Category: Leftist
DHS torpedoes Ilhan Omar’s latest tall story: ‘Categorically FALSE’
In a Sunday interview with WCCO-TV, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of pulling over her son on Saturday and pressing him for proof of citizenship. Others who have trouble with the truth, namely Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and the liberal media, were quick to make hay of Omar’s allegation.
“Congresswoman Omar’s son was pulled over by ICE while he was following the law, on his way home from Target,” Walz said in a post on X. “This isn’t a targeted operation to find violent criminals, it’s racial profiling.”
‘It is shameful that Congresswoman Omar would level accusations to demonize ICE as part of a PR stunt.’
The Department of Homeland Security stopped the narrative in its tracks, noting that the Democrat ethno-nationalist’s sob story appears to be yet another tall tale.
DHS noted on Tuesday that “ICE has absolutely ZERO record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son.”
“With no evidence, it is shameful that Congresswoman Omar would level accusations to demonize ICE as part of a PR stunt,” continued the agency. “Allegations that ICE engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless and categorically FALSE.”
“What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S. — NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, DHS law enforcement uses ‘reasonable suspicion’ to make arrests,” added the DHS.
RELATED: Ilhan Omar compares Stephen Miller’s immigration rhetoric to Nazism
Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Clinging to the congresswoman’s narrative, Omar’s office said in response to the DHS on Tuesday, “The congresswoman’s son and others were pulled over by ICE, racially profiled, and forced to prove their citizenship with a passport.”
“ICE has long operated as a rogue agency beyond reform,” continued the statement from Omar’s office. “It’s no surprise that an agency known for disappearing people also can’t keep its records straight.”
The response from Omar’s office may amount to a rock thrown from a glass house.
In the wake of border czar Tom Homan’s confirmation that the Trump administration is investigating Omar for alleged immigration fraud — possibly in connection to Omar’s marriage to her alleged brother — former Democratic congressional candidate AJ Kern told Alpha News that public records appear to indicate Omar has trouble keeping the record straight about when she was born.
While Omar has repeatedly indicated that she became a citizen at the age of 17 — a claim she even made to the Guardian this week — Kern noted that Omar “was actually 18 in the year 2000, when her father became eligible to apply for citizenship.”
Citing official documents, Kern suggested that Omar “actually wasn’t a minor when her father could apply for naturalization,” adding that “it kind of blows a hole in her story that she obtained naturalization or citizenship when she was 17.”
Emails reviewed by Alpha News show that Omar’s staff contacted the Legislative Reference Library on May 17, 2019, requesting they change the Somali-born ethno-nationalist’s date of birth from Oct. 4, 1981, to Oct. 4, 1982.
Blaze News has reached out to Omar’s office for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Damning social media footprint suggests man who shot Trump was another ‘they/them’ radical
Social media comments attributed to Thomas Matthew Crooks, the dead man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump last year, suggest that he may have been yet another shooter captive to gender ideology and other genres of sexual perversion.
Crooks fired eight shots at Trump during a campaign rally on July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania. While he managed to strike only the ear of the man whom Democrats characterized as a “clear and present danger,” the failed assassin killed heroic former fire chief Corey Comperatore and severely injured David Dutch and James Copenhaver, who were seated behind the president.
‘The threat wasn’t hidden.’
The FBI has long suggested that Crooks’ motives were unclear.
Days after former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that “a lot of the usual repositories of information have not yielded anything notable in terms of motive or ideology,” then-FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate revealed that hundreds of comments had been found on one social media account believed to be associated with the dead shooter in the 2019 to 2020 timeframe.
“There were over 700 comments posted from this account. Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter, appear to reflect anti-Semitic and anti-immigration themes, espouse political violence, and are extreme in nature,” said Abbate.
