How could anyone oppose “a bill that would allow life insurance companies to deny payouts to the beneficiaries of terrorists who die in violent attacks on Americans”? What explanation could Ilhan Omar possibly give for her vote? Will anyone in the establishment media challenge her on this? Of course not. To do so would be “Islamophobic.”
“Life insurance for terrorists? America’s 1st Somali legislator says ‘yes,'” by Leo Hohmann, WND, April 21, 2017 (thanks to Debra):
She burst on the scene last August when she upset a 44-year incumbent Democrat in the Minnesota state primary elections to become the nation’s first female Muslim state legislator.
Ilhan Omar, the 34-year-old community organizer who came to America as a refugee from Somalia, was touted by Democrats as a model success story.
“From a refugee camp to the State Capitol with intelligence and insight,” beamed former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who endorsed Omar. “This is a wonderful story to tell as Americans, and a great source of pride for the state of Minnesota’s open arms.”
But on Thursday Omar made her mark in another way.
She was one of only two members of the Minnesota State House to vote against a bill that would allow life insurance companies to deny payouts to the beneficiaries of terrorists who die in violent attacks on Americans.
The House voted 127-2 to pass the bill, which now moves on to a vote in the State Senate.
Omar, who represents the heavily immigrant Cedar Riverside area of Minneapolis, was joined by fellow Democratic Rep. John Lesch of St. Paul in voting against the bill.
Omar’s vote sticks out because at least 42 Somali refugees have been confirmed by the FBI to have left the U.S. to join overseas terrorist organizations, including al-Shabab, the al-Qaida affiliate in Somalia, and ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Dozens of other Somali-Americans have been tried and/or convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorists.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul area is home to the nation’s largest Somali refugee community, with other significant Somali communities in St. Cloud, Willmar, Owatonna, and Austin, Minnesota. Somali refugees are also concentrated in Columbus, Ohio; Seattle; Atlanta; San Diego; Fargo, North Dakota; and in smaller cities across Colorado, Maine, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and Texas.
Omar is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, abortion rights and a champion of environmental justice.
Before she was elected she was an activist who often lobbied the Minneapolis City Council on progressive issues.
Since her election as a legislator she:
- Opposed a bill to limit mass protests designed to disrupt streets, train service and airport access.
- Has been given her own Muslim Barbie icon, the “Hijarbie.”
- Visited her native Somalia to push for women’s leadership, raising the question of why Somali “refugees” are still pouring into the U.S. and other Western countries if the country is safe enough for former refugees to return and lobby the government for pet causes.
- Traveled to Washington, D.C., in December for a reported White House visit when she made a Facebook post complaining about a cab driver who taunted her with “sexist and Islamophobic” comments. She said he threatened to pull off her hijab and called her “ISIS,” yet she never filed a police report. In response to an inquiry on her Facebook page, Omar said she planned to file a report once she returned to Minneapolis, adding that she did not feel safe enough to say anything at the moment. The reply did not say whether the report would be with police, the cabdriver’s employer or possibly a civil rights organization.
Ilhan Omar has aleady been honored with her own “Hijarbie,” a project by a Nigerian Muslim woman.
The Minnesota insurance bill was introduced by Rep. Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, in response to Syed Farook’s jihadist rampage in San Bernardino, California, in December 2015 in which he shot and killed 14 people and injured 22 at an office Christmas party. Farook made sure his life insurance policies worth $275,000 were valid before conducting the deadly shooting with help from his wife, Tashfeen Malik.
After Farook died in a shootout with police, his mother fought to remain the beneficiary of the life insurance policies. The insurance company balked and the case has gone to court.
Democratic Rep. Debra Hilstrom said the goal of the Minnesota bill “is to make certain that folks don’t benefit [from terrorism] and this limits the beneficiary to the premiums that were paid in. It limits the exposure for the insurance company when someone is committing an act of terrorism.”
