Tucker Carlson Is Absolutely Right About Ilhan Omar

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  37 comments

By:   David Harsanyi

Tucker Carlson Is Absolutely Right About Ilhan Omar
As philosophical matter, though, Omar isn’t the kind of immigrant we should want. That’s not because she is Muslim or black, but because she doesn’t believe in the traditional ideas that define American life. And she shouldn’t be immune from criticism merely because of her background.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Americans are constantly being lectured that good citizenship isn’t contingent on skin color, faith, or ethnicity, but a set of beliefs. Yet whenever anyone is critical of the ugly things someone like Ilhan Omar   says , they are immediately battered for being xenophobes and   racists . You can’t have it both ways.

I mean, you can try. Nearly the entire contemporary progressive argument is girded by identity grievances. So when Fox News’s Tucker Carlson gives a   monologue , in which he concludes that Omar was “living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country,” the reaction is predictable.

As philosophical matter, though, Omar isn’t the kind of immigrant we should want.  That’s not because she is Muslim or black, but because she doesn’t believe in the traditional ideas that define American life. And she shouldn’t be immune from criticism merely because of her background.

When my parents came to the United States as refugees in 1968, for instance, they were asked to renounce communism—because collectivism, like Islamism or fascism or any authoritarianism, is antithetical to American principles. Any newcomers in 1968 who believed the United States was guilty of crimes against the proletariat, and praised Pol Pot or Castro, would not have been a quality immigrant.

This is one reason we still give newcomers citizenship tests. We want them not only to comprehend our foundational ideas, but to adopt them. Whether or not this nation consistently lives up to those values (far from it) is irrelevant. There’s no country in human history born without sin. Yet only Americans are asked to engage in daily acts of contrition for their past.
Notwithstanding the  pathetic self-flagellation  we see from historical revisionists like Beto O’Rourke and Omar, most immigrants surely understand that our mitzvahs outweigh our sins, and then some. Most wouldn’t be here otherwise.

The concepts that allowed all of that to happen were codified by the American Founders, not by the 1900s progressives or the Obama administration or Megan Rapinoe. Diversity is nice, but it’s not our “strength.” Activism itself is no act of patriotism. Being an immigrant or gay isn’t a manifestation of American idealism. Prospering under a system that values the individual liberty of all citizens is.

Some people might have you believe their partisan hobbyhorses—like “ economic patriotism ,” for example—are American ideals. They aren’t. Having the right to   protect   yourself, your family, and your property without asking permission from the state is an American ideal. Religious freedom is an America ideal. Being able to live life without being   coerced   to participate in   groupthink   is an American ideal. Uninhibited free expression is an American ideal. The right of communities to live without being impelled by a majoritarian democracy to adopt centralized policies is central tenet of American governance.

Social mores change. Not our core governing principles. Now, you may find all this eye-rolling earnestness both antiquated and puerile, which seems to be the case with Omar and most of her progressive allies. But then you have a new set of principles you want to enact, not the traditional ones some of us want to preserve.

When Carlson argues that the very fact Omar — a refugee from one of the most violent places on Earth, Somalia — can rise to become, at only 36, one of the most famous members of Congress is the best argument against her critique of America, he has good point. Omar has more influence than 99 percent of her co-citizens. She is a testament to an open and free society. Her words are not.

Believing that the United States is   defined   by racism and economic injustice doesn’t make Omar a bad immigrant, only a silly human being. Importing anti-Semitic beliefs   from the broader Islamic world , on the other hand, makes her an unassimilated American.

Being critical of foreign intervention doesn’t make Omar un-American, but talking about servicemen who sacrificed their lives fighting Somalian warlords at Battle of Mogadishu   as if they were terrorists   does. In the same way, dismissing the Islamic extremists who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11   as   “some people who did something”—because it’s “Islamophobic” to point out facts—makes her ungrateful.

Now, I disagree with Carlson’s broad contention about the value of immigration. My empirical view—one which I gained partly from being the child of immigrants and partly living in a neighborhood filled with newcomers who, although they possess a range of political opinions, are both grateful and decent—is that, on the whole, liberal immigration adds much to American life. There is plenty of data that backs this view. That doesn’t mean all immigrants are exemplars of patriotism.

Nowhere in the Constitution are we asked to let everyone in world enter this country. Yet we have   the largest percentage of immigrants in the world , with more than 40 million people living here right now who were born elsewhere. The United States, allegedly steeped in the white supremacist ideology of the nefarious founding, has been more welcoming to strangers than any nation in the world, and it’s not even close.


With so many people coming here, it is within the purview of the citizenry to make decisions about who enters and who doesn’t. And it is perfectly legitimate—although probably not very practical—for us to try and discern what ideological baggage is brought with them.

Certainly there is nothing “nauseatingly racist” about bring critical of Omar, or pondering the potential downsides of mass immigration. This lazy smear so overused it’s become virtually meaningless. (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez recently   insinuated   that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a racist for criticizing her.) And not just by politicians, but pundits, as well.

At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf   claims   that Carlson suggested “that because Omar came here as a child, she doesn’t have the right to voice critical opinions about America.” You can read the Fox News host’s comments yourself, but nowhere does he propose anything of the sort. What does seem to be happening, though, is that some people are given special dispensation from criticism and debate. And that is a genuinely un-American idea.

headshot4-001.jpg


David Harsanyi is a former Senior Editor at The Federalist.

Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

I'm surprised that Omar wasn't at Soleimani's funeral.


Rules of civility apply

Trump is completely off topic

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Most likely because even Iran did not want her there! Even as a Muslim, she's too westernized for their taste. She probably would have if she thought she could get away with it though.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    one month ago
Most likely because even Iran did not want her there! Even as a Muslim

I'm sure the regime is stunned to receive an apology from Rose McGowen:

"Dear # Iran , The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us". .....Rose McGowen

Right now Iranian officials are probably googling Rose McGowen, only to find a picture of her on a red carpet wearing what amounts to a G-string.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

I have two words for the bitch:

FUCK YOU.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
1.1.3  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    one month ago

They would have stoned her for her infidelity if she went there.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one month ago

Why are you being so nice?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Rules of civility apply

Seems you already blew civility out of the water with your first statement.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @1.2    one month ago

For calling an Islamist extremist an Islamist extremist?

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one month ago

The leftist, liberal, antiAmerican, antiTrumpers are very thin skinned when it comes to their own.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.3  MUVA  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.2    one month ago

Rice paper thin some are.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    one month ago
In the same way, dismissing the Islamic extremists who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 as “some people who did something”—because it’s “Islamophobic” to point out facts—makes her ungrateful.

If the writer of the article is an intelligent well informed person he knows that Omar's comment about "some people who did something" has been taken out of context and misrepresented as a "dismissal" of the 9/11 attacks.  

I'll give you what I think is a pretty good analogy.  A white guy ran a bunch of people over with a car at Charlottesville, killling one of them.  If all whites were being blamed for this crime, and someone defending white people said something like 

" we shouldn't all be blamed for something that was done by one guy".

That is exactly the same sort of context as what Omar said about "some people". 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
That is exactly the same sort of context as what Omar said about "some people". 

It goes with the territory. If progressives can blame all Germans, all Brits, all Christians and all whites for past transgressions than so it goes for Muslims. Don't like how the cake turned out, then you shouldn't have baked it the way you did.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

So you admit you are distorting what she said. We are making progress Vic !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one month ago
So you admit you are distorting what she said.

I made no such admission. I was simply examining your logic. Can you defend what you said? So many times Omar has used the exact same rhetoric as Islamist extremists that it's hard not to think of her as one. Taking her collective statements together, I doubt she was simply saying that there were a few bad guys who don't represent most Muslims.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one month ago

How about this:

Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has been holding a series of secret fundraisers with groups that have been tied to the support of terrorism, appearances that have been closed to the press and hidden from public view.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/omar-holding-secret-fundraisers-with-islamic-groups-tied-to-terror/


Thoughts?


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago

Well Vic, It appears we have an Islamist extremist serving in the House of Representatives. Who should we thank?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
If the writer of the article is an intelligent well informed person he knows that Omar's comment about "some people who did something" has been taken out of context and misrepresented as a "dismissal" of the 9/11 attacks.  

And what was the context?  Omar was attempting to portray Muslims as victims of the September 11 attack while ignoring that the Muslim community in the United States harbors terrorists.  Omar was attempting to create a false narrative that Muslims are being treated as the Jews were treated during the holocaust.  That just ain't so.

CAIR was founded following the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.  Some people did something but failed.  From its inception CAIR has been an apologist for Islamic terrorism.  However, CAIR isn't defending the Muslim equivalent of Jews; CAIR is defending the Muslim equivalent of Nazis.

So, explain Omar's context.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    one month ago

Well said! Excellent question. I'll speak for all who are reading this - we await the answer to that question. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    one month ago
So, explain Omar's context

I already did. 

I'll give you what I think is a pretty good analogy.  A white guy ran a bunch of people over with a car at Charlottesville, killling one of them.  If all whites were being blamed for this crime, and someone defending white people said something like 

" we shouldn't all be blamed for something that was done by one guy".

That is exactly the same sort of context as what Omar said about "some people". 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago
I'll give you what I think is a pretty good analogy.  A white guy ran a bunch of people over with a car at Charlottesville, killling one of them.  If all whites were being blamed for this crime, and someone defending white people said something like 

" we shouldn't all be blamed for something that was done by one guy".

