TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:35 pm

In the interest of being fair and balanced.

I agree. I never thought I would ever hear her say anything I agreed with.

Cancel rent payments retroactively to April 1. That means I would not have to pay rent in January forward until they end the "emergency". Give me a check for $9,000 and save me another 1,000 a month. I love the idea. I also can see how bad it is for the government to do this. 9,000 for me times the 50 apartments in my relatively small complex times the 7 apartment complexes in Luling (a small town of 5,500) is a little over 3 million dollars. I cannot imagine how much it will cost if I try to add in all of the mortgages in this city. And typing that makes me ask what part of the mortgage payment is being banned. Is it the principal and interest or the whole payment with the escrow for insurance and taxes included?

There is no way the government or anyone else could do this. This has to be a plan to ruin the economy to assist in the socialist takeover. The only other explanation is stupidity and I am not sure that is truly possible with her. About the only way I can justify it as her being stupid is to really believe in the old rule that we should not attribute to evil that which is properly explained by incompetence. This stretches that concept too far, IMO.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:47 pmmojo84 is again both focused and correct. In recent weeks, the conversation around Islamic anti-Semitism has involved Rep. Ilhan Omar. Like the various imams and terrorists, the newly elected politician reveals the diversity of Islamic anti-Semitism. What unites Muslim anti-Semites in America isn’t geography or culture. It isn’t a local Jewish population. Instead, as we saw in last year’s rash of mosque anti-Semitism, it’s the religious teachings of Islam.

I disagree with both you and Mojo on this. I have not studied Islam that much, but I have studied Jewish history a little. I have also read what is written in the Bible (well, some of the New Testament but mostly the Tanakh). From both, I have seen how easy it is for some men to take parts of the writings out of context and use it in ways that the religious writings would never condone.

As an example from my religion, I point to 1 Samuel 15:3 where the command was to kill very man, woman, child, suckling pig, goat, and ox. There are many other verses describing Israelite brutality against Philistines. And Philistine is the linguistic basis for Palestinean. But no one puts the Jews down for being violent even though the Old Testament is a very violent book.

And the Catholic church has a long history of being anti-anything other than Catholic. Consider the Inquisition and how they treated anyone who was even suspected of not being a good Catholic (and it wasn't just Spain - they were just the most famous). The Inquisition started in the 12th Century in France and continued through 1870 (and with some changes continues still). And while very few would say that the New Testament was violent, it is easy to see how much violence has been done in its name.

There is a lot of violence being done in the name of Islam and most of it is directed against Jews, but there is also a lot of anti-Christian violence as we saw this weekend. In neither case would I say that the religious teachings say to do this. I honestly believe that it is another example of the basic precepts of a religion being twisted by some men for their own purposes. This has happened too many times in other religions for me to not see it as probable in the case of Islam.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:19 pmDid you read the article?
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272879 ... greenfield

Omar’s worldview is CAIR’s world. And CAIR’s worldview is that of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s Sayyid Qutb had claimed that the Jews use money to control the world. Hamas, an arm of the Brotherhood, had claimed in its charter that, "with their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others... With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests."

Sure I read it. I don't like Rep. Omar at all. But she does have the right to speak her opinion, even if it is one I strongly disagree with. Not only does she have that right, even while in Congress, but she actually has a duty to speak the opinions of the people she represents, whether I agree with those opinions or not.

The article makes some very interesting allegations about Omar. I am not going to say they are true, even though I tend to agree, because I have no evidence other than what she has said of her world view and what she said did not match what the article is claiming. I am not saying it is wrong or lying, just that I have not seen the evidence of this.

I think what is most telling about this situation is not what Omar said or how she feels. I believe that she is actually repeating the opinions of those who elected her. She is an immigrant and the first Somali refugee elected to Congress (that I know of). Her district appears to be a strongly Muslim, Somali refugee district. I have not seen anyone from her district saying she does not represent them and their opinions. This could just be the media coverage, of course, but this is telling because it leads me to think that most Muslim Somali refugees agree with her and are just as biased. So why are we not seeing more people saying to not accept these refugees since they do not agree with our way of life or our country's values?

It is very educational to note who has come out in her defense in the media also. Not in defense of her saying her opinion, but in defense of that opinion itself. It is not just the immigrants and refugees who feel this way. It appears to me that the liberal, left-leaning base of the Democratic party are saying that she is right too. This is also revealing to me. I can only hope that many other American Jews are seeing this and wondering if it has become time for them to leave the Democratic party, as it has left them.

I have to agree with most of what Beiruty said. I have freedom to speak my mind in the US, even when it is an unpopular opinion. In order to defend my right to free speech, I must defend Rep. Omar's rights to the same. Before I explain where I differ from him, I must ask how he meant one statement to be taken. He said:

Beiruty wrote:That being said, there is no apology for stating a factual truth.

If this meant that Rep. Omar was simply speaking the truth when she said that the congressmen were being bought, I disagree with some of the implications. Omar implied that the lobbyists for a specific group were directly bribing the American congressmen. I doubt that is the truth. I also doubt the implication that it was just the one group of lobbyists, since it appears to me that many different lobbyists groups spend a lot of money working with all of the congressmen. I am confident that there are always going to be a few cases of outright bribery going on, but I also doubt that it is commonplace. There are too many legal ways to influence how politicians act or vote to need to resort to bribery.

Where I disagree with Beiruty is that the uproar we see is not a violation of Omar's 1A right to free speech. The Constitution is a limit on government action against a person for their opinion. It does not limit the people of the US from expressing their disagreement with the person's opinion, even to the point of calling for some action to be taken. Given her obvious bias, it seems reasonable to me that Omar should be moved from the Foreign Affairs committee since she cannot have credibility in her decisions on certain countries. This would not be punishing her for her opinions or expressions, just a lateral move to where she might have some credibility.

And of course, I would suggest that people from all over the country contribute to help whoever runs against her next election cycle. We can stop her re-election without it being a violation of her rights.