No, Dual Loyalty Isn’t Okay

Unz Review – by Philip Giraldi

The Solons on Capitol Hill are terrified of the expression “dual loyalty.” They are afraid because dual loyalty means that one is not completely a loyal citizen of the country where one was born, raised and, presumably, prospered. It also suggests something more perverse, and that is dual citizenship, which in its present historic and social context particularly refers to the Jewish congressmen and women who just might be citizens of both the United States and Israel. There is particular concern over the issue at the moment because a freshman congresswoman Ilhan Omar has let the proverbial cat out of the bag by alluding to American-Jewish money buying uncritical support for a foreign country which is Israel without any regard to broader U.S. interests, something that everyone in Washington knows is true and has been the case for decades but is afraid to discuss due to inevitable punishment by the Israel Lobby.  

Certainly, the voting record in Congress would suggest that there are a lot of congress critters who embrace dual loyalty, with evidence that the loyalty is not so much dual as skewed in favor of Israel. Any bill relating to Israel or to Jewish collective interests, like the currently fashionable topic of anti-Semitism, is guaranteed a 90% plus approval rating no matter what it says or how much it damages actual U.S. interests. Thursday’s 407 to 23 vote in the House of Representatives on a meaningless and almost unreadable “anti-hate” resolution was primarily intended to punish Ilhan Omar and to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is indeed fully committed to sustaining the exclusive prerogatives of the domestic Jewish community and the Jewish state.

The voting on the resolution was far from unusual and would have been unanimous but for the fact that twenty-three Republicans voted “no” because they wanted a document that was only focused on anti-Semitism, without any references to Muslims or other groups that might be encountering hatred in America. That the congress should be wasting its time with such nonsense is little more than a manifestation of Jewish power in the United States, part of a long-sought goal of making any criticism of Israel a “hate” crime punishable by fining and imprisonment. And congress is always willing to play its part. Famously, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) official Steven Rosen once boasted that he could take a napkin and within 24 hours have the signatures of 70 Senators on it, reflective of the ability of the leading pro-Israel organization to impel the U.S. legislature to respond uncritically to its concerns.

Ilhan Omar has certainly been forced to apologize and explain her position as she is under sustained attack from the left, right and center as well as from the White House. One congressman told her that “Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.” Another said “there are many reasons to support Israel, but there is no reason to oppose Israel” while yet another one declared that all in Congress are committed to insuring that the “United States and Israel stand as one.”

But Omar has defended herself without abandoning her core arguments and she has further established her bona fides as a credible critic of what passes for U.S. foreign policy by virtue of an astonishing attack on former President Barack Obama, whom she criticized obliquely in an interview Friday, saying “We can’t be only upset with Trump. His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. That’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.” Presumably Omar was referring to Obama’s death by drone program and his destruction of Libya, among his other crimes. Everything she said about the smooth talking but feckless Obama is true and could be cast in even worse terms, but to hear the truth from out of the mouth of a liberal Democrat is something like a revelation that all progressives are not ideologically fossilized and fundamentally brain dead. One wonders what she thinks of the Clintons?

The Democrats are in a tricky situation that will only wind up hurting relationships with some of their core constituencies. If they come down too hard on Omar – a Muslim woman of color who wears a head covering – it will not look good to some key minority voters they have long courted. If they do not, the considerable Jewish political donations to the Democratic Party will certainly be diminished if not slowed to a trickle and much of the media will turn hostile. So they are trying to bluff their way through by uttering the usual bromides. Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York characteristically tried to cover both ends by saying “Those with critical views of Israel, such as Congresswoman Omar, should be able to express their views without employing anti-Semitic tropes about money or influence.” Well, of course, it is all about Jews, money buying access and obtaining political power, with the additional element of supporting a foreign government that has few actual interests in common with the United States, isn’t it?

As Omar put it, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country…” She also tweeted to a congressional critic that “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” Gilad Atzmon, a well known Jewish critic of Israel, observed drily that “How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black Muslim and an immigrant…”

But such explicatory language about the values that Americans used to embrace before Israel-worship rendered irrelevant the Constitution clearly made some lightweights from the GOP side nervous. Megan McCain, daughter of thankfully deceased “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” Senator John McCain appears on a mind numbing talk-television program called The View where she cried as she described her great love for fellow Israel-firster warmonger former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman as “like family,” before launching into her own “informed” analysis: “I take the hate crimes rising in this country incredibly seriously and I think what’s happening in Europe is really scary. On both sides it should be called out. And just because I don’t technically have Jewish family that are blood-related to me doesn’t mean that I don’t take this seriously and it is very dangerous, very dangerous… what Ilhan Omar is saying is very scary to me.”

The New York Times also had a lot to say, covering the story on both its news and op-eds pages daily. Columnist Michelle Goldberg, who is usually sensible, criticizes Omar because of her “minimizing the legacy of the holocaust” and blames her because “she’s committed what might be called, in another context, a series of microaggressions — inadvertent slights that are painful because they echo whole histories of trauma.” In other words, if some Jews are indeed deliberately corrupting American politics on behalf of Israel and against actual U.S. interests using money to do so it is not a good idea to say anything about it because it might revive bad historical – or not so historical – memories. It is perpetual victimhood employed as an excuse for malfeasance on the part of Jewish groups and the Jewish state.

Another Times columnist Bret Stephens also takes up the task of defenestrating Omar with some relish, denying that “claims that Israel…uses money to bend others to its will, or that its American supporters ‘push for allegiance to a foreign country’” are nothing more than the “repackage[ing] falsehoods commonly used against Jews for centuries.” He attributes to her “insidious cunning” and “anti-Jewish bigotry” observing how “she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress “Israeli-occupied” territory.” And it’s all “…how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It’s why anti-Semitism is just outside the frame, bidding to get in.” He concludes by asking why the Democratic Party “has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks.”

Stephens clearly does not accept that what Omar claims just might actually be true. Perhaps he is so irritated by her because he himself is a perfect example of someone who suffers from dual loyalty syndrome, or perhaps it would be better described as single loyalty to his tribe and to Israel. Review some of his recent columns in The Times if you do not believe that to be true. He has an obsession with rooting out people that he believes to be anti-Semites and believes all the nonsense about Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East.” In his op-ed he claims that “Israel is the only country in its region that embraces the sorts of values the Democratic Party claims to champion.” Yes, a theocratic state’s summary execution of unarmed protesters and starving civilians while simultaneously carrying out ethnic cleansing are traditional Democratic Party programs, at least as Bret sees it.

People like Stephens are unfortunately possessors of a bully pulpit and are influential. As they are public figures, they should be called out regarding where their actual loyalties lie, but no one in power is prepared to do that. Stephens wears his Jewishness on his sleeve and is pro-Israel far beyond anyone else writing at The Times. He and other dual loyalists, to be generous in describing them, should be exposed for what they are, which is the epitome of the promoters of the too “passionate attachment” with a foreign state that President George Washington once warned against. If the United States of America is not their homeland by every measure, they should perhaps consider doing Aliyah and moving to Israel. We genuine Americans would be well rid of them.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

15 thoughts on “No, Dual Loyalty Isn’t Okay

  1. Friggin Jews.

    Disgusting kikes who only care about themselves and play the victim card like whiney little babies if they can’t get what they want. The f&$kers will never grow up. They’re no different than the entitlement society we live in. Like children, they cry to mommy and daddy saying, I WANT, I WANT, I WANT!!!!!”.

  2. I’m very CAUTIOUSLY gaining respect for ilhan Omar. Say/think what you will of her, at least shes saying what needs to be said. I think there are some things changing. As the saying goes, what a tangled web we weave when at first we plan to deceive. And it looks like their web is very tangled up right now. More and more people are seeing the truth. Of course I also think shes being used and allowed to spout all of this to set an image against muslims. She didn’t say anything that anyone doesn’t already know. And some very notable people in Congress have said it before like James traficant and cynthia McKinney. Neither of them were called “UN AMERICAN “. Do you know why she is? It isn’t because shes black or a woman, so was McKinney. What is it about her that stands out? C’mon, we all know. Islam. Let’s read between the lines here. Who has an interest in painting muslims as the un-American enemy?

