Ilhan Omar wants Keith Ellison to Investigate USA POWERLIFTING Ban on Biological Males from Women’s Events

 

It’s curious as to what motivated our gal Rep Ilhan Omar to wade into this nightmare. She wants her Muslim guy pal Ellison to go after USA Powerlifting for barring males from competing in women’s events.

In her letter to Ellison in support of this investigation, third paragraph down, the operative sentence.

… “follow the example of the International Olympic Committee.”

This caught my eye from a post a couple of years ago:

Men can compete as women in upcoming Olympics

There’s great news for adventurous male Olympic hopefuls: if they declare themselves women and reduce their testosterone below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to competition, they can compete against ladies.

There’s even better news for these men; according to transgender guidelines approved by the International Olympic Committee, genitalia does not serve as a prerequisite. The guidelines state: “To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights.”

Let’s just set aside the dressing and showering issues alone.

 

WASHINGTON — Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar recommended Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison investigate USA Powerlifting for barring biological males from women’s events, according to a Jan. 31 letter she sent USA Powerlifting.

Omar called it a “myth” that men who identify as transgender women have a “direct competitive advantage” and copied Ellison on the letter, “with a recommendation that he investigate this discriminatory behavior.” (RELATED: Biological Male Wins World Championship In Women’s Cycling)

Omar sent her letter on behalf of JayCee Cooper, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, and whom Omar identified as one of her constituents. She signed the letter on Jan. 31, though it only became public on Tuesday after Cooper posted a picture to Instagram, where it caught the attention of OutSports.

More at the Daily Caller

(Check third paragraph down)

 

Ace speculates as to why our gal is after women’s sports. How about his thought?

Why is Ilhan Omar, of all people, jumping on this issue?

Is this because she’s an extreme intersectionalist leftwinger? Or is it because she harbors the usual Islamic notions of what a woman should be and what a woman shouldn’t be, and doesn’t mind the notion of destroying women’s sports altogether?

Maybe women shouldn’t be doing Manly things like sports. Maybe they should just be servicing their husband and making dinner with their husband’s other wives.

Ace of Spades

What say you?

Transgender men competing in women’s sports are cheating

Ezra Levant of The Rebel reports: A transgender man has won gold in a women’s cycling world championship.

 

 

Advertisements

Ellison cries – Tapper unfair ‘putting him on the spot’ over Farrakhan

Jake Tapper must have taken his bravery pills. He takes on Keith Ellison and his ties with Farrakhan. Better yet, points out that Obama had a so-called “Muslim Ban” as well. A delicious video well worth the watch as well as a clip of Ellison with Farrakhan.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.), the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, argued with CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday about his prior connection to Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan.

Ellison termed President Donald Trump a bigot in response to CNN anchor Jake Tapper’s question about whether travel bans targeting Muslim majority countries during the Obama administration were problematic. Ellison said the Supreme Court should not have ignored bigoted intent in ruling against Trump’s travel ban, leading Tapper to ask about Ellison’s own connection with Farrakhan, a notorious bigot.

“You’ve been decrying president Trump’s bigotry; obviously, you used to follow somebody who continually expressed sexist, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-Semitic bigotry, Louis Farrakhan—”

He went on to explain that he has denounced Farrakhan but he was not associated with him, contradicting the Washington Post’s fact check on the matter.”I would disagree with that,” Ellison interjected. He went on to explain that he has denounced Farrakhan but he was not associated with him, contradicting the Washington Post’s fact check on the matter.

Ellison continued to talk over Tapper and prevent him from asking his question, saying he had no right to bring up Farrakhan and set up a “false equivalency” with Trump. More at Free Beacon

For a refresher keep in mind he is knee-deep as well with the Muslim Brotherhood. He doesn’t know anything about anything now does he?

Liar Keith Ellison:’I don’t know a thing about the Muslim Brotherhood’

….Rewind to 2008 when Keith Ellison went on a 16-day hajj trip to Saudi Arabia paid for by the Muslim American Society (MAS) to the tune of $13,500.

But a mountain of evidence of his contacts with and support of Muslim Brotherhood front groups – identified as such by the U.S. Government – shows that the Muslim Brotherhood definitely knows who he is.

Johari Abdul-Malik, then director at Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia, uploaded a YouTube video in 2013 that shows Ellison casually chatting among a crowd of men, including Farrakhan. The video is short — just 28 seconds —- but what it shows is indisputable: Ellison comfortably socializing in the same group as Farrakhan, decades after Ellison supposedly cut ties with him. Full story at Daily Caller

Keith-Ellison-Nation-Of-Islam-Louis-Farrakhan-e1518567853588

 

 

Jake Tapper interview:

Nancy Pelosi ‘American people don’t want a new direction’

We couldn’t pick better leadership for the Dems. They are toying with radical Muslim Ellison for heading up the party after the old war-horse Howard Dean decided to hang it up. We have Elizabeth Warren beating the war drums. Speaking of war horses, now Nancy was re-elected for the House leadership. Her ‘debut’ on Sunday of the new look was simply amazing. The prowess of her intellectual acumen almost matched “you have to see what’s in the bill to know what’s in it.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that despite Democrats losing the House, Senate, and almost two-thirds of state houses, the American people don’t want a new direction.

The California congressman appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday and instead said the issue facing Democrats is simply a failure of communication.

DICKERSON: “The Democratic Party is in a moment of questioning about its identity. You were reelected to lead the Democrats in the House. What do you tell Democrats who want a new direction and then, go to you, what are you going to do differently?”
PELOSI: “Well, I don’t think people want a new direction. Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on. What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country, and that clearly in the election showed that that message wasn’t coming through. But we are united in terms of the security of our country, which is our first responsibility. To be smart and strong and not reckless in how we protect the American people, strong in how we protect our economy.”

Pelosi also downplayed her party’s losses in 2010 and 2016, telling CBS’s John Dickerson “You’re forgetting that we went up so high in 2006 and 2008.”

DICKERSON: “Here’s my question, though, Democrats since 2008, the numbers are ghastly for Democrats. Democrats are down 10 percent, in the House down 19.3 percent and in governors 35 percent. The Democrats are getting clobbered at every level over multiple elections. That seems like a real crisis for the party?”
PELOSI: “You’re forgetting that we went up so high in 2006 and 2008, and let me just put that in perspective. When President Clinton was elected, Republicans came in big in the next election. When President Bush was president, we came in big in the next election. When President Obama became president, the Republicans came in big in the next election.”

What Jefferson and Adams knew about Muslims that Progressives don’t

After seeing the Mayor of Philadelphia totally deny that the shooting of a police officer had anything to do with Islam when the perpetrator himself claimed so, I decided to do a re-run of our history.

Our nation has been dealing with these barbarians since the beginning of our nation. Since the beginning, Tunisia and what was then known as the Barbary Coast, the Muslims were barbarous towards the United States. Adams wanted to pay ransom to secure the release of hostages. Jefferson said no more. Appeasement? Or war. It is good to review this piece of History at this time. Here tis a piece of it:

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease. For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and the Middle East

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.

It was Jefferson’s Quran that the first Muslim Representative Keith Ellison used when he was sworn into office. Jefferson understood the Muslims. Our nation has been dealing with these folks since the beginning of our nation. Since the beginning, Tunisia and what was then known as the Barbary Coast, the Muslims were cruel and barbarous. Adams wanted to pay ransom to secure the release of hostages. Jefferson said no more. Appeasement? Or war. A great read over at US Veteran Dispatch. It is good to review this piece of History at this time. Here tis a piece of it:

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast. Full Story here at: US Vet .

%d bloggers like this: