23 Disgraceful House Republicans Vote Against Anti-Hate Resolution

That whole headline is a complete lie. 23 Republicans didn't want to go along with a white washed blanket statement to give cover to one outspoken bigot on the Democrat side.

Did 23 Republicans vote against the measure or not?

Maybe those 23 were just smart enough to condemn it on their own--it needn't take an act of Congress.

All Republicans AND Democrats should not have even had the chance to vote on this piece of crap.

Not everybody needs to impress other people or pass token legislation allegedly "proving" they aren't bigots. Do you imagine that voting yes on this legislation proves anything like that? If not, then voting against it doesn't prove anything either.

If not, then voting against it doesn't prove anything either.

Fair enough, but does that standard apply to all votes?

No, there are often many nuances to consider that many partisan idiots refuse to acknowledge.

Present company excluded.

If not, then voting against it doesn't prove anything either.

85% of what Congress does every session,  is defeated as "pieces of crap"

It's a messy form of governing....

there are often many nuances to consider that many partisan idiots refuse to acknowledge.

Unfortunately, this is true. Headlines don't generally allow for nuance. For example, legislators routinely vote against bills because they don't go far enough on an issue they care about. But the headline is "X votes against bill for think she claims to care about" or something to that effect.

I think there has been way too much posing on posturing on this resolution by everyone.

85% of what Congress does every session, is defeated as "pieces of crap"
It's a messy form of governing....

Especially when both sides pull stupid stunts like this.

Figure the repubs were just maintaining their option to keep up with their constant anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Interesting how anti-Jewish hate groups have always been the province of the far right wing (can you say KKK?).

It's not anti-Semitic to get along with Jews and still have problems with Israeli government actions. 

P.S. Everything she said was true. AIPAC spends billions to sway American politics.

What anti Muslim stance is it that the GOP has? That they're not afraid to radical Islam what it is or that they pushed through a travel ban that was upheld that contained mostly Muslim countries (through no fault of the GOP)?

You are right about one thing: anti Semitism has been mostly on the far right in this country until recently. That must be why David Duke was sending tweets of approval about Omar and had only nice things to say about her.

If criticizing AIPAC is okay then I guess the left needs to lay off every time somebody criticizes CAIR.

I can imagine it might be hard to be part of something that started out as a response to a muslim's anti-semitic bigotry, but evolved into something condemning anti-muslim bigotry - while neglecting to even mention the comments or the commenter that sparked the legislation in the first place. In other words, another round of virtue signaling and social posturing from hypocrite pols.

Turn an actual case of antisemitism into a defence to non-existent Islamophobia.  

While I agree that the resolution itself was rather lame, Buzz non-existent Islamophobia, really. Unless the proposed Muslim ban was a figment of my imagination, I would say that Islamophobia is still alive and well.

The only proposed Muslim ban was from then candidate Trump during rally's. What was presented after his election was to ban entry of anybody from specific countries.  And what do all those countries also have in common besides being a majority Muslim country? They all were not friendly to the US and/or they did not have a functioning central government to identify the people traveling from them to identify potential terrorists. I mean, come on. There is something like 50 countries in the world that are Muslim majority countries and this ban only identified 6 of them. Hardly a ban on Muslims.

But you know this...

I should have been more accurate - there is now obvious antisemitism among certain members of the Democratic lawmakers, but can you point out an example of Islamophobia there?  Now that they have that shield, I'm sure that Omar will use it as Tlieb already has. Maybe somebody should actually define what Islamophobia is.

It was the biggest and most valid argument that the Canadian Conservative Party argued against a Liberal government resolution about Islamophobia - what is Islamophobia?  What are its limits, its parameters?  Is Islam BEYOND criticism?  Will it be considered blasphemy and criminalized as it has been in certain Muslim countries?  Has it been defined and the definition adopted by western countries as the definition for antisemitism has?