Debra Anderson, leader of the ACT For America chapter in Minnesota, praised the legislators who voted for the bill Thursday.
“U.S. life insurance policies that pay out to the families of terrorists reminds me of Muslim regions, such as Palestine, that also make ‘life insurance’ payments to the families of jihadists who kill in the name of Allah.”
Anderson said Omar’s vote was reprehensible and shows where her allegiances lie.
This incident also clearly demonstrated the legitimate concerns of freedom-loving Americans regarding increased political access by Muslims who exhibit an obvious allegiance to Muslims and Shariah law rather than all Americans and the U.S. Constitution.
“I am very grateful for the astute, courageous legislators who are looking out for the best interests of all Minnesotans.”…
TonyD says
I thought it was against Islamic law to buy insurance?
ninetyninepct says
Not in democratic countries. Everything is against Islam unless it benefits Islam, then it is OK. Democracy is banned by Alla and Mohamed and Islam except when it is used for the benefit of Islam then it is also OK. This is the braindead mindset of Leftists, Liberals and the fascists who accuse us of being wrong unless we think, act and speak like they want us to, then we are right.
It is against Sharia law to pay interest. I believe most if not all major American Banks obey sharia law and don’t charge interest. All major Canadian Banks have submitted to sharia, just like many Canadian City police forces and what used to be the respected RCMP.
JOHNNIEMAC says
You gotta be kidding me.
old white guy says
apparently the morons and terminally stupid are now in control. good luck getting out alive.
Lilythewise says
It is truly sad a majority of western leaders are so stupid.
nomoreislamicstate says
Sorry, no pay out for those who kill others and then themselves. Get out of our country Ilhan Omar!
nomoreislamicstate says
I should say sorry, not sorry!
Angel says
She’s also lobbied/lobbying for the Somali Museum in her constituency to benefit from a tax-payer funded endowment of US$200,000.00, paid over a two-year period. The money is earmarked for expansion, amongst other things. Is this how the tax paying residents of the state want their money spent?
Frank Anderson says
If time is taken to actually read the terms and conditions of most insurance policies, war, riot, civil disorder, and many natural disasters are excluded from coverage. Insurance companies do not pay for claims arising from those exclusions. Think about that the next time the Baltimore mayor tells the police to let the rioters get it out of their systems. There is no insurance coverage for any riot damage. The whole bill falls on the property owners unless taxpayers, through their elected representatives, step up and pay for rioters’ lawbreaking.
There are also in life insurance policies limited benefits for suicide. So why does this ignorant, evil person want to allow a jihadi to pay a premium, say $100, go out to destroy property and kill people, commit suicide, and give his beneficiaries a million dollars? Because it supports criminal conduct. Anyone who aids, abets, counsels or acts in furtherance of a federal crime is equally guilty of the crime. 18 United States Code Section 2. Rioting and murder are deprivations of the victims’ civil rights of life and property under federal law. She has no commitment to law or the Constitution and was obviously elected by equally unconcerned people who share her commitment to Sharia. Deportation is too mild for treason.
ermom says
Well said, Frank.
Troybeam says
I agree
Frank Anderson says
Humbly and sincerely, thank you. Check out the federal law starting with 18 USC 2 and then look at conspiracy law and cases. A favorite quote:
It is well established that
[t]]he elements of a conspiracy . . . are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) an unlawful purpose, and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy . . . . The existence of the conspiracy can be proved by inference evidence . . . . Direct evidence of an agreement to join a criminal conspiracy is rare, so a defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts furthering the conspiracy’s purpose. The government is not required to prove that each alleged conspirator knew all the details of the conspiracy; it is enough to establish that a defendant knew the essentials of the conspiracy . . . that the defendant intended to join or associate himself with the objective of the conspiracy . . . even if he did not join it until after its inception, and even if he played only a minor role in the total scheme [20, pp. 1093-94].United States v Gary Greenough, 609 F.Supp 1090,1094 (DC Ala. 1985)
somehistory says
Persons can be (and have been) charged with conspiracy when the *act* is never carried out. Just agreeing to commit a crime is a conspiracy and is chargeable.
