Rep. Ilhan Omar faces calls to ‘resign in disgrace’ over speech in support of Somalia

 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/29/news/rep-ilhan-omar-faces-calls-to-resign-in-disgrace-over-unbecoming-speech-in-support-of-somalia/amp/

“Ilhan Omar’s appalling, Somalia-first comments are a slap in the face to the Minnesotans she was elected to serve and a direct violation of her oath of office,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) wrote on X. “She should resign in disgrace.”

Omar, the first Somali American in Congress, appeared to assure her Somali American constituents that she would do everything in her power to prevent the disputed, breakaway Republic of Somaliland from entering into a sea-access deal with landlocked Ethiopia.

A clip of the Minnesota lawmaker went viral with over 2.6 million views after it was posted on X, with a translation saying Omar had said: “As Somalis, one day we will go after our missing territories.”

Newsweek cannot handle inconvenient truth!

A post here yesterday focused on comments by a Palestinian about the mess in the endless Israel-Palestine conflict. I read the article and it just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. So I thought I would set up an account and comment to ask a question. Newsweek rejected the comment. Here is the rejection email with my comments and question:

The AP article I quoted is headlined: Netanyahu says he told the US that he opposes a Palestinian state in any postwar scenario

I clicked on the learn more button in the rejection email and got this:

As far as I can tell, my comments and question were not uncivil, spam, profanity, incoherent, obscene, threatening or an attack on the identity of the author or other commenters. 

That leaves insulting and inflammatory as the only possibilities for rejection. But, were they insulting and/or inflammatory? Apparently so in the eyes of the Newsweek censor. 

But if inconvenient truth is insulting and/or inflammatory to at least some people and that merits censoring it, how is it possible to have open and thoughtful conversations as Newsweek claims it wants? That is how I analyze the reasoning that led to rejecting my comments and question.

For some context about Newsweek:

Qs: Is Newsweek incapable of dealing with inconvenient truth generally, or is this a response limited to exceptionally emotional issues like the endless Israel-Palestine conflict, misery and bloodshed? For example, in an article that denies Republican animosity toward non-heterosexuals or abortion, would Newsweek have rejected similar comments and questions about Republicans passing laws that interfere with the freedoms of (i) the LGBQTN community, or (ii) women who want an abortion? Ditto for a pro-gun article about lack of gun violence but comments and a question about actual data on how severe the gun violence problem actually is? 

Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there something important going on here? 

News: Chevron deference; A warning about demagoguery; Elite support for demagoguery

American Progress comments about the pending USSC case that authoritarian radical right elites hope will end Chevron deference, thereby gutting the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and protect consumers and civil liberties:

The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overrule 40 years of precedent, which may allow individual judges to implement their partisan policy preferences instead of abiding by agency expertise.

At issue in both Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce is a challenge to a regulation created by the National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, requiring commercial fishing vessels to pay for federal monitors who collect data to ensure that fisheries remain sustainable and viable for decades to come. Rather than address the narrow and technical question on this regulation, however, the Supreme Court opted instead to take up the broader and far more existentially threatening question of whether to completely do away with 40-year-old precedent known as Chevron deference.

The stakes of these cases could not be higher. The conservative legal movement’s efforts to use the legal system to serve the interests of billionaires and corporate behemoths at the expense of the American people has come to fruition. Indeed, ending Chevron deference may prevent agencies from effectively serving the American people and empower corporations to flout vital oversight. Moreover, the outcome could affect nearly every policy area, including health care, civil rights, workers’ rights, education, environmental justice, and financial regulation, to name only a few.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

The NYT writes about federal judge who issued a warning from the bench:

A Republican-appointed judge on Thursday denounced as “shameless” the attempts by prominent Republican politicians to recast the Jan. 6 riot in a positive light, including by portraying the Trump supporters who sacked Congress as having done nothing wrong and by calling those convicted of crimes political prisoners or hostages.

“In my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream,” wrote Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court in Washington. “I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness.”

