Proof Congresswoman ilhan Omar is a Racist Liar Who Married Her Brother

These aren’t rumors, but facts backed up by pictures/screenshots and official documents. Wikipedia is falsely claiming it’s a conspiracy theory. There’s even some wacko know-it-all “ex-lawyer” (great credential!) “Charles” on quora making a faps3 and absurd lie that “the press corps” (what the hell is that?!) disproved this with DNA, wow, just lies!

Key smoking gun (besides the pictures and social media admissions by Ilhan’s brother: her first known husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, has the same birthdate as a man with the same name that his fellow students say had the same dad as Ilhan (as in the dad has the same name), the same as that of her brother (who in social media posts twice was pictured with Ilhan), a brother she has not publically disclosed as a sibling/brother (and she will not give out the last names of her family, why? Because their real last names is ‘not’ Omar, but ‘Elmi’). Ilhan and others of her family lied about their last names in order to claim relationship to the Omar (Somali) family for quick access to U.S. and U.K. citizenship. Ahmad was apparently intelligent enough stay outside of America, probably realizing that if he were found out would be the target of harassment and would have had a chance of being arrested by ICE (the immigration police).

New Evidence Supports Claims That Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

100% Proof Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

ilhan’s Brother Caught Lying About His Education

Why Is This Now New News?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Ilhan_Omarilhan Omar Charged With Fraud

INCEST OMAR: Loomer Launches New Merch to Raise Awareness About Ilhan Omar Marrying Brother

Star-Tribune wrote it, “could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling.”

Snopes.com in February 2019, said “the evidence uncovered thus far isn’t definitive enough to come down on one side or the other.”

For those of you liberals who wonder why I care, it’s because 1. I’m Jewish, or consider myself so as my dad is Jewish (I do not care that in Judaism the mom only counts – it’s a racist doctrine, as Abraham was called the first “Jew” and yet is an Assyrian, and Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian, yet clearly God had considered Moses’ future family line as being sufficient as Jews when God pretended he was about to wipe out most of or half the Jews who were rebellious). 2. Laura Loomer is Jewish and racists within the liberal community are persecuting her and calling her a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia. 3. On Quora I see a shady guy calling himself “Charles” and an “ex-lawyer” with an unbelievable “24,000+” answers on Quora.com (and a significant yet underwhelming following of 9,900 followers) gave a very suspicious answer about Ilhan, by outright lying and using the infantile and illogical claim that to consider a false accusation is “old hat” that is (possibly) 9 years old (what matters is if it’s true, and it’s coming to light in mass as she became a government official whose opposing the president, all Jews and who can sabotage America via its immigration laws). Something of an interesting side note is that the expression/term/phrase, “old hat” is sexist:

“slang. The vulva. Also: sexual intercourse; a woman regarded as a means of sexual gratification. Now arch. and rare.” – Oxford Dictionary. Ironically the very term “old hat” there is claimed to be a near extinct phrase, itself, old. It originally seems to have meant, “a woman who was only good for sex due to her uselessness and old age” or “a female only good for sex as her vagina has been repeatedly used for sex by more than one male, in otherwords, a “slut”. Shouldn’t Charles, playing know-it-all ex-lawyer (he’s a writer for Apple Inc., too, allegedly) have been careful not to use a sexist expression? It is evidence that Charles is carelessly posting answers. Further evidence is that the expression the way he implied it shows an illogical and criminal state of mind as it’s meaning morphed to, include, “colloq. In predicative use: something considered to be old-fashioned, out of date, unoriginal, or hackneyed.” Since when would wondering about a recently discovered accusation be, “unoriginal” or “old-fashioned”. “Out of date” is an expression itself that refers to style and as such is itself discriminatory/prejudiced then against clothing choice, makeup and hairstyle and by extension then, the treasured doctrine of “liberal diversity”. So, Charles isn’t even using the term correctly and ironically one that itself is considered “out of fashion” to even use and not original/no longer new. Charles meant however, “old news” (apparently trying to force a new meaning to sound clever, original and wise by using a rare term – talk about “weird” and nonsensical”!)

