192 House Democrats Vote "No" on Resolution to Condemn Socialism; Hakeem Jeffries Fumes at Democrats Who Voted With the Republicans

I missed this yesterday.

Two "moderate" Democrats joined the Republicans in getting the vote to the floor -- without those two Democrats, the resolution would have stalled in committee.

Hakeem Jeffries is spitting mad at these anti-socialist Democrats, calling them traitors.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning socialism on Tuesday evening, with all but eight House Democrats voting against it.

In a stunning twist of fate, however, the vote would not have occurred if two House Democrats hadn't stepped in hours earlier to help the GOP through a procedural hurdle -- blindsiding House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in the process.

Jeffries later threatened consequences for the pair in a dramatic statement late on Tuesday night, calling their move a "breach of trust."

The resolution passed 220 to 192 with all "no" votes coming from the left, including Democrats' senior leaders: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

The legislation also affirmed support for election integrity and called for passage of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which nearly all Democrats oppose.

House conservatives had threatened to tank a procedural vote, called a "rule vote," meant to unlock debate on several bills GOP leaders wanted lawmakers to vote on this week. That included the resolution condemning socialism and several other unrelated bills.

Five Republicans voted against the rule, which was poised to fail until Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., provided two critical votes to get the GOP over the finish line in a narrow 209 to 208 vote.

The five Republicans were protesting a past vote on the continuing resolution. I'm so tired of this look-at-me, quien-es-mas-macho-conservative bullshit.

Jeffries and other senior House Democratic leaders warned in a statement the day after, ""The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust."

"It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order," the leaders said.

All Republicans wound up voting in favor of the resolution condemning socialism and affirming election integrity on Tuesday evening, however.

...

It's almost unheard of for the minority party to help their political rivals pass a rule, and Jeffries told reporters he was not notified beforehand.

The five House Republicans who voted against it were Reps. Pete Sessions, R-Texas; Chip Roy, R-Texas; Ralph Norman, R-S.C., Clay Higgins, R-La.; and Andy Harris, R-Md.

The rebels' issue was not with the measure itself, nor the bills it would have allowed the House to pass. Their votes were a protest against how their leaders handled a plan to avert a government shutdown just before the midterm elections, a short-term funding bill called a continuing resolution (CR). That measure passed just before the rule vote began.

Meanwhile, Abdulrahman Mohamad El-Sayed will join Islamists and conspiracy theorists to Just Ask Questions about 9/11, days before the 9/11 twenty-five year anniversary.

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed has questions, just as Tuq'r Qarlson wants to know who really blew up WTC 7.

Democratic Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is scheduled to speak at an Islamic convention this weekend--six days before the 25th anniversary of 9/11--on a panel alongside a "9/11 truther" and a Muslim cleric conspiracy theorist who has called for an "examination" of the official narrative surrounding the terrorist attacks.

El-Sayed is headlining the Islamic Society of North America's annual convention in Detroit on Saturday. There, El-Sayed will speak on a panel to examine a "turmoiled America" alongside left-wing pundit Cenk Uygur and Zaid Shakir, an outspoken New Jersey-based cleric, according to a convention itinerary.

Both men have promoted conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, in which al Qaeda operatives killed 2,977 Americans.

"I no longer believe [sic] official 9/11 story," Uygur declared in a social media rant in February. Uygur, who hosts the Young Turks YouTube show, is now pushing debunked claims about Israeli involvement in the attacks, including the "dancing Israelis" myth, an antisemitic conspiracy theory that posits that five Israeli spies filmed and celebrated the terrorist attack. "I didn't know we arrested Israeli spies who were here to 'document the event,'" wrote Uygur, who is the uncle of Hasan Piker, a close El-Sayed ally who has said that "America deserved 9/11."

Uygur was widely mocked for, as one outlet described it, "going full 9/11 truther."

Shakir has similarly called for an "examination" of what he described as "glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies" in the official 9/11 narrative. He has argued that the U.S. government used the attacks to "launch a war on Islam," and he directed followers to the writings of David Ray Griffin, a leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has argued that the United States orchestrated the attacks.

El-Sayed's appearance alongside the conspiracy theorists comes as his own record of seeking to minimize the horror of 9/11, and to draw equivalence between 9/11 victims and casualties of the war on terror, is under scrutiny.

...

El-Sayed has also faced withering scrutiny over his close ties to Piker, a popular left-wing influencer who has campaigned with El-Sayed. El-Sayed has repeatedly refused to fully disavow Piker's remarks about 9/11, saying that they have been "taken out of context" and that Piker is a victim of "cancel culture."

And El-Sayed has sought to link "Islamophobia" after 9/11 to health problems for Muslims and Arabs.

In a Sept. 11, 2012, essay for CNN that called Muslims "another victim of 9/11," El-Sayed cited a study conducted in California that found a dramatic increase in premature births for Muslim women after 9/11 compared with before the attacks. El-Sayed attributed the spike to "discrimination and marginalization" that Muslim women experienced after the attacks.

El-Sayed omitted from his essay the findings of his own study comparing birth outcomes for Muslim women before and after 9/11, however. El-Sayed's study, conducted in Michigan, found no difference in premature births for Muslim women after 9/11 and found overall that Arab and Muslim women were at "significantly" lower risk for premature births compared to white, black, and Asian mothers, the Free Beacon reported.

Shakir, in addition to propagating 9/11 conspiracy theories, has blamed Israel for other terrorist attacks and called for Muslims to use "guerrilla warfare" to achieve their desired political outcomes.

In related news: The media is attacking Bari Weiss for rewriting a "journalists'" headline about Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed deleting old tweets in which he suggested a moral equivalency between 9/11 and US war against Al Qaeda.

Why would the headline news of the story not be in the headline? For only one reason: the "journalist" wants to bury the story under an anodyne headline that draws no attention.

Mollie @MZHemingway

How dare she improve the objective journalism of the entity she is responsible for

Matt Whitlock @MattWhitlock

Facinating anyone would think a prominent Senate candidate deleting tweets about 9/11 ISN'T newsworthy

ZitoSalena @ZitoSalena

I am old-school, but that's what executive editors at news organizations and in newsrooms around the country have always done

Mickey Kaus @kausmickey

Sep 1

Why the hell not? Top editors often get involved in headline writing. One reason they call them editors. (You don't want to know the editorial struggles over a 5 word cover line at Newsweek during the GHWB years.) 9-11 certainly seems a salient angle to the CBS piece.

"CBS' El-Sayed Scandal", on the other hand, is a BS hed. But they can put it on save-get and use it again.

He's knocking this "expose" for claiming the routine step of an editor rewriting the headline is a "scandal." Once again, lefties decide that subordinates should have the power to overrule their bosses, at least when the subordinate is further left than the boss. They constantly make this claim in the Trump Administration, claiming that all 50,000 of Trump's left-wing bureaucrats should have the right to set Trump Administration policy.

As for the "save-get" part -- I have no idea what that means.

Mickey Kaus @kausmickey

If like NYT you have a smooth-running operation that reliably churns out subscriber-pleasing anti-GOP heds then maybe, like an Open Claw, it doesn't need much top-level supervision. Maybe CBS was like that, which could be why reporters seem to feel changing heds violates UN human rights protocols.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:38 PM

| Access Comments