ Omar said.
She went on:
‘You could have prevented this when you learned about rats being released into the encampment. You could have prevented this when an anonymous group funded and constructed a giant video with loudspeakers to play vile and disturbing footage.’
The pro-Israel camp set up screens outside the pro-Gaza camp to play footage from the October 7 Hamas attack.
Watch the entire exchange below. This is just unreal:
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If I recall correctly, Omar is a naturalized citizen.
That can be revoked…
Can and will are far apart here
Should have been a long time ago when her immigration fraud was first known.
It couldn’t be then and it can’t be now. Crimes committed after a valid naturalization cannot retroactively affect its validity.
Wrong. It most certainly can under several circumstances.
No, it cannot. You are simply wrong. The law is very clear; once someone is validly a citizen the only way to lose it is voluntary renunciation.
She is a vile turd.
No, it cannot be revoked. US citizenship, once validly obtained, can never be lost involuntarily, no matter what the person does. She could openly take up arms against the USA, she could spy for an enemy in wartime, she could bring a gun with the shoulder thing that goes up into the House and shoot 100 members, and she would remain a US citizen. If she did those things she’d soon be a dead US citizen, but a US citizen nonetheless.
Sometimes a person pretends to be a citizen, and gets away with it for years, but is eventually caught and the government proves that they were never a citizen in the first place. But there is no suggestion that there was any flaw in Omar’s naturalization, so she’s in no danger of this happening to her.
once “legally” obtained
she might have gone the “valid” route
but if she lied to obtain
then it wasnt a legal action on her part
There is no reason to suppose that she told any material lie in order to obtain her naturalization. “If she lied to obtain it” is exactly the same as “if she robbed a bank”; anything’s possible but there’s no foundation for it.
Disinformation.
You may lose your U.S. citizenship in specific cases, including if you:
Run for public office in a foreign country (under certain conditions)
Enter military service in a foreign country (under certain conditions)
Apply for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship
Commit an act of treason against the United States
Are a naturalized U.S. citizen who faces denaturalization due to committing certain crimes.
https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship
Rasmea Odeh.
Wrong. If you are already a US citizen you can not involuntarily lose your citizenship in any of those circumstances.
The only way for someone who is a US citizen to lose it is voluntary renunciation.
Rasmea Odeh was never a US citizen in the first place. The government proved in court that she obtained her purported naturalization fraudulently, so it was never valid. If she had obtained it validly then it wouldn’t matter what she did, she couldn’t lose it involuntarily.
There’s no reason to suspect anything was wrong with Omar’s naturalization. There are no material lies she could have told that would have affected the decision to approve it. She’d been living here the right number of years, she hadn’t committed any crimes, she passed the test, so there was no reason to deny her.
The US Government says otherwise. But you know better. Please!
A naturalized citizen can involuntarily have citizenship revoked, innocent spouses and children included. Play the game they were never citizens in the first place. Odeh WAS a citizen, her citizen was revoked, and she was removed.
Who said anything about Omar?
The US government doesn’t say otherwise, and if it ever does then it’s wrong. What I am telling you is the law, that the courts have made clear over and over and over, without any dispute whatsoever.
A naturalized citizen can not involuntarily have citizenship revoked. The courts could not have been clearer about that.
Rasmea Odeh was never a US citizen. Not for one minute. She applied for naturalization, but told a material lie on the application form, which made the whole thing invalid. It was no different than if she’d simply forged her naturalization certificate.
Suppose someone claimed for years to be a US citizen by having been born here, and then it turns out they were actually born in Canada, to Canadian parents. Their citizenship wouldn’t be revoked, because there would be nothing to revoke.
What do you mean by “Who said anything about Omar?” This entire discussion is about Omar. We are discussing whether her citizenship can be revoked. And the answer is no, it can’t.
Once again, you know best. Got it. It’s laughable. It’s sad.
What’s sad is that you keep ignoring the underlying constitutional reality. It’s not me that says naturalization can’t be revoked involuntarily, it’s the constitution, as interpreted by the supreme court. And the relevant clause does not contain any exceptions; therefore exceptions can’t exist. Hence the resort to showing that there was never a citizenship in the first place.
Tell me something, in cases where someone has been claiming citizenship by birth, and the government proves that that was a lie, do you call that “revocation” too?!
Nope. It sure can. 8 USC 1451.
Just stop with the nonsense Mr I’m always right
You are wrong. Did you bother reading it before citing it? It covers only people whose naturalization was never valid in the first place. In such cases “the order admitting such person to citizenship” is set aside, and the naturalization certificate is cancelled, but the naturalization itself is not revoked, because it never existed so there’s nothing to revoke.
The rest of the statute merely creates rebuttable presumptions, “in the absence of countervailing evidence”.
The PRACTICAL effect is losing US Citizenship, irrespective of how it’s lost. That is the REALITY, not the legal fiction that it never occurred.
No, it isn’t. The practical effect is merely a fraud being exposed, exactly like someone who forged a medical degree turning out never to have been a doctor, or someone who stole a baby from a hospital turning out never to have been the child’s parent.
No. The practical effect is that someone must leave because of the fraud and the LOSS of naturalization. But you know best. That you have established. Shall we all bow to your non-existent expertise?
What about cases where the government proves that a person who was claiming to be a citizen by birth isn’t one? Do you call that “LOSS of birth”?! Did the person go back into the womb, or what?
Suppose incontrovertible evidence came up that not only was Barack obama born in Kenya, but Stanley Dunham wasn’t his mother; the baby was born in Kenya to a white Kenyan woman, and was immediately flown to Hawaii and delivered to Ms Dunham, who registered it as her own baby, and his whole life has been a fraud. Suppose the government took this to court and got a declaration that he’s not a US citizen. Would you call that “loss of naturalization”?! “Loss of birth”?! Or what?
It’s obvious that in such a case he would not “lose” his US citizenship, it would be shown never to have existed.
Once granted, citizenship is permanent and cannot be revoked… except in certain and very specific circumstances.
Although rare, it IS possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have their citizenship stripped through a process called “denaturalization.”
If you lied, misrepresented or concealed relevant facts in order to obtain U.S. citizenship, your citizenship could be revoked. This is called illegally procuring citizenship. Former citizens who are “denaturalized” for this are subject to immediate removal (deportation) from the United States.
If your citizenship was derived through military service, it can be revoked upon a dishonorable discharge after a general court-martial.
Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 5 years of naturalization, the U.S. government proves you joined or tried to join a subversive group. Such groups include ISIS, Al Qaeda or the American Nazi Party, for example.
Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 10 years of naturalization, you refused to testify before a U.S. congressional committee investigating your involvement in an allegedly subversive act. Subversive acts include trying to harm U.S. officials, giving material aid or comfort to America’s enemies or attempting to overthrow the government.
No, it is not. The constitution forbids it, and so do the courts, unanimously and explicitly.
If you lied, misrepresented or concealed relevant facts in order to obtain U.S. citizenship, then you never had citizenship, so there’s nothing to revoke.
There is no exception in the constitution for “illegally procured” citizenship. The constitution is clear that citizenship can’t be revoked. In the cases you are talking about that doesn’t apply because there never was any citizenshp. The government is merely proving something that was always true.
No. You never had citizenship, you merely had a promise of citizenship, when you complete your service honorably. If you don’t fulfill your part the promise is void and you never get citizenship. Any other construction would be unconstitutional.
No, in none of these cases can citizenship be revoked. The supreme court has clearly ruled, on multiple occasions, that that would be unconstitutional. If you read the law carefully, what it says is that in those cases the government will assume either that you never meant your oath when you took it, or that you have voluntarily renounced your citizenship. But both assumptions are rebuttable, and if you can show that they are wrong, i.e. that you meant your oath at the time you took it, and that you never intended to renounce it, then the court will affirm that you’re still a citizen and there’s nothing the government can do about it.
Antisemitism is a cultural-privilege claim. Harassment is a crime. Mixing them together makes a hash of the story.
There’s no corresponding privilege claim for anti-white-male attacks, which are much more commonplace. Think of antisemitism as anti-white and the hash is much easier to avoid.
