Bernie Sanders aide defends Omar with term seen as anti-Semitic, apologizes

Fox News ^ | March 13 2019 | Joseph A. Wulfsohn

[knighthawk]

A top staffer to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign apologized Tuesday for invoking “a dual allegiance” of Jewish Americans while defending Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

Belén Sisa, Sanders’ national deputy press secretary, was discussing the term seen as anti-Semitic in a Facebook thread over the weekend -- and argued that questioning it was legitimate, Politico reported.

“This is a serious question: do you not think that the American government and American Jewish community has a dual allegiance to the state of Israel? I’m asking not to rule out the history of this issue, but in the context in which this was said by Ilhan,” Sisa wrote.

[Eleutheria5]

F#@$ you all. F@#$ your apologies. F@#$ your rationalizations and your identity politics. F@#$ your party. And most of all, F#$%$ the JINO Uncle Bernies who don’t know anything about their Jewishness, yet keep trading on it, and don’t give a damn what the consequences are for committed, educated Jews who live in the Jewish world AND the ‘hood, and get cursed at, threatened and assaulted over the likes of Leonard Jeffries and Ilhan Omar. Oh, and also F@#$ Ilhan Omar, but she’s just a catalyst for the rest of you showing your true colors, and it’s not black, brown, yellow or red. It’s only one color: Ugly.

Jexodus is a great idea, but I’m way ahead of it, having left the Democratic Farty decades ago.

[SunkenCiv]

Well put.

• Anti-Semitism and 'Islamophobia: No Moral Equivalence

[jmacusa]

No, as much as I agree that California is a mess if one state goes, then others will and then we are no longer The United Sates of America. And that’s something these modern day Confederates don’t seem to understand. I ask what if the South had won the war. What would America look like today? What kind of a country would it be? And they never answer.

[zeestephen]

Re: And why do so many so called conservatives venerate a bunch of Southern Democrats?

I don't venerate any Democrats.

On the other hand, I do not believe in perpetual contracts, either.

Lincoln totally supported the secession of the United States from Great Britain.

But when the South decided it wanted to secede from the North, Lincoln refused, and he initiated the most destructive war in American history, not to free the slaves (which came much later), but “to preserve the Union.”

Would you be willing to invade California and destroy Silicon Valley and Stanford University to preserve the Union? I'm not going to do that. If California wants to leave, just leave!

Nor will I accept the flip side of that issue. We have LEGALLY imported 30 million Third World Socialists.

I can live with them. But I categorically refuse to be governed by them and their 50 million American-born Socialist friends.

Bottom Line - Civil War #2 has already started.

[jmacusa]

You’re one of those types who conflates a colonial war of independence from an unelected monarchy with secessionist treason against a duly and democratically elected representative form of government. Uh huh. Right.

[zeestephen]

I'm not sure I understand your reference to Murray Rothbard.

I was trying to make the point that no one in the Democratic Party has seriously - or sincerely - defended Israel since the 1960s.

Rothbard was a Libertarian intellectual (who somehow managed to enrage every other Libertarian on planet Earth).

According to Wiki, Rothbard actually supported Buchanan's presidential run in 1992.

As to “morally right,” I often use that term when I write about the defense of Israel, but not in my previous post to you.

[zeestephen]

Re: Secessionist treason

It’s only treason if your side loses the war.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that Americans have a constitutional right to rebel - as stated in the Declaration of Independence - and that states have the right to negotiate secession.

620,000 mostly young men died in the Civil War. Adjusting for population growth, that would be 7 million young men dead today, plus trillions of dollars of war damage.

No “union” between two incompatible population groups can justify that level of insane destruction.

[nathanbedford]

I cited that article not for Rothbard himself but for the leftists he quotes.

In any event, I think there's much between us that we agree on very little that we disagree on. As to the "morally right" issue which I introduced, I think that is a terribly important consideration. The moral factor in dealing with Israel cannot be considered in isolation from the terrible history of the Jews culminating in the Holocaust. That moral factor must also be considered in the context of a tiny minority against a huge and aggressive alien force bent on their extermination.

I acknowledged that the history of the Democrat party has not been entirely without blemish, particularly the New York Times spiking of Holocaust stories and Roosevelt's reluctance to offer sanctuary to refugees Jews fleeing Hitler. Republicans as well should look to their own history.

However, there are 320 million people in America whose destiny it is our patriotic first responsibility to protect and that means we need a coldly rational analysis of our obligations to Israel as they weigh against our national interest. I do not know how that can be done if an open and free discussion is made impossible.

[rockrr]

Lincoln totally supported the secession of the United States from Great Britain.

There was no "secession" from Great Britain - the colonialists openly rebelled against British abuse.

But when the South decided it wanted to secede from the North, Lincoln refused...

Lincoln didn't "refuse". He said that he was powerless to stop a secession - as long as it was peaceful. His hope was that cooler heads would prevail and they would stop their foolishness.

...and he initiated the most destructive war in American history...

Sine Qua non - without which not. The rebellion had already started when Lincoln took office. So the positions he took were responsive, not initiative. Had the confederates sued for relief through Congress (as they should have) the civil war might have been avoided. It was the confeds who took hostile action against their own country and are singularly responsible for what came after.

I can live with them. But I categorically refuse to be governed by them and their 50 million American-born Socialist friends.

We may not have any choice in the matter.

[zeestephen]

Re: Lincoln didn’t “refuse”. He said that he was powerless to stop a secession - as long as it was peaceful.

Apparently Lincoln forgot to mention the “peace” option to the residents of Charleston before they attacked Fort Sumter.

[rockrr]

He was under no obligation to say anything to anyone relative to keeping the peace - especially when the insurrectionists attacked Ft. Sumter.