    1. Jamal, I don’t think it’s about “painting Muslims as un-American enemy,” but rather about Islam, and some of its teachings and directives. I can only speak for myself, but there are aspects of Islam that I find unacceptable and frightening, as I do with many other religions. Perhaps it is those aspects that trigger the already-raised red flags of those who stand watch for freedom. Still, we take what good we can from who says what, but ever are they accountable, and ever are they held to the standard of The Bill of Rights. All else is lethal or leads to lethal.


      1. Galen, what teachings and directives do you find unacceptable and frightening? Islam is greatly misunderstood especially in the west because of years of misinformation and inundating to make it look as I said like the enemy and un-American. Islam is not antithetical to the bill of rights, although that’s hard to believe for many people and I understand why. Years ago, the first time I called into the trenches actually, I explained this. I dont hold it against people who dont know, again, I understand why. But if your willing I would gladly talk to you about it and maybe show you what I mean. As for the triggering of those who stand watch for freedom, its predominantly Zionists and their right wing puppets calling her un-American, and many people who are watching for freedom and trying to expose the happenings of the world are standing for her and her statements.

        1. Hi Jamal. It’s just what my readings have shown me over the years, you know, Sharia Law, women’s oppression, forced attire, arranged marriages, denied the right to drive, stoning for adultery, even if it was rape. This may be the fundamentalist stand and I’m sure there are moderates and progressives who are pro-freedom and pro-equal rights for all.

          My stance is not about a people but an ideology, and in some cases, a forced ideology. I must admit I do not know all the ins and outs of Islam, or the extremes. I am very touchy about anyone telling me what to do, or how to behave, or punishing me for not following their rules. I know all societies face this to some degree. I remember growing up as a child and being told that if you steal anything in an Islamic country they chop off your hand at the wrist. I’m sure you can clear up some of the things I am misinformed on, or uninformed of, but I remain cautious, especially as a woman.


          1. I understand galen. I’ll try to explain and please bear with me and hear me out. Sharia law: there is no such thing. This is something fabricated (akin to noahide laws)after the Quran and by different cultures input through oral traditions called hadith. Many muslims have fallen for this and this is why I say I understand non muslims would think this is in fact part of Islam. Why wouldn’t they when they see so many muslims saying so?
            Womens oppression: again, no such thing. There is nothing in the Quran that oppresses women and in fact, and I know this is gonna be hard to believe, islam was the first religion to openly acknowledge women’s rights that are not even found in the bible.
            Forced attire: also no such thing. The only dress code in the Quran is modesty. It would surprise some to learn there is not a single verse that says to cover your head or face. That kind of dress code existed before Islam and is a cultural thing. Virgin Mary was part of this culture which is why she is always depicted in such clothing.
            Driving: obviously not a quranic concept.
            And the stoning, even in the case of rape: absolutely false. There is no verse in the Quran that permits any such thing. Ironically there is a punishment for adultery listed and yet people still believe stoning which is NOT it is acceptable. Stoning actually comes from the old testament. In the Quran the punishment is 100 lashes to BOTH. And rape is absolutely unacceptable.
            So what happened to Islam? How could so many get it wrong? How can I say these things, am I just trying to deceive you and infiltrate? No. Just like with Judaism and Christianity, the religion professed by God has been altered by man. For the wants of men. Judaism has become ashkenized, christianity has become romanized and Islam has become arabized. Judaism through the talmud and Islam through the hadith. Among these religions own followers, the majority just accept the false teachings and doctrines just like evangelical christians among others. I can’t touch on everything here obviously but I hope this is at least some insight into the subject and leads you to finding more truth about it.

          2. Issue 101 Feb.-March 2019

            ‘My service to the Nation of Islam’ by Michael Hoffman

          3. Jamal, I, too had to place my comment here, as there was no reply option under your comment.

            “No such thing.”


