• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ilhan Omar's real name is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi and she entered the US as a fraudulent member of the Omar family.

May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
Funny... I was about to make a thread on this deranged belief she married her brother to get HIM into the country (not sure how some think she supposedly married her brother to get herself here... But anyway...) which started from a Somali forum post.

And she's shown her documents... But some will never be satisfied.

It's just like the BS surrounding Obama's birth certificate from way back. Just abunch of right wing conspiracy nuts going to town over a fake story because they don't like the person involved.


As if she could have been elected to Congress without passing a thorough background check and having everything in order. But some people will believe anything I guess.
 
Last edited:

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,555
746
700
Still NO one left seems to want this touch this story with a ten foot pole. Their silence is deafening.

Trump just accused Omar of marrying her brother. And somehow that's not worse or more worthy of coverage than telling her to "go back to where you came from"?
funny how our media works. This would be a giant story if she was a member of another party.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,161
2,193
635
It's just like the BS surrounding Obama's birth certificate from way back. Just abunch of right wing conspiracy nuts going to town over a fake story because they don't like the person involved.


As if she could have been elected to Congress without passing a thorough background check and having everything in order. But some people will believe anything I guess.
If it's such an obviously fake story like the birther stuff, why are Democrats not denouncing Trump over it(besides Omar herself)?
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
If it's such an obviously fake story like the birther stuff, why are Democrats not denouncing Trump over it(besides Omar herself)?
Probably because it's such a disgusting and obviously fake story they are not wanting to signal boost it by acknowledging it.


Sometimes the best way to respond to shitty people is to not respond at all.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Member
Jun 24, 2007
9,214
761
1,165
It's just like the BS surrounding Obama's birth certificate from way back. Just abunch of right wing conspiracy nuts going to town over a fake story because they don't like the person involved.


As if she could have been elected to Congress without passing a thorough background check and having everything in order. But some people will believe anything I guess.
Like Kavanaugh's multiple FBI checks before running for SCOTUS that you didn't trust?
 

highrider

Member
Dec 18, 2010
9,068
2,317
900
52
washington d.c.
Honestly don’t really care. She’s here. I’m more hoping her and the rest of the House Democrats aren’t net losses for taxpayers that accomplish nothing and do nothing.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,498
582
1,250
Why does Ilhan use Omar as her family name then
Arab names go: [first/given name] [father's name] [paternal grandfather's name] [paternal great grandfather's name] ... etc.. ... [some cut-off name used as a family name]

She probably just adopted the conventional [first/given name] [middle name] [last name] paradigm, where Omar is a name in the above series.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Funny... I was about to make a thread on this deranged belief she married her brother to get HIM into the country (not sure how some think she supposedly married her brother to get herself here... But anyway...) which started from a Somali forum post.

And she's shown her documents... But some will never be satisfied.


That article is trash. Heck, Tim Pool made an entire episode on how trash that article is.

 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,239
2,918
490
Moore Park Beach
Arab names go: [first/given name] [father's name] [paternal grandfather's name] [paternal great grandfather's name] ... etc.. ... [some cut-off name used as a family name]

She probably just adopted the conventional [first/given name] [middle name] [last name] paradigm, where Omar is a name in the above series.
I am sure that a paper trail exists, So she could very easily put this all to rest by just publishing normal papers that should be public anyway.
Or she could decide to not do so. And not put it to rest.

Regardless if she does or doesn't, Trump wins.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,463
7,312
690
I do not know if true or not but boy that would be something worth investigating by the FBI. It would be fucking hilarious if true







 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
I do not know if true or not but boy that would be something worth investigating by the FBI. It would be fucking hilarious if true







Omar is a member of the US House of Representatives. You seriously think she would have been allowed to run let alone take office if even a fraction of this was true? That somehow all of the law enforcement agencies along the way somehow missed this when they performed their background checks on her?


Really? Come on now.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,463
7,312
690
Omar is a member of the US House of Representatives. You seriously think she would have been allowed to run let alone take office if even a fraction of this was true? That somehow all of the law enforcement agencies along the way somehow missed this when they performed their background checks on her?


