Two Muslim Women Newly Elected to Congress: Their Agenda

The Washington Post reports, "Americans for the first time sent a Muslim woman to Congress---actually two: Palestinian American Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, and Somali American Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota."

The Post also reports that "Omar and Tlaib are among 100 or more Muslims who ran for office in 2018, an unprecedented surge in political engagement..."

What is their agenda in this newly found political engagement?

Be informed.

The Washington Post continues with this: "Their victories...come as President Trump and other GOP figures continue to stoke fear about Islam and immigrants as sources of problems and danger."

Are you "stoking fear" if you ask questions? Are you stoking fear if you kind of remember 9-11 and other acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam? Apparently so, in the mind of the far Left news media.

And knowing some of the verses in the Quran causes some who are not Muslim to hope these women are "moderate" and don't practice all they read in their holiest book.

I don't want to be a "stoker," but I am wondering what their agenda looks like.

Most of us know that Congress people don't really get all that much done, so it isn't as though these two women will change the course of human events in Congress or elsewhere, but one has to wonder their focus might be.

One of the two, Rashida Tlaib, says she ran for office "to show my son that bullies and hate (don't) win."

She says her oldest son "questions whether or not he can tell someone that he's of the Muslim faith or that he's even Arab."

Tlaib accuses President Trump of "pushing back against our sense of belonging here in the United States of America."

She says it's very important to her that she and others "get into the room and make sure that we have a voice and a seat at the table."

"And," she notes that "half of the members of the US Congress are millionaires" and are not like other Americans who are "working class" and "do not have a voice within Congress right now."

"It's going to change with a rainbow of color of women," she says.

We know what she's against, but what is she for?

Well, she plans to "fight against corporate greed that has infiltrated our United States Congress."

Here's her plan:

I'm going to fight for Medicare-for-all. I'm going to fight against discrimination. I'm going to fight against the ongoing assault from the car insurance industry in Michigan. We have the highest rates of car insurance because of the practice of redlining. I'm going to lift their voices up. That's what I'm going to do.

And I will outwork the hate. I will outwork every single thing on the agenda of the right wing. I don't care if it's Trump or whoever it is that's leading this kind of push against the working families that I represent. But it's going to be loud, and it's going to be very direct and very clear and it's going to be about those issues and those values.

My district did not vote for me because I'm Muslim. They voted for me because I have the heart and love and passion to give them a voice in the United States Congress.

Omar's plan is pretty much the same as Bernie Sanders' and the other leaders of the Left, except that she is already being criticized for working too closely with "pro-Israel lobbyists and with some left-leaning Jewish activists..."

I'm sure Omar will distance herself from the lobbyists and Jews, other than that, they both look like any other far Left progressive politician.

But we're left wondering if their often referenced "values" are based on sharia or the US Constitution. That would make a lot of difference. Our Constitution was created to protect a God-given, enduring freedom, including freedom of religion.

Certainly, these women are practicing their religious freedom, but will they "push back" on Quranic verses that instruct believers how to treat those who do not convert to Islam? When Islamic sharia stands in direct opposition to US laws and policies, how will they respond?

Who knows? I don't know, but I'm wondering about it.

Last year, the New York Times tried to explain how Muslims integrate and assimilate and how a few bad apples make them look bad.

In a feature article titled, "Why do all the Jihadis Come to Birmingham" [England]. The Times explains the jihadi terrorists are in it strictly for the money. "It's a business for them"---it's "not about their religion."

"They turned religion into a gang-type thing," they say, and the message to the youth is "you can be cool, you can become a gangster jihadi."

The Times makes their case that the vast majority of Muslims in Europe just want to assimilate.

The part about the assimilation is not true. I don't know about the hipster gang-type religion angle.

Interestingly, the Times includes a correction at the end of their story: "A picture on Monday with an article about Muslims in Birmingham, England, was published in error. It showed a Sikh man, not a Muslim."

Could the New York Times also be in error on other parts of their story?

The Atlantic also published a feature article to help Europeans and Americans better understand what's happening to Europe.

The far Left, widely read publication concluded that yes, Islam is reshaping Europe, but it is actually making Europe a "more perfect union." A much better place.

Many recognize that a cultural transformation is taking place in Europe---particularly in Germany, England, and France. Especially France, because of mass Muslim migration without assimilation.

The sheer numbers of migrants locating in specific cities creates a political block of voters, in fact, Muslims have elected a Muslim mayor of London.

The Washington Times published an article titled, "New World Order: Muslims to be majority in Europe within two generations."

The Times says, quoting a French researcher, "Within 40 years, given current trends, the white population in France and the rest of old Europe will recede, creating a Muslim majority."

The Gate Stone Institute has published a report titled, "France: Toward Total Submission to Islam, Destruction of Free Speech."

The Institute begins with this:

The French government and French justice system claim they treat all religions equally, but they treat Islam as if it were 'more equal than others'---able to enjoy special privileges. Those who criticize Islam---or who just show the results of Islamic terrorism---are victims of fierce prosecution, while hate-filled, racist organizations are never touched.

And they said this:

In France, attacks against Islam are benign and rare, but lead to severe convictions: in January 2016, a man dropped slices of ham in front of a mosque. He was immediately sent to jail for several weeks. Attacks against Christianity, however, are countless, sometimes violent, but almost never lead to any conviction.

French theaters produce anti-Christian shows almost every year. In a play called "On the Concept of the Face of God," currently on tour throughout the country, for almost two hours, a large portrait of Jesus Christ is insulted and covered with matter that is supposed to be feces. The French Ministry of Culture subsidizes the tour. No theater director, however, would imagine producing an anti-Islam show.

Six to eight million Muslims live in France, and the number is increasing. France's 400,000 remaining Jews have not yet left France, but every year their numbers shrink. Practicing Christians vanish; churches are often empty.

Polls show that a significant proportion of the French population thinks that Islam is a threat, but French authorities choose to harass those who speak of this threat.

Europe is beginning to awaken to the width and breath of their problem. Many in Europe are saying the awakening is too little too late.

Yes, America is about immigrants---and yes, I know what's written on the base of the Statue of Liberty. However, vigilance is a discipline we must not fail to practice.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson).