OMAR WAS REMOVED AT LAST! Chip Roy and MTG Attack Ilhan Omar for Her Previous Remarks!lhan Omar Censured: Chip Roy and Marjorie Taylor Greene Lead Fiery Congressional Showdown Over Loyalty and Patriotism

In a moment that will be remembered as one of the most divisive and dramatic in recent congressional history, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota was censured and removed from her committee assignments following a heated debate led by Representatives Chip Roy (Texas) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia). Their impassioned speeches, accusing Omar of divided loyalty and betrayal of her oath, have ignited a nationwide debate on patriotism, free speech, and the boundaries of political allegiance in the United States Congress.

The Spark: Omar’s Controversial Remarks

The controversy erupted after remarks made by Ilhan Omar at a 2024 event in Minneapolis, where she referenced conversations with Somali Americans and suggested she would use her influence in Congress to pressure the U.S. government into actions benefiting Somalia. Critics seized on Omar’s words, framing them as treasonous and evidence of foreign allegiance.

One statement in particular—her assurance that “the US government will only do what Somalians in the US tell them to do”—became the flashpoint for accusations that she was acting as a foreign agent from inside the U.S. system. Conservative lawmakers argued this crossed a line, challenging the very foundation of congressional duty and loyalty.

The House Floor Erupts

The House chamber quickly became the battleground for a fierce debate. Lawmakers accused Omar of betraying her oath of office, which requires “true faith and allegiance to the United States without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” Marjorie Taylor Greene and Chip Roy took the lead, their voices rising above the fray as they laid out the case for censure.

Greene’s resolution cited Omar’s naturalization oath, reminding Congress that she had once declared to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.” The implication was clear: Omar’s recent remarks directly contradicted the very promises she made upon becoming a citizen and an elected official.

The “Some People Did Something” Legacy

Omar’s infamous “some people did something” comment about 9/11 resurfaced as a central argument in the debate. For many lawmakers, this phrase has long symbolized what they see as Omar’s “disrespect” for one of America’s darkest tragedies. Chip Roy and others argued that such language minimized the suffering and sacrifices of thousands of Americans and raised deep concerns about where Omar’s true priorities lie.

South Carolina representatives voiced sharp disagreement, with one stating, “That phrase really sticks in my craw pretty strongly. Raises a whole lot of flags for me.” The cumulative effect of these remarks, critics argued, was to paint Omar as someone whose loyalty to America could not be trusted.

Greene and Roy’s Fiery Speeches

As the debate reached its crescendo, Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced the formal resolution to censure Omar. She referenced George Washington’s farewell address, warning of “impostures of pretended patriotism and foreign influence.” Greene argued that Omar’s actions were not mere mistakes but a betrayal of America’s founding principles.

Chip Roy followed with equal intensity, reminding Congress of past moments when political loyalty clashed with American duty. He invoked Senate battles over judicial nominees and the infamous nuclear option, framing Omar’s case as part of a larger trend threatening constitutional order. Roy’s speech was both a call to action and a warning: “For as long as I am in US Congress, Somalia will never be in danger. Its waters will not be stolen by Ethiopia or others. Sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interest of Somalia from inside the US system.”

The Resolution: Allegations and Consequences

Greene’s resolution was meticulous, referencing Omar’s January 2024 remarks and alleging that she assured Somali Americans that the U.S. government would act solely in their interest. The resolution accused Omar of acting as a foreign agent and violating her oath to defend and protect the United States Constitution.

The resolution demanded that Omar present herself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure and called for her immediate removal from the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The move was framed not just as punishment, but as protection—ensuring that no lawmaker could use committee power to advance foreign agendas.

Divided Loyalty or Free Speech?

The debate quickly transcended partisanship, with supporters of the censure resolution insisting this was about protecting America from divided loyalty. They argued that Omar’s own words confirmed she was acting in the interest of Somalia instead of America, which they deemed unacceptable for a sitting U.S. lawmaker.

