Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SJackson

THe contrast is even more stark. Israel was happy to let Tlaib in, even though she has those hateful views of them; their ONLY stipulation was that she not actively meet with people violently trying to destroy the country.

She refused, saying that such restrictions were too onerous for her. In other words, admitting that her purpose was to promote insurrection. She wasn’t going to strap bombs on herself, but she was working with people who do.

If a month before 9/11, we had known the names of the terrorists, and Trump was president, and he had called for their deportation — the modern democratic party would have opposed him, called for impeachment, and filed lawsuits blocking his order, and some liberal judge would have agreed, and the 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway.

But this same group of democrats who now scream that they should have free access to interfere in Israel’s election and existence, voted to refuse Netanyhu’s visit to our country, and a meeting with the congress.


8 posted on 08/19/2019 8:46:16 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

Indeed, Israel did more to accommodate these hags than Britain did for Geller and company. Frankly I think it is petty and stupid normally for anyone to be banned for political views; but I have to wonder how the left would have reacted had we let Pinochet get asylum in the USA?


23 posted on 08/19/2019 3:14:55 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson