City of Brass

City of Brass


The GOP war on muslims: Rima Sinclair

posted by Aziz Poonawalla

I’ve praised president Bush for emphasizing that the war on Terror should not be construed as a war against Islam, but the Republican Party has been enthusiastically waging a war against muslims.Even muslims who are members of the Republican Party are potential targets – consider the case of Rima Sinclair, a Republican in Colorado who ran in the primary for Colorado House District 6. Ms. Sinclair wrote the following editorial about her experience with her own party, and has graciously given me permission to publish it here on City of Brass.

“This Is Not The Way We Should Be Doing It In America” Colin Powell

By: Rima B. Sinclair

For twenty-first century America, election 2008 has brought back to the
surface issues that many believed to be things of the past. Once again,
the color of one’s skin, or one’s faith, have been misguidedly
presented as considerations to use when evaluating a citizen’s
eligibility to take part in the highest endeavors of our society. Here
is my story:

On  March 1, 2008, the Republican Party Assembly elected me to run for
the Colorado House of Representatives. I felt honored by this chance to
give back and appreciated the great responsibility I just committed to
uphold. I believe in the basic values that made this nation great:
upholding the Constitution, individual freedom with responsibility, and
small government with prudent tax and spending policies. An integral
part of my beliefs are values like equality, justice, freedom of
religion, the sanctity of human life and that our responsibility toward
 children does not end at birth. It means giving the young a fair
chance at becoming contributing members of society.

Soon after my nomination, a certain segment of the Republican party
made it known that they rejected the nomination due to my ethnic and
faith background. They claimed that I was not a “Real” Republican and
launched an intensive “character assassination” campaign, in which I
was labeled a “radical” and “terror apologist.” My Republican opponent
claimed that my intentions “may not always have been so benign towards
America.” He invited volunteers to join him to defend the “home front
in the War on Islamist Terror.”

Regrettably, the Republican leadership refused to address the problem.
The Colorado Republican Chairman, dismissed the claims as the usual
“campaign business.” The Republican US Senate Candidate announced  his
unqualified endorsement of the abuser. Others, like the Colorado former
Speaker of the House went so far as to circulate e-mails that accused
me of being an “Islamist mole” and a “strong threat” to Western
civilization. My attackers were invited to bring forth any evidence to
sustain their charges, but none did.

“She should be jailed for treason” and “The wombs of Arab women are
bomb factories,” said the letters in multiple media outlets. To no
avail, I pleaded with party officers to urge a minimum standard of
decency and truthfulness in campaign politics. The response was that
the attacks had not reached the “extreme or outrageous” level which
would warrant action to “arbitrate campaign rhetoric.” Instead, I was
warned to drop out of the race or face a scandal that would so
completely ruin my reputation that I “won’t find anyone in town ” to
talk to me. Needless to say, I felt relief when the so-called “real”
Republican won the Primary election. Only God knows what other
trumped-up claims they would have made, if I had won.

The onslaught of ethnic and faith attacks for political gain have
marked election 2008 as the dirtiest that I have witnessed. It is not a
surprise that similar Machiavellian rhetoric is now being employed
against Barack Obama. The agents of hate have been successful in
whipping-up enough anger to precipitate calls of “traitor”, and “kill
him.” Recent history has demonstrated the horrible consequences of such
irresponsible agitations. The late Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak
Rabin, was repeatedly labeled “a traitor” just before he was murdered
by a right-wing Jewish zealot.

Nonetheless, Sarah Palin found it defensible to brand certain parts of
the country as not “Pro-America.” The wholesale labeling of a large
segment of Americans as harboring “questionable” patriotism was another
abominable example of this year’s gutter politics. No wonder some
Republicans are in need of the services of a Savior Plumber. The drains
have backed-up and they hope that “Joe” can snake out the Grime.

I grew up in a country where I could not vote and where women are often
treated as second class citizens. Twenty years ago, I came to America
inspired by the ideals of freedom, equality and the rule of law. In
Colorado, I have built a business, I married a wonderful husband of my
own choosing, I do not have to fear repressive authority and can seek
to participate in government. Immediately after becoming a naturalized
citizen, I joined the Republican Party because I felt that it best
safeguards these blessings of liberty that exist in America and nowhere
else.

Sadly for America, the right-wing demagogues remain largely
unchallenged despite the personal and destructive tactics they have
used against Americans who do not fit to their definition of the
“Ideal” citizen. Perhaps next, they will up the ante, with charges of
treason that targets whole groups of Americans. For the sake of
 Freedom and Democracy, this treacherous campaign must be stopped.

Rima Barakat-Sinclair is Denver resident and an American-Arab Muslim
citizen. She is a frequent speaker and an advocate for greater
participation in civic affairs and interfaith dialogue.

I think Ms. Sinclair’s story speaks for itself. I applaud her for her courage and desire to serve her country, and her party. More information about Ms. Sinclair is at her campaign website. I for one hope she decides to run to represent her district again in the future – and I hope she stays a Republican, because it’s people like her who will reclaim her party from the madness that infects it today. Perhaps, ironically, Obama’s victory next Wednesday will pave the way.



  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Aziz, you know I think the world of you, but you’re being exploited by a bad actor here. Rima Barakat-Sinclair is no Islamist, and she certainly does not deserve ethnic or religious slurs against her — but she is, alas, a thoroughly ordinary Palestinian nationalist, with all the rhetorical excess and dishonesty that implies. To portray this story as one of a good citizen unfairly railroaded by “the madness that infects” the Republican party is inaccurate — frankly, I’d be more worried about the party had she won.

  • Your Name

    oh, sorry, josh, i didn’t know that to support palestinian human and national rights in accordance with international law makes one inherently “dishonest”. are american nationalists also dishonest?

  • http://amerimuslim.blogspot.com Taj Ashaheed

    Joshua Trevino’s comments are demonstrative of the ignorant bigotry that Rima fell victim to, and the same type of bigotry that has swirled around Obama. To imply that a “Palestininan nationalist” by definition has rhetorical excess and/or is dishonest is thoroughly fallacious in terms of logic (or lack thereof).
    Sadly, Rima’s effort was waylayed, however, it is nice to see that Obama will overcome the stupidity. Hopefully we will see more and more “Rima’s”, who will in turn also overcome…

  • Anwar Omar

    I knew Rima Barakat Sinclair for years in Colorado as active and extremely honest in defending her national views. Before I got to know Rima I happened to know the Barakats (her Family) in Jerusalem (Palestine), in Kuwait and in Jordan. A big Family with highly educated people and rich. I think she is a real honest and big support to the GOP. Mr. Triveno, sorry to say you are wrong and Rima deserves your appology.