Days after Tucker Carlson shared various screencaps of posts allegedly made by Crooks, the New York Post’s Miranda Devine suggested on Monday that Abbate neglected to inform Congress that a significant portion of Crooks’ online interactions from January to August 2020 signaled that “he did an ideological backflip and went from rabidly pro-Trump to rabidly anti-Trump and then went dark, never seeming to post again.”
RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America’s classrooms
Blaze Media illustration
“The danger Crooks posed was visible for years in public online spaces,” a source who apparently uncovered the shooter’s hidden footprint told the New York Post. “His radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name. The threat wasn’t hidden.”
After reviewing Crooks’ interactions across various platforms and pages including YouTube, Snapchat, Discord, GooglePlay, and Quora, the source concluded that the official narrative claiming that Crooks operated alone without a clear motive or ideology was bogus.
The shooter “was not simply some unknowable lone actor,” said the source. “He left a digital trail of violent threats, extremist ideology and admiration for mass violence. He spoke openly of political assassination, posted under his real name, and was even flagged by other users who mentioned law enforcement in their replies. Despite this, his account remained active for more than five years — and was only removed the day after the shooting.”
In 2019, Crooks allegedly made a number of pro-Trump, anti-Democrat remarks online, suggesting, for instance, that the president was “the literal definition of Patriotism” and stating, “MURDER THE DEMOCRATS.”
In early 2020, Crooks apparently changed his tune and began deriding Trump and his supporters, defending draconian COVID-19 lockdowns, and lambasting Republicans over voter-fraud concerns, while in some instances being cheered on by an apparent member of a Norwegian neo-Nazi group.
Crooks allegedly suggested in a Feb. 26, 2020, post that Trump supporters were too “brainwashed to realize how dumb you are” and accused Trump of being a “racist” in a separate post the same day.
‘This is a five alarm fire.’
Within months of his political about-face, Crooks was reportedly advocating for “terrorism style attacks” and political assassinations. At some point, Crooks also reportedly began associating with furries online.
According to the Post, Crooks reportedly began referring to himself using “they/them” pronouns on DeviantArt, an “online social network for artists and art enthusiasts” that teems with “furry” imagery depicting sexualized and anthropomorphized animals.
RELATED: Trans-identifying teen agrees to plead guilty to plotting Valentine’s Day massacre at high school
A demonstrator holding an image of Crooks. Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images.
The histories of two DeviantArt accounts linked to Crooks’ primary email address indicate he possibly had a furry fetish, obsessing over cartoon characters with male anatomies and female heads.
Trump’s failed assassin would hardly be the first radical in recent years who was immersed in trans and/or furry subcultures.
Charlie Kirk’s suspected assassin was reportedly not only in a homosexual relationship with a transvestite, who on at least one occasion dressed up in a furry outfit, but was himself possibly active on a furry fetish website.
An engraving on a bullet casing linked to Kirk’s assassination made reference to gay furries.
There was also the:
- trans-identifying man who shot up a Catholic church full of children in Minneapolis on Aug. 27, killing two children and injuring 30;
- male-identifying woman who planned to shoot up an elementary school and a high school in Maryland in April 2024 but was stopped in time by police — then later convicted;
- trans-identifying teen who stalked the halls of a school in Perry, Iowa, on Jan. 4, 2024, ultimately murdering a child and an adult and wounding several others; and the
- trans-identifying woman who stormed into a Presbyterian school in Nashville on March 27, 2023, murdering three children and three adults.
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said of the news of Crooks’ possible trans-identification and furry fetish, “This is beyond correlation, this is a five alarm fire.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The left wants to ‘reclaim’ the American flag; did they run out of lighter fluid?
In 2018, I was canvassing for a Republican candidate in a local race here in Portland, Oregon. A bunch of us were knocking on doors in the suburbs, seeking out Republicans by using data printouts that indicated which households were aligned with which party.
But those printouts were not always correct. People had moved. Or there were split households. Sometimes the homeowners had changed parties.
In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists.
As the election grew near and we shifted into maximum efficiency mode, our field boss sent out the word: Only go to houses flying the American flag.
That was the easiest way to focus on the most loyal Republicans. In 2018, the two most common flags you saw at people’s houses were the Pride flag (Democrats) and the Stars and Stripes (Republicans).
(The “We Believe in Science” signs had not yet proliferated.)
The funny thing was, we door-knockers were already doing that. I certainly was. I loved canvassing mostly because I liked meeting people. And the best people were always the ones with a big American flag hanging majestically beside their front door.
That was then, this is now
Fast-forward, and I’m at a recent No Kings protest. These protests had drawn huge crowds of leftists and progressives. I wanted to see for myself what these demonstrations looked like.
Imagine my surprise when the first person I encountered was a small elderly woman with a kind face and a big bundle of American flags.
These were 8″ by 12″ flags. The kind little kids might wave at a parade. She approached me and offered me one.
Naturally, I was confused. Was she a Republican? No, she wasn’t. She explained that these were Democrat flags now. The left was taking the flag back. Progressives were patriotic too!
They were? I thought to myself. Since when?
But I was in enemy territory, so I just smiled and took a flag. She showed me the little note that was attached. (Of course, the left can’t give you an American flag without adding their own anti-Trump commentary.)
The note said: “MAGA is trying to claim the American flag as exclusively their own. It is time we reclaim our flag. It is our national promise of freedom, and rightfully belongs to ALL Americans. Wave it proudly.”
I carried it with me as I watched the Trump derangement parade later that day. Multiple American flags were flown. By leftists.
RELATED: Yes, Trump’s flag-burning executive order is constitutional
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The red and the blue
This isn’t the first time the left has tried to steal symbols or images (or flags) from the right. They also stole the color blue.
Throughout Europe, in the 1800s, revolutionaries and malcontents were associated with the color red. Monarchs and aristocrats were represented by the color blue.
In the early 1900s, the color red was the color of communists, subversives, and anarchists. During the Russian Revolution of 1917, “The Reds” overthrew the czar and started a civil war.
In China, when Chairman Mao Zedong instigated his own revolution in 1949, the flag, books, and symbols were always colored bright red.
This made sense. The color red suggests anger, revolt, defiance.
While blue — the color of the sky — is the color that indicates calmness, stability, order.
So what did the American left do as they consolidated their power in the late 1900s?
They switched the colors! With the help of their allies in the media, the left managed to STEAL the color blue from conservatives.
So now we call Republican states “red” and Democratic states “blue,” which is the reverse of what the colors should be.
Never mind that the Democrats are still the party of chaos and upheaval. They wanted the prestige of the color blue. They want people to think of them as rational, calm, regal. So they changed the colors to favor themselves.
Capture the flag!
Regarding this theft of our flag: Does the left think we don’t remember five years ago? During the BLM riots, they were burning the flag all over the country.
In Portland, during the “Summer of 100 Riots,” they burned the flag as a nightly ritual.
Think back even further: The left has been burning the flag since the Vietnam War. It’s one of their most predictable political reactions. If anything happens that they don’t like, the American flag goes up in flames!
And aren’t these the same people who tore down the statues of our founders, who created that flag? Founders like George Washington?
In Portland, leftists toppled a large statue of George Washington. They left the statue right where it fell, with George Washington face down in the mud!
And these people think the American flag belongs to them? That they are now the patriots? That they should be anywhere near our beloved Stars and Stripes?
I don’t think so.
The good news is, it probably won’t work. Even if their strategists decide to embrace the flag, your average Joe anarchist won’t be able to help himself. They see an American flag, and they reach for their lighter.
But either way, we must reject this movement. Don’t let them have the flag. They don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. And they don’t love it. Not like we do.
Karine Jean-Pierre’s humiliating book tour is even worse than you think
Karine Jean-Pierre has been hawking a new book in a desperate attempt to cash in on her time as White House press secretary — and it’s not going well.
Whereas fellow lesbian and propagandist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the book was a “truly new and valuable contribution to our understanding of the Biden presidency,” the Washington Post shredded “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside the Party Lines,” noting that it was a “fascinating book for all the wrong reasons.”
‘Sorry, I’m not trying to be dense. I’m a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders.’
The reviewer — confronted with 180 pages’ worth of Jean-Pierre’s thoughts “written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that ‘in this house, we believe kindness is everything'” — expressed amazement “that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.”
The Post concluded on the basis of the book that Jean-Pierre is a “blinkered” establishmentarian whose recent departure from the Democratic Party and identification as an independent “seems to be less of a strategy than a style”; whose “thinking remains so decidedly in the box”; and who “appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered.”
Journalist Matt Taibbi’s review of the book for the Free Press was similarly damning, dubbing it “history’s most incoherent memoir.”
“Jean-Pierre had over a year to think about what to say about all this, and instead of writing the book the whole world wanted, the true story (complete with photos of Biden’s used-bib collection and pictorial toilet guides) of her frustration at having to be the public face of one of the most obvious and legally perilous cons in American political history, she denied there was anything to cover up, much less that she had responsibility for it,” wrote Taibbi.
Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images
In the book, Jean-Pierre reportedly rejects the obvious justification for Biden’s ouster — the mental and physical decrepitude that had him tumbling, mumbling, and bumbling — and claims that she “saw Biden every day and saw no such decline.” As for Biden’s humiliating performance in his TV debate with President Donald Trump, Jean-Pierre blamed a cold and travel-related exhaustion.
Perhaps worse than the reviews for the book are Jean-Pierre’s efforts to sell it on tour.
For instance, Jean-Pierre befuddled a sympathetic journalist with a series of word salads in her recent interview with the New Yorker.
Isaac Chotiner repeatedly pressed Jean-Pierre on her explanation for how and why the Democratic Party supposedly undermined former President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election.
When asked the second time why the Democrats had it out for Biden, Jean-Pierre said — in an interview the New Yorker indicated was edited for length and clarity — that:
they believed that he needed to step aside. There’s more to this than just that period of time. This is very layered, right? There’s a period of time that I questioned what was happening and how do we treat our own, how do we treat people who are decent people. And then you also have to think about how I’m thinking about this as a black woman who is part of the LGBTQ community, and living in this time where I also don’t think Democrats right now, Democrats’ leadership, is protecting vulnerable people in the way that it should.
The interviewer responded, “Sorry, I’m not trying to be dense. I’m a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders and many Democrats in the country thinking that Joe Biden was going to lose to Donald Trump — which was what the polls all showed — and therefore thinking that he should be replaced.”
After Jean-Pierre launched into a rant about how “nobody knows” about what could have alternatively happened, Chotiner indicated that he had no idea what the former Biden spox was trying to say.
Toward the end of the viral interview, Jean-Pierre — who had made sure to mention her LGBTQ status and race numerous times and suggested the subtitle of her book, “Inside a Broken White House,” was referring to the Trump White House — accused Chotiner of pushing Democratic Party talking points.
David Weigel, a political writer for Semafor who was among the multitude of critics awestruck by how badly the interview went, said, “Turns out you can do a career-ending interview even after your career is over.”
Even Jean-Pierre’s interview with Stephen Colbert — a liberal propagandist who helped raise millions for Biden’s campaign last year — went off the rails when the CBS late-night host proved unwilling to buy what the former White House spox was selling.
Colbert, like Chotiner, asked Jean-Pierre to explain how the Democratic Party betrayed Biden. Even though that’s a core claim in the former press secretary’s book, she appeared unable to answer, launching into a speech about Biden’s perceived accomplishments and how he was still “engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first.”
The late-night host pointed out that “it takes more than that to be the president of the United States, and in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us. And nothing could assuage that worry. So I don’t think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, ‘We don’t think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.'”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