Frank Anderson says
Some. . ., I believe you are almost correct: At least 1 of the conspirators must perform at least 1 overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It may be that buying life insurance on a suicidal jihadi could be that act. Please check the cases that discuss federal conspiracy law. “The acts of one are the acts of all; The knowledge of one is the knowledge of all.” These are both interesting and worthy points to ponder, especially in light of the identity of the US Attorney in charge of prosecuting Gary Greenough (Hon. Jeff Sessions, now Attorney General of the United States).
somehistory says
The act does not have to be carried out by either one of the two or more. They just must conspire to do something illegal.
I have been studying this subject for quite some time and am a 4.0. The *act*…be it murder, selling drugs, kidnapping, etc., does not have to be performed as the “conspiring” is the “conspiracy” part, the conspiracy is a crime.
The act is the other crime. Conspiracy is a crime of its own.
Frank Anderson says
Some. . ., I am a licensed attorney for coming on 37 years. I have passed 2 bar exams on the first try each. I have written a research article on conspiracy that was “blessed” by among others a former law professor, judge and FBI agent who at the time the article was written was a US Attorney. You are correct that the “main” act need never happen. BUT there must be some affirmative act that takes the conspiracy beyond “mere” discussion and planning into execution. The act can be some kind of preparation, like collecting weapons, or surveillance of a target. But the conspiracy which is indeed under federal law a completely separate crime, requires SOME act in furtherance. If you want to keep your 4.0 it would help you to read further, particularly the cases. I believe the basic US federal conspiracy law is found at 18 United States Code section 371. There are several other federal statutes that address conspiracy. Please do some more reading. You are so close to being correct that it would be a shame to miss the target. Best wishes to you.
[My law school suffered from grade “deflation”. The highest overall grade in my class was a 2.3/3.0 and mine was a 1.8. I hope you enjoy great success and satisfaction.]
somehistory says
Frank,
Thank you for your best wishes. My son is graduating from Levin Law in a couple of weeks. He has won some book awards. He and I discuss the law often.
One of the things I do know about the *adversarial* system…a lawyer can argue for one side today, and the opposite side tomorrow.
And I have read many cases as part of the courses taken. A few were specifically about the conspiracy laws, RICO, etc. White collar and organized crime were both full courses in themselves. The texts used are written by law professors and some of my professors have been lawyers before teaching it.
I have yet to speak with any attorney that totally agrees with another, and the law can be prickly when applied to particular cases.
It doesn’t take much for a person to be charged with conspiracy if the prosecutor wishes to charge.
Thanks again. 🙂
Frank Anderson says
Some. . ., discussions such as ours are a good way to learn and share. I believe if you look at the United States Code Annotated, you will almost certainly find the detailed elements necessary for a conviction of conspiracy under 18 USC 371 to include “some” overt act, but not, as you say, the ultimate “final” act of the plan, to prevent charging for mere thoughts. Sure, like Webster Hubble (sp?) said, “You can indict a ham sandwich.” But, obtaining a conviction and surviving appeals requires that ALL the elements of a crime be proven “beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.”
[I won only 1 book award. But I am the only lawyer I know of that has forced 4 other lawyers in 4 different cases to take the witness stand and testify against their clients. Congratulations for your son’s performance. Please understand I have no need or reason to blow smoke in your face. Please at least review USCA if you are interested in seeing convictions instead of failed false charges that can cost the prosecutor and other authorities heavily. See, e.g. the cases involving the State of North Carolina v. Mike Nifong. Also, consider the deafening silence from Maryland since Baltimore attorney Marilyn Mosby, a Harvard graduate, has been charged by a bar disciplinary action related to her false charges against 6 police officers.]
