Maybe the Leftist attack on Jews as having dual loyalty is just like Leftist attacks on Conservatives, a matter of projection.

For example, The Nation published this article:

Thanks to Rashida Tlaib, Palestinians Finally Have a Voice in Washington
The first Palestinian woman elected to Congress is unapologetic and proud of the community she represents.

So it’s dual loyalty for Jews to want their interests defended in Congress but it’s a topic of social justice celebration for a woman to campaign on and get elected to advocate for Palestinian rights in Congress?

Sure…

Then I saw this Tweet from US Senator Dick Durban of Illinois.

This is a Senator that vehemently opposes both gun rights and the wall.

So let me get this straight….

Congress needs to restrict the Constitutionally protected, Second Amendment rights of United States citizens in order to reduce gun crime in Mexico, while at the same time foreign citizens in Mexico have a Constitutionally protected right to freely enter the United States of America.

Have Democrats forgotten which people they represent and whose rights they have sworn to uphold?

Because I’m pretty sure that members of the United States Senate should not be undermining the safety and Constitutional rights of United States citizens in the Unites States on behalf of foreign citizens.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

8 thoughts on “Is dual loyalty question of projection?”
  1. “Why … doesn’t the president…stop the iron river of guns arming the cartels…”

    At least he isn’t enabling illegal straw purchasers to transport guns to arm the cartels while the BATFE looks on.

  2. Aren’t inspections of people/vehicles entering Mexico the responsibility of Mexican customs? If they aren’t catching illegal entry of items, that’s on them, not on us. US Customs outbound inspection is only for enforcing prohibitions of exports under US law, which aren’t very common.

  3. What is so bad about dual loyalty? Is there a reason why someone cannot be loyal to their religion AND their country? Muslims would swear up and down they can.

    Regarding the Durbin tweet, read it closely… There is an interesting choice of words.
    “GAO found 70% of crime guns seized in Mexico & traced by ATF originated in the US.”

    Focus on this “…& traced by ATF…”

    Traced by the ATF means that 1. the guns were likely sold in the US (leaves out a WHOLE bunch of manufacturers, as well as any full auto guns, AK-47, I am looking your way), and there had to be a way to trace them. (Serial #s not obliterated, etc…)

    No where does it state that 70% of the guns found at crime scenes were from the US.

    1. You beat me to it.

      GAO found 70% of crime guns seized in Mexico & traced by ATF originated in the US. [emphasis added]

      They won’t submit a gun to ATF for tracing unless they reasonably think it originated in the U.S. I’d have to check my source links, but I remember reading that of thousands and thousands of guns found at cartel crime scenes, only a couple hundred were submitted to the ATF for tracing, and of those, 70% came back as originating in the U.S. Overall, though, it was around 3-4% of the total number.

      (Don’t quote those numbers; as I said, I’d have to check my sources, but that was the gist: the “large percentage” cited was really a tiny portion, narrowly cherry-picked from a large number.)

      When the Mexican government seizes piles of Chinese- and Russian-marked full-auto AKs, they assume the guns are from China or Russia (possibly by way of Cuba, Honduras, or Venezuela, raided from their military stockpiles). They know the ATF won’t be able to trace those, so they don’t even try.

      1. I believe that you are correct. This was the trope the obama administration started to push when they began to plan the fast and furious operation. Gun news at the time had numbers similar to yours above, if I am not mistaken.

  4. I second the deliberate misuse of statistics. Durbin knows better. He just hope you don’t. Yet another liberal lie.

  5. They did it to JFK, too. He was Catholic, so there was some concern that he would let his loyalty to the Vatican affect his decisions as President.

    And they were worried that if Mitt Romney were elected, as a Mormon, he would favor LDS-owned or -controlled businesses when it came to government contracts.

    But it’s funny: nobody questions the “dual-loyalty” of any “Progressives” marching around wearing Che Guevara shirts while screaming “F*#k the Police and “No Justice, No Peace”.

    I would think honoring a Cuban communist @$$hole who hated America and demanding American traditions and institutions be disbanded, would be stronger grounds for questioning a person’s loyalty than which flavor of religious service he/she attends.

    I would think actions speak louder than words, even sacred words.

    But maybe that’s just me.

    1. Nor do the question any possible dual loyalty of any muslim members of Congress. Even the ones that decorate the maps in the world with Post-It notes pointing to non-existent countries.

      Apparently having dual loyalty to the religion of the perpetually offended, and to a country that never existed is OK.

Login or register to comment.