  • Denise Myrup

    I’ll have to agree with Joshua Trevino on this one. I was one of the delegates present at the March 1st Republican Party Assembly. Ms. Barakat-Sinclair won the vote at the assembly by a narrow margin: 25-23, and only because she claimed to be pro-life, which gave her an edge over her pro-choice opponent.
    Some of us had to question Rima’s honesty about being pro-life, because she’s quoted in a 2004 Rocky Mountain News article as saying, “I would like a pro-choice president.” She explained this away by stating she never said it and was misquoted, but we had to question her honesty again when a local former president of Planned Parenthood (and a registered democrat) threw a fundraiser for her. It seemed odd such a person would support a pro-life candidate.
    In the meantime, Rima was vague about her positions on the issues and was running solely on her story, which was something like: “I’m a legal immigrant who made something of herself in this country, and that’s the only reason why I deserve your vote.” The Republican U.S. Senate candidate gave his endorsement to her opponent in the primary because he outlined a clear platform stating his specific positions on the issues.
    As the race went on, Rima continued to ignore the issues and changed her story to something like: “I’m being attacked and that’s the only reason why I deserve your vote.” Whenever she was asked about the details of these alledged attacks from within the party, she became evasive and defensive, and the local Republicans who would have liked to help her had no idea what to do because they couldn’t substantiate her claims.
    I for one am relieved she lost her primary by a large margin and do not want to see her run again. She’s simply too unskilled as a public speaker, too unknowledgable on the issues and too thin skinned to hold public office. None of that has anything to do with her religion and ethnicity.
    Please, I urge all of you to look at all the angles of this story and decide for yourselves whether or not to support Ms. Barakat-Sinclair based on her qualifications and her character. Don’t jump to conclusions for no other reason than she’s a Palestinian Muslim who says she’s been victimized.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    I’m going to guess I’ve spent more time in Muslim countries (including whatever we’re referring to as Palestine these days) than Taj has. Ignorance indeed.
    On the larger question of Palestinian nationalism, it’s not exactly value-neutral. In the aggregate, it’s about as morally healthy as German nationalism c.1920-c.1940, or Irish republicanism c.1980, or Hutu nationalism post-1960. Is it possible to be a proud Palestinian and not endorse the logical and moral fallacies that usually accompany that? Of course. Does Rima Sinclair meet that standard? Apparently not.
    She plays the victim card in the expectation that there are sufficient fools to fall for her bluff. And she is not disappointed.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    Note to commenters: Joshua is a friend of mine, and I will expect that you treat him with respect, as I expect everyone treats everyone else.
    Joshua, it would be helpful if there were some evidence that Sinclair subscribes to the moral fallacies you allude to (and in fact, if we could define them for rigor’s sake). The links I have seen have shown Sinclair to assert that Israel is guilty of collective punishment, which is reasonably accurate; she’s also said that israel deliberately targets children, which is not true, in a technical sense, but the cold logic of “collateral damage” gives exactly the same result as a deliberate targeting, and collateral damage is as much an immoral fallacy as anything that the Palestinian partisans subscribe to. In fact, the moral argument against collateral damage is stronger than the one against capital punishment. The idea that war justifies all things and erases all moral burdens is a pernicious one, but that is how the moral defenders of collateral damage argue; I reject that for the same reasons I wholeheartedly condemn any nation (sadly, mostly muslim-majority ones) that refuse to endorse the UN UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. Simply put, this isn’t the 1940s, and the community of nations has evolved to a higher moral standard since then – in no small part because of the blood sacrifice and incaculable suffering of the Jewish people themselves. Allof this is my way of saying that what i’ve seen attributed to Sinclair so far does not strike me as beyond the bound of normal, moral discourse, if understandably lax in rigor due to her ethnic identity. Perhaps there are other, less defensible (or at least understandable) statements by Sinclair that I am not aware of beyond these two, in which case my opnion would need to be revised accordingly.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    Denise, I think that regardless of her position on being pro-life or not, the issue is whether Sinclair deserves to be associated with terrorists and accused of sympathizing with terrorists. Thats genuine victimization, not false.
    also, “I’m a legal immigrant who made something of herself in this country, and that’s the only reason why I deserve your vote.” – isnt that a pretty good argument?

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Aziz, on your passage here….
    “In fact, the moral argument against collateral damage is stronger than the one against capital punishment. The idea that war justifies all things and erases all moral burdens is a pernicious one….”
    ….we must disagree. I’m not especially familiar with Islamic moral teaching on these topics, but I do know Christian moral teaching — and the latter, by and large, holds that capital punishment is intrinsically unjust (although a rightful power of states, which causes a great deal of confusion); and that “collateral damage” may(!) be just in wartime. The principle of “double effect,” on which the Catholics have labored mightily across the centuries, is useful here: the clichéd example is when you want to bomb enemy HQ, but you might kill civilians living nearby. Intent matters in moral affairs.
    If Islamic teaching is radically different — and I really have no idea — I’d be interested to hear of it. In any case, Ms Sinclair does not claim to proceed from a radically different moral premise from her fellow Coloradans, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant here. Assuming she holds to more or less the same moral code as they do, she violates that code in her avid denunciation of unintentional unjust killing, while adhering to a rigid silence on their provocations: intentional unjust killing by her own countrymen.

  • Aziz

    Josh,
    I was speaking more as a liberal than as a muslim jurist (I’ve some credentials on the former; none on the latter). My moral argument is less derived from a specific religious context and is intended to be universal.
    But to answer the question, there is indeed an analogous “just war” theory of warfare in Islam. Harvard professor John Kelsay wrote an entire book on it, drawing from historical sources and quoting Islamic scholars, who do indeed rationalize collateral damage. However, the Qur’an itself says that slaying one innocent is akin to slaying all of mankind, so obviously it isn’t cut and dried.
    But, yes, intent matters in moral affairs – in fact, it’s a central concept, called “niyat” which is such a prerequisite for religious piety that its absence invalidates your religious action, no matter how fervent. And note that I have clearly stated my disagreement with Sinclair about Israel’s intent – but her feelings about Israeli intent are hardly beyond the pale, anymore than the average Israeli who genuinely feels that muslims are en masse plotting the destruction of Israel. We must make allowance for human emotion before we pass our dispassionate judgement on others. Do I think Sinclair is wrong to ascribe intent to Israel? Assuming that thats what she meant and truly believes, and not just what she said aloud in the course of a debate or heated moment (also a human trait for which we must make allowances), yes, I do think s he is wrong. But not evil. Actions matter, too – and she hasnt followed up that belief with actions like donating money to questionable groups or engaging in agitprop against Jews.
    As far as her own supposed silence about Palestinian atrocities, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence – are you prepared to state unequivocally that she does condone those atrocities? Do you really find it likely that she does not condemn them?
    Partly because of my own experiences (which you are aware of), I’ve come to the conclusion that the expectation of condemnation is a pernicious smear – the silence libel. A man or woman, speaking as a moral actor, has every right to critique some injustice they perceive, without being obligated to critique others. Must all muslims automatically append a boilerplate condemnation against the Palestinians whenever they critique Israel? Or maybe muslims should just abstain from critiquing Israel completely? (to be honest, the latter is mostly the route I have taken. Yes, I am cowed to some extent. But the Palestinians are not MY people, so it was far easier for me to drop than for Sinclair or others. Palestinian nationalism is no less valid than any other nationalism).
    Sinclair has no obligation to condemn Palestinian atrocities. And she has a right to condemn Israeli ones, especially since they are dorected at her own blood. And she is correct – Israel does engage in collective punishment. As far as whether Israel targets Israeli children, well, she can be forgiven for being less trusting of Israeli intent than you and I. None of this justifies the venomous accusation against her that she is a sympathizer to terror, or an “Islamist mole” and a “strong threat” to Western civilization. He treatment by her party was utterly disgraceful and no comment by her about the Israel-Palestine conflict in any way justifies the smear against her. It is as unjust as what was done to Mazen Asbahi.

  • thabet

    “On the larger question of Palestinian nationalism, it’s not exactly value-neutral. In the aggregate, it’s about as morally healthy as German nationalism c.1920-c.1940, or Irish republicanism c.1980, or Hutu nationalism post-1960. Is it possible to be a proud Palestinian and not endorse the logical and moral fallacies that usually accompany that? Of course. Does Rima Sinclair meet that standard? Apparently not.”
    Funny how Trevino misses out American nationalism, c. 2001-2008.
    I suppose we all have our blind spots.

  • Joshua Trevino

    Aziz deserves a considered response, but in the meantime, a brief answer to “thabet’s” quip: If he sincerely believes that “American nationalism, c. 2001-2008″ is morally equivalent to “German nationalism c.1920-c.1940, or Irish republicanism c.1980, or Hutu nationalism post-1960,” one must ask where the comparable malign evidence is — that is, the genocide, the systematized intentional killing of civilians, et al. One must furthermore ask whether he accepts the posited equivalency between these things and Palestinian nationalism: does he truly mean to equate Palestinian national feeling with American national feeling? Finally, one must ask how the imminent election of Barack Obama as President of the United States affects his view; where the equivalent Palestinian figure is; et cetera.
    It’s not surprising that there are some who believe America to be an indispensable element in any mention of depravity. What is surprising is that they expect to be taken seriously.

  • Joshua Trevino

    Aziz, to respond to you —
    ….her feelings about Israeli intent are hardly beyond the pale, anymore than the average Israeli who genuinely feels that muslims are en masse plotting the destruction of Israel.
    I suppose it depends on what you mean by “beyond the pale.” She’s not outside the mainstream of her fellow Palestinian nationalists, of course — and certainly not even close to the worst that group has to offer — but she is well outside the mainstream of what one might expect of an elected representative at the Colorado statehouse. Democrat or Republican, I should add.
    And, need it be said, that hypothetical Israeli you mention has somewhat better grounds for his supposition than does Ms Sinclair.
    ….I do think s he is wrong. But not evil.
    I agree with you here. I think she’s disqualified from being an elected representative — not from being a fellow citizen.
    Must all muslims automatically append a boilerplate condemnation against the Palestinians whenever they critique Israel?
    Not necessarily. However(!), if one speaks as a Palestinian, engages as an activist, and creates a long public history on the topic, it is completely reasonable for others to notice one’s skew. That’s fair game.
    And, to be absolutely forthright: Ms Sinclair could have neutralized this in a hurry. Once her critics realized she had a long history of extreme anti-Israeli statements, all she had to do was deliver remarks on her dedication to nonviolence by all sides (assuming she is), visit a local synagogue, etc. It would have blown over. She did not. I don’t think this is evidence that she’s a bad person — she’s probably just an incompetent would-be politician — but it does remind us that she is not wholly a victim of events.
    Her treatment by her party was utterly disgraceful ….
    Out of curiosity, what would you have had the party do?

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    - but she is well outside the mainstream of what one might expect of an elected representative at the Colorado statehouse. Democrat or Republican, I should add.
    I dont see why lack of faith in Israel’s (note: not Jews as a race) good intentions disqualifies someone from elected office. At any rate, it certainly doesnt justify the comments about her being a terror apologist (where were the apologia?) or a mole for Islamism, etc.
    As far as whether the hypothetical Israeli has “better” reason for such a skepticism or not, I disagree quite fundamentally. After all, by any crude metric you choose, the conflict is vastly asymetrical. Despite that asymmetry, I think both parties hold equal blame, but despite my rough handling at the hands of her partisans, I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. Israel is after all the familiar entity to me, as an American. I am biased, but other, independent voices speak with more authority and objectivity than I do on that matter.
    if one speaks as a Palestinian, engages as an activist, and creates a long public history on the topic, it is completely reasonable for others to notice one’s skew. That’s fair game.
    yes. But Sinclair wasnt called out for her skew – she was attacked far beyond the bounds of her bias. I mean – come on! Islamist mole? Terror apologist?
    all she had to do was deliver remarks on her dedication to nonviolence by all sides (assuming she is), visit a local synagogue, etc.
    are you sure she hasnt done these things? (I havent even done the casual google search to find out, either.) I actually hav eher phone number, and her email address too, so I guess I could contact her and ask her point-blank: “Ms. Sinclair, do you denounce terrorist attacks by Palestinians on innocent Israeli children?” It’s not clear, aside from insulting her, what purpose this would serve. Nor do I think that her traipsing out to a synogogue would be anything but a transparent attempt at spin. You wrote parenthetically, “assuming she is [dedicated to nonviolence by all sides]“. OK, lets assume that. I think its reasonable and the right thing to do.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    Out of curiosity, what would you have had the party do?
    I would have the party address her claims to be pro-choice, have a debate, engage her on issues, and generally try to figure out whod be better positioned to win the district seat against the democrat and keep that seat red. In other words, Id expect the party to treat her as any other primary candidate – not label her an enemy within. Nothing in her comments about Israel justified the comments made about her, and those comments, not her positions on the issues or her record, were why she was ultimately defeated.
    However, she was defeated fair and square under the rules, so shes not a victim of anythimg more than slander and defamation of character. Still, thats bad enough.

  • Joshua Trevino

    I’m afraid I don’t assume that — and not because I’m some sort of anti-Palestinian bigot, but because it’s entirely reasonable to assume that a person who denounces Israel in the terms that Ms Sinclair does is indifferent, at best, to terrorism from her own side. (A white Southerner droning on about the Lost Cause would, similarly, be assumed by me to have views on race that are, to be charitable, retrograde.) This does not mean I am impervious to evidence to the contrary — indeed, I would welcome it here — merely that I don’t abandon my rationality when evaluating public figures. Nor would I expect others to.
    In the end, Ms Sinclair did a great deal to bring this upon herself. As I’ve said here, I do not condone the vilification she endured. And yet: it’s not reasonable to expect the party rank and file of a Colorado legislative district to grasp the distinction between Palestinian nationalism and Islamist fervor — especially when the two are so often conflated. Nor is it reasonable to expect those same persons to assume that the proponents of Palestinian-nationalism-conflated-with-Islamist-fervor are ipso facto against violence — again, especially when they are so often not. If Ms Sinclair feels insulted at a need to demonstrate otherwise, she’s not been paying attention for the past decade. Which is another reason she may not be ready for elected office.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    And yet: it’s not reasonable to expect the party rank and file of a Colorado legislative district to grasp the distinction between Palestinian nationalism and Islamist fervor — especially when the two are so often conflated.
    actually, I fully agree. Its much the same for ordinary muslims worldwide who fail to grasp the distinction between Israel and the Jewish people as a whole, especially when those two are also conflated. Islamoiphobia in the GOP and anti-semitism in the Arab street are two sides of the same coin. These are simply human failings of conflation and the truth is that on balance, the attitudes that Sinclair encountered are more prevalent on the Republican side of the aisle, so she brought the scrutiny upon herself at least as far as she committed to running as a Republican. I should note that Ms. Sinclair’s aent told me that Sinclair disagrees with my “War on Muslims” formulation, so shes still loyal to her party, but its clear that, for all teh reasons we discussed, that loyalty (and even identity) is pretty misplaced.

  • thabet

    It’s not surprising that there are some who believe America to be an indispensable element in any mention of depravity. What is surprising is that they expect to be taken seriously.
    Actually, no.
    You were the one lecturing others on paying closer attention to their beliefs and statements, yet seemed to display the classic characteristic of a moralist: of being blind to your own prejudices.

  • Denise Myrup

    I would like to respond to Aziz Poonawalla’s comment to me. Aziz, you’re missing the points entirely. If Ms. Barakat-Sinclair is not well versed in the issues and, more importantly, if she’s completely unwilling to even learn anything about the issues, she’s of no use to us in the State House, no matter what else she’s made of herself.
    Rima’s position on abortion is crucial, because she misrepresented her position on that issue just to win her nomination at the Republican Assembly. If she’s willing to misrepresent herself on that, what else is she misleading us about?
    No one’s accused Rima of being a terrorist herself. This is all about Rima being a sore loser. She’s determined to punish those who supported her opponent during the primary by painting the Republican party, the party she claims to love, as a bunch of bigots by insisting without evidence she’s been severely attacked.
    Rima needs to understand when she goes on record saying “Israeli soldiers are now known to be just bombing and killing babies,” that’s going to upset some people. It’s unfortunate she’s faced some name calling and possibly some threats in response to her comment, but the truth is the vast majority of Republicans, including her opponent in the primary, would not condone the behavior of those who treat her poorly.