The spelling and pronunciation of “Arkansas” (it is always ar-kan-saw) reflect the state’s heritage. The name is a French pronunciation of a Siouxan word meaning “land of downriver people” and was prescribed by law in 1881.

It is technically still illegal to mispronounce the name , although no consequences are enforced.

elistmania

There is not now nor has there ever been a "Muslim ban"

What was presented after his election was to ban entry of anybody from specific countries.

Right, that's why the first 2 iterations were found to be Unconstitutional based on religious animus. Each time the court wrote a 'how not to be an bigot in writing' guide for Trump to follow. He finally managed to come close enough for government work on his third try. 

Right, that's why the first 2 iterations were found to be Unconstitutional based on religious animus. Each time the court wrote a 'how not to be an bigot in writing' guide for Trump to follow. He finally managed to come close enough for government work on his third try.

Is it possible for you to point out where in ANY EO it banned Muslims specifically?

Or even mentioned Muslims?

And your point is....?  That the definition of "antisemitism" is as meaningless as the Arkansas pronunciation law?

Is it possible for you to point out where in ANY EO it banned Muslims specifically? Or even mentioned Muslims?

Is it possible for you to point out where I even mentioned Muslims specifically? 

Is it possible for you to point out where I even mentioned Muslims specifically?

Why, no, I can not quote you stating the word Muslim specifically.

But I can't pretend not to know what many thought of the EOs, and it is a reasonable assumption based on history that you meant Muslim.

 I don't like keeping my head in the sand and pretending I meant something else other than exactly what I meant.

Religious animus against who? By who?

But I can't pretend not to know what many thought of the EOs, and it is a reasonable assumption based on history that you meant Muslim.

Nope. I posted what I meant based on the LEGAL reasons why the first 2 EOs were shit canned, religious animus. 

I don't like keeping my head in the sand and pretending I meant something else other than exactly what I meant.

I have no reason t be coy with you or anyone else on NT. But you go right ahead and hear what you want to hear Tex...

Religious animus against who? 

Legally, it's irrelevant. My comments are about the CONSTITUTION. ALL actions by the government based on religious animus of ANY KIND, against ANYONE, is Unconstitutional. 

By who?

Trump, at least that's what the court said. 

Hmmm,  despite your personal angry, no, very angry, multi colored, muti point, AMAC like protestations that anti Israel comments are not, to you ,

personally, indicative of antisemitism,

yes, I think the majority of goyim, think exactly the opposite.  Anti Israel = antisemitism,

and no amount of Jewish acquaintances or relatives can convince them otherwise.

When you lionize every scientific or industrial accomplishment even remotely attributable to Israel, the Jewish Home State, you are pro-Semitic.

When you complain or belittle Israeli accomplishments, it's too easy to jump to antisemitism.

IMHO.

Legally, what specifically is the religious animus in the EO?

To my knowledge, the EO didn't mention religions. 

Can you give an example of the animus in the EO?

Legally, what specifically is the religious animus in the EO?

cdn.ca9.uscourts

To my knowledge, the EO didn't mention religions.

Your knowledge is lacking on this subject. 

Can you give an example of the animus in the EO?

Read the ruling. I posted the 9th Circuit stay denial because it's short and sweet. 

It may also help if you were to acknowledge that INTENT is relevant. Just as the court reviews the intent of the Congress in passing legislation, the court reviewed the intent of Trump's ban. 

I still fail to see your point about Arkansas.

That's fair, I don't remember why either, lol

Amazes me to no end that someone can actually believe that the EOs were in any way a Muslim ban.

Not even mentioned in the EO, and why wouldn't a REAL Muslim ban include the OTHER 95% of the world's Muslims if the "intent" was to ban Muslims? That is sheer stupidity on display.

Carry on as usual, though.

Live and learn

mpac

There is no Muslim ban. It is some crap made up by those opposed to Trump and anything he does.

That's a real stretch posting a blog link.

Here's the entire Executive Order . Perusing the actual order instead of a blog will explain why it was upheld by the Supreme Court .

“The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “ The text says nothing about religion .”

Amazes me to no end that someone can actually believe that the EOs were in any way a Muslim ban.

As the link documents, the court found that Trump clearly articulated the intent of the EO. 

Not even mentioned in the EO, and why wouldn't a REAL Muslim ban include the OTHER 95% of the world's Muslims if the "intent" was to ban Muslims?

Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand if we look at the history of how the US has dealt with the 'War on terror'. Bush helped the Saudi royal family to get out to the US after the 9/11 attack and cozied up to them throughout his Presidency. We attacked Iraq, all based on LIES. Bush NEVER held Saudi Arabia responsible for anything. WAY too much money going back and forth. 

Now we have Trump saying “They are buying apartments and properties from me. They spend $40-50 million. I am supposed to hate them? I love them very much.” and his son in law making deals with MBS. Trump relies on the Saudis and the Russians investment. 

Trump also has deals in India, Azerbaijan, U.A.E., Turkey and Indonesia. So there is a monetary reason for Trump not to include those counties in his ban despite their LARGE Muslim population. 

In short, the travel ban targets Muslim countries that haven't made Trump money. 

It amazes me that someone can actually fail to acknowledge one of the oldest adages, follow the money. 

Pretty weird that an alleged Muslim ban would NOT include the very VAST majority of Muslims.

Or that it doesn't specify Muslims.

That is like me saying I am banning artificial sweeteners but buying tons of products with the artificial sweeteners in them.

IOW, it still doesn't make sense.

Nice deflection to Bush, too!

Nice deflection to Bush, too!

I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

H/T Inigo Montoya

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Yeah, I am not responsible for what you think.

I am not responsible for what you think.

More than likely he doesn't think so, either.

Thankfully...

I can imagine it might be hard to be part of something that started out as a response to a muslim's anti-semitic bigotry, but evolved into something condemning anti-muslim bigotry

I don't understand this pretense from so many here that resolutions MUST be written and passed as proposed and MUST NOT be inclusive in any way. It reflects a lack of understanding of history of the Congress. I doubt that anything has ever passed Congress in it's original back of the envelope form. 

That's not really where I was going. I was thinking of it more like if they were going to pass a resolution supporting Black Lives Matter, but the final product was Black and White Lives Matter. I mean, it's true, but it kind of misses the point.

I mean, it's true, but it kind of misses the point.

If 'the point' is to condemn bigotry, how does including all bigotry miss the point? 

If 'the point' is to condemn bigotry

That wasn't the point. The point was to condemn anti-semitism and the effort was inspired by specific anti-semitic remarks from a specific individual who happens to be a member of Congress. There's nothing wrong with condemning bigotry, but that's not what this was supposed to be about. We already have plenty of congressional condemnations of general bigotry in the form of our many laws.

To clarify my analogy, it's offensive to BLM supporters to say "all lives matter." Of course they do, but for a long time in this country, black lives - specifically - didn't matter as much others. In many cases, they still don't. You don't address that problem - or even show it respect - by saying "all lives matter."

So in this situation, you don't show respect to the current problem driving the legislation by saying "all bigotry is bad." We already knew that. What we haven't acknowledged and condemned is the increase in anti-semitism, especially in the political sphere. And apparently there will be no response to the specific anti-semitism of the particular member whose words drove the legislation in the first place.

So, yeah I can see why some people are unhappy with the result.

That wasn't the point.

The point is what the House decides that the point is.

You keep inferring that the resolution was written about one thing and then amended to be about something entirely different. It wasn't. 

The point is what the House decides that the point is.

So what?   The "House" ..... most of Congress really, has it's collective head up its ass most of the time.   This one is no different.

If Trump would have said something like Omar said here the outrage from the left would have been exponential.   Many of them would have lost their minds.   Zero doubt of that.

And yet, they barely bat an eye at what she said.   That type of attitude truly is odious and deserving of the scorn shown by those 23 who voted against the lip service the bill in question gave the situation.

Actually, its very hard to believe more didn't vote against it for that reason but considering the body doing the voting, its hard to be surprised that they didn't i suppose.

If Trump would have said something like Omar said here the outrage from the left would have been exponential. Many of them would have lost their minds. Zero doubt of that.

Nope. 

Trump closing campaign ad revives remarks seen as striking anti-Semitic tones
Audio from criticized speech that rails against global conspiracy is overlaid with images of prominent Jews

timesofisrael

“They are not our friend, believe me,” he said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Nigerian immigrants wouldn’t ever “go back to their huts” in Africa.

“If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” 

“We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, He is giving us very unfair rulings—rulings that people can’t even believe,”

"I have black guys counting my money. I hate it. The only guys I want counting it are jews"

Donald Trump retweets far-right group's anti-Muslim videos

bbc

Thanks for providing empirical proof of my points.

1.)  That many lost it when Trump said something like that and

2.)  That the same people DID NOT lose it when Omar did

Its so nice having a researcher to help with proving my points.

Thx much! 

Thanks for providing empirical proof of my points.

Actually, you stated:

IF Trump had said 

My 'empirical proof' is that he DID...and much more...

That many lost it when Trump said something like that and

Many like the Times of Israel, despite being decidedly pro Trump. 

That the same people DID NOT lose it when Omar did

The same people that lost it because of Omar give Trump a pass. 

Its so nice having a researcher to help with proving my points.

Obtuse. 

Again, much appreciated.

Next time i need more OPRES i'll be sure to give you buzz ...

Hope you have a nice day!

Republicans refused to condemn hate

Please post a link to the original version that you speak of. 

Here is the original, which was focused on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Muslim bigotry from what I gathered from reading it:

and here is he version the House voted on:

It went from a strong, specific Resolution to a milquetoast, easily passed Resolution, showing that Democratic politicians have no principles to stand on and will take the easiest route available to keep power for themselves. Remember, Republicans had ZERO input in this Resolution, all most of them did was vote for it so they wouldn't be labelled as hate-mongers.

Here is the original, which was focused on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Muslim bigotry from what I gathered from reading it:

Well, okay, yeah, but WHAT ABOUT...…..?????????????????

LOL!

Nice post!

It went from a strong, specific Resolution to a milquetoast, easily passed Resolution, showing that Democratic politicians have no principles to stand on and will take the easiest route available to keep power for themselves. Remember, Republicans had ZERO input in this Resolution, all most of them did was vote for it so they wouldn't be labelled as hate-mongers.

Well gee tom, I READ those 2 'versions' side by side and they are virtually IDENTICAL. How about you point out the changes that caused the resolution to go from 'strong' to 'milquetoast'.

BTFW, not repeating the title in the text doesn't qualify...

Well, okay, yeah, but WHAT ABOUT...…..?????????????????
LOL!
Nice post!

What about you help tom post the differences in those 2 bills Tex? 

What about you help tom post the differences in those 2 bills Tex?

Perhaps I shall-if he asks.

He didn't ask, so I am not volunteering.

Perhaps I shall-if he asks. He didn't ask, so I am not volunteering.

Nice post! 

I never volunteer to participate in exercises in futility either. 

They are nowhere near identical.  The original version did not make a single mention of LGBTQ at all and the new version pretty much specifies them as being victims of white supremacists.  I don't know about you, but being anti-LGBTQ does not equate to racial bigotry.  Frankly, that to me should not have been lumped in with race and should have been given its own section.  Then, in the end doesn't even actually try to do anything to stop such bigotry.  Frankly, by doing that they watered down the Resolution and only made their rejection only half-hearted.

From the final Resolution:

Whereas white supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;

Again from the final Resolution:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;

(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;

(3) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader policy priority of fostering international religious freedom and protecting human rights all over the world;

(4) rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere;

(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry;

(6) condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States;

(7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;

(8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals; and

(9) encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Doesn't that seem a bit foolish to you and pretty much makes the entire Resolution a joke?

Doesn't that seem a bit foolish to you and pretty much makes the entire Resolution a joke?

It certainly is a joke. It was broadened to protect Ilhan Omar, her religion, and her outright anti-Semitism. It's no surprise that she claimed a "victory".

They are nowhere near identical. The original version did not make a single mention of LGBTQ at all and the new version pretty much specifies them as being victims of white supremacists. I don't know about you, but being anti-LGBTQ does not equate to racial bigotry. Frankly, that to me should not have been lumped in with race and should have been given its own section.

They are DAMN NEAR identical and you post proves it. 

Nowhere in the resolution is 'racial bigotry' cited. As stated in the resolution, White supremacists do indeed target the LGBTQ community. 

I note that you don't seem to have an issue with the other changes to that ONE section of the resolution. They added Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to the list of those targeted by White supremacists. 

Other than those additions, in that ONE section, the versions are IDENTICAL. 

So are those the changes that you claim caused the resolution to go from 'strong' to 'milquetoast'?

Because if that's all there is, I call bullshit. 

Then, in the end doesn't even actually try to do anything to stop such bigotry. Frankly, by doing that they watered down the Resolution and only made their rejection only half-hearted.

You are confusing a resolution with a bill. 

Again from the final Resolution:

Again, those 9 points are verbatim from the original version. 

Doesn't that seem a bit foolish to you and pretty much makes the entire Resolution a joke?

No. What seems foolish to me is claiming that the resolution was changed from 'strong' to 'milquetoast'. 

That's like saying "IS" and "BEING" are the same thing, Dulay.  You should know in law, what words are used in a law determine how powerful the law is.  In this case, by specifying something as occurring (bigotry against LGBTQ community), but then not really saying what you are doing to stop that thing from occurring changes the Resolution from being a strong condemnation of both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islam bigotry to being a weak condemnation of all bigotry.  That one little phrase kills the strength of the ENTIRE Resolution.

EDIT: And, it completely changes the Resolution at the same time.

That's like saying "IS" and "BEING" are the same thing, Dulay. 

No, it's not like that at all. 

You should know in law, what words are used in a law determine how powerful the law is. In this case, by specifying something as occurring (bigotry against LGBTQ community)

Is your posit that it isn't occuring? 

but then not really saying what you are doing to stop that thing from occurring changes the Resolution from being a strong condemnation of both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Islam bigotry to being a weak condemnation of all bigotry.

NEITHER version contains a fucking thing about 'what you are doing to stop' ANYTHING from occurring tom. So your blathering is moot. 

That one little phrase kills the strength of the ENTIRE Resolution. EDIT: And, it completely changes the Resolution at the same time.

Utter BULLSHIT, tom.

Your animus toward the LGBTQ community is noted. 

It is extremely unfortunate that what began as a resolution against anti-Semitic tropes by an individual Congressional Rep turned into a resolution that includes ALL hate. This is very similar to Black Lives Matter vs. ALL Lives Matter.

Should antisemitism be equalized and lumped in with all forms of hate when a Representative of Congress issues anti-Semitic statements? Should the Speaker of the House attempt to 'excuse' that Congressional Representatives words and indicate that the Rep didn't understand, nor appreciate the cultural impact of her words?

Yes, Republican Reps voted against that resolution - in protest. The resolution was a watered down version of the real issue brought forth. Antisemitism.

" A House resolution condemning anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim, and other hated failed to pass unanimously as a group of Republicans voted for hate."

A non-binding "generalization" of what everyone already knows !

OMG ! SOOOOOO....IMPORTANT !

The idiot Omar is the ONE that hasn't figured it out yet !

Children (Omar)......Sheeeeesh ! 

And this "Child" was "Elected" into office by "HER" ….."Equals".