Ray Powers says
Well said!!
somehistory says
This is true. The legal body should not have had to make an extra law that allows the companies to refrain from rewarding with money, the doing of an evil crime.
When a person buys a policy on a spouse or business partner and then murders the insured, the insurance company does not reward murder. The murderer doesn’t even get the premiums back.
common sense says
Oh yeah!
Troybeam says
I keep stating never hire a Muslim and never elect a Muslim, the agenda for Islam is just for Islam, wake up people, Islam is not for America but gee whiz you people who elect Muslims are giving our nation away piece by piece.
Insurance companies pay attention to what being asked, you go with this insanity and you will lose, just like Target, Starbucks etc.
Bernard Lawes says
Agreed… I can’t understand why people are voting for them into office. They care nothing for America.
Marty says
While support of abortion is an awful idea, an exception.should be made for any muslim women who desire to proceed with the procedure.
Robert says
it gets more and more bizarre. It is fair that if a person commits suicide that his / her life insurance is not honored. A jihadist usually knows he will kill but likely be killed too in the attack: as a suicide bomber or by police officers. Today, Muslim legislators argue that to kill many in a jihadist attack and likely being killed yourself should not be seen as a suicide but as “by Allah ordered killing of non-believers; per consequence this is not sucide!” And the exclusion clausule for those who commit does not apply to suice bombers….
Ed Lee says
In 49 of 50 states, the suicide exclusion is only in effect for the first 2 years of a life insurance policy. All life insurance agents/brokers that I know make it a point to tell this to clients.
SK says
If a Muslim from her ethnic community wanted to do a jihadist suicide attack, knowing that your family will be compensated with money if you reach your goal of dying sounds more like an an additional reason to do so than anything.
It’s not like the cops can just shut down investigations by calling something jihad. If anything, it just creates more interest and more importantly, deeper scrutiny.
mortimer says
Ilhan Omar is a JIHADIST. Her jihad is verbal jihad and written jihad (legislation).
She is trying to Islamize the US through politics, leading to a SHARIA TAKEOVER. Her program is sedition.
Providing financial rewards for JIHADISTS through INSURANCE is far from being ‘in the best interests of all Minnesotans.”
Rewarding suicide attacks works AGAINST THE INTERESTS of ALL AMERICANS. Jihadists and their families can go back to Berzerkistan and get jihad benefits there.
Benedict says
America: Land of Islamic opportunists.
somehistory says
This is the woman who married her brother to get him into the country.
StacyGirl says
I was just going to ask. Don’t recall seeing it reported anywhere but here.
John A. Marre says
As always, Democrats join with the Muslims in any way they can to show their complete disregard for the safety of the millions of non-Muslims in this country.
David says
Well said sir!!
Norger says
Has she attempted to justify her “no” vote? Seems pretty clear where her allegiance lies, and it’s not to this country. Is an election recall possible?
IQ al Rassooli says
Ilhan Omar is a Muslima and hence can NEVER go against Muslims proving the following article to be TRUE and should be digested by every non Muslim reading it
CAN MUSLIMS BE LOYAL CITIZENS AMONG INFIDELS?
This is very informative and everyone needs to read it from start to finish and send it on to others.
Theologically – NO. . . Because Muslims submit only to Allah – originally the supreme god of Pagan Arabia- and hence most definitely not the same as the God of Jesus, Moses or Abraham.
Religiously – NO. . . Because no other religion is accepted by Allah except Islam (Submission to Allah).
Al Imran 3: 85 “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost”
Scripturally – NO. . . Because Muslims’ allegiance is to Sharia based upon Muhammad’s Quran and Sunna.
Textually – NO … Because Muhammad’s Quran is Hatemongering, Warmongering, Misogynist, Racist, Intolerant, Disloyal, Duplicitous and hence UNGODLY.
Geographically – NO. . . Because Muslims bow in reverence to Mecca in Arabia, to which they turn in prayer five times a day.
Socially – NO. . . Because a Muslim’s devotion to Islam forbids him from making friends with Christians and Jews ~
Al Mai’da 5: 51 “O ye who believe! take not the Jews [Yahood] and the Christians [Nasara] for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…”
Al Tauba 9: 29 “Fight [qatiloo] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya [onerous penalty for not being a Muslim] with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”
Loyally – NO … Because a Muslim’s allegiance is primarily to ALL other Muslims all over the globe.
Ishaq:231 “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”
Politically – No. . . Because Muslims must submit to the mullahs (spiritual Leaders), who teach equal opportunity HATRED for ALL those who are not followers of Muhammad (currently 80% of humanity called Ummat al Kuffar/ Nation of Infidels) as well as calls for the destruction of Western Civilization (Christianity).
Al Fath 48: 13 “And if any believe not in Allah and His Apostle We have prepared for those who reject Allah a Blazing Fire!
Domestically – No. . . Because Muslims are instructed to marry up to four women and to beat and scourge their wives when they disobey them
Al Nisaa 4:34 “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. … As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct admonish them; refuse to share their beds; beat them …”
Legally – No. . . Because Muslims cannot accept the American Constitution as binding since it is not from Allah’s Sharia as well as they believe the Bible is corrupted.
Culturally- NO… Because Muslims belong to a culture that prefers Death more than Life.
Ibrahim 14: 3 “Those who love the life of this world more than the Hereafter who hinder (men) from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: they are astray by a long distance”
Constitutionally – No. . . Because Sharia is the nemesis of Democracy; it does not allow for freedoms of religion, expression or belief. Democracy and Islam is an oxymoron; a state of affairs that cannot possibly co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial, autocratic or theocratic.
Spiritually – No. . . Because the Christians’ God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent attributes.
This is why Muslims in Europe and the USA are so quiet and not speaking out about all the world wide atrocities allegedly committed by so called ‘radical’ Muslims.
Not once has there been a major demonstration – whether in Europe or the USA – by the so called ‘silent majority’ Muslims expressing their revulsion at acts of terror committed by these alleged ‘radicals’ shouting out loud “NOT IN OUR NAME!”
Muhammad said: SILENCE means CONSENT!
Therefore, after much study and deliberation…. Perhaps Europeans and Americans should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in their country.
They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Europeans or Americans. Call it what you will, these are the FACTS based entirely in chapter and verse upon their scripture.
Humanity had better believe it. The more who understand these realities, the better it will be for humanity and their future generations.
This is NOT a clash of Civilizations but a clash of Beliefs.
FREEDOM NEVER COMES FREE.
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Greyhound Fancier says
Please forgive the diversion from the thread. I bookmarked Mr. al Rassooli’s blog and would like to read the essays (or are they videos?) – I have clicked on what appears to be links but cannot navigate the site.
I very much enjoy your comments and would like to learn more. Anyone else having any difficulties?
IQ al Rassooli says
Dear Greyhound
Best is Google ‘alrassooli’ and will be connected instantly to all my links, videos etc
Hope this will help
IQ al Rasssooli
Kafir & Proud!
philip.h.swinehater says
Good on you ,mate. Peace
Joe Klitzing says
An example of how muslim immigrants are trying to use our society against us. To me a jihadi terrorist is the same as a person who commits suicide. And like a suicide, the life insurance company should not have to pay. The taking of their life was their own decision, not an accident or medical incident. The only way they should get paid is if their policy has a rider acknowledging they are a terrorist and they pay premiums to the insurance company which take this abohrent behavior in to account.
August West says
Why would anybody vote against this Bill?
A better question is how could she have voted for It?
In this case Reliance of the Traveller (ROT) is particularly illuminating.
This book is a reference for islamic law according to the Shaf’I school. A quick review on wikipedia shows a map indicating that the Shaf’I school is influential in the horn of Africa among other places.
Zakat is one of the 5 pillars of Islam. It is a Muslim tax. The ROT summarizes the 8 possible recipients of Zakat.
On page 272 of ROT it lists “those fighting for allah” as the 7th of the 8.
This legislator is might be interpreting these insurance payments as zakat and allocating accordingly.
She may also be viewing them as Jizya per koran 9 29.
Given the demographics of her district she is representing her constituents – her constituents are likely to be supportive of her vote. Also as the demographics of Minnesota change, and as islam becomes further entrenched, she will gain power and could elevate to a role in the US Congress or Senate.
At 34 she is very young and has a long political career ahead of her.
This is a good example of the incompatibility between Islamic law and US law, and illustrates what happens when these two clash.
ROT is available at amazon for about $35 and is a very helpful reference.
StacyGirl says
All excellent points. She should be impeached. But her home state of MN fraudulently elected a SNL comic to the senate, a wrestler for Gov, and is overrun with Muslims and crackpots. They also went for Hillary in the last election. What’s to save here?
common sense says
“Anderson said Omar’s vote was reprehensible and shows where her allegiances lie.” -Nice rebuke! So necessary!
And MN? Libtard central! “Like a good neighbor Islam is there”
Personally I think everyone should switch to “Farmer Trump INS, USA inc”.
https://youtu.be/P3X_lb1tCSg
Look at Nikki Halley dish it out on Iran/Hezbollah at the UN with the UK and others backing her play while Russia melts like a snoflake. Pressure, push, push, push.
Damn this makes me feel good! State the problem and the agitators. Takes a couple of minutes to get to but its good coverage.
Pere LaChaise says
Since the constituents who elected the legislator are themselves moslem Somalis very likely to ‘suffer loss of life’ among their own young men from jihadi violence, Ms. Omar is voting for legislation that will increase the collective wealth of her community and thereby get her reelected. I’m sure that’s how they see it. Anyone who lives in a Somali moslem demimonde would not be able to vote otherwise. The concept of conspiracy to commit a crime that would nullify any insurance policy doesn’t occur to them because they think islamically. To the moslem, jihadi violence and death is a great badge of honor for an otherwise uncreative, lazy and unproductive people who seldom distinguish themselves through any contribution to greater society.
Somali immigrants as a group are among the least developed socially and economically. They are desired only by meat-packing companies because they have much less political awareness than Hispanic workers and are more easily exploited. Their enclaves in the upper Midwest and elsewhere are insular ghettoes where Islamic groupthink rules. It’s not surprising that a politician from among their ranks would continue to think in a fashion informed exclusively by Islam.
Lilythewise says
This is definitely a WTF moment.
eagle says
There needs to be some small print in the insurance policy that says if you die by cop or lead poisoning, no payout. These Muslims are creative with these ideas.Not bad considering they are all mentally ill. If Islam was banned in 1952, why then do we have so many Muslims in this country. Why this law is ignored by the White House? The RFRA by President Clinton needs serious review, repealed or amended.
StacyGirl says
Just imagine how much better every square inch of the universe would be without Muslims. If you have trouble falling asleep, try imagining every mosque standing taken out by a meteor. Sweet dreams.
Voytek Gagalka says
Purpose of such “law” is of course extort even more money from unbelievers: From jizyah handouts to this new method of robbery in the name of “allah” and his “messanger.” This is why sharia must be BANNED in all non-Muslim nations first and then banned world-wide. Only then such schemes will finally stop.
phantomfighter27 says
To bring a bill that promises to make it unlawful to practice and-or participate in any form of Sharia in a community should be brought before congress and voted upon. Should an an elected politician endorse and one of it’s tenets- should be considered as Treason, and punishable by death presumably as the US Constitution states.
