Trump comes out pro-hate

The House passed an anti-hate resolution

“Be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;

(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;”

And so forth.

Read the full bill here.

It’s innocuous enough. It’s basically, “We think hate is bad.” 234 Democrats and 173 Republicans voted for it. It passed 407-23.

Trump condemned it.


I’m only slightly kidding. Trump really did, after all, call 173 members of his own party disgraceful, and condemned a resolution that says “hate is bad.”

To be fair, however:

1. Continuing down the bill past the part I cited, the bill also condemned specific instances of hate speech obviously referencing Trump and other right-wingers. That turned it into a tacit condemnation of Trump more than Representative Omar, so it’s not that surprising that he disliked it.

2. The 23 who voted against it were not pro-hate. Their grounds were based on the bill’s innate hypocrisy. The Democrats had passed a bill condemning Steve King by name, but let Omar slide, hidden in an anonymous blanket condemnation. While this is a reasonable point for discussion, it is one that should be made on talk shows, and not really a valid reason to vote “nay” on “hate is bad.”

3. Representative King, who really is pro-hate, did not vote against it, nor did he vote for it. He merely responded “present” when his name was called.

25 thoughts on “Trump comes out pro-hate

  1. Again you like to pick and choose what you feel is “fair” and “balanced”!

    The facts are that the democrats watered down a resolution that was specific to Omar but had to add other minorities and omit Omar’s name in order to pass it. (I wonder what the numbers would say if Omar was named) They are even allowing her to stay on House Foreign Affairs Committee when her bias is evident. (Can you say UN?)

    Big difference from how the republicans reacted to the Steve King controversy.

    1. Actually, I mentioned all that in the “continue reading” section.

      I also mentioned, however, that disliking what was NOT there is a matter for talk shows. What WAS there was simply “hate is bad,” and 23 people hilariously and embarrassingly voted against it!

      As it turns out, I agree with you completely. The Dems wanted King’s name specified, but left Omar’s out, and did not remove her from her committee assignments. Total hypocrisy.

      But that’s still no reason to vote “nay” on “hate is bad.”

    2. First of all: no, her comments were not biased. She was just pointing out the clout that AIPAC has. AIPAC has Jews, whack-job evangelicals who think the existence of Israel gives them a chance at meeting Jesus before they die, and pragmatists who view Israel as the enemy-of-my-enemy.
      Like Trump, she thinks America should come first. This has been misconstrued in bad faith as an anti-Jewish comment. If an anti-Semitic comment has been made here, it was the assumption that all Jews support AIPAC. Several prople have said as much; not Omar, though.

      Second, Omar’s name was never in the resolution. It was the expansion of anti-hate sentiment to include other groups that was added later.

      Third, yes I can say UN and I’m glad we have someone in Foreign Affairs who is unambiguously pro-US. Of course this is a different reaction than the one to King, he is an admitted racist. (In truth, it was likely the “admitted” part that led to the reaction.)

      Finally, Trump “comes out” as pro-hate? When was he “in”?

      1. “Allegiance to a foreign country” is the phrase that got her in trouble, as it suggests that certain American politicians will act in Israel’s interest over or equal to America’s.

        So that’s basically accusing people of treason, not to mention reinforcing the anti-Semitic stereotype of dual loyalties.

        To her credit, she apologized for having given offense, but I believe that she really did mean exactly what she said.

        We’ll see whether she has learned her lesson and can criticize the government of Israel and lobbying groups without invoking any classic anti-Jewish images.

        1. How is the notion of ‘dual loyalties’ specifically Anti-Semitic? This is the same concept that was thrown against Japanese citizens so that they were interned in World War II and that the Catholic John Kennedy faced in 1960.

          I’m sure she’s not suggesting that American politician’s act in Israel’s interests over America, I’m sure she’s saying it outright. Just as lobbyists make American politician’s put the Koch Brothers’ interests ahead of the American people as a whole and so on.

          These are the same charges almost certainly correctly thrown out against Trump: that he puts Putin and Russia’s interests ahead of America’s. Is it racist or anti Russian (or anti Slav) to say that?

          I don’t think Japanese Americans had divided loyalties during World War II or that Kennedy had divided loyalties, this is not a question of race or religion or ethnicity. That would be the issue of Omar accused (only) Jewish politicians of having divided loyalties. She’s arguing that politicians are either bought off or cowered by PACs or lobbyists.

          To that, again, all I can say is that the resolution initially condemned her provides all the evidence needed that what she said is correct.

          For a bit of history, the Japanese Americans (and Canadians) were interned and treated terribly by the U.S (and Canadian) governments and people but German and Italian Americans (and Canadians) were also treated terribly by many American (and Canadian) people as well.

          So, I’m sympathetic to the concern of the use of phases that suggest people have divided loyalties, but, people of any age, race, creed or color can be bought off. That is what Omar is saying, and I don’t see how that is controversial.

          1. The best example I can think of of the effect of AIPAC lobbying was the opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal.

            I’m sure people can have good reasons to either support or oppose that deal, but the argument I most frequently heard from people who opposed it was: ‘this deal facilitates Iran’s nuclear program because it ends in 10 years.”

            So, according to these people, 0 years of 0 deal is better than delaying Iran for 10 years with a deal. the stated reasons for opposition were gibberish.

            From Wiki: Shortly after the announcement of the deal, critics within the Republican Party and the Israel lobby in the United States lambasted the move as a rebuff to Israel and a blatant undermining of Israel-United States relations. In addition, the deal was characterized as a threat to Israel’s national security on the basis that it would to lead to an empowerment of anti-Israel actors in the region and the deal would actually facilitate Iran’s nuclear program rather than hamper it. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) visited Israel and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after the announcement of the deal and vocalized his commitment to Israel. Prior to the visit, Cotton has said his solution to Iran’s nuclear program would be a “credible threat of military force”

          2. So, when an American politician (like Senator Cotton) outright says ‘on this issue, I stand with Israel’ and puts a positive spin on it, it’s fine.

            When Omar comes out and says “Congresspeople who say ‘I stand with Israel’ are (or might be) putting Israel’s interests ahead of America” somehow that’s not fine.

            These Congresspeople can’t have it both ways.

            Look at what Senator Cotton said: he essentially argued that American forces should fight a war against Iran to defend Israel.

            Now Senator Cotton does not control the American military, but he’s not the only U.S politician who has argued this, and it’s well known that Netanyahu would love for the American military to overthrow the Iranian government.

            Only if a person believes that Israel and American interests are one and the same can a person believe that politicians like Senator Cotton (who isn’t Jewish) isn’t putting Israel’s interests (as expressed by Netanyahu) ahead of America’s.

            If Netanyahu believes that the U.S would fight the Iranian government on behalf of Israel, he is essentially being given a blank check to provoke Iran into a war. Is that in America’s best interests?

            If an American doesn’t think it is (and many Jewish Americans don’t think it is), but, after hearing what Senator Cotton said, is it racist or Anti-Semitic for those Americans to ask him whose interests he’s putting first?

  2. I oppose BDS, so I don’t care for Omar, as I believe she still supports it. However, this case shows some evidence that the media does engage in ‘fake news.’ The issue here though, of course, isn’t ‘fake news’ but media sensationalism.

    I’ve only seen one sentence of Omar’s comment, but an MSNBC video had her full quote. The full quote is only one additional sentence, so I have to assume it was not mentioned because it places the first sentence in context and, overall, there really is nothing controversial about the overall quote, so it removes the ‘sensationalist’ angle. There is some poor wording in the first sentence that everybody who has followed this knows.

    This is the full quote:
    ““I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it okay for me to to talk about the influence of the NRA, or the fossil fuel industry or big pharma and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy.”

    1. The difference between your position and mine is that you believe “allegiance to a foreign country” was a poor choice of words for what she was really trying to say, and I believe she said exactly what she meant, and was only apologizing because she got exposed, not because she inadvertently gave offense with a poor choice of words.

      Time will tell which of us is correct.

      I’m betting that she, like Trump, can’t keep her feelings hidden.

      1. Exactly right. She actually meant that you can for or against the NRA, for or against big oil, but on Israel you can either put their interests on a par with (or a little ahead of) the US’s or you can be silent – those are the only permitted views in politics.
        She was pointing out that this allegiance to a foreign country should at least be questioned. That’s not anti-Semitism. At a stretch it’s anti-Israel, but really it’s just anti-censorship.

        Louis, [citation needed] on Omar’s ISIS-hugging

          1. Well, congrats on using snopes, a disturbing number of dips see the facts as having a bias.
            The rating says “mixed”. That’s snopes-speech for not true, but not total BS. In particular, where you say “defended ISIS fighters” she actually defended someone who had never fought for ISIS.

          2. Nature Mom

            You saw what you wanted to see.

            Snopes said:

            “What’s False

            Omar has not consistently promoted a policy of reducing custodial sentences for those convicted of attempting to join ISIS, and her 2016 letter was sent in the context of sentencing one individual in a specific case.”

            They pulled a fast one. They said “she only did it this one time, not consistently,” IMPLYING that the one time did apply beyond this one individual, and did not reflect her belief in general. But that implication was deliberately misleading on Snopes’ part. In fact, they admitted the fallacy of their own argument later in the article when they admitted that, although she had only said it once, she meant it to apply generally.

            The article’s summary clearly states: “She sent her November 2016 letter to Judge Michael Davis on behalf of a specific individual who had been “caught trying to join ISIS,” but … “the principles she invoked and response she advocated in that letter were relevant and applicable beyond the specific circumstances surrounding the conviction of Abdurahman Yasin Daud”

            In other words, the part they previously said was “false” was not false at all. She DOES advocate in general for lenient treatment of those who try to join ISIS, and to make it worse, for other violent offenders as well, provided they are “marginalized,” which is her code for “not white guys.”

            Here are her words:

            “A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty. A restorative approach to justice assesses the lure of criminality and addresses it.”

            His “choosing violence” was trying to join ISIS, for which she recommended a more lenient sentence. While I agree with her that a long-term prison sentence is not always appropriate, that’s only because I feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases. (That’s what I would argue for if he had actually gone overseas and fought against Americans). Frankly, we were already merciful to that schmuck by capturing him before he could join ISIS. If he had succeeded, he would be dead now!