Really? Come on now.
Who said there were background checks? Again she is big buddy with the Muslim Brotherhood and this is not even a secret
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
Who said there were background checks? Again she is big buddy with the Muslim Brotherhood and this is not even a secret
Wait you think someone can be elected to Congress without clearing a background check?

What the hell do you think our intelligence agencies are even for? You think just anyone and everyone who gets votes can sit on capital Hill without getting any security clearances and passing background checks from US intelligence services?


Dude if I need a background check to lease an apartment then you can bet your fucking ass you need one to join Congress lol I can't believe I even have to explain that
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,463
7,312
690
Wait you think someone can be elected to Congress without clearing a background check?

What the hell do you think our intelligence agencies are even for? You think just anyone and everyone who gets votes can sit on capital Hill without getting any security clearances and passing background checks from US intelligence services?


Dude if I need a background check to lease an apartment then you can bet your fucking ass you need one to join Congress lol I can't believe I even have to explain that
Again she has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which has close ties to the IS. Why was she even allowed then?
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,268
5,369
420
It's just like the BS surrounding Obama's birth certificate from way back. Just abunch of right wing conspiracy nuts going to town over a fake story because they don't like the person involved.


As if she could have been elected to Congress without passing a thorough background check and having everything in order. But some people will believe anything I guess.
Says Mr. Russia conspiracy.

“She has to be vetted. She is a congressman” 😂

Wait you think someone can be elected to Congress without clearing a background check?

What the hell do you think our intelligence agencies are even for? You think just anyone and everyone who gets votes can sit on capital Hill without getting any security clearances and passing background checks from US intelligence services?


Dude if I need a background check to lease an apartment then you can bet your fucking ass you need one to join Congress lol I can't believe I even have to explain that
Oh my god. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
806
1,213
445
He's probably a SJW that thinks only big corporate-owned national news outlets like CNN and NBC can provide "real" and "reliable" reporting.

Perhaps he doesn't know the difference between local and national news. Maybe local news outlets are a foreign concept to him but these outlets often provide more nuance, honest, and accurate reporting on local events and issues than the national outlets can or willing to. From what I've read about the news source in the OP, they seem to be reporting on local matters with more depth and investigative work than any of the dishonest national outlets have done on Omar's past.

Funny how when "news" isn't controlled by big corporations and advertisers, they can actually do proper investigative reporting.
Nearly all local news stations are still owned and controlled by a parent corporation like Sinclair Broadcast Group. You're not getting the real deal like you think you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dunki

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Tim Pool is completely biased and intentionally loves conspiracies against the left. So no, automatic dismissal.
He reads pretty much the entire article word for word and references the mistakes found with other articles from mainstream sources.... so....ok?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dacon

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,044
591
560
What evidence? Did you read my link? How that started?
Your link does include this: "That didn’t stop the claim from getting picked up days later by Minnesota lawyer Scott Johnson, whose conservative Power Line blog became briefly famous in the 2004 election for discrediting forged documents on George W. Bush’s National Guard service. " So, it calls back to yet another time when the msm served the liberal narrative, and small conservative outlets did the actual investigative journalism.

I'm not convinced one way or the other on this issue, but I am certain that the msm would ignore a story they don't like if they can get away with it.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
What evidence? Did you read my link? How that started?
Yes, amd everyone knows the rumor started rather ridiculously. And then people looked into it and found oddities. And then legitimate newspapers looked into it... and found some oddities. And then more people looked into it, and found even mkre oddities.

Who cares how it started once actual evidence emerges? The evidence doesn't make the accusation true without more research, but how the rumour started doesn't make the accusation false without more research.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,854
1,338
460
deaftourette.com
Your link does include this: "That didn’t stop the claim from getting picked up days later by Minnesota lawyer Scott Johnson, whose conservative Power Line blog became briefly famous in the 2004 election for discrediting forged documents on George W. Bush’s National Guard service. " So, it calls back to yet another time when the msm served the liberal narrative, and small conservative outlets did the actual investigative journalism.