That is exactly the same sort of context as what Omar said about "some people". 

Omar should have been able to phrase it better, but in the context of the rest of her paragraph there was nothing wrong with her comment. She was saying that islamophobia was blaming every Muslim for what happened on 9/11. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    one month ago
I'll give you what I think is a pretty good analogy.  A white guy ran a bunch of people over with a car at Charlottesville, killling one of them.  If all whites were being blamed for this crime, and someone defending white people said something like 
" we shouldn't all be blamed for something that was done by one guy".

So, Trump was excoriated for doing exactly what CAIR does?  Ilhan Omar was only emulating Trump?  That 'pretty good analogy' doesn't pass the smell test.

Ilhan Omar's context isn't the same as Trump's context.  Trump didn't try to portray white nationalists as victims and provide a justification for white nationalists to fight back.  Omar was calling on Muslims to confront those questioning the political ideology of Islam.

Trump didn't try to rally white nationalists, even though that was the claim, but Omar was deliberately trying to rally Muslims to fight.  Omar's speech was not a 'pity party'; it was a call to action.  A better analogy in the context of Omar's speech would be:  "Somebody did something and we should fight back against those who blame us."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    one month ago
Omar should have been able to phrase it better,

Just like when she speaks of Jews or America

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.4    one month ago

I never mentioned Trump. 

My analogy was speculative.  Omar was saying that it isnt fair for all Muslims to be blamed for what was done by one or a few.  When you read her entire comment that is obviously what it was about. She wasnt saying that 9/11 wasnt a big deal. 

To say that she was is dishonesty or ignorance. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    one month ago
I never mentioned Trump. 

No, you mentioned Charlottesville and referred to a white guy running a bunch of people over.  But it wasn't just a white guy, was it?

Trump is a political figure that addressed what happened in Charlottesville.  Ilhan Omar is a political figure that addressed what happened on September 11.  But the comparative context ends there.

My analogy was speculative.  Omar was saying that it isnt fair for all Muslims to be blamed for what was done by one or a few.  When you read her entire comment that is obviously what it was about. She wasnt saying that 9/11 wasnt a big deal. 

Ilhan Omar's 20 minute speech to CAIR on March 23, 2019, wasn't speculative.  And her speech covered a lot more than just a single paragraph taken out of context.  Omar's speech is consistent with totalitarian ideology; filled with claims of being victimized and justified to fight back and protect that totalitarian ideology.   Omar is defending a political ideology that defies critical scrutiny.  

Islam isn't even a religion, let alone a religion of peace.  Islam is a political ideology that pursues the geopolitical objective of capturing and occupying territory.  Islam is as much a religion as was Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.4    one month ago

My comment had no relation to Trump, but you keep bringing him up.  Talk to yourself. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.9  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.8    one month ago
My comment had no relation to Trump, but you keep bringing him up.  Talk to yourself

No, you did not mention Trump.  I brought Trump into the discussion because the comparison between Trump and Omar would be enlightening and informative.

Quite the quandary isn't it?  Supporting one while opposing the other requires squaring the circle.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.9    one month ago

Well, I guess you are allowed to make any irrelevant, puzzling comment you want. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.2.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.5    one month ago

The word that comes to mind is apologist.

 
 
 
arkpdx
2.3  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

BULLPUCKY!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

This just in: " Government website altered to show pro-Iran message and photo of bloodied Trump in apparent hack :

ENiTjORX0AIDWMv?format=jpg&name=small

“We are aware the website of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was defaced with pro-Iranian, anti-US messaging. At this time, there is no confirmation that this was the action of Iranian state-sponsored actors. The website was taken off line and is no longer accessible,” the CISA spokesperson said."

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476837-government-website-altered-to-show-pro-iran-message-and-photo-of-bloodied?__twitter_impression=true

Iranian hackers or progressives?   My money is on the dangerous progressives.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.1  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

Same difference based on response to the terrorist mastermind being taken out by America.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago
 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    one month ago
Iran abandons nuclear deal

People are ignoring that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was temporary.  JCPOA was intended to be in force for only 15 years.  Iran didn't agree to any sort of permanent limitations.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.2  arkpdx  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    one month ago

You mean the one they were ignoring anyway?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    one month ago

I have serious doubts that Iran ever really abided by it anyway. Iran has had decades of playing shell games with their nuclear program.

 
 
 
WallyW
5  WallyW    one month ago
stg010220dAPR20200101094516.jpg
 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    one month ago

Tucker Carlson has never been right about anything.

Ilhan Omar is a greater American patriot than the right wing sycophants have ever been.

This seed is slanderous propaganda of the worst sorts.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Donald J. Trump fan 1
Wheel
Sparty On
igknorantzrulz
PJ
Tacos!


57 visitors