Ilhan Omar can’t stay out the news, namely because she can’t stop saying racist, offensive things. Whether it was her multiple anti-Semitic outbursts, her yucking it up about Al Qaeda, or the most recent example where she describes 9/11 as just “some people did something.”

She even once wrote a letter asking for an ISIS member to not be put in prison because he simply made a mistake choosing violence to “combat direct marginalization.” In other words, the terrorist was actually the original victim in her eyes. It’s pretty shocking stuff.

I’m finding it harder and harder to not make assumptions about her wold-view and sympathies at this point, although I know that’s still somewhat taboo, even among conservative circles.

In response to Omar’s latest comments on 9/11, she and her defenders have gotten the talking points and are pushing back in one voice

Neontaster on Twitter gives a great compilation of all the like minded speak going on.

You know what Donald Trump’s grave encouragement of violence was? He posted Omar’s own words and said “we won’t forget,” talking about 9/11. The horror of it all.

There are over a dozen more examples like the above than I won’t embed here but you can find the rest on neontaster’s feed.

This is dangerous. The idea that valid criticism of someone’s bad behavior is now the same as calling for violence against them is illiberal nonsense. It’s simply attempting to shut down speech. If Democrats don’t like something a Republican says, they can just say their criticisms “put their life in danger.”

Furthermore, if you say that someone’s speech is violence, then you are actually calling for violence against that person. After all, if you claim someone is committing violence against another, that promotes a violent response. That’s the slippery slope Democrats are rushing down. Who’s to say a conservative speaker being shot isn’t justified by this crazy logic? The shooter would just be stopping someone from committing violence, right?

Of course, we know that’s insane to suggest, but it’s the logical next step to the Democrat push to promote political speech as physically harmful.

Dave Reaboi had a good response on this earlier today.

If speech is violence, there can be no free speech. It is essentially made null and void. There can be no social cohesion or compact in which verbal disagreements are painted as violent action. If that’s where we are, we might as well start the paper work for our national divorce. Otherwise, you end up in open conflict.

It’s astonishing to me that the media, the great firefighters of the 1st amendment, aren’t standing up to this. Instead they huddle around AOC (and others) with