By now, everyone is sickly aware of Rashida Tlaib’s profanity-laced tirade against President Trump promising that they (the Democrats) were going to impeach the “motherf*****.” Following on heels of noted anti-Semite and girlfriend batterer, Keith Ellison, Tlaib opted not to be sworn in on a Bible or copy of the Constitution and instead preferred to be sworn into office on a copy of the Koran.
Said the Congresscritter from Michigan:
My swearing in on the (Koran) is about me showing that the American people are made up of diverse backgrounds and we all have love of justice and freedom…It’s important to me because a lot of Americans have this kind of feeling that Islam is somehow foreign to American history. Muslims were there at the beginning.
In theory, she is not wrong in a gross sense. The famous Jefferson copy of the Koran that Ellison used was translated by a British lawyer named George Sale. What most people leave out is the forward by Sale himself, the purpose of the translation was to “…undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favorable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture.” In other words, it was hardly a pro-Islam exercise.
And as for that famous Bible and its owner, Jefferson’s enlightened views of religious freedom soon met reality. In 1786, along with John Adams, Jefferson met the Ambassador from Tripoli to broker a peace with the Barbary pirates who were menacing American and European merchants. The ambassador informed Jefferson that it was the duty of Muslims to make war on non-believers wherever they found them, that infidels were worthy of only slavery and that any Muslim who engaged in war against the “sinners” was guaranteed a place in heaven. In short, Jefferson received a huge middle finger and a “Get lost, motherf*****” from the Ambassador.
After the Marines were dispatched, there was peace for a bit, but another Barbary War would ensue. Most revisionist historians will note that in the Treaty of Tripoli, Adams wrote that “America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” However, in the supersedeing Treaty of 1805, the phrase was struck from the language. Adams even later declared the opposite in 1813: “(the) general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence were the general Principles of Christianity and those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God.”
After her primary victory in Michigan, she draped herself in a Palestinian flag. This seems like a strange act from a person who regularly talks about the dual loyalties of American Jews to the US and Israel. The only alternative explanation is hypocrisy. She talks of supporting racial justice and tolerance yet is intolerant of Jews and Christians alike. In essence, she is like other Democratic leaders (and perhaps Mitt Romney) in that they use politics as an effective tool of power, privilege and possibly wealth.
Tlaib cannot simultaneously be a dedicated Muslim and a defender of the Constitution, something she is sworn to uphold and defend. The reason is simple: the Koran contains many verses that stand in stark opposition to the Constitution.
In response to pending anti-BDS legislation, Tlaib and her supporters have questioned the loyalty of those who support this legislation. Bernie Sanders says it violates the First Amendment. Would he be talking about his First Amendment concerns if Congress were considering legislation prohibiting boycotts against gay or women-owned businesses? If Congress was considering a law against boycotting Muslim-majority countries or Muslim owned businesses, would she be complaining of dual loyalties?
She claims that “boycotting is a right and our historical fight for freedom and equality.” If she believes this, then surely she supports the right of a Christian baker, florist or photographer to boycott gay weddings. After all, “boycotting is a right.” She hopes to be a voice for Palestinians here and abroad, yet nobody has asked her where her loyalties lie. Instead, she espouses a mindset that for a Jew to support Israel, something is wrong, but it is perfectly fine for a Muslim to support the Palestinian cause.
Rashida Tlaib- another one of the growing number of “new faces of the Democratic Party-” is not only an anti-Semitic bigot, she is also an ignoramus when it comes to US history and a hypocrite. In other words, she’s just another Democrat just dressed in a head scarf.
As for real history and the “people” Tlaib wishes to be a voice for, perhaps she should read these words from a former PLO leader, Zuehir Moehsen:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.
The day they find Martha Washington’s head scarf or that crescent moon and star flag Betsy Ross was making is the day Tlaib should be taken seriously.