My latest in PJ Media is a VIP article. I am happy to be able to offer you a 5% discount on becoming a VIP member at PJ Media. Just enter the code SPENCER when you sign up here.
The hijabed “feminist” Linda Sarsour has faded from the public eye since the glory days when she was one of the far left’s most visible and annoying mouthpieces, but in these heady days of the mayoralty of Zohran Mamdani, the communist Twelver Shi’ite who is currently occupying Gracie Mansion, she is enjoying a renaissance of sorts. She doesn’t enjoy the media adulation she once did, at least not at the moment, but her influence may be even greater than it ever was before, and she is just as sinister as she always was, if not more so.
There is more. Read the rest here.
Huh?!? says
These statements are becoming my mantra. Deport her and others like her. Her hatred and want to destroy this country are reason enough. I suspect she is working behind the scenes with jihadi cells in the country. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Vote! Vote! Vote!
James Lincoln says
Huh?!?,
Unfortunately, she is a US citizen born in New York.
somehistory says
James, she is incarcerable if they investigate and find her in support (like funding) terror groups with weapons beyond her ugly, lie-filled mouth.
Wellington says
James: One thing I wish would cease here at JW and that is too many people who should know better continuing to call for the deportation of someone like the wretched Sarsour who was born an American citizen.
This is a route to Nowheresville. Indeed, it is actually counter-productive because such people, well intentioned though they be, can easily be ridiculed precisely because they are so ill-informed. And ridicule of those meaning well but still wrong only aids those who don’t mean well—such as Sarsour and her warped supporters.
Knowledge is power as I know you know. Sadly, too many here at JW still don’t grasp this.
OLD GUY says
Somebody put a sock in her foul mouth.
More than one threat says
It doesn’t really mean people are ill-informed.
It is a harbinger to debate on the concept of citizenship and related issues of:
– the rights and responsibilities of citizens;
– whether, and the circumstances citizenship can be removed; and
– and what can be done if someone violates the preconditions of citizenship.
Although citizenship is not exactly the same as nationality, it does operate at the level of the Nation State. Usually Nation States confer citizenship, regardless of those claiming to be “citizens of the world”.
There are, however, those who consider their primary loyalty to be towards a supranational identity (e.g. Umma or global community of Islamic believers, or ethnic group, or class – “workers of the world unite”), or sub-national identity (e.g. tribe, clan, identity group etc), or even alternative national (e.g. perceive their loyalty to be towards another nation, such as Mexico) or no citizen (e.g. Sovereign Citizens), rather than a primary loyalty to the Nation of their citizenship.
When primary loyalty is directed towards supranational, subnational, alternative Nation or no Nation, problems can arise with regard to the rights and responsibilities as an individual citizen of a Nation.
This has happened in the past when Communists in the US were more loyal to the international Communist cause or Muslims in the US were more loyal to the Umma and global Jihad, rather than the USA.
In such circumstances, a policy debate about citizenship, including whether citizenship can ever be rescinded and the offender deported, is not only a valid legal and policy debate, but necessary.
The recent legal judgements on Birthright Citizenship and the US 14th Amendment fits into the policy debate of who is entitled to be a citizen. The Supreme Court has passed judgement, but the matter is far from over. The Supreme Court decision doesn’t fully address all the issues and consequences, such as the potential divided loyalties of “birth tourists” (- to whom will a Chinese person born on US soil in order to gain entitlement to US citizenship and whose family subsequently returns to China, ultimately owe their loyalty?)
Those who want to shut down debate on citizenship or the related issue whether citizenship can ever be removed and the now former citizen be deported, just demonstrate they don’t fully understand the broader issues at stake.
Those denigrating anyone seeking to debate the issues are free to personally exclude themselves from the debate. But they have no right to shut down the debate and it doesn’t mean the debate isn’t needed.
May the debate continue!