  • Joshua Trevino

    Islamophobia in the GOP and anti-semitism in the Arab street are two sides of the same coin.
    Aziz, I could not disagree more. I’ve seen the latter firsthand, and people have gone to war, killed and died for it. It’s fundamentally irrational, and it draws upon a tradition of anti-Semitism, mostly from Europe, that itself is responsible for some of history’s greatest crimes.
    Islamophobia in the GOP, by contrast, is responsible for — what? A crude bumper sticker at 2003’s CPAC? I think there is a discrepancy in scale here.
    I get that you may want to make a case that the Republican party is somehow hostile to Muslims per se, and there is doubtless something to that. I just don’t think that Ms Sinclair’s story demonstrates that.

  • Denise Myrup

    Joshua Trevino, I could not agree more Ms. Barakat-Sinclair’s story does not make a case the Republican party is somehow hostile to Muslims per se. Thank you for your comments.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    Denise,
    As I wrote in reply to Josh, the Party can (and should!) assess candidates on the issues. That’s fair game. I’m not disputing that.
    However, this is a dangerous game you are playing:
    If she’s willing to misrepresent herself on that, what else is she misleading us about? No one’s accused Rima of being a terrorist herself.
    Hmm. She’s accused of being a terror sympathiser, a terror financier, and an Islamist mole, but no, you’re correct, not a terrorist herself. Highly disingenous of you, ma’am.
    incidentally, aren’t you a campaign worker for Mr. Sharf? I think it would have been prudent to disclose that.

  • Denise Myrup

    Aziz, it’s true I am a former campaign worker for Joshua Sharf, but the opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone, and do not represent the viewpoints of the Sharf campaign.
    I would like to point out the game you’re playing is no less dangerous than the one you’re accusing me of playing. I appreciate you admitting the party should assess candidates on the issues, but I doubt Rima would agree with you on that. She felt she was entitled to the Republican nomination for no other reason than she showed up at the Assembly and won the vote from a slight majority of the delegates.
    This race has taught me how potentially harmful the censorship brought on by “political correctness” can be. All Rima needs to do is open her mouth and cry “bigot,” and all of a sudden it doesn’t matter how unqualified or inconsistent she is, everything she says is accepted without question, and everything her opponent tries to say is considered to be wrong, and this article plays right into her hands.
    I’m grateful most of the Republicans in the district were insightful enough to see what Rima is all about, and now we have a good, hard working Republican candidate representing us in the general election.

  • Aziz Poonawalla

    Denise, I was quite specific – I pointed out you are avoiding the issue of Sinclair being smeared by guilt by association with nameless Islamists and terrorists, none of which have naything to do with her statements on Israel and Palestine. Your comment that “no one called her a terrorist” is the game; technically true, but elides over the fact that there was serious character assassination on her part, as an official campaign strategy by your (former) employer. You are playing a game with Islamophobic sentiment and thats a dangerous thing to let loose.
    What game do you think I am playing? Kindly be equally specific. As far as I can tell, I am being as forthright as possible. I will even gladly state, despite being pro-choice, that if Sinclair is not pro-life then I think its very good she wasnt your nominee. Again, thats an argument on the issues, not defamation of her as a terrorist. excuse me, terrorist apologetic, financier, and sympathizer.

  • Denise Myrup

    Aziz, I was being specific. Rima’s accusations of the GOP attacking her is a smokescreen to hide her own incompetence. As I said, I do appreciate you acknowledging the party should assess candidates on the issues, but you also claimed in one of your responses to Josh that Rima was defeated by comments made against her and not because of her positions on the issues or her record.
    That simply is not true! The voters of the district have eyes and ears and could see and hear her opponent was the superior candidate using any criteria, especially that of positions on the issues.
    The people who associate Rima with terrorists are conscientious people who do not take those charges lightly. Despite what Rima says, they provided their evidence for making their claims. If you don’t agree with what they said, fine, but to accuse them of slander and character defamation is a stretch, because they based their conclusions on Rima’s own statements.