Does it’s older use matter? Of course it does, because in a very large population who seeks information on everything and regarding a very controversial topic in tbe major news people will end up digging into everything, and ironically this topic was something that required some deep digging!

Anne Curzan, an English professor at the University of Michigan claims that the obsolete (pardon this side-topic pun) use of words and phrases no longer counts as what the meaning was replaced with, which true or not, doesn’t excuse Charles’ dually wrong use 1. It’s more modern use applies to fashion 2. He meant it to mean “a topic so old everyone knew about it and that’s been disproven”. 1. It was never a widely known topic as Ilhan herself was obscure and rarely in the news. 2. Again, a thing’s age has nothing to do with it being true or false, it’s grossly childish thinking, like saying, “the Bible is old, so we should completely ignore it” or “climate change”, “rape”, “homosexuality”, “lying”, “evolution”, “evil”. It’s as childish as the expression “judgmental”, itself in it’s modern usage a nonsensical phrase.

The 3rd reason I care about Ilhan’s criminal acts and words, specifically her unlawful marraige is that I don’t think this news has gotten the attention it deserves, as it shows how gullible people, liberal or not, can be in accepting someone merely for the sake of “diversity” (which seems to me to be a word liberals are using out of their dislike for the traditional liberal pretentious ideal of total “unity”/agreement, which truly just meant, “agreement with liberal beliefs/philosophy” – but of course has a conotation of accepting even Christian fundamentalist beliefs which liberals despise, so, they switched to “diversity”, meaning in liberal context, “you don’t have to agree with everyone and any claim like that blacks are mentally inferior, but treat everyone equally under the law, like gays who wish to have the same marraige rights as hetros”, which itsef is hypocritical and impossible as liberals cannot even agree when human life becomes human, and so denies the rights of defenseless babies, and cannot agree when even a preteen child – if at all – should have the right to suicide or have an so called “sex-change”!).

Liberlism is very convoluted. I think too conservatism is too, and perhaps worse, as it seems to imply the Bible sanctions free speech, even lying of the kind liberals use to destroy conservatism. What conservatives fear is their “free speech” to question anything held sacred or “mainstream” or to blaspheme or make statements that merely over being disagreeable, being used to prosecute, censure and execute them over, a fear or concern due to the Catholic Church (a Christian-pagan cult, with an anti-Jewish streak) having used religious doctrines they held sacred (and the Puritans who misused evidence of witchcraft) to do such things. But the conservative and liberal method of dealing with the Catholic and Puritan misuse of religious doctrine is no better. It should never be legal to sanction what traditionally is considered blasphemy or malicious speech that is meant to incite violence or strife, especially random, like a verbal dirty bomb. Example, if I say, “Liberals and conservatives are both fags” or, “Christians are deluded liars”, it should be a criminal slander offense, but ones being broad like that with no direct blasphemy should have a death penalty, just some fine, community service, public rebuke, or a three days in jail. The worse the maliciousness the worse the punishment. Example, if I said, “kids should be tortured for fun”, I’d say that’s six months slaving in some farm, or a year in jail, second offense, double, third, triple, and so on or being committed to a maximum security mental institution until it can be determined by twelve psychologist that whoever said that is not a psychopath or narcissist (two types of mentally ill humans I believe should be in prisons for the insane and pathologically dangerous).

Ilhan’s crimes merit deportation back to Somalia. However, if she admitted the truth, recanted that Jews have magically put the world in a trance (much of the world is disgusted by Jews, so how would that even come close to being true?) and was willing to spend a year in a prison in her home state learning to tolerate Jewish diversity and hear the Bible read each day, I’d say let her stay. That is merciful, unlike Sharia-Muslim law, requiring upwards of 80-200+ lashings with a pronged whip, and even being stoned to death. The Bible only calls for forty lashes for FALSE WITNESS and stoning only by someone who is considered morally pure – part of God’s wise and merciful way of “checks and balances”, till Christ’s return.