Republican leaders pressed the case that the oath of office must mean something. Anything less, they said, would erode trust in Congress itself. Greene’s fiery words were not just about Omar’s record, but about setting a precedent for future lawmakers. She insisted that foreign allegiances cannot coexist with American leadership, stressing that every representative must put the Constitution first.

The Backlash and Support

Outside Washington, Omar’s political future now looks more fragile than ever. Reports suggest her own district has begun shifting against her, with voters questioning whether she still represents their values. The backlash has grown so strong that commentators are calling this the potential end of her career in Congress.

Conservative media outlets hailed Greene and Roy’s speeches as historic, calling them a wake-up call for America. Clips of the speeches went viral, fueling grassroots energy nationwide. On the other hand, progressive voices accused Greene and Roy of using Omar as a political target to energize their base, warning that censure was being weaponized as a partisan tool.

Even among some Democrats, quiet unease surfaced. The bluntness of Omar’s remarks left room for doubt, making it difficult for her defenders to mount a full-throated counterargument. The divide highlighted just how polarizing Omar’s presence in Congress has become.

The Stakes: Integrity of Congress

Supporters of the resolution argued that allowing Omar to sit on influential committees while allegedly prioritizing Somalia’s interests posed a direct risk to national policy. The move was framed as protection, ensuring that no lawmaker could use committee power to advance foreign agendas.

This proposal heightened the stakes, turning the debate into a fight over the integrity of Congress itself. The censure was not just about Omar—it was about setting a standard for loyalty and accountability in the legislative branch.

The National Conversation

The clash revealed the deep ideological divide in Congress, where every word from Omar was dissected and weighed against her oath of office. Greene’s resolution demanded Omar be removed from key committees, arguing that her presence posed a direct risk to national policy.

Outside the chamber, the reaction was explosive. Conservative media outlets celebrated the censure as a victory for patriots who want their leaders to prioritize national interests. Across social media, the speeches went viral, with clips being shared widely as proof that conservatives were taking a stand.

Progressives, meanwhile, warned that censure was being weaponized as a partisan tool and cautioned that it could set a dangerous precedent. But even among some Democrats, quiet unease surfaced, making it difficult for Omar’s defenders to mount a full-throated counterargument.

Omar’s Defenders Respond

Omar’s defenders tried to argue that her statements were being taken out of context and that political speech should not be punished with censure. They insisted that the record was more nuanced and that Omar’s advocacy for Somali Americans was consistent with her broader commitment to human rights and international justice.

But Greene and Roy dismissed this defense outright, claiming the record spoke for itself. To them, this was not a free speech issue—it was a question of divided loyalty and misuse of power.

The Verdict: A Defining Moment

As the dust settled, one thing was clear: this was a turning point for Congress. Greene and Roy’s fiery speeches will be remembered as the moment they publicly declared that America would no longer tolerate divided loyalty among its lawmakers. Whether Omar survives politically or not, the standard has been set.

For conservatives, it was a defining victory. For Omar, it marked the toughest battle of her career. The pressure is mounting, and Omar faces one of her toughest political battles yet.

Conclusion: The Future of Patriotism in Congress

In the end, the clash over Ilhan Omar was about more than one lawmaker’s remarks—it was about America’s future. Greene and Roy framed their speeches as a call to action for patriots across the country, declaring that leaders who reject American values will be exposed and removed.

The message is clear: Congress will no longer tolerate divided loyalty. For conservatives, this was more than a censure—it was a declaration of strength, marking the beginning of a new political era in Washington.

As Omar stood in the well of the House, censured and stripped of her committee assignments, the nation watched as Congress grappled with the meaning of patriotism, loyalty, and accountability in a rapidly changing world. The repercussions of this moment will be felt for years to come, as lawmakers, voters, and citizens alike reconsider what it means to serve America—and where the line between advocacy and allegiance must be drawn.