It’s ordinary male competence to deal with anti-white-male attacks. Mockery and ridicule, for example. A well-formed misogynistic observation, for another.
The effective parallels those suggest are offered as a plan against antisemitism.
You have no clue about antisemitism. NONE! Perhaps that’s why you so often sound antisemitic and offer such paltry “advice.”
Antisemites say that “Antisemitism is a cultural-privilege claim.” Maybe you should look at your attitude.
Edmond Jabes, poet of Jewish consciousness, The Book of Questions
Car beams light up the front of a building. (In which street? There are so many behind and before him that he cannot remember.) He reads: MORT AUX JUIFS JEWS GO HOME scrawled in white chalk, in caps. In which street? In several streets. On several walls. He tried to decipher all the graffiti. He read and reread MORT AUX JUIFS at each halt, at each corner, at the same corner, at each halt. All he saw any more were those three words on the walls. (Perhaps they did not even exist – I mean, for the other passers-by). All he saw any more were those twelve letters, transparent, on the glass pane of his memory.
What is that “perhaps” doing there? In parentheses, a second internal voice.
Not interested or impressed, especially by someone that treats Jew hatred as theory and a “cultural-privilege claim.”
So your rebuttal is… a work of fiction?
Jewish consciousness is a consciousness of alienation. It’s a tie to prophets rather than philosophers, namely early Greek philosophers and their membership in the polis.
It’s in service of maintaining alienation, preventing assimilation, that it’s part of the culture, for the low-IQ Jews. For high-IQ Jews alienation is a resource leading to astounding scholarship.
Alienation is good, but confusing it with a moral claim is not.
Using it as a claim of privilege though is not a positive moral force.
“For high-IQ Jews alienation”
Not just Jews, high IQ separates people, it is as much a curse as a blessing.
‘
IQ separates people, yes; the idea is to make it work for everybody. In the case of low IQ Jews, seeing hostility everywhere prevents assimilation; in high IQ Jews, interest in scholarship prevents assimilation. So preventing assimilation succeeds.
The thing that Westerners seem unable to acknowledge — let alone accept — is that she honestly and sincerely believes what she says.
She is not faking.
She does not see non-Muslims as her equal.
She does not see non-Muslims any different, really, than you or I see vermin.
And so , obviously , when her people are insulted or inconvenienced, it’s a big deal
And when you or your people are assaulted, or raped, or murdered, it is really not of very much importance.
(When the exterminator cleans out an infested warehouse, you do not grieve. That is how she honestly views you.)
The point is: She treats you and your concerns as if they are of zero importance
because
she honestly believes that you and your concerns are of zero importance.
You can try to live in denial of this reality, but that does not change the reality.
(Same goes for Amal Clooney and Hadids and Sinwar and Khameini etc. They sincerely believe that you and your being murdered or raped or harassed or robbed or otherwise terrorized …. it is just not very important.
The crime, from their point of view, is if you try to defend yourself. To them, that’s beyond the pale, and is simply unacceptable. This is honestly what they believe.)
Ask whether the average Palestinian IQ being 83 vs 115 for Ashkenazi Jews might have anything to do with the relative success of the two countries, rather than oppression; and whether blowing up or shooting down every offer of economic trade might not therefore be a good idea.
She’s not very Moslem, living with her infidel toyboy.
Omar is a perfect example of how rushing to import “refugees” to make certain people feel good about themselves rather than conducting extensive and objective vetting is and was a huge mistake.
Somalia had a decades long civil war going on, some pics of hungry and dirty children are shown on TV, and suddenly we feel the need to blindly import half of their population. How knee-jerkingly stupid is that? It’s like bringing in hundreds of thousands of Afghanis with few if any questions asked. The do-gooders here had/have no clue of what they were bringing in.
It’s precisely like the sponge-brained liberal American slave redemptionists of the past two decades, driving up the price of slaves and rejuvenating the African slave-trading industry.
As if we needed more proof that congresswoman Brotherf*cker is not a good person…
There is great potential for a blistering political cartoon here.
