Thursday, November 29, 2018

The Blob and Fake News

First, let us imagine that in Othello, Iago, the villain, invented the “fake news” (or lie) that Desdemona was having an extramarital affair, and that Othello, her husband, believed the lie, and then in a fit of rage, murdered his wife, realizing the lie was a falsehood, only after it was too late to recognize it as “fake news.” Desdemona dies.

That is the story line of Shakespeare’s  play, and it ended in tragedy.  

What in real life will end as a tragedy? Several current developments, including the ravenous appetite of the European Union for total submission of nations to its totalitarian plan for a unified, “borderless” world, submission to Islam, and an abandonment of the victims of Islam and the wolf packs of Sharia. 

As I read the dreary and depressing instances of Western countries submitting to the EU’S attempted and/or successful extortion around the world, and to the EU’s and Islam’s arm-twisting, a horror-science fiction movie I saw at the age of twelve came to mind, “The Blob,” from 1958. Its storyline is fairly simple: ”it  concerns a growing, corrosive, alien amoeboidal entity that crashes to Earth from outer space inside a meteorite. It devours and dissolves citizens in the small communities….” Steve McQueen, in his first feature film, saves the day. His character recommends that the Air Force fly the Blob to the Arctic and drop it into the ice and cold, because The Blob recoils from the cold, and stops it from spreading.

The Blob of world collectivism, however, hasn’t been sunk into the Arctic. It continues to corrode and eat nations. It does not recoil from the cold.

"The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” which Canada will sign on to, is akin to the Blob, but rather an amoebiodal political entity.  A perfect title for a plan to empower “globalists.” Or shall we call it “The Blob Contract”?

Justin Trudeau, premier of Canada, opined that national borders are an anachronism and obsolete, and should be abolished.

According to Gatestone, in 2015, he said,

"There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values -- openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state."

Two years later, Salim Mansur at Gatestone reported,

The Canadian government's recent announcement that it will be providing more than CDN $600 million (USD $455 million) over the next five years to bail out the country's financially strapped media outlets -- as part of the fall fiscal update about the federal budget ahead of the 2019 federal election -- is not as innocent as it may seem.

In response to the announcement, the heads of Canada's media organizations promptly popped open the proverbial champagne and raised their glasses to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Unifor, a national union that represents Canadian journalists, was even more jubilant. It felt vindicated that its slogan of "Resistance" -- which it touts as Conservative Party opposition leader Andrew Scheer's "worst nightmare" -- had so swiftly resulted in opening the government's wallet, and handing out taxpayers' money, to an industry that should actually be fighting to remain steadfastly independent of any form of government backing.

In effect, Canadian “journalists” will become the paid shills of the government and its policies of not saying critical things about Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, rolls of duct tape will be readied to silence any such criticism or to quash it before it even thought of:

The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not "ethical" and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.

Do as I say, and as I do. Or else.

Meanwhile, back in the mother country, in not-so-Great anymore Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May has outperformed Francis Urquhart  of House of Cards (the British version) in the realms of political pragmatism with no evident principles or scruples. She will not allow Asia Bibi, hiding from the slobbering, murderous wolf packs of Pakistani Islam, to find asylum in Britain. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reported on November 25:

The fate of Asia Bibi has pitted Home Secretary Sajid Javid against the Prime Minister, with Mr.  Javid arguing passionately that she should be given refuge in the UK.

But sources say that his plan was thwarted after May was persuaded that letting Bibi claim asylum here would ‘stoke tensions’ among British Muslims….

Our investigation reveals that on the day she was seized by villagers and accused of blasphemy she was paraded through her village with a leather noose around her neck, beaten with sticks by a baying mob during a ‘court’ hearing and told that her life would be spared only if she converted to Islam.

Bibi’s conviction was quashed last month following eight years in solitary confinement after Pakistan’s Supreme Court said the case was based on ‘inconsistent’ evidence.

The acquittal prompted days of demonstrations by thousands of hardline Islamists who demanded she be hanged. Ms Bibi is now in hiding after Imran Khan’s government agreed to allow a petition against the court’s decision as part of a deal to halt the protests….

Some newspapers reported the half-truth about May’s decision.


May has been bought by the EU but paid for by the British taxpayer, given her surrender of Brexit to the autocratic elitists of the EU. Freedom Outpost reports that May is in tacit agreement with Angela Merkle of Germany:

Merkel encouraged countries to prepare themselves to make concessions in an "orderly procedure," referring to the EU as the "greatest parliament in the world. The event titled "Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty" didn't draw a very big crowd.  Take a look. She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: "In this day nation states must today – should….

