Ilhan Omar Happened Because Media Chose to Lie to You
Three years ago, most American newsrooms picked Ilhan Omar -- despite her crawling Jew-hatred and evidence of an extensive criminal past -- to be the transcendent face America needed to fight bigotry and federal corruption. Reporters apparently chose to lie about Omar to help birth a more trusting country.
Perfectly irrational idiocy. Legacy newsmedia, decayed, perhaps brought itself final ruin by getting exactly what it wanted.
The first Somali-born woman and the first female Muslim to be elected to a U.S. statehouse, Ilhan Omar defeated 44-year incumbent Phyllis Kahn in the Democrat-Farmer-Labor primary for Minnesota House District 60B in 2016. A former child refugee from civil war, Omar was perceived as a best-case image for shepherding progressive causes against President Trump. Ilhan Omar’s individual character, however, was openly trending towards worst-case.
She had written anti-Semitic statements indistinguishable from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. She had disturbing associations with Islamic terror-tied groups. Sources within the Minneapolis Somali community presented evidence, including a video, of the “East Africa Team” members of Ilhan Omar’s campaign openly threatening local Somalis who may have released negative information about her.
Then came the harder evidence of corruption: Publicly available state records, viewed along with her own confirmed, time-stamped social media posts, suggested a breathtaking spree of state and federal felonies.
The social media posts, visible to anyone who cared to investigate, were rapidly being deleted from Omar’s confirmed accounts.
Best-case image, worst-case character: Would legacy outlets publish the facts, then chase more? While self-righteously condemning Trump’s “fake news” jab, would editorial decision-makers see an illusory greater good in faking it?