Trump on Ilhan Omar: “There's a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother...

Wrong about what? I simply stated that Duke has only supported a statement made by Omar, if you have anything to show he supports her in any way beyond that particular statement, then feel free to share it. Or if you are unable to, you could always make another post about him endorsing an entirely different person, and then come back later and say that you never used the term "endorse". It's up to you

 

She's a liar and a user.

SO SHE’S TREATED THE STAR TRIBUNE PRETTY MUCH THE WAY SHE’S TREATED AMERICA, THEN: “The Star Tribune has treated Omar almost entirely as a hometown hero. When it comes to the Star Tribune, Omar is both an ingrate and a liar.”

In a tweet yesterday Omar made her implicit accusation of bigotry against the Star Tribune explicit. David Steinberg retweeted it with a comment.


David Steinberg@realDSteinberg
Ha!

All that effort @StarTribune put into protecting @IlhanMN, and into keeping its readers ignorant of her bigoted, criminal past through two elections ...

And she burns them.

Together, both may have damaged the Left’s media/political establishment beyond recovery. https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1169377306382688261 …

Ilhan Omar

✔@IlhanMN

“Minnesota’s aggressively negative news about Muslims is produced by a group of Twin Cities donors, policy wonks, and strategists tied to the state’s most powerful Republican organizations.”

Surprised the ⁦@StarTribune⁩ isn’t on this list! http://www.citypages.com/news/how-minnesota-republican-operatives-are-sowing-distrust-of-muslims/559291181 …

When the Star Tribune asked Omar for an interview about the state campaign finance board findings against her, Omar responded with a canned statement raising accusations of bigotry against the Star Tribune.

 

Your pet fringe theories have nothing to do with actual US law. Congress expressly mentioned at the time they debated the 14th amendment that it would include the children of immigrants.

 

Could you copy and paste that along with a link ?

Back when the Constitution was adopted the individual sovereign states decided who could become an immigrant not the federal government.

The federal government was only involved in the naturalization of immigrants before the 1870's.

Tourist, foreigners conducting business in America, illegal aliens are not immigrants.

This is all covered in Vattel's "Laws of Nations" aka "Law of Nature" or "Natural Law" which our founding fathers depended on when composing the Constitution.

FYI:
The authors of the 14th Amendment also used Vattel's when debating and writing the 14th Amendment.

 

Mr. Cowan: "I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?"
Mr. Trumbull: "Undoubtedly."

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603

The only exceptions discussed were American Indians living on quasi-independent reservations, foreign diplomats, and enemy soldiers.

 

Good source, "The Congressional Globe."
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

Don't have the time right now to read the entire debates that took place but have bookmarked it.

I see where Mr. Cowen predicts that California could become a shithole third word state of mongoloid people (probably referring to brown skin Mexicans)

 

Yes, braindead racism was more common then, though it hasn't died out even now.

 

I don't think the word "racism" existed back during the 1870's.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/racism

I'm guessing it's a word that was made up to further a radical leftist political agenda.

 

No one is dumb enough to pretend racism doesn't exist or never existed. Whether the word for existed yet or not is completely immaterial. Your guesses have nothing to do with reality.

 

The meaning and definition of words are extremely important and when reading history or even comprehending the U.S. Constitution, having a dictionary that was used at the time is a must.

For example the Second Amendment..."the right to bear arms."

It doesn't say the right to bare muskets or rifles but arms.

"Arms" = the weapons of war.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

During the American Revolutionary War both the British and the American Continental Army were armed with muskets.

The American colonist and civilian militiamen were armed with the more deadlier and longer range rifle like the Kentuckian rifle.

The second Amendment is referring to civilians having the right to own and possessing weapons of war.

 

I've made the exact same argument myself about the 2nd. It is still crazy to pretend that racism didn't exist then or doesn't exist now. Complete absurdity.

 

The original and really the only definition of racism it the belief that one race or ethnicity is superior or inferior to other races or ethnicities.

Even today the Japanese believe they are superior.

Mexico as a nation has an inferiority complex.

White liberals believe that people of color are inferior and can't compete in society so they believe they need special privileges, protections and free stuff.

 

If you can show that he supports ONLY one statement by Omar than please do so. Until then, I'll assume when he says "support" he means "support."

 

He didn't say "support" actually, he commented on a remark Omar made about AIPAC, and did not comment on any other position of hers. Seriously?

 

Does he have to list more than one reason to support her?

 

If he actually said he supports her (as you quoted him as saying), then no he wouldn't have to, he wouldn't have to list anything in fact.

 

If you acknowledge that I quoted him saying he supports her, what exactly are you complaining about?

 

Where did you say he "supports" her, and where did I acknowledge him saying that?

 

White conservative males put people they deemed inferior into slavery. You aren't fooling anyone with your play on words.

 

You said he supports her here:

Since Duke has since said he endorses Tulsi Gabbard...

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard gets 2020 endorsement from David Duke

...would you say he endorses her but doesn't support her? I'm really confused how you seem to think he can't support someone he endorses.

 

I definitely did not say he supports her, I did address you as quoting Duke as saying he supports her, to which I asked you source where he said that. You were unable to

That's not David Duke endorsing Ilhan Omar, that is David Duke endorsing Tulsi Gabbard. Do you have anything to show that Duke has endorsed Ilhan Omar?

You wrote

yet you still have been unable to show him using that language anywhere for Ilham Omar. You probably shouldn't use quotations like that when the person you are quoting didn't actually say that

 

14 pages and still no evidence of the accusation in the OP. Just saying.

 

I had already posted this link in this thread, and for some reason, you can't seem to grasp it, so I doubt it will have any effect on you. You've shown yourself to immune to evidence.


Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke heaps praise on Rep. Ilhan Omar

 

So I'm just going to conclude you do not understand how quotations work, because literally nowhere in that article does he say what you quoted him as saying. You even used quotation marks suggesting he said he "supports" her, yet nowhere is that language used by him. Go figure

 

Is your issue the actual word "support?"

From the article:

"In a Thursday podcast at his site, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard spoke out strongly in favor of the Muslim Congresswoman who has accused Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalty, attributed support for Israel to foreign money, and said Israel has “hypnotized” the world.

“By defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” Mr. Duke wrote on his site, using the acronym for “Zionist Occupation Government,” a term anti-Semites use to refer to the U.S. government as secretly controlled by Jews.


Mr. Duke and co-podcaster Eric Striker, according to the site, “heaped praise on Ilhan Omar..."

So If I say that Duke "to give encouragement and approval to someone or something," in this case Omar, isn't that support?