Unethical Quote (And Tweet) Of The Month: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

The first reaction some had to this uniquely damning tweet is that Omar was suggesting to the Iranians that they attack the Trump organization hotels. Oh, who knows what her intent is. If it isn’t clear by now that Rep. Omar has greater loyalty to and regard for her Islamic faith and the nations that embrace it than she does for the country where she serves as an elected representative, I don’t know what more she could do or say.

It’s marvelously idiotic tweet. House member though she is, Omar doesn’t know what the emoluments clause means: the archaic Constitutional provision addresses foreign bribes, not potential conflicts of interest arising out of foreign threats. Moreover, if the President put his business interests over national interests, that would lead him to avoid taking action which might risk his business interests.

She does deserve credit for managing to come up with a false motivation for the President killing a vicious terrorist that is even more ridiculous that Elizabeth Warren’s “Wag the Dog” theory.

Omar is openly anti-Semitic, hostile to American interests, and appears to have the reasoning ability of a planarian. The Minnesota district that inflicted her on the nation is accountable for her pollution of the national discourse: there is no conceivable excuse for electing someone with her biases, proclivities, and lack of qualifications.

The Republicans had the sense and integrity to isolate Steve King for his repeated ugly statements evoking ignorance and bigotry. The Democrats should do the same with Omar, and if they do not, it will be fair to ask why. Either they endorse her vile lunacy, or they are too cowardly to risk accusations of being bigoted against Muslims, women, and “house members of color.”

 

23 thoughts on “Unethical Quote (And Tweet) Of The Month: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

  1. The Democrats should do the same with Omar, and if they do not, it will be fair to ask why.

    Jack, Jack, Jack. You’re kidding. She’s a superstar in the party. Along with the rest of the Squad. Cross her? Fat chance. The Democratic Party is a big tent. Commies? No problem. Radical Islamists? Come on in! Immigration scam artists? You bet!

    She’s also a sock puppet for the Social Democrats, as are AOC and Talib. They don’t think, they just read memos handed to them by their handlers. You can’t reason with a cardboard cut-out.

  2. Apparently Richard Spencer tweeted out that he now regrets his vote for Trump. I think that’s wonderful. Spencer is still a white supremacist, he still believes that mixed marriages dilute whiteness, he still wants a white ethnostate, he’s still every bit the douchenugget he was 5 minutes ago, but now he also hates Trump!

    You know what that means, right?

    Yup. Progressives are talking about him in amazingly nice terms, welcoming him into the fold. I’m not even kidding, Google the clip of Joy Behar talking about it on the view. An actual xenophobic, racist, white supremacist neo-nazi? That’s not nearly so important as a hatred of Trump.

    Bloody hell. At least it shows where their priorities are.

    • Loathed by Righty?

      An unobstructed path to unquestioned absolution has never been more easily traversed; just ask George Bush, his brother, the Koch Brothers, Mitt Romney, the late John McCain, Christianity Today, James Comey, etc., etc., etc.!

      It’s the freakin’ Theatre of the Absurd in real time.

    • Perhaps you have not been paying proper attention? Those who claimed to be Alt-Right — many at least — developed their doubts very quickly about Trump (and many said they had ‘jumped off the Trump train’).

      The hard-right Alt-Righters — let us say the ones that most incline toward the ‘fascist’ end of the Right-Conservative spectrum — at no time saw Trump as define ally. They saw him as an expedient: a vehicle from one point to another. The ‘real’ Dissident Right is profoundly suspicious of *systems* in much the same way that I am. They are generally speaking Anti-Liberal, a difficult angle to work in a present which is fundamentally underpinned by liberal presuppositions.

      Spencer is an odd one. He still can say many things that are accurate and true and yet, often, he burst out with some really twisted thing. For example the secret recording of him make by Milo during or right after the Charlottesville episode.

      Greg Johnson has constantly pointed out that Spencer is a loose cannon. Honestly, I don’t think that Spencer cares much to be a ‘leader’ and he often doesn’t seem to care when the things he says do damage. I think this is because he has his own money.

      More interesting in a way is that Ann Coulter states that she regrets that Trump has not made good on his promises.

      One other strong element here — it cannot be talked about on this Blog because *you-plural* are totally shut to it (and it is unwise on a responsible forum to have such discussions) — is that there is a strong anti- or counter-Jewish/Israeli trend in thinking which certainly permeates most of the *Alt-Right* and some of the Dissident Right.

      It has not pleased many who come from this orientation that Trump is so openly subservient to Israel and that standing behind Trump are some powerful Jewish-American figures. I grant that there are real and genuine antisemites — who hate or have contempt without realizing that they are possessed by a psychological projection — but there is a very coherent argument that criticizes the Israeli state influence over American policy, and thus of powerful Jewish American figures.

      It is believed (I think it has strong elements of truth) that these forever wars were sponsored by Jewish Neoconservatives who are strongly Zionist in collusion (or simply *cooperation*) with Evangelical Christian Zionists. A strange marriage.

      I think that ‘in the end’ Trump can now largely be seen as ‘serving the traditional Republican agenda’. These kinds of political games always require and take place within strong binaries. There is something that seems to me to be very manipulating and (to some degree?) planned. Certain factions in America want certain things and are willing to play within chaotic conditions — they seem to know how to use chaos — to achieve their objectives.

      Progressives are talking about him in amazingly nice terms, welcoming him into the fold. I’m not even kidding, Google the clip of Joy Behar talking about it on the view. An actual xenophobic, racist, white supremacist neo-nazi? That’s not nearly so important as a hatred of Trump.

      You definitely have not been paying attention. There have circulated numerous videos and even short documentaries where the former Klansman or Nazi or youth who went down the Alt-Right Rabbit Hole, then comes to see the error of his (always male) ways. There is a quite interesting one where an ex-Clan member (allied to a Klan group that manufactured meth to finance its operations) has a meeting with Nick Fuentes!

      You, my dear Humilem Ingenii, are inhibited in your *seeing* because you are a near total ‘progressive’ and have no connection, of any sort, with any genuine ‘conservative’ ideas. So, any idea and any precept of the *genuine* conservative sort, is seen as fringe radicalism of an evil sort.

      • None of this actually engages with my point; which was an example of my ongoing theme of “Progressives have no principles”. I’m saying that Richard Spencer holds every single view he held before announcing his regret of voting for Trump, views that progressives say, ostensibly, are anathema to them, but they’re still having these “hallelujah, he’s seen the light” reactions to this. Apparently Trump is too white supremacist for the white supremacists, or something. Their cognitive bias against Trump is stronger than their stated principles. I can’t think of a better way to put that into stark relief.

        Your point seems to be that Spencer is Johnny-Come-Lately to the alt-right dislike of Trump, and that there might be good reasons for someone like his to dislike Trump. Ok? I mean, of course you would say that, but that doesn’t really effect what I’m saying, it’s just defensive because you see too much of yourself in a person I labelled a douchenugget. Don’t worry, I think poorly of both of you!

        • To be truthful & honest: my approach is often not to speak directly to the *point* which as you know I often regard as the more superficial aspect, and I try to expand issues to what seems to me the most important.

          For example, you speak of *principles* — you! and also *you-plural* (that *you-too* means a multitude, or the commonality, a generality) — and this means that you imagine that you subsist within principles. You can discern them. You imply that you value them. But you see what I notice is that right alongside Spencer’s compromised principles — and I genuinely & honestly think that he is of discredited value as we attempt to define *proper principles* in this twisted present — I read every day people who seem, in other areas, similarly compromised.

          Therefore, I expand the issue to a larger question: How has it come about that principles have been so compromised? But that of course turns back on the question of What principles should be held to? and of course defined as principles.

          See, Spencer is entirely principled when he makes a statement based on the realization that certainly in America but increasingly in Europe the original populations have been ‘dispossessed’. I know something of his intellectual trajectory. He is a strange man, not one who can be relied on, and yet he made serious efforts to ascertain *genuine principles*.

          That notion of dispossession leads into a great number of other important issues and questions such as What is mine (ours)? And what must I defend? and Why? Now, in our present, what is happening, and what must continue to happen, is the stifling and the repression of certain ideas, based in sound principles (R. Camus refers to them as basic moral notions), which cannot be allowed to establish a foundation in the way people think. You for example serve this ‘repression’ with your full intellectual force and you do it through emotional *arguments*. If your name-calling doesn’t work you decline to talk.(“I’m not talking to you anymore!” more girlish . . . than a girl!)

          Literally, these interrogations (about dispossession and all ramifications) go on & on & on. And you show through your discourse that you have NO relationship to these concerns. And out of that negligence you wish to assert to me that you have principles? Are you joking?

          But why is this? How has this come about that you, HT, and *you-plural* (a larger generality of compromised groupthinkers) have become so convinced that your various views that cannot recognize and defend a core principle, indeed that to do so indicates an *evil turn*, that you must strike down, in one way or another, those who attempt to establish or to reestablish a value and a principle? The forces that act on you are myriad.

          So that is just one issue. There are numerous others.

          So what I am attempting — and I do appreciate nevertheless that you have a project you work on through your discourse (“my ongoing theme” you said) — to look at what you and *you* say and take it apart when it seems important to do so. The object: to define and defend ethical principles.

          Don’t worry, I think poorly of both of you!

          Sure, you can say that, but you cannot — and you have not — in a straightforward fair conversation succeed in defeating the arguments I make. All that you have ever done, my dear child, is call me names in one way or another. You do exactly what your dreaded ‘progressives’ do: try to defeat their enemies with emotionalized characterizations. If you had to actually debate principles ideas, you would be devastated.

          So now I am going to present a kind of *argument* which has become popular in our age. It is an *argument* made through a video presentation to highlight a specific ‘principle’ (or set of them) which are no longer respected as principles. It is not the most ideal way to present ideas, but we have to wrk with what lies to hand!

          It is fun to consider difficult ideas, and it is also a moral & ethical imperative.

    • Progressives are talking about him in amazingly nice terms, welcoming him into the fold.

      They did not ‘welcome him into the fold’, you nut! She simply notes, for her own reasons, that Spencer sent out a message that he regretted voting for Trump because of this attack on Iran.

      • I used The View as an example because I thought it would be the most searchable, and I don’t think that anyone can watch that clip and not note the glee that Joy emits while saying it, and the people around her seem very satisfied as well. If you want people that are actually happy that Spencer has “flipped” to “their side”, take a dive through the cesspool that is Twitter. I know Twitter isn’t necessarily representative, but the sentiment isn’t rare.

        • I used The View as an example because I thought it would be the most searchable, and I don’t think that anyone can watch that clip and not note the glee that Joy emits while saying it, and the people around her seem very satisfied as well. If you want people that are actually happy that Spencer has “flipped” to “their side”, take a dive through the cesspool that is Twitter. I know Twitter isn’t necessarily representative, but the sentiment isn’t rare.

          When she mentions Spencer someone there says “Oh, the lunatic!” And here — speaking of this Blog and a set of people ensconces within a perception-set — very similar terms are used to describe, label and dismiss ideas that are incomprehensible, and moralizing which has been made to seem as Satan’s Breath.

          In this marvelous Perverse Center that you define — that you HT inhabit — there are scary & spooky creatures on each side of you. If a ‘progressive’ came over to your pseudo-conservatism I assume you would similarly exult? You are non-different because you and *you-plural* are complete progressives. There is not one among you that has not drank down that elixir. The odd thing is that though now you are seen as reprobates the positions you defend are what the Left-Progressives of just a few years ago defended!

          You have become ‘conservatives’ not by a strict holding to genuine principles, but simply because the former Progressives decamped to more radical — and inevitable — forms of ‘progressive ideology’.

          You.literally.have.no.anchor! If you could define an ‘anchor’ you could begin to define genuine principles, not merely those that drain into your grey matter from the telescreen CBC . . .

          And yet I love you and want only to help you. 🙂

          • The problem, I think, at this point, isn’t that there are things-that-cannot-be-said, like you so often lament, it’s that you’ve said it, repeatedly, and no one cares, because we think you’re wrong. This isn’t an information gap. No one is keeping you from saying anything on here, as demonstrated by wall after wall of only semi-coherent text. It’s just really unconvincing. And I think you know that. You seem more content to complain that you can’t discuss issues than you would be in actually discussing them, because when anyone asks you to actually define your terms, or say plainly what you’d like to say, you demure, or pivot completely to your next pet project you can only talk about in veiled terms, or barf out a meaningless word jumble that I doubt even you, ostensibly having written it, could parse.

            Nothing you said here in new. Nothing is particularly intelligent. Most of it is wrong… And I can’t explain to you why it’s wrong, not because I couldn’t put it into words, but because you have literally no capacity to take in information that doesn’t adhere to your worldview, which is incredibly stunted.

            It’s funny, I’ve been following Jack’s saga with Walt, and I’ve read Walt’s entire website now, not because I agree with a thing that Walt says, but because it’s fascinating to get a glimpse into a mind that unwell. You remind me of him, not only in your dogged adherence to facts that exist only in your head, but also in the way you comment, and the syntax and stresses you use. It’s especially interesting seeing as how you’re ESL and as far as I can tell, Walt is not. It’s like whatever is wrong with the two of you superseded linguistic bounds.

            Alizia… I’m about to say something to you, that I want you to understand doesn’t come from a place of love, but maybe of concern, I’m not saying this to score point, I’m not saying this to virtue signal, but I really think you should consider seeking help. For what it’s worth.

            • That is a profound piece of writing HT. The psychological screws really capped it off! And when you said “Alizia… I’m about to say something to you” my heart dropped.

              I’ve got the phone book out as I write! I’ll find my psychological savior and . . . report back soon.

  3. One of my Lefty Facebook friends has already posted about a new source of oil found in Iran in November of 2019, the implication being that this is what Trump is after. Why do they always point to the oil?

  4. ” there is no conceivable excuse for electing someone with her biases, proclivities, and lack of qualifications.”

    What are you talking about? She hit 3 out of 4 features that give her head-of-the-line privileges for election to a democrat seat.

  5. I’m surprised we have yet to hear from any planarians. Surely they are shamed, and maybe angered, for having their reasoning ability lowered to the level of Representative Omar.

  6. Well, you just can’t start down that path. I man, if the Democrats dissociated themselves from her, they also would have to dissociate themselves from Rashida Tliab. Where do you stop? I mean, people might start questioning some of these Democrats.

    Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters who both benefitted greatly from the subprime mortgage crisis.
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pelosi-corzine-visa-scandal/

    Adam Schiff, as head of the intelligence committee, said he had evidence that President Trump altered the election results with Russian help.
    Cory Booker smuggled 5 illegal immigrants into the country in July 2019.
    Julian Castro smuggled a dozen gay, lesbian, and disabled illegal immigrants on Oct 7, 2019.
    Jerry Nadler, who may have used taxpayer money and his position to fund a personal vendetta.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ive-been-battling-nadler-for-years-feud-between-trump-democrat-rooted-in-decades-old-new-york-real-estate-project/2019/04/08/1c848f7e-57af-11e9-a047-748657a0a9d1_story.html

    I mean, would there be any left?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.