            “Women’s oppression: again, no such thing.”

            “Forced attire: also no such thing.”

            Jamal. I did think both Sharia and Noahide were written in stone and do believe they are real since I’ve heard so many espousing them. I have believed that both have an agenda set on affecting the future and not in ways that advance freedom.

            “The only dress code in the Quran is modesty.”

            Is that not open to interpretation? One man’s modesty is another man’s obscenity. I can only base this on what my eyes see in terms of the covering up, and to all degrees, some fully, with only a thin slit of a screen at the eyes to see out of. And according to reports of many, many women that I have read over the years, this is not a choice, but by force.

            Okay, so these extremes are not in the Quran, but they exist as a manifestation of modern-day Islam, or at least in what modern-day Islam shows the world. All the progressives in the world can’t make them disappear (yet) or take away any of the suffering they may impose on those who want to live free and have their full rights sans infringement.

            “Driving: obviously not a quranic concept.”

            “And the stoning, even in the case of rape: absolutely false.”

            I believe you that these are not in the Quran, but they do exist. Over the decades there has been one account after another of such doings. And the “100 lashes” thing is bad enough.” I don’t care which religion, which government, which organization or cult is pushing these kind of attacks on free human beings, in my deepest soul I cannot embrace such enterprises.

            Jamal, I would never think of you as a “deceiver.” You are quite genuine. And I do see the Judification of all we’re speaking of. So in honoring The First Article, I am first glad we can have this discussion, and secondly glad for freedom of religion or non-religion. As long as no beliefs are imposed on me, I’m fine with people believing what they will, although I will say it’s difficult to see some under the umbrella of any forced ideology.

            Yes, this is too long a discussion for the comment’s page, but at least we attempted to hash it out a bit. It would be good to one day share a cup of coffee and dive deeper. Thanks, Jamal.


        2. One other thought, Jamal… I am aware of the Zionist programming that would have us fear and hate Muslims, and would have us place blame on them for most of the atrocities of the last half century. I have never fallen for that. Yet within that ploy are layers of strategies, disinfo, and agendas from all sides. We are hard-pressed to sift through all that to get to the truth and at the same time live our conscience. So, that said, I try to extract what good I can from whatever camp; my inner red-flag-alert-system helps tremendously. And yes, sometimes I am wrong. Likely a product of my baggage.


        3. Jamal, I had to post my comment under this reply because there was not an option under your response about Islam. I want to say you did a great job in explaining the errors that have crept in due to mans interpretation so it would benefit their agenda. Like you said, the same thing has occurred in Christianity. Rather than receiving what is written as written, folks privately interpret, for whatever reason then eventually all is skewed.

        4. As long as people dont shove sharia (or whatever laws from their land) down our throats and come here legally, more power to them. They must understand Bill of Rights and relevant articles rule, nothing else

          Besides, love their lamb and rice dishes and awesome spices!

          1. Lmfao, it is delicious! But as I said, sharia law is not condoned by the Quran its equivalent to the noahide laws of the jews. Gods law according to Islam is spelled out in the Quran that God says is complete and fully detailed. How then can so called muslims take extra sources made by men and cultures to be religious law? Freedom of religion, rights are all in the Quran. There are powerful influential people who have a stake in perverting religion for their benefits and most of them I think actually believe what they say but it really has no basis in the true religion. In the Quran God commands Muhammad to say “to you is your religion and to me is mine, there is no compulsion in relihion”. Yet these so called muslims like ISIS, al Qaeda kill who wont convert. It’s funny that these are the ones, the ones of saudi wahhabism teaching, that the US and Israel sponsor isn’t it?

  3. Interesting
    I attribute a lot of the suppression and radicalization in Islam or Muslims to the radical views of it

    there were and are also radical Christians

    thank you Jamal
    I guess i have a lot to learn on this subject

    but one thing i can say is , if your going to come to MY country , assimilate and hold our founding ways or go home ,period , oh and stay the hell out of this joke of a government we have currently .. there are enough assholes in it right now that need rope therapy dont add to it

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *