Islamic Activist Defends Attacks on Jews
Women's March leader Linda Sarsour rallied to the defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), who has been criticized for mouthing stereotypical tropes about the evil influence of Jewish money in politics.
"Unlike the Nazi's whose anti-Jewish policies were based on racism, Rep. Omar's views are firmly founded on Islam's holy book—the Quran," Sarsour said. "Long before the deranged Hitler voiced his confused objections to the historic depredations wreaked by Jews, the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—warned the world about them."
"The charge that Rep. Omar is anti-Semitic is absurd," Sarsour went on. "Semites are an ethnic group that includes both Arabs and Jews. The Prophet's warnings were concerned with Jews who opposed the spread of Allah's one true religion. These are the Jews who are to be fought and killed. Jews who submit, pay the jizya and accept their dhimmi status are to be spared."
"So, as we can see once we examine the facts, Rep. Omar is not the raving anti-Semite that Jewish apologists would have us believe," Sarsour observed. "She is quite sensibly following the advice of the Prophet to distinguish between the benign Jews who seek Islam's protection and the evil Jews who resist the word of Allah. It is these latter Jews who Rep. Omar quite wisely urged must be stripped of their power to impede the success of Islam in its quest for world dominion."
Dem 2020 Hopefuls Tangle
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg issued an abject apology for saying "all lives matter" back in 2015. "I was young and naive then," the Mayor said. "I have since learned that the correct position is that only black lives matter. As a counterpoint, I want to remind voters that I am the only openly gay man in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. So, I, too, am a member of a protected class that has a long history of oppression in this country. I ask that voters take this into consideration when they evaluate which Democrat should be the next president of the United States."
Wayne Messam, mayor of Miramar, Fla. and fellow contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination took issue with what he called "my opponent's efforts to escape blame for his insensitivity. We black people suffered hundreds of years of slavery and second-class citizenship. Mayor Pete and other gay individuals easily avoided similar oppression by keeping their sexual orientation secret. They've only come out into the open now that sexual deviancy is widely accepted and encouraged."
Perhaps feeling pressed by Mayor Pete's $7 million campaign chest, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke quickly announced that "I will sign legislation authorizing a committee to study racial reparations for descendants of slaves."
O'Rourke's pledge was lampooned as "wimpy" by rival contender Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif). "I will order reparations by executive decree," she vowed. "We don't want the kind of delays that could arise from a commission study or congressional inaction. And we don't need the complication of johnny-come-lately pseudo victims like Buttigieg or Warren."
For her part, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass) blasted what she termed "inadequate half-measures for repairing the historic wrongs perpetrated by the white man. When I become president all of the land within the United States will be ceded back to its original Native American inhabitants. All other races will either pay rent or be deported back to their ancestors' country of origin in either Europe or Africa."
In related news, 2024 Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) admitted that she was "pleasantly surprised by Sen. Warren's proposal, but it doesn't go far enough. Sending all the human inhabitants of the western hemisphere back would be the biggest thing we could do to avert the destruction of the planet due to global warning. Humans didn't originate here. Allowing the non-human biosphere to return to its natural state before it was polluted by humans would be a world-saving event."
Unemployment Low "Concerning," Says Pelosi
This past week, filings for unemployment benefits fell to a level not seen since December of 1969. While most reasonable individuals would consider this an encouraging development, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) begged to differ.
"Unemployment benefits have always been a key weapon against economic recession," she contended. "Putting money in the hands of those who have lost their jobs is the best stimulant for the economy in times of trouble. In this respect, I find the decline in filings to be extremely frightening."
"The euphoria now being experienced by Trump and the Republicans overlooks the danger of relying on full employment to drive the economy forward," Pelosi warned. "This approach requires the continued production of useful goods and services to sustain household incomes. In contrast, government subsidies like unemployment benefits do not require the production of anything of value. These payments can be made while plants remain idle—allowing a win-win scenario of increased leisure and sustained household income."
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow dismissed Pelosi's "addled economic thinking. The wealth of nations consists of the real goods and services produced by the cooperative efforts of capital and labor. Unemployment benefits contribute nothing to this process. At best they can serve as a temporary mitigation for a limited number of out-of-work individuals. Even then, payment of these benefits is only possible if the necessary real wealth is created by actual production."
States Assail Trump Admin's "Edible Lunch" Policy
Six states and the District of Columbia are suing the Trump Administration for its reversal of the Obama-era rules on school lunches. New York Attorney General Letitia James mocked "the scientifically unsound argument that the rules imposed by the prior administration were a failure because so much of the food ended up tossed out by the students."
"Whether the students eat the food is not the government's responsibility," James asserted. "This is still a free country. We can lead each student to a nutritionally balanced meal, but we can't make him eat it. Even if the food is rejected and thrown away it's a better outcome than giving in to student preferences. For one, the biggest problem for today's youth is obesity. If the unpalatable food isn't eaten we are stilling striking a blow against obesity."
A second aspect cited in the lawsuit was "the contrasting roll-models represented by First Lady Michelle Obama and President Trump. The nutritionally sound guidelines developed by the First Lady should be compared with the unhealthy eating habits demonstrated by President Trump. His love of fast food and the fast food feast he offered to the college football champions are the path to future health problems."
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue defended the Administration's looser guidelines, saying that "the sort of top-down, one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the Obama Administration is not the American way. The impact of trying to force feed students and watching them reject this kind of regimentation is too negative. Local school authorities can make better judgments than ivory tower bureaucrats. Consider that one of the key objections in this lawsuit is that some local schools have been allowing students to choose 2% chocolate milk instead of the Obama Administration dictate that chocolate would only be allowed for fat-free milk. They are making a mountain out of a molehill."
Chicago Demands $130,000 from Smollett
In the wake of State Attorney Kim Foxx's decision to drop all charges against Jussie Smollett and expunge his record, Chicago city officials have threatened to file a civil lawsuit demanding that he reimburse the city for the $130,000 in expenses incurred investigating his hate crime hoax. Smollett's attorney Mark Geragos called the demand for money "extortion."
"Since the charges have been dismissed and the record expunged it's as if the alleged hoax never happened," Geragos said. "Under the law, Jussie is now as innocent as a baby. The City's demand that he pay them is extortion and defamation of his character. If anyone needs to make restitution it is the City. The police's failure to protect Jussie from the thugs who attacked him was a dereliction of duty. They should be paying him for the mental suffering he has had to endure on the inadequately patrolled and unsafe streets of the high-crime community that the police have allowed to run rampant."
Geragos also hinted that "the City may have a lot more to fear from pursuing this extortion plot than my client does. I advise them to rethink whether they want to testify under oath regarding the performance of the police department. It is they who diverted resources away from efforts to deter and investigate the multiple murders that occurred while they were wasting time harassing an innocent man. Are they sure they want increased scrutiny focused on such a foolish and possibly corrupt decision?"
"Mr. Smollett is not some inconsequential average Joe," Geragos reminded. "He is a celebrity and has powerful friends who have already intervened on his behalf and won't hesitate to come to his aid should the City forego its opportunity to back off before anyone gets hurt."