Frank Anderson says
Phantom, I think that exact result could be achieved by an official declaration of war instead of the ambiguous “authorization for use of military force”. Muslims declared war on ALL us infidels 1400 years ago and never made any form of peace except following the doctrine of lying at every opportunity to obtain advantage. Islam prohibits making friends with infidels, making any binding commitments with infidels, or living in peace and mutual respect with infidels. I cannot distinguish all their commitments to hatred and violence from a declaration of war against us. So why don’t we today recognize 1400 years of murder and promises fulfilled daily to continue their drive to kill or conquer us? My best answer so far is that like Neville Chamberlain, our leaders are too gutless, so idiotic and so highly impressed with their outstanding “negotiating ability” that they refuse to see what is promised and performed, just as Chamberlain refused to see what Hitler promised and performed daily before and after Munich. They declared war on us. Why do we fail to return the declaration?
bipedant says
Most notable is the fact that such glaringly outrageous behavior is allowed at all.
The pathetic tolerance of Western societies has enabled this type of thing to occur and ludicrous P.C. policy ensures that it will continue.
somehistory says
Payment is not made when death is due to war. The moslim world…moslims in general…and all who commit acts of terrorism are fighting a *war* with the rest of the world, whether or not the rest of the world acknowledges it. The insurance companies can stand out from the crowds and Recognize it as war and not pay the benefits to the family.
Many times, insurance companies have done the job of law enforcement, investigated and found out that murder was the reason someone with a large policy died. In those cases, the insurance company does not pay and then LE becomes involved.
If insurance investigators become involved in exposing the suicide/murder by moslims, then perhaps they can make a big deal of the fact that the moslims are waging war inside the country and the families are trying to profit from the murders.
Frank Anderson says
Somehistory, I think that argument creates an opening for an insurance company that is stupid enough to write a policy insuring a jihadi, to litigate payment of benefits on the basis of the Islamic declared war. Would an insurance company spend huge sums against a heavily funded beneficiary, no doubt receiving support from every group intent on collapsing our insurance system, to prove the death of the insured was caused by his or her participation in a 1400 year continuing war? Very few lawsuits have certain results. I doubt the insurance companies would. I think they would rather pay the claim and raise the rates on us infidels for our policies to dodge the question and the heat.
Insurance on lives is a bet that we are going to die, when we are too lazy to save our own money for that certain event. Now that Muslims have figured out another way to beat our system and line their own pockets, the law that I believe did pass in spite of this person’s vote, may be the best that can be done at the moment, if the governor will sign it.
But, sooner or later, like that perfect example of “kick the can down the road because I’m too afraid to face the truth Neville Chamberlain” the truth will kiss us in the face as it kills many of us. In the words of BHO’s preacher, “The chickens will come home to roost.”
Frank Anderson says
Addendum: The potential heat could be a countersuit for bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits would could result in punitive damages many times the amount of the policy being disputed, plus ALL of the insured’s certainly inflated attorney fees and expenses of litigation.
Could be a good time to get out of the life insurance business.
Veronika N says
lhan Omar, the 34-year-old community organizer who came to America as a refugee from Somalia, was touted by Democrats as a model success story.
So here we have ‘another community organizer’ just like our former despot obuma……. I wonder if she isn’t a personal friend of that disgusting jerk, Obuma…
This is ‘diversity and multiculturalism’ at its best. We must thank Obuma for bring in these savages who have no respect for our country nor our Constitution.
Frank Anderson says
THERE IS an UPSIDE to allowing jihadis to buy life insurance: The victims and their families would have something to sue for! Right now, dead attackers are penniless and completely “dry holes” as targets of civil claims. Having a large insurance coverage would allow victims to tie up the distribution until lawsuits could obtain judgments and seize the benefits that would help pay for the harm the jihadi caused. It’s a thought? Our society expects insurance companies to cover injuries caused by voluntarily drunk drivers, why not suicide bombers? sarc/off.
I still believe the idea of insuring jihadis is a travesty which plays on the greed of the insurance companies to sell policies, collect premiums, pay out claims and raise rates on people who obey the law. An insurance agent and the company make money by selling policies to all comers, and paying claims so that others will buy the policies in the future. If they refused to sell to a jihadi, the agent and company would be on the weak end of a religious discrimination suit.
Michael Murphy says
There is absolutely no local coverage of this! Most Minnesotan’s have no idea about her questionable behavior. I am hoping Fox News interviews her. Here in MN the Republicans do have majority status in the House and Senate so there is hope, but we still have U.S Senators Klobachar and Frankiin, local celebrities. Minnesotan’s need to wake up politically. We are blindly proud of the diversity and have no idea what stealth jihad is.
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP!!
Paul says
If this legislator was really a muslim she would not be supporting all of the progressive ideas like the LGBT crazies and abortion…. Muslims hate us with a passion and will lie, cheat, steal and do anything else that they can to come to power after they get enough of them in a area…. The USA will soon become like Europe if We The People do not take a stand against our government who is letting these muslims invade our nation.
Always remember that immigration without assimillastion is just another word for invasion!!!!
UNCLE VLADDI says
NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO BUY “CRIME INSURANCE” BEFORE COMMITTING THEIR CRIMES!
Uncle Larry says
Kinda like insuring an expensive box of Cuban cigars, then filing a claim after they are smoked.
Frank Anderson says
Uncle Larry, I’m reasonably sure you know this really happened. If I had been the judge I would have imposed Rule 11 sanctions for filing a groundless lawsuit. But, I think the plaintiff won and may have been paid for being the “victim” of 50 cases of “arson”.
Susan Longley says
The curious case of Ilhan Omar is told here
https://www.city-journal.org/html/curious-case-ilhan-omar-14724.htmlning
The story is frightening as it is very curious
Gen Jones says
Thank you but that link is incorrect. Here’s the correct one:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/curious-case-ilhan-omar-14724.html
Edward Dillon says
Vote her out of office.
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Dillon, I suspect if you look at the demographics of the district she represents there is a majority or close enough to it of Muslims who have a strong attachment to Sharia and no attachment at all to the US Constitution or the rights and liberties of infidels. Hitler controlled Nazi Germany with less than 10% “true believers”, Stalin and Mao, about the same. A violent and intimidating minority easily controls a gutless and passive majority who are afraid to lose what they have until they lose everything. Sad example: The half of Germany’s Jews who refused to leave before the war.
The American Revolution was a truly close call, and far from unanimous, as to the loyalty of those who want independence to those who wanted to remain “loyal” weak-kneed subjects of a tyrant king.
I have a friend who has spent her life counseling people. She is famous for her observation that “People don’t change; they just get older.”
I don’t claim to have “the answer” to this problem. But I think voting her out is not likely one that will be available or will happen.
American4Truth says
Muslims that support terrorist groups and Sharia law should be banned from the U.S. and all Democratic countries.
Dora Lee says
No body gets life insurance if they kill themselves ON PURPOSE! What????
Frank Anderson says
Ms. Lee, I believe a previous post by another gentleman stated that in 49 of 50 states suicide is excluded from benefit payments for the first 2 years of a policy. So as long as the intentional death of the insured takes place more than 2 years after the policy is bought, the policy benefits must be paid to someone (normally the beneficiaries-whom I believe are part of a fraud).
I have raised the possibility that the insurance company could file what is called an “Interpleader” action in court (intended to prevent the company from being forced to pay more than once) to allow the victims of the suicide to have a chance to collect some or all of the money instead of the terrorist’s beneficiaries. An insurance company and agent have every reason to sell such policies. As the losses rise so will their rates and commissions. The insurance company never loses. At least with language in the policies or the law requiring the money to be reachable by the victims instead of the jihadi community there is some hope of infidel justice. The irony of a terrorist buying insurance that covers his harm to his victims is attractive to me. We now have drunk and drugged drivers buying insurance for the people they injure and kill: Where is the difference? What do you think?