According to the media's general judgment, 2020 U.S. voters are most concerned with purportedly complex issues of crime and justice. Voters should place no trust in this. This same media forbade itself to investigate a simple, yet objectively historic corruption scandal of national interest.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has almost certainly committed the most extensive spree of felonies by a congressperson in U.S. history. As a criminal, she also appears to be historically inept. Scores of verified items of evidence against her are in the public record. Omar has never challenged their authenticity and has never produced a single piece of evidence to support her version of events.
She faces a primary on Tuesday. She again won her party's endorsement. She again won House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's endorsement — and her funding.
The mainstream media judges this remarkable situation to be irrelevant to Minnesota voters, let alone the dominant concern. Editorial malpractice on issues of crime, justice, and the 2020 election spreads everywhere this summer; by no coincidence, the spread can be traced to irresponsible media coverage of a deadly riot in Rep. Omar's district.
Below are 32 new, verifiable, archived pieces of evidence of Omar's historic crime spree.
* * * * *
* * * * *
Above: One of many Somali-language tributes to "Colonel Nur Said Elmi," Rep. Ilhan Omar's father, sent from around the world by family, friends, and contacts following his tragic June 2020 death from a COVID-19 infection. As a high-ranking officer in Somalia's (U.S.-backed) military from the 1970s until 1991, he was well known by this name and title.
* * * * *
In mid-June, Ilhan Omar's father tragically died from a COVID-19 infection. Expressions of grief, condolences, and prayers arrived from around the world, but particularly from the Somali-speaking immigrant community of Minneapolis and from the U.K. By all accounts, he earned his reputation as a gentle, kind neighbor, well known and beloved within Cedar-Riverside, as he had been in Somalia.
His relevance to Rep. Omar's landmark scandal is, of course, his birth name. Upon arriving in the United States in 1995, he claimed to be "Nur Omar Mohamed" and received a Social Security number with this name. However, all appeared to know him as Nur Said. He presented himself as Nur Said. Both Ilhan and her sister Sahra Noor referred to their father as Nur Said (prior to deleting the evidence). He is identified on-screen as "Nur Said, Ilhan's father" in the 2018 documentary film "Time for Ilhan" and again as "Nur Said" in the credits. Twice.
Most importantly, British citizen Leila Nur Said Elmi declared her father to be "Nur Said Elmi, military officer" on her 1997 marriage application. (Click the link to see the application and a photo of Leila Nur Said Elmi with both Ilhan and Nur Said.)
read the rest here: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/ilhan-omar-must-resign-new-evidence-from-nearly-three-dozen-somalis-reveals-a-probable-spree-of-felonies
Replies
That is correct, Marlene. I would also like to add on this matter that it does not make any difference whatsoever should Harris or Pelosi replace Biden. Both are witches and brew the same poison.
The Constitution is argued over by lawyers. It takes a back seat only to the Bible as something to twist and manipulate.
Lawyers argue over things mostly because things written are arguable to the argumentative lawyers. Kind of like mountain climbers climb mountains because they are there.
As American Citizens, we need to unload 90% of the lawyers in this country... the Constitution is clear in most cases the average citizen can read it and understand it. In fact, it was written with that intent. However, along come the Pettifoggers with their wordsmithing and wizardry... manufacturing Constitutional rights and law out of nothing but hot air and their lying lips.
It will take several decades and a complete overhaul of the Legal System and its University Law schools too reform the legal profession... Shakespeare had it right... hang the pettifoggers and declare a holiday.
Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers... Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment, that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 't is the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since."
Shakespeare had it right ... the lawyer scribble a few lines on parchment and use it to undo the world... first thing we must do is hang the lawyers.
I fully support that.
Exactly!
Marlene, the Supreme Court invented the right to murder babies, the right to homosexual marriage, and the right for special protections of trannies who don't know what sex they are, to be a specially protected class of citizen. Never mind that 3 years ago the American Psychiatric Association and the Phychological Association both stated emphatically that transgenderism is a mental disorder.
The Supremes have ALSO lost their minds. They come from the same bunch of dupes taught in law school without intensively studying the Constitution. I do not know how a frew escape from the monkey farm in law school, but some rise to the top. That doesn't mean they make it to SCOTUS. There are law firms that focus on the right reading of the Constiution, like the Thomas Moore Society, but they are an exception. And WE the People have NO way to overrule SCOTUS. All I can see, is the safety valve is supposed to be that Congress ignored their ruling and never writes law according to the SCOTUS' wishes. Try looking up in the Congressional Register, and actually FINDING ROE as law, or Obergefell as law. I do NOT find either, but I DO find DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, right there in the Congressional Register, where LAW is recorded. SCOTUS does NOT WRITE LAW. PERIOD. And Trump should have told the 9th they have no interest or jurisdiction in immigration.
WE the People have can impeach any member of the SCOTUS but what are the chances that congress does that?
Congress speaks the same old lie that their appointments are Lifetime, when the Constitution clearly says they sit on the bech only for good behaviour.
I see a whole bunch of really important bad behaviour and our traitors in congress do nothing, say nothing. They are ALL crooks. Eery damn one of them. Not our so-called constitutionalist Cruz, who didn't even know he was a Canadian citizen when he ran for TX Senate.
Congress authorizes the Courts and sets their JURISDICTION by law... (see the Federal Judiciary Act) In other words, Congress does, in fact, control much of the Court's authority. Our founding fathers commented directly on this issue... stating the Judiciary was to be the WEAKEST branch of government... as it is comprised of lifetime appointed not elected members.
The founders wanted to ensure that the Judiciary did not have the power to write the law, or to interpret the law other than its application to a case in law before them... they understood if one had Judicial Review or the power to DEFINE the law one could rewrite the law and eventually completely dominate the other two Branches thru judicial gerrymandering and fiat... edict.
See: Article 3, Section 1 & 2 US Constitution.
Well, that would be slightly more likiely to happen than removing all of Congress for dereliction, sabatage, treason and sedition, wouldn't it. sigh
It is one thing to know that a Judge can be Impeached for bad behavior... misconduct, malfeasance, that he doesn't need to violate the law to be impeached. However, Congress must act on such bad conduct, to bring articles of Impeachment before the House and if passed the Senate must try and convict on the articles... That process has only happened 8 times in 240yrs. So impeachment as a method to remove rouge judges is a non-starter.
Term limits and a revised federal judiciary act limiting the Federal Courts Jurisdiction, findings, orders, and judgments to the case in law before them... would slam the door shut to their JUDGEMENTS being universally applied as law (precedent) for all similar cases. Precedent can still operate however it would only apply to the case in law before the Court... not universally.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 28 Next