She “married” her brother, but she never lived with him. The entire time they were “married” she was living with her real husband, holding herself out in public as his wife, and they filed joint tax returns. So no, she is not that.
Omar is a living proof that non-whites can be racist through and through. Not to mention she hates the USA.
Did you see the Boston council member? Another prize package.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/boston-council-member-calling-revolution-alarms-liberal-colleagues-wild-tirades-threats
Why do we need proof? Was there ever any doubt of it? Racism has always been at least as common among blacks as among whites, and nowadays it’s far more common.
Yes, there is doubt. Why take things out of context?
Have you been hiding from the anti-racists?
From 2021: Only white people can be racist: Inside Global Affairs’ anti-racism course materials
“A major tenet of critical race theory is the idea that racism is not just a prejudice, but is a complex, omnipresent system designed to keep people of colour down for the benefit of white people.
In a “Myths and Facts” section opening the document, it is called a myth that non-white people are capable of racism, which is defined as exclusively being the domain of white people. Non-white people can express “racial prejudice,” to be sure (the example provided is “white people can’t dance”) but this doesn’t qualify as racism because of the “systemic relationship to power.””
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/only-white-people-can-be-racist-inside-global-affairs-anti-racism-course-materials
Again, you likely knew what was being suggested, but needed to prove something yourself, which is odd.
No, there is no doubt and never was any. Citing a load of obvious nonsense doesn’t create doubt where none existed before.
Sure. There never was any doubt. The people behind criticalrace.org and others simply exist for the fun of it, not to confront the doubt. Can you be more out of touch? Guess they will be happy to hear they can close shop.
Intentionally taking things out of context is in poor taste, too. Strange why some people do that.
They don’t exist to resolve doubt, because there isn’t any. They exist to confront obvious lies and to defeat a neo-marxist attempt to take over the country. Next you’ll say that the existence of flat-earthers means there is some sort of doubt that the earth is round!
Vile and ugly Omar is one of the prominent faces of obnoxious, unabashed and goose-stepping Jew-hate, Muslim supremacism and Islamofascism in the U.S., and, her political prominence demonstrates the vile Dhimmi-crat Party’s full-throated embrace of that noxious ideology and hatred.
Maybe she’s buddies with Dave Chappelle, Muslim “comedian “
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/05/24/dave-chappelle-calls-israels-war-against-hamas-genocide/
Muslim Hamas supporter going to support Jew haters. What’s the hard thing to understand here?
I see that she now fully represents Hamas and not the US. She’s just low life trash who needs to be taken out.
Good. Good. We need more of this.
Every time Omar opens her mouth, it’s another knife in the back of Joe Biden.
“You could have prevented this when an anonymous group funded and constructed a giant video with loudspeakers to play vile and disturbing footage.”
Vile and disturbing footage filmed by Hamas.
this female was just “featured” for her latest outrage
look her up
she is more “outspoken” that the squad
However, the ceremony brought some controversy after City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson, a Democrat and a Muslim, appeared to not recite her oath of office with the other counci
they WILLLL CHANGE THE LAWS SO THAT NON USA BORN CAN BECOME POTUS
A Democratic Boston city council member, who called to “dismantle the White backdrop” in America and “create a revolution,” is starting to disturb her liberal colleagues with her wild antics and threats, according to a source who spoke with Fox News Digital.
The source is a city hall employee, who requested anonymity because council member Tania Fernandes Anderson has created an “unhealthy” environment. The employee believes Fernandes Anderson is a “troubled person,” who uses accusations of racism to get people to fall in line. The source discussed the challenges of having someone in the city’s government who ha
If they can get 2/3 of each house of congress, plus majorities in each house of 38 state legislatures to go along with it, I have no objection. But they can’t.
they cant at this moment in time
and as they have shown …..when they burn down police stations etc
many issues become doable post haste
If they ever get the numbers to amend the constitution to allow foreign-born presidents, I see no reason to object. So long as they do it properly.
forget the faux outrage over omars not caring about j ews
no one would expect her to care about them or americans
its the wa r that the lefty wants and they are currently winning