"But of course in an orderly procedure.”

Mrs Merkel said that countries who think “they can solve everything on their own” are simply nationalistic and not patriotic because they “only think about themselves.”

She said: "Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form.

“This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is if you include others in the German interest and accept win-win situations."

Finally the House of Commons in Britain will debate the totalitarian idea of punishing anyone guilty of committing “Islamaphobia.

Several titled persons debated the question, as reported by Hansard (the official journal of the British Parliament beginning in the 18th century, I discuss it in Sparrowhawk). Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth,  said:

My Lords, we are clear that hatred and intolerance against Muslims have absolutely no place in our society. Any criminal offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion is a religious hate crime. The Government do not currently endorse a particular definition of Islamophobia. Previous attempts by others to define this term have not succeeded in attracting consensus or widespread acceptance.

Lord Singh of Winbledon volunteered his two pence worth:

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has rightly drawn our attention to the vagueness of the term Islamophobia. I add a point that concerns me: the culture of victimhood that it can easily lead to, which is not very healthy. There is also the way in which figures for crimes against other people are included in the statistics for Islamophobia—up to one-third, according to a freedom of information request. But the greatest concern is that this sort of thing does not really tackle the underlying issue of hate crime, which arises out of ignorance and prejudice. It is there at all levels of society, and we are doing very little to combat it. [Baroness Warsi is a Muslim. My brackets]

It is a common notion today that victims of “hate crime” must “perceive” it as such. And also that SJWs hostile to Ice and other Trump insist that spokesmen “perceive” reality through a subjective lens, preferably of those making an accusation of wrong-doing.

Observe how Senator Kamala Harris grills a candidate head of ICE:

After a brief history lesson on the tactics of the Klan, Harris grilled the acting director of ICE on his ability to notice the "perception" of the agency he is charged to run.

"Are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws? And do you see any parallels?" Harris asked.

"I do not see a parallel between the power and the authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion," Vitiello said. "There’s a lot of perceptions in the media and in the public that are incorrect about the agency and what it does."

Harris also lashed out at Vitiello for interrupting her.

Perception is a Kantian notion bandied about at every opportunity in current politics. Things can be whatever one wants them to be. But they will be whatever an accuser says they must be. If you disagree with my perception, you must be a racist.

Flesh-eating Blobs like Kamala Harris can be great fellows, they say. The concept of “hate crime,” or “hate speech” can be a boon and an asset in anyone’s quest to destroy freedom of speech and reality. Her perceptions can never be incorrect. Incorrectness, after all, is just a “perception.” So are facts.

Friday, November 23, 2018

Universal Censorship


Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch posted an interesting article about how a Pakistani UN member is proposing that a war on “islamophobia” be waged to eradicate this form of “hate speech” for good and forever and ever.

Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.

Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.

She also stressed the importance of countering “Islamophobia” and incitement to violence and hatred that is being witnessed in some parts of the western world by the negative depiction of Muslims.

One must ask oneself: Where and when have the “denigrators” of Islam run riot, attacked mosques, beaten up Muslims, raped Muslim women, or otherwise incited anti-Islam and anti-Muslim violence?

Of hatred of Islam there is aplenty, especially when individuals grasp the totalitarian nature of Islam and Sharia law; naturally they would hate Islam as much as they would Nazism and Communism. They do not want to live under it, nor do they want it next door in a submissive country like Canada. “Peace and harmony” are not analogous or equivalent to Islam’s 1400 year record, as Robert Spencer writes in detail in The History of Jihad.

Ambassador Lodhi also called for greater respect for each other’s religious beliefs, symbols and revered personalities.

The Express Tribune, on November 22, 2018, reported:

Pakistan informed the United Nations (UN) on Thursday of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s initiative for an international campaign against defamation of religions.

In a free society, which Ambassador Lodhi is certainly not proposing, “respect” for other religious beliefs would go hand-in-hand with the ability to criticize those other beliefs and the critics would not expect to be attacked or killed, and would not be. It is only in the suffocating miasma of politically correct speech, or PC,  and fear of reprisals that criticism of Islam would be policed or outlawed. “Tolerance” of other religions is not “tolerated” by Islam. PC  has made it possible for political leaders to evade openly criticizing Islam.

Lodhi’s proposal fits like a glove with aims of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which is also to erase all criticism of Islam, by extorting Western governments to regulate any speech when its subject is Islam.

Wikipedia notes:

At the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), an OIC section, in May 2007, the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism."   