I'm not convinced one way or the other on this issue, but I am certain that the msm would ignore a story they don't like if they can get away with it.
As long as we the people don't ignore everything that we may not agree with (news-wise). If it's a link to something that challenges my opinion what I think I know, I'll read it. I may or may not accept it but I will have at least given the information some thought.
 

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
333
73
990
We were due for another Birther level conspiracy. Have fun it and keep us updated!
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
As long as we the people don't ignore everything that we may not agree with (news-wise). If it's a link to something that challenges my opinion what I think I know, I'll read it. I may or may not accept it but I will have at least given the information some thought.

Regarding some of the glaring mistake and omissions in the article you posted, Tim Pool covered them pretty well.
 
Last edited:

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,636
512
1,275
Texaa
As far as I can tell there is no background check for Congress. Their is a security clearance process for members of certain committees, but that is it.

Hard to sift through all the Google results about gun control background check bills.

There is even a change.org petition to require Congress to pass the same background check that FBI employees have to pass.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

SecretSphere

Member
Jun 20, 2004
527
1
1,395
Wait you think someone can be elected to Congress without clearing a background check?

What the hell do you think our intelligence agencies are even for? You think just anyone and everyone who gets votes can sit on capital Hill without getting any security clearances and passing background checks from US intelligence services?


Dude if I need a background check to lease an apartment then you can bet your fucking ass you need one to join Congress lol I can't believe I even have to explain that
Somali born Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a member of the Dutch house of representatives for 6 years (for the major center left party first, then joined the major center right party) before the lies caught up.

 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,636
512
1,275
Texaa
Also, don't focus on the asylum fraud. She was 10 years old and living in a refugee camp. She is blameless there.

It is all the shit she did as an adult that needs to be looked into.
 

KungFucius

Member
Jul 16, 2008
1,193
43
925
It baffles me that people think corporate media is somehow ignoring stories that would bring in a ton of viewers/readers because of some agenda. They are part of publicly traded companies. If they hid or failed to respond to news stories that would be explosive they would be pissing off shareholders and possibly get sued for negligence. Likewise if they reported something that was not true, they would lose viewers, and again piss of shareholders and potentially be sued by those who were misrepresented. Why would a major public company do that? Their biases are in how they report and what stories they think will appeal to their audiences, not some maniacal plan to manipulate the masses. I don't know how some of you people function if you think the world works like a series of hidden conspiracies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
It baffles me that people think corporate media is somehow ignoring stories that would bring in a ton of viewers/readers because of some agenda. They are part of publicly traded companies. If they hid or failed to respond to news stories that would be explosive they would be pissing off shareholders and possibly get sued for negligence. Likewise if they reported something that was not true, they would lose viewers, and again piss of shareholders and potentially be sued by those who were misrepresented. Why would a major public company do that? Their biases are in how they report and what stories they think will appeal to their audiences, not some maniacal plan to manipulate the masses. I don't know how some of you people function if you think the world works like a series of hidden conspiracies.
Oh please. The issue you are having is you hear 'conspiracy' and think that means people think thousands of people at these various companies are working together, whispering, conspiring. No. Nobody is saying that. It's a far more fluid and natural process, 99.9% just people doing their jobs, maybe the occasional story squashed.

"If they hid or failed to respond to news stories that would be explosive they would be pissing off shareholders and possibly get sued for negligence."

Sure. Then explain the lack of coverage for a Antifa terrorist attack on a federal facility. Militant, armed, with firebombs.. but goes against the established narrative.

Compare that to the media coverage of, say, Covington.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,123
880
975
Ottawa, Canada
It baffles me that people think corporate media is somehow ignoring stories that would bring in a ton of viewers/readers because of some agenda. They are part of publicly traded companies. If they hid or failed to respond to news stories that would be explosive they would be pissing off shareholders and possibly get sued for negligence. Likewise if they reported something that was not true, they would lose viewers, and again piss of shareholders and potentially be sued by those who were misrepresented. Why would a major public company do that? Their biases are in how they report and what stories they think will appeal to their audiences, not some maniacal plan to manipulate the masses. I don't know how some of you people function if you think the world works like a series of hidden conspiracies.
While I see what you're getting at, it seems like you've forgotten about Fox News. It regularly peddles stories that are of dubious accuracy (making CNN seem solid by comparison), regularly omits 'inconvenient' stories and puts such heavy spin on stories that it creates a false representation of what actually happened. For example: Fox claimed that Ilhan Omar made a "profanity-laced" attack on Trump. What was she actually doing? Repeating Trump's own words.

Hot stories sell, but sometimes outlets will ignore stories because they're trying to craft a narrative that they figure will do more business than playing it cool. I don't know that we can say any major outlet is completely immune to this practice, but Fox News is definitely the 'leader' in omitting and twisting stories. Hell, I still remember when it posted a story with dubious claims about finding WMDs in Iraq during the second Gulf War, and that was well before the Trump cult took over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,956
1,782
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
While I see what you're getting at, it seems like you've forgotten about Fox News. It regularly peddles stories that are of dubious accuracy (making CNN seem solid by comparison), regularly omits 'inconvenient' stories and puts such heavy spin on stories that it creates a false representation of what actually happened. For example: Fox claimed that Ilhan Omar made a "profanity-laced" attack on Trump. What was she actually doing? Repeating Trump's own words.

Hot stories sell, but sometimes outlets will ignore stories because they're trying to craft a narrative that they figure will do more business than playing it cool. I don't know that we can say any major outlet is completely immune to this practice, but Fox News is definitely the 'leader' in omitting and twisting stories. Hell, I still remember when it posted a story with dubious claims about finding WMDs in Iraq during the second Gulf War, and that was well before the Trump cult took over.
I will fight this all day, every day because after I kept hearing about how bad Fox News was I decided to add both that and MSNBC to my channel lineup in late 2017, curious to see things for myself. In a world drowning in misleading stories, especially after two full years of Russian collusion hysteria, Fox News is the only major player providing a different perspective, that alone making them valuable. They're openly biased, they admit as much, that isn't in question. I've never personally heard MSNBC admit that much, but that's unimportant considering how blatantly biased they are, too. All things considered, Fox News is providing a much needed viewpoint in a mainstream media landscape that's selectively omitting important facts and key details that make their side look bad.

When the left and the right are both omitting/downplaying facts for political purposes, Fox News, as the only conservative source, provides a necessary function. They're also able to laugh at the absurdity of today's politics, Trump included, when you're tuning in to shows like The Five and the Gutfeld Show. In comparing their content to CNN and MSNBC over the last couple of years they strike me as the most sane of the bunch, by far. Your point of view seems to make more sense to me if you're talking about the Obama years.
 

bucyou

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
1,558
2,343
550
While I see what you're getting at, it seems like you've forgotten about Fox News. It regularly peddles stories that are of dubious accuracy (making CNN seem solid by comparison), regularly omits 'inconvenient' stories and puts such heavy spin on stories that it creates a false representation of what actually happened. For example: Fox claimed that Ilhan Omar made a "profanity-laced" attack on Trump. What was she actually doing? Repeating Trump's own words.

Hot stories sell, but sometimes outlets will ignore stories because they're trying to craft a narrative that they figure will do more business than playing it cool. I don't know that we can say any major outlet is completely immune to this practice, but Fox News is definitely the 'leader' in omitting and twisting stories. Hell, I still remember when it posted a story with dubious claims about finding WMDs in Iraq during the second Gulf War, and that was well before the Trump cult took over.

lol, fuck off with this regurgitated lazy shit.


Heres cnn.com right now







heres foxnews.com









so cnn has every lead story as a negative for trump on front page, yet fox doesnt even have one positive trump story on theirs?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma