Democrat Rep Hangs Picture of Statue of Liberty Wearing Hijab in His Office
California is not short on loony leftist population. In fact, several of them are serving in both chambers of Congress. The latest loony leftist representative from California in the House to do something outrageous is none other than Luis Correa (D). Correa has recently placed a painting on the wall of his Santa Ana, California office that depicts the Statue of Liberty wearing a hijab.
Correa, who has co-sponsored mostly bills dealing with illegal alien invaders and some type of immigration reform, claimed the image “represents ‘a young Muslim lady who is trying very hard to be part of America, who is trying very hard to show people that she is an American’.”
According to Breitbart:
The artwork drew the ire of local campaigners We The People Rising who said: “He shouldn’t have anything religious in his office. … I would like to see our Congress people be right-down-the-line patriotic.”
Rep. Correa may not realise, but Lady Liberty was actually fashioned on an Egyptian woman in the 1850s. And guess what? She has no hijab.
Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, the statue’s designer, visited Nubian monuments at Abu Simbel on what would one day become the banks of Lake Nasser, in 1855.
He wanted the statue to be a “colossal goddess”, to stand at the Suez Canal while the nation’s leader at the time — Isma’il Pasha — was embarking on a programme of Europeanization.
He even stated, in 1879: “My country is no longer in Africa; we are now part of Europe. It is therefore natural for us to abandon our former ways and to adopt a new system adapted to our social conditions”.
When it comes to art interpretation, everyone has an opinion, which may or may not be the intent of the artist.
That said, one has to wonder how a hijab has any place in America due to its association with misogyny and violence against women.
Moreover, a hijab on the Liberty Island statue, which many consider a symbol of freedom, is truly an oxymoron.
Instead of holding the torch of enlightenment above the head, the hijab-clad “Lady Liberty” holds it only shoulder high as if reluctant to embrace liberty and freedom in totality, thereby, decreasing the light that guides one to freedom and liberty.
Conspicuously missing in the painting is the tablet of law held in the right hand with the date, July 4, 1776, written in Roman numerals – the date of declared independence and freedom from the tyranny of Britain’s King George.
The missing tablet of law could be a symbol of the rejection of the laws of the united States by Muslims in general, favoring their Sharia Law instead.
In a cult like Islam, where women are second-class citizens, have no rights or freedoms, and suffer violence and oppression at the hands of Muslim males, Muslim women cannot embrace freedom until they reject Islam and it’s misogynistic teachings and viewpoints against women.
Others could interpret this painting to be a symbol promoting the Islamization of America.
All the symbols are there – hijab clad “Lady Liberty,” lowering of the torch of enlightenment, and the missing tablet of law with the date, July 4, 1776.
It might be a stretch. However, it is more of a stretch to interpret this painting in the manner Correa did or the artist, if Correa is presenting the artist’s interpretation.
The group, “We The People Rising,” has a petition circulating to implore Rep. Correa to remove the artwork calling it a violation of the separation of church and state, per an unnamed legal consultant who supposedly analyzed the issue.
Since when does any member of government have to relinquish their God-given, recognized and guaranteed rights contained in the First Amendment to serve in Congress?
While the artwork may be oxymoronic in nature, Correa has every right to decorate his office with personal acquisitions, regardless of whether or not it is tasteful.
One has to wonder though how Correa came up with his interpretation of the oxymoronic painting.
While the group “We The People Rising” call for members of Congress to “be right-down-the-line patriotic,” the group seeks to restrict individual God-given rights recognized and guaranteed by the First Amendment of a member of Congress.
Can anyone truly call this a “religious item?”
It appears to be more of a political statement, falling under freedom of speech, depicted in art than “anything religious.”
Truly, there is little to even classify this as religious in nature.
On the “About” page at the “We The People Rising” website, the group declares it is a “grassroots, all-volunteer nationwide network seeking to influence – via activism – institutions of political corruption: the federal government – as well as state and municipalities – and the corporations and employers that hire and exploit illegal aliens.”
This group is mainly concerned with stopping the amnesty movement, not freedom, liberty, and upholding of individual God-given rights.
Breitbart continues, briefly covering the history of Egyptian leader Gamal Nassar and rejection of the veil by Muslim women.
And since we have mentioned Gamal Nasser, it is worth noting the former Egyptian leader is commonly remembered for his rejection of a Muslim Brotherhood demand for all women to cover up with a veil.
In this video, he and his colleagues laugh at the idea, with one audience member shouting his recommendation for the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood: “Let him wear it!”
Indeed mass rejections of the veil have been seen across the Muslim world and still are. For Rep. Correa to blindly associate it with young Muslim women without an acknowledgement of the coercive factors as well as oppressive elements is wholly morally and historically bankrupt.
It also flies in the face of the progressive agendas of the likes of Pasha. So much for the Democrat Party being of the progressive left.
We haven’t even mentioned the 100,000 Iranian women who protested against the hijab in 1979.
What about the women in Syria who this year celebrated their liberation from the Islamic State by pulling their burkas and niqabs off their heads and attempting to set fire to them?
While Correa’s hanging of the painting can be described as “morally and historically bankrupt” and flying “in the face of the progressive agenda of the likes of Pasha,” he has not violated the law. Being morally and historically bankrupt is not a crime. It is in poor taste and against God’s instructions to be “moral;” neither of which is a crime under US law. Look at it this way, if being morally bankrupt was a crime under US law, half or most of Congress, their staff members and federal workers would be sitting in prison.
Being morally and historically bankrupt is not a crime. It is in poor taste and against God’s instructions to be “moral;” neither of which is a crime under US law. Look at it this way, if being morally bankrupt was a crime under US law, half or most of Congress, their staff members and federal workers would be sitting in prison.
It is in poor taste and against God’s instructions to be “moral;” neither of which is a crime under US law. Look at it this way, if being morally bankrupt was a crime under US law, half or most of Congress, their staff members and federal workers would be sitting in prison.
Look at it this way, if being morally bankrupt was a crime under US law, half or most of Congress, their staff members and federal workers would be sitting in prison.
It does send a message of support of criminal terrorist groups such as The Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American Islamic Relations as well as other groups. Supporting terrorists and terrorist groups is a crime – one that many in Congress violate through their associations and backing of CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood.
Supporting terrorists and terrorist groups is a crime – one that many in Congress violate through their associations and backing of CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood.
Correa knows, or should know, that liberty and oppression cannot co-exist.
If he thinks that is possible, he deserves the designation “loony leftist.”
More than likely, Correa has little gray matter in between his ears to see how an individual could interpret the painting as a symbol of the suppression of freedom and/or the support of the Islamization of America.