  • Joshua Trevino

    I think, in fairness, that it would be useful to point out anything defamatory that Joshua Sharf has said or written about Ms Sinclair. As far as I can see, he’s merely publicized her own prior public statements.

  • Denise Myrup

    Joshua Trevino, exactly. The reason Joshua Sharf publicized Ms. Barakat-Sinclair’s public statements was to illustrate his point she was a single issue candidate who was unfamiliar with the local issues that affect the district. That’s what this race was supposed to be about: the local issues, but Rima made it into her own personal attack on the Republican party.

  • http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

    Joshua Sharf, writing in the politics blog of the Denver Post, in a piece titled “Terror Apologist Court District 6 Republicans”:
    “The Republicans in State House District 6 in Denver are about to make a terrible mistake. At their Assembly on March 1, they nominated a terror apologist, and an avowed enemy of Israel… who works to discredit Israel and for its destruction.”
    Israel’s destruction? avowed enemy? terror apologist?
    it gets worse:
    “Her activities may not always have been so benign towards America herself. She served as a translator for CNN during the opening weeks of the Iraq War, a time when American and British soldiers and Marines alike were disgusted by the network’s coverage.”
    I’m not going to spell out the ways in which these statements are offensive. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

  • Joshua Trevino

    Okay, I agree that the CNN thing is a bit ridiculous. However, that’s not related to her ethnicity or religion. The other things — well, I don’t find them as absurd as you, I suppose.

  • Denise Myrup

    When I first read Joshua Sharf’s post in it’s entirety and took the the time to look at the links, I thought his claims were pretty accurate. After witnessing Rima’s tirades at Republican meetings over the past seven months, I’ll have to say I agree with him even more.
    None of this had anything to do with why I wanted to volunteer for his campaign, however: my main concern was getting an honest, qualified and knowledgable Republican nominee on our ticket to represent us in the general election.
    Despite what Rima says, I was never, ever invited to “join him to defend the home front in the War on Islamist Terror.” Where does she come up with that stuff, anyway?

  • Pingback: Barack Obama’s failure - City of Brass

  • Pingback: Congratulations to David Ramadan - City of Brass

Previous Posts

My first day of wearing rida to school
Zainab Jamali is a teenaged Muslim American girl in Los Angeles. As a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, she recently took her misaq (an oath marking the symbolic pas

posted 10:08:13am Nov. 11, 2014 | read full post »

Muslims en masse for Modi at Madison Square
Newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to a huge crowd of Indian expats in New York City on Monday night, outlining his vision of India's future and mak

posted 4:29:29pm Oct. 01, 2014 | read full post »

Hussein Abdullah gets a penalty for doing sajda in the endzone on Monday Night Football
https://twitter.com/NFL_Memes/status/516788936996573184 As a (very) recent convert to the joy of American Football, I am fascinated by the penalty issued to Kansas City Chiefs' safety Hussein Abdullah for performing a sajda (prayer prostration) of thanks after an epic 39-yard pick-six on Patriots

posted 11:04:12am Sep. 30, 2014 | read full post »

the NFL, concussions, and domestic abuse #WhyIStayed #WhyILeft
A lot of my friends who aren't into football have remarked upon my newfound interest in football as being somewhat out-of-character (true, at first glance, but i'll address that later) and also critiqued the sport for all its attendant social problems. Of those, the two main ones are domestic abuse

posted 5:47:02pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

13 years after 9-11
I honestly don't have much left to say that I have not said already. But it is worth at least remarking on this, the anniversary of the attacks, that the global challenges facing the world today have almost nothing to do with terrorism or Islamic fanaticism. Yes, we have threats like ISIS to grapple

posted 8:44:01am Sep. 11, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.