Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are increasingly visible as the “heads” of the American Democrat Party rather than the “extremist outliers” they would have been as recently as merely four years ago. Together these two radical ladies are marshaling the entire body of Democrats right out from under Speaker Pelosi’s control, and into very strange policy positions.
In the early morning hours of Friday, March 8 (incidentally, International Women’s Day), Fox News published a newspiece in which it reported that Ilhan Omar, the Somali-American Representative from Minnesota, appears to be digging in to her policy view regarding Israel:
McCain had become emotional during the ABC talk show, discussing Omar’s recent criticisms of Israel and its supporters. She said Omar’s remarks were hurtful to many of her Jewish friends.
“It is very dangerous, very dangerous,” McCain added, “and I think we collectively as Americans on both sides, what Ilhan Omar is saying is very scary to me. It’s very scary to a lot of people and I don’t think you have to be Jewish to recognize that.”
But instead of responding directly to McCain, Omar retweeted a post that criticized McCain for “faux outrage” and referred to past statements attributed to McCain’s late father, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who died last August at age 81.
“Meghan’s late father literally sang ‘bomb bomb bomb Iran’ and insisted on referring to his Vietnamese captors as ‘g–ks’,” read the post by Medhi Hasan, an “Intercept” columnist and Al Jazeera host. “He also, lest we forget, gave the world Sarah Palin. So a little less faux outrage over a former-refugee-turned-freshman-representative pls.”
Omar’s retweet was praised by many of her followers as a sign that the freshman congresswoman was “standing up to the establishment.” But the retweet also attracted more negative attention to the Somali-born lawmaker, just hours after the U.S. House voted in favor of an anti-hate resolution that was initially inspired by the Minnesota Democrat.
That “anti-hate” resolution is another example of the increasingly radical nature of the Democrat Party, as they try to follow their secular humanist ideology all the way to its uninspiring conclusion. This resolution, which we have been following over the last several days, came into being.
Interestingly enough, but predictably as well, the resolution was deemed too “narrow” in its initial presentation, because it only specified speech against Jewish people as “condemned.” It expanded, to include Muslims.
It is also interesting, but predictable, that the resolution certainly did nothing to protect Christians from any sort of bigotry.
A newly published opinion piece, also from Fox News’ contributor Capri S Cafaro, appears to be following the liberal rule, but also the generally held American policy rule, that notes that Israel has always been supported by the United States and should remain supported. Here is some of that piece, with emphases added:
Support for Israel has never been a Democratic or Republican policy – it has always been an accepted American policy. It seems to me that House leadership, along with many veteran Democratic members, want to reaffirm the caucus’ traditional support of Israel.
However, newer and more progressive members appear to be pushing back on taking official action against Omar. The House Democrats need to move past this controversy and refocus on the important work of the American people. In order to do so, leadership must make some decisive moves, and fast.
In my opinion, Speaker Pelosi should remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She should then place a resolution on the floor that condemns anti-Semitic remarks and calls Rep. Omar out by name, just as was done in the case of Republican Steve King. But, Pelosi decided to take a different approach. Instead, she elected to proceed with a 7-page resolution condemning hate and bigotry against a wide range of minority groups…
As a former legislative leader at the state level, I know how hard it can be to try to keep a caucus united. I think this generic resolution was an attempt by House Leadership to keep the peace within the divided Democratic family while also trying to concurrently acknowledge the real issue that gave rise to this resolution in the first place.
The impetus was a slew of anti-Semitic comments made by Rep. Omar dating all the way back to 2012. These kinds of remarks have emerged as a pattern for Omar, just as bigoted comments have been identified as a pattern for Rep. Steve King spanning almost two decades in his public career. There is no place for intolerance and hateful speech about any group…
However, as we have noted in our earlier pieces, the recent comments coming from Ilhan Omar are not in themselves racist. They are simply strong criticisms of the power of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, and this issue has nothing to do with Jewish identity or prejudice. In fact, given the series of extremely poor policy decisions over the last several presidential and congressional terms, Omar may be the “wrong” person asking the “right” question.
She is the “wrong” person because her alignment with Islam is palpable. The constant head covering she wears sends a strong signal that she is serious about her identity. In this, honestly, she has an advantage over rank-and-file American politicians who prefer to appear bland or “middle of the road” to prove that they are relevant to all Americans.
The dangerous thing about this resolution is what it does not directly address for protection. While making two or three very vague references to Roman Catholicism or other Christian confessions, the main thrust of the document is represented thus:
Whereas white supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponized hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;
This is all very right and good that such people do not deserve violence done upon them for their mere existence. However, Jack Phillips, the Colorado Christian cake master chef who has so far suffered two severely debilitating legal and financial attacks on his business for his refusal to participate in actions he believes to be an affront against God, and people like him, white, Christian, conservative, and pro-family and pro-traditional values, are strangely not on this list, nor are they deemed worthy of specific note anywhere in this document.
For liberals, Christianity is a problem. While it is true that churches have been assaulted by extremists, as in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine worshippers were killed during a service, the emphases of the activist himself, and that of the political establishment was that the problem here was hatred of African-Americans – neé blacks, who probably in the liberals’ view are just too stupid and unenlightened to not be Christian, like the elite are.
Keep your Christianity in your church, President Obama is attributed to having said, showing that the attitude liberals have towards those who truly are regular people is one of contempt.
This resolution looks good and kind on the surface. And, as we expected, it passed by a very wide margin, simply because it does look good and kind and even moral. But it is not.
Violence against any person or group based on identity is wrong, because the first identity is that we are all human beings. But Martin Luther King has had his words unduly hijacked, and the content of a person’s character are never considered by either the extremists who are violent, nor the Democrats who unwittingly protect them through their continued censure of the normal.