  3. 1.So, it’s quite clear that Omar’s reference to pushing ‘ for allegiance to a foreign country’ is only about members of Congress being pushed this way. So, the concern about this bringing up memories of Japanese Americans being interned is nothing more than grandstanding.

    2.The choice of words of ‘allegiance to a foreign county’ could have been better. But, it’s also quite clear that she is referring to lobbying efforts to get members of Congress to not vote in the best interests of the United States or of Americans in general, but to vote in the best interests of who the lobbyist is employed by. Is that controversial? Does anybody even dispute that occurs?

    3.In this case, the lobbyists she is referring to is AIPAC, who are supporters of the extremist reactionary Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Omar’s second sentence (why is it not okay for me to) “talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy”?

    The effort by the Democratic leadership to censure her is the most powerful evidence she could have that what she says is true.

    The people who should be censured here are the sensationalist media and the grandstanding politicians.

  4. UncleScoopy says;
    The 23 who voted against it were not pro-hate. Their grounds were based on the bill’s innate hypocrisy.
    You then contradict yourself and say;
    What WAS there was simply “hate is bad,” and 23 people hilariously and embarrassingly voted against it!

    All along it was directed at Omar but deflected at the last minute.

    @Nature Mom and Adam

    The censure was not for just the AIPAC “faux pas” but for the other ones as well.

    I also find it interesting that you bash MAGA as racist, bigoted, fascist ect. but Omar is unambiguously pro-US! Oh wait, she defended ISIS fighters and said they needed hugs and love when they admitted to going over to help ISIS kill!

    So yes it is like putting the worse violators of human rights on the UN board FOR human rights. Take a look at who is on the board.

    In my 40 years of adult hood (I am 57) I have never seen a congress act with such callus and disrespect for each other. Please do not blame Trump, Liberals, Conservatives ect. Everyone is responsible and it has been happening for the past 10 years. Omar is upset at a picture of her and 9/11 but it is ok to have children paint pictures of police as pigs beating minorities and be proud. No I do not think either one is ok. Yes there are issues but lets behave as adults and not put our hands over our hears yelling I can’t hear you!

    1. I didn’t contradict myself at all.

      I don’t believe they are REALLY pro-hate. I believe they cast their votes to make a point about something that was not there, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that it was a foolish decision, because here is what history will see: they were asked “Is hate bad, yes or no?” and they said “no.” (As I’m sure their opponents will remind them in their next election.)

      But of course, you knew that already, because you quoted one of my sentences out of context, but left out the qualifier immediately afterward, the one that said “While this is a reasonable point for discussion, it is one that should be made on talk shows, and not really a valid reason to vote “nay” on “hate is bad.”

      In other words, I understand their point, and I even agree with it, but the way they made that point made them seem like buffoons.

      In Trump’s case, who knows whether he even read the bill? My money’d be on “no.” But one thing that’s clear is that his own party voted in favor of the bill 173-23, and he called those 173 members of his own party disgraceful for voting “yes” on “hate is bad.” To put it bluntly, that is deeply fucked-up on many, many levels.

      1. The only thing “fucked up” is a bill that was initiated by the hatred of one individual got so watered down and manipulated by the Democrats that the person responsible for the bigotry had no problem voting for that bill even given her continued hatred of the Jewish people

        1. Show me the hatred. Show me the bigotry. Show me the anti-Semitism.
          It’s not there. Decrying the influence of AIPAC (which is not even in dispute) is different from hating Israeli and non-Israeli Jews.
          Wanting Israel to quit oppressing the Palestinians is the unspoken taboo here.

          1. Typical Liberal response telling others when they are allowed to feel discriminated against. Of course, you would never tell a person of color, a transgender, or a Muslim how to feel because they are not “safe” targets and would push back

    1. I was talking about YOU telling Jewish people they don’t have the right to feel discriminated against but you would never address the other groups I mentioned and tell them how they should feel. That elitism along with the hypocrisy is what makes Democrats nauseating

  5. If someone has objectively not been discriminated against then they don’t have the right to feign offense. Can we at least agree on that much?

    1. Definitely not.

      Pretty sure I don’t have to be discriminated against to be offended. I can be offended by other people being discriminated against, and I can be offended by people’s hateful words, even when no discrimination actually takes place.

      More important, I do take offense when somebody asks for lenient treatment for people who went to war, or tried to, with the intent of killing my children and grandchildren on a battlefield. That was, to me, the worst offense Rep. Omar committed, and one which I will not forgive.

      8 U.S. Code § 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death.”

      The other thing there is that she is clearly guilty of discrimination, although she disguises it with code words. Note her letter asking for mercy for the would -be ISIS recruit:

      “A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty.”

      In other words, the sentencing guidelines are fine for white guys, but not for those “marginalized” by society. Them, you show mercy and rehabilitate.

      As I see it, the purpose of law is equitability. While I do not favor special white-guy treatment for a monster like Manafort, neither do I favor special non-white-guy treatment for a guy who decides to join ISIS.

Comments are closed.