It isn’t the butchery of thousands by Jihadis that is regarded by the OIC as “the worst form of terrorism,” but rather pointing out that Mohammad was a rapist, a murderer, a thief, and a pedophile that is called “terrorism.” In fact, the butchery by islamist Jihadis is sanctioned by the OIC in conformance with the Koran, Hadith, and other Islamic texts.

 The 11th Conference on Islamophobia in May of 2018 stated:

“Submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers, the report aims to raise global awareness of how Islamophobia impedes Muslims’ coexistence with their host communities and
perils peace and harmonious togetherness in the world. No less malevolent than terrorism,
Islamophobia shatters the social, religious and cultural fabric of communities. Islamophobia
and violent terrorism are equally destructive, being intrinsically interrelated. More
terrorism generates more Islamophobia, in a reciprocal relationship. The less intense is Is-
Islamophobia, the less terrorism do we have.”

Not necessarily. Was Islamophobia responsible for the Manchester, Nice, or Berlin attacks? Far  from hardly. Britain, France, and Germany have established police states that punish “hate speech” or “Islamophobic” statements in public.

“The OICI statement continues: In this 11th report we shall see that Islamophobia has exhibited a downward trend over the past year, amid disintegration of racist rhetoric that rode the wave of Trump’s presidency, and following electoral failure of several  populist, right-wing political factions in Europe, particularly in France, the Netherlands and Germany. These major political changes were not without benefit to Islam and to Muslim populations in western countries. This phenomenon, the report demonstrates, has been diminishing considerably.”

He must be thinking: “Gee! Our campaign against freedom of speech must be working!” Maybe. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has formalized Sharia restrictions on speech, as reported by the Gatestone Institute:

In 2011, free speech and anti-jihad activist, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was convicted by an Austrian court of "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group" after she gave a series of small seminars: "Introduction to the basics of Islam", "The Islamization of Europe", and "The impact of Islam".

No Muslims appear to have attended Sabaditsch-Wolff's seminars. The court case against her came about only because a magazine, NEWS, filed a complaint against her after secretly planting a journalist at her seminars to record them.

Wolff was convicted of having said that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?"

That is the kind of submission to Islam its advocates seek. It has reached a point now in the West that even inveighing against paedophilia – whether or not one is speaking about
The "spiritual" founder of Antifa and friend of Islam
Mohammad – will be considered a “hate crime.”

The ECHR appears to be advocating a permanent pussyfooting to avoid the truth that can only lead to total self-censorship and the total cessation of freedom of expression, as the proponents of global sharia law have been urging for years….

"... Mrs S. [Sabaditsch-Wolff] must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue." [emphasis added…

"Untrue facts"? There is no such thing. The words are an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.]

Judith Bergman, author of the Gatestone column, puts her finger on the phenomenon of the ongoing corruption and/or destruction of the concept of objective reality. “Facts” are a subjective “perception” of reality. This is a view of reality promulgated by Immanuel Kant.
He is one of the authors of today’s insanity, including the push for global censorship.


Thursday, November 22, 2018

Asia Bibi vs. Islam

My dander goes sky high when I read about how a lone individual is being threatened,  hunted, and harassed by particularly Muslim mobs – nay, promised a grueling death – for having “blasphemed” Islam, and receives no help from the West. This is the situation facing Asia Bibi and her family, a Pakistani woman who spent several years in prison for having “blasphemed’ Islam, but has received no offers of asylum from Western countries, only sympathy, which will not protect her from maniacal mobs bent on stringing her up.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller have a detailed story of Bibi’s plight.  Time magazine however, has a nuts and bolts description of her “crime.”

Asia Bibi, a mother of five believed to now be in her 50s, was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad after a quarrel with fellow farm laborers in 2009. Muslim laborers who worked alongside her claimed she drank water from the same cup as them, in what they argued was an affront to Islam. She was sentenced to death by hanging in 2010 — becoming the first woman ever dealt capital punishment for blasphemy in the predominantly Muslim country.

What the story omits is that Bibi was known to her fellow workers to be a Christian. They took brain-stunting exception to having to share the cup with her, after she refused to convert to Islam.

Now, I am an atheist. I don’t sympathize with believers in any form of ethereal ghost, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever. I was raised by a Catholic family, which saw fit to burn my books, when I was 15, after I told it I was an atheist, and then evicted me from the family.

Lahore Muslims chanting for Bibi's death
Harriet Sherwood, writing for the British newspaper, the Guardian, notes;

Bibi’s family have been in hiding since her acquittal by the country’s supreme court. She is in protective custody as part of a deal between the government and a hardline Islamic party, under which violent protests were called off while a review of the court ruling was undertaken.

Bibi’s lawyer, relatives and supporters have appealed for the family to be given asylum in a European or north American country. Several countries have indicated their willingness to offer a home, but nothing concrete has emerged.