The remarks, made in a seven-page filing that Judge Lamberth described as notes for what he had said on Thursday at a resentencing hearing for a Jan. 6 rioter, amounted to a scathing and extraordinary broadside against a vast web of conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the Capitol attack that have permeated the right.

Criticizing the rioter, James Little, for displaying “a clear lack of remorse,” the judge used the occasion to also “set the record straight” about what he portrayed as a broader disinformation campaign, citing the evidence he has absorbed from presiding over many Jan. 6 prosecutions.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

A NYT article reports about X and election lies and misinformation it is spreading:

Elon Musk Is Spreading Election Misinformation, but X’s 

Fact Checkers Are Long Gone

In the spring of 2020, when President Donald J. Trump wrote messages on Twitter warning that increased reliance on mail-in ballots would lead to a “rigged election,” the platform ran a corrective, debunking his claims. 

This month, Elon Musk, who has since bought Twitter and rebranded it X, echoed several of Mr. Trump’s claims about the American voting system, putting forth distorted and false notions that American elections were wide open for fraud and illegal voting by noncitizens.

This time, there were no fact checks. And the X algorithm — under Mr. Musk’s direct control — helped the posts reach large audiences, in some cases drawing many millions of views.

Since taking control of the site, Mr. Musk has dismantled the platform’s system for flagging false election content, arguing it amounted to election interference.   

The platform’s algorithm — which dictates how posts are circulated on the site — also now gives added promotion to those who pay to be “verified,” including previously banned accounts.

Among them is @KanekoaTheGreat, a once-banned QAnon influencer who this month circulated a 32-page dossier promoted by Mr. Trump that recounted a barrage of false charges about the 2020 election.

It drew nearly 22 million views.

There you have it as clear as it can be: lies are honest, patriotic and democratic, while inconvenient truth is dishonest, tyrannical and authoritarian. According to corrupt authoritarian radical right elites, asking for truth amounts to election interference. 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

From the Crackpots, Cranks, Creeps & Weirdos Files: 

GOP Chairwoman Says “Satan” Now Using 

Taylor Swift to Re-Elect Joe Biden

Kandiss Taylor, [a crackpot and] former Georgia school teacher who ran in the Republican primary for Governor in 2022 and who is now the GOP Chair of Georgia’s 1st congressional district, is back in the news with more Taylor Swift criticism. Taylor’s latest Swift attack was triggered by the Kansas City Chiefs winning their conference final matchup on Sunday, sending the team to the Super Bowl — their fourth in five years.

After warning earlier in the fall that Taylor Swift was having a “demonic” effect on today’s youth, the MAGA adherent Taylor still can’t shake it off, as it were — especially since she sees Swift’s role as having grown even more nefarious from a MAGA standpoint. Swift’s latest machinations, according to Taylor, include the singer’s working with “Satan” to “elect Joe [Biden] back into the White House to destroy what’s left of America.”

Taylor’s charge was unverifiable — Satan did not return our calls.

Agent of Satan (but cute!)

The US betrays and abandons the Ukraine? (Looks like it)

PD cited this video in some of his comments. It speaks for itself:

“Redefining success in Ukraine” smells

rather like the Vietnam failure sold to us as

Peace With Honor

 

It sure sounds a lot like the MSM starting to pound the American public with propaganda to soothe consciences about abandoning the Ukraine to the Russians. The goal is to justify the catastrophe that the Ukraine is going to experience once Putin’s Russia overruns the whole country, committing genocide in the process. If this marks the beginning of American abandonment of the Ukraine, it makes me ashamed to be an American. 

Good job, two-party system! 

Well done!

So, of the two parties, who gets the credit for this moral and human disaster? Repubs, maybe ~75% and Dems, maybe ~25%? ~80-20? ~50-50? 

Q: Does this reflect the morality and belief of most Americans, assuming (i) we are going to abandon the Ukraine, and (ii) average Americans understand what is happening?