First Muslim Congresswoman Caught Using Campaign Funds For Divorce


America's first Muslim congresswoman candidate caught using campaign funds to pay for her divorce

 Drazkowski filed a complaint to Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, showing them evidence that at least $2,250 had been taken from campaign funds and wired to a family and divorce law firm.

Dailycaller.com reports: Omar has previously faced scrutiny for possible marriage fraud.

 Both Omar and lawyer Carla Kjellberg, who dealt with Omar’s 2017 divorce, denied the accusation.

“That’s absolutely false, I provided legal services for crisis management prior to that, and those funds were for reimbursements for costs on crisis management,” Kjellberg said, according to the Star Tribune.

 If the board finds the accusation has enough evidence, it will interview Omar. Then the board will decide whether to move forward with a formal investigation that could take months, reported the Star Tribune.

 Drazkowski claims that Omar has a “worrisome pattern” of campaign finance violations, according to the report. Omar has been fined a total of $2,250 for three separate violations since May 2017.

 Omar became the nation’s first Somali-American legislator when she was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016.

 Now she is the frontrunner seeking Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison’s open seat as he runs for state attorney general. But accusations that Omar married her brother to commit immigration fraud have hovered around her after Power Line blog reported on it, according to a 2016 Star Tribune article.

 The blog claimed that Omar married Ahmed Hirsi, the father of her three children, in 2002 and, while still married to Hirsi, wed her brother to commit immigration fraud in 2009.

 Omar denied the allegations of fraud. She said that she applied for a marriage license with Hirsi but they never followed through, and that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom she married in 2009, is not her brother, reported the Star Tribune.

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it. Ilhan Omar’s campaign sees your superfluous contentions as one more in a series of attempts to discredit her candidacy,” Omar’s team said according to Power Line writer Scott Johnson after he contacted them about the marriage fraud accusations in 2016.

Omar admitted she had not yet divorced Elmi in 2016.

 The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Omar’s communications team but did not receive comment by the time of publication.

https://yournewswire.com/muslim-congresswoman-campaign-funds-divorce/

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You say it best at time Hank...Figures!!!!!!

 I was so angry I spelled best wrong...figures...

 OK, Tif they lied again, there is more people who are Muslim that hold seats of office, then just 3 people.

 Elected Muslim Politicians–Federal, State and Local Levels

Keith Ellison D-MN-5

Andre Carson D-IN-7

Larry Shaw is a U.S. Democratic member of the North Carolina

Saqib Ali, Maryland House of Delegates

Saghir “Saggy” Tahir, New Hampshire Assembly

Rashida Tlaib, Michigan State Rep-Elect

Ako Abdul Samad, Iowa State Rep.

Jamilah Nasheed, Missouri Rep.

Talibdin El-Amin, Missouri Rep. District 57, Democrat

Rodney R. Hubbard, MO State Rep.  District 58, Democrat

Yusuf Salam, Alabama Assembly 67th District—Democrat

Nasim Ansari, MI, Kalamazo County Commissioner  9th district

Judge David Shaheed,

Marion County Court
B.S., University of Evansville, 1976
J.D., Indiana University, 1984
Supervising Judge: Drug Treatment Court 2007
From:  http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Courts/Superior/CourtInfo/Judges/shaheed.htm

Muhammad Khairullah,  Mayor, Prospect Park, NJ

Wayne Smith  Mayor, Irvington, NJ

Aslon Goow Sr., Councilman, Patterson, NJ

Mayor Abdul “Al” Haidous,  Wayne, MI

Trustee Syed Taj, Canton Township, Democrat

Councilman Hassan Fahmy

City Councilman Shahab Ahmed

City Councilman Abdul Algazali

There are more and I will find them, the network files only had 3 people listed the files will be updated.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

ALERT ALERT

OMG!! -> Government Now Wants To Seize Your Car For Going 5MPH Over The Limit

We’ve discussed this on and off for several years now. Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to seize assets and cash from citizens without any due process or judicial oversight.

You don’t even have to be charged with a crime. You are assumed guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence.

Of course, not everyone has this ability… if you aren’t local, state, or federal law enforcement, this is called stealing, and you go to prison.

But the government is actually a bigger problem than common thieves.

A 2015 report showed that law enforcement used civil asset forfeiture to steal more from US residents than every thief, robber, and burglar in America combined.

About $4.5 BILLION worth of cash, cars, homes, and other property is taken by civil asset forfeiture each year – hundreds of millions more than common criminals steal.

And it happens at every level. Your local cop can use civil asset forfeiture just like your state trooper. And then any one of the armed agents of the US government—from the FBI to the Fish and Wildlife Service—can rob you for whatever reason they want.

This travesty continues to grow because the cops who take your stuff get to keep it. Police departments and government agencies around the country depend on civil asset forfeiture to boost their budgets.

Cops will literally keep some of the cars they take as squad cars. And they make a fortune auctioning off the houses, boats, and anything else they confiscate.

Obviously this gives cops an incentive to steal, whether or not they actually think the property was used in a crime, or acquired illegally. Remember, civil asset forfeiture adds billions every year to their bottom line.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case of civil asset forfeiture.

Tyson Timbs was convicted of selling a small amount of drugs to an undercover police officer. He was sentenced to house arrest, and paid about $1,200 in fines.

But then police used civil asset forfeiture to take his $42,000 Land Rover which Timbs purchased with money from a life insurance policy after his father died. The money did not come from selling drugs, or any other illegal activity.

Timbs sued, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court, because every lower court in Indiana said the forfeiture was perfectly legit.

The case revolves around whether or not the seizure of the Land Rover was an excessive fine under the 8th amendment, and whether or not this protection against excessive fines applies to state governments.

And the public got some crazy insight into the government’s position.

The Indiana Solicitor General was arguing in favor of civil asset forfeiture when Justice Stephen Breyer asked him a hypothetical.

Breyer asked, if a state needs revenue, could it force someone to forfeit their Bugatti, Mercedes, or Ferrari for speeding? Even if they were going just 5 miles per hour over the speed limit?

And the utterly appalling answer from the Indiana Solicitor General was, yes.

That’s right… the official government position is that they can steal any amount of your property in “connection” with any crime whatsoever, no matter how trivial the crime may be… even exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour.

This is how overbearing and authoritarian the government has become in the land of the free.

This is how much power your local cop has… and the power only grows as you go to state, and federal officials.

If there is any solace in any of this, it is that the other Supreme Court Justices were reportedly laughing at this exchange.

The justices seemed incredulous that Indiana’s top lawyer was using such absurd assertions and flimsy reasoning in his arguments.

So, for now, we can keep our cars if we get pulled over for speeding. But that may not always be the case…

Depending on how this is ruled, it could pave the way for even more egregious abuses of power… or it could curb the practice, and reign in these thieves in uniforms.

Just understand where the government is coming from. These politicians, bureaucrats and officers think they can do whatever they want. Absolutely anything goes, with no limitation whatsoever.

And that makes it a little tough to feel like you really live in the land of the free.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service