But in a Muslim interpretation, Sharia law trumps secular law, because it is “superior” to man-made law (it comes from the assertions of a ghost) and is based on the textual narrative found in the Koran and the Hadith.

Wikipedia describes Sharia:

Sharia law, or Islamic law is a religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to Allah's immutable divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its human scholarly interpretations. It has been described as "one of the major intellectual achievements of Islam" and its importance in Islam has been compared to that of theology. The manner of its application in modern times has been a subject of dispute between Muslim traditionalists and reformists.

About Asia Bibi, the Guardian  reported:

Christian farm labourer Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of five, was sentenced to hang for blasphemy in 2010. She had angered fellow Muslim farm workers by taking a sip of water from a cup she had fetched for them on a hot day. When they demanded she convert to Islam, she refused, prompting a mob to later allege that she had insulted the prophet Mohammed.

Justice Asif Khosa, in a verdict widely praised for its courage and rigour, noted that the two sisters who accused Bibi “had no regard for the truth” and that the claim she smeared the prophet in public was “concoction incarnate”.

“It is ironical that in the Arabic language the appellant’s name Asia means ‘sinful’,” Khosa went on, “but in the circumstances of the present case she appears to be a person, in the words of Shakespeare’s King Lear, ‘more sinned against than sinning’.”

The Guardian further notes that:

Blasphemy carries an automatic death penalty in Pakistan’s legal system, and although the state has never executed anyone for the offence, vigilante mobs have killed at least 65 people since 1990, according to the centre for research and security studies. Ahead of the verdict, the third witness in the trial, a cleric, told the BBC that “reversing the two previous decisions in the case [is] encouraging people to take the law into their own hands”.

But what really riles me is that Western countries have remained hesitant and iffy about offering Bibi asylum from the mobs. Even Donald Trump has deferred because he has let a Saudi Sheik off the hook over the Jamal Khashoggi murder, supposedly committed with the knowledge of the Saudi crown prince and ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. He has placed the U.S.’s relationship with Saudi Arabia over the safety of Asia Bibi.

A friend commented:

Wish the media would pay this poor harmless woman who is being hunted down by Muslims like wolves after prey a fraction of the attention they've heaped on that Muslim Brotherhood skunk Kashoggi who got sliced and diced by his fellow slaves of Allah. Apparently no country will offer her safety and no, I don't expect Trump to do so either. Fear of "offending" our "ally" no doubt prevents that.

Britain has refused Bibi refuge for the expected and scurrilous reasons. The Telegraph reports:

Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim….

Wilson Chowdhry of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said: “Britain was concerned about potential unrest in the country, attacks on embassies and civilians.”

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases, but Whitehall sources added that: “We welcome the assurances the government of Pakistan has given on keeping her and her family safe.

“It is important that all countries seek to uphold the rule of law and afford security and protection for the rights of all citizens irrespective or faith or belief.”

Except when the Prime Minister is beholden to countless Muslims and voters in Britain who want to uphold Sharia law as supreme, and who promise riot and mayhem if Britain offers Bibi asylum. Britain would rather punish its own “blasphemers” rather than bring another one in.

In the end, it is Asia Bibi vs. craven Islam-zombies..

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Surrendering to Islam

Duct-taping blasphemy

Why are Western nations succumbing to Islam, one after another? Britain, Australia, France, Germany – is it because they are afraid, if they oppose or object to Islamic policy or “traditions,” they will be accused of “Islamophobia,” or “racism,” or “discrimination” by “world opinion.”? It’s either from fear of being branded, or because it’s what the elitists want.  After all, Islam is basically a political ideology that requires complete and unthinking submission to it. It is perfectly ideologically compatible with Islam.

Or is it a fear of name-calling and social condemnation that saps the moral resolve and rationality of the leaders of countries, makes the leaders afraid to oppose mass immigration, combined with the necessary and concomitant negation of values by Altruism? It is a deadly cocktail of surrendering to nihilism to barbarity and primitivism.

Why do we see a stubborn denial that Muslim killings are motivated by Islam, and instead excused as “mental illness” or a personality disorder or some other convenient malady that would explain a jihadi’s actions?

And what does Ayn Rand say about altruism? She had the best construction of the core motives of altruism:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice — which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction— which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

Rand distinguishes between the essentials of altruism  as a moral code, and its incidentals; between. e.g.,  self-sacrifice (including the sacrifice of values, such as one’s country) and benevolence, kindness, and good will, e.g., allowing Muslims into one’s country to start anew without the miasma of Sharia law. 

Not a member of the House
And here is a story that forecasts the slow Islamization of the U.S.: a Somali Muslima, elected to the House of Representatives for Minnesota in the midterms, will become the poster child of Muslims and will force the House to abandon its no-hats rule by wearing a hijab.  

The ban, which was enacted in 1837 for a then all-white male Congress, was meant to prohibit indoor hat-wearing, described by a member at the time as a “really harmless but apparently indecorous practice,” writes NBC News.

The responsibility of enforcing the House dress code falls to the speaker, meaning whoever the Democratic leader is come January can decide whether to permit religious headwear. In practice, members of Congress, their staff and religious leaders have already worn head coverings on the floor, notes NBC, but Omar’s election has drawn additional scrutiny to the rule and the need for a permanent amendment.

As the Washington Post (h/t People) reported on Friday, Omar, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Rules Committee ranking Rep. Jim McGovern drew up a proposal that would legally allow religious headwear on the floor, as well as head coverings due to illness and loss of hair.

This is creeping Sharia in the guise of challenging a tradition and a superficial rule and point of decorum. It is not surprising that the Dems would preemptively role over on the issue. The Glowup article anticipates the reverberations of allowing a hijab in the House.

Far more than correcting an outdated rule, overturning the head covering ban would help normalize headscarves and the hijab in different sectors of American life, especially at a time when religious discrimination and animus is still present. This summer, a group of Muslim children in Delaware were asked to leave a pool after a manager said they weren’t allowed to swim with clothing on (the problem, officials said, was wearing cotton)….

Peek-a-boo: I will conquer your
“Normalizing” the hijab presupposes “normalizing” all manner of Islamic practices in public, such as forcing supermarkets to establish halal food sections. Doubtless CAIR will do a Muslim jig to celebrate the abandonment of the House hat rule (is there such as thing as a Muslim jig?). Will Jewish members of the House be permitted to wear kippahs or yarmulkes?  Or will Ilhan Omar raise a stink if they are allowed to? She is as much an anti-Semite as Louis Farrakhan.

CNN Politics reports the growing Islamic “normalization” of American politics:

Omar, in addition to being one of the first Muslim women in Congress, will also be the first Somali-American member. She came to the US more than two decades ago as a refugee. Tlaib actually campaigned with Omar ahead of the latter's primary race earlier this year.

Omar also had the backing of Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race, and she will come to Congress having been an open critic of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians.

Omar will take the seat vacated by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. Ellison is leaving Congress as he vies to become Minnesota attorney general.

Rashida Tlaib will fill the seat formerly occupied by Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, who left office last year amid accusations of sexual misconduct. She ran unopposed on the general election ballot following her primary win.

Tlaib is the daughter of Palestinian immigrants and became the first Muslim female member of Michigan's state legislature a decade ago. A self-styled progressive, Tlaib is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump and was arrested two years ago for disrupting a Trump speech in Detroit.

Omar and Tlaib both endorse the BDS movement and the destruction of Israel. Liberty Headlines reports:

During her campaign, Tlaib published several anti-Israel tweets and retweeted one user who wrote that the “first fight was for Palestine, always Palestine.”

She has called for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, advocating for a unitary Palestinian government to take its place. Palestine has never been a legal entity with land as a nation.

Her views are so radical that the leftist group J Street, which is often anti-Israel itself, withdrew its endorsement of her campaign.

In her victory speech, Tlaib credited the Palestinian cause: “A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian.”

Omar, who won her seat in Minnesota, has also attacked the state of Israel, saying that she advocates for Palestine “because we know right from wrong.”

No, you don’t. You and Tlaib and the majority of Dems in Congress are as insipidly clueless as Ocasio-Cortez. Welcome to the House of Representatives, an exclusive club of the reality challenged.

The pair will probably endorse legislation that would legitimize female genital mutilation (FGM) in the U.S., because it’s an Islamic “tradition.” Or they could speak against granting Asia Bibi asylum because she “blasphemed” Islam. I’m sure they’d find allies in the House among Dems and Republicans. After all, Islam is a religion which many people find “comfort” in, and we mustn’t mock it by calling it savage and Stone Age primitive, or else Omar and Tliab will sanction riots in the streets, just as Dems look the other way when Antifa “protests” reason and freedom of speech. And never mind all the women in Iran jailed for refusing to wear the hijab.
Lest we forget, and also Bataclan

The willing abandonment of the “no hat” rule in the House heralds the first important step to arm-twist the U.S. into submission to Islam, per the Muslim Brotherhood’s memo of 1991:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

It is not just an important step. It is an ominous one. Based on a trivial "hat rule."