Yesterday 8:11 am
The answers seem clear.
As a U.S. senator, El-Sayed would pose a massive threat to American national security.
Rumor has it that El-Sayed covets a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's a perfect perch for a senatorial fifth column.
As a senator, El-Sayed wouldn't advance America's interests. He would advance the interests of the Brotherhood, and of Islamism more generally.
The implications are dire.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the mother's milk of Islamism. If El-Sayed is elected, it isn't just the Brotherhood and Hamas that would have a plant inside the "world's greatest deliberative body." Al-Qaeda and ISIS would have a friend as well.
So too would the Iranian regime. After the assassination of Ali Khamenei, El-Sayed refused to comment, noting that "there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today."
The United States and Iran are at war. Whose side is he on?
Senators are not required to procure security clearances, as executive branch appointees must. They are considered inherently trustworthy.
.
The polls in Michigan are tight, but El-Sayed appears to be ahead.
If El-Sayed wins, the Senate might be tempted to prevent him from being seated. It would be an uphill battle. Article I of the Constitution affords each house of Congress the ability to be the "Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications" of its own members. But in a 1969 case, the Supreme Court circumscribed this power, severely limiting Congress' discretion.
What that means is as simple as it is stark: Mike Rogers must win in Michigan.
The alternative is that the Muslim Brotherhood gets an asset in the United States Senate.
https://townhall.com/columnists/joshham ... g=27793684
As a U.S. senator, El-Sayed would pose a massive threat to American national security.
Rumor has it that El-Sayed covets a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's a perfect perch for a senatorial fifth column.
As a senator, El-Sayed wouldn't advance America's interests. He would advance the interests of the Brotherhood, and of Islamism more generally.
The implications are dire.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the mother's milk of Islamism. If El-Sayed is elected, it isn't just the Brotherhood and Hamas that would have a plant inside the "world's greatest deliberative body." Al-Qaeda and ISIS would have a friend as well.
So too would the Iranian regime. After the assassination of Ali Khamenei, El-Sayed refused to comment, noting that "there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today."
The United States and Iran are at war. Whose side is he on?
Senators are not required to procure security clearances, as executive branch appointees must. They are considered inherently trustworthy.
.The polls in Michigan are tight, but El-Sayed appears to be ahead.
If El-Sayed wins, the Senate might be tempted to prevent him from being seated. It would be an uphill battle. Article I of the Constitution affords each house of Congress the ability to be the "Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications" of its own members. But in a 1969 case, the Supreme Court circumscribed this power, severely limiting Congress' discretion.
What that means is as simple as it is stark: Mike Rogers must win in Michigan.
The alternative is that the Muslim Brotherhood gets an asset in the United States Senate.
https://townhall.com/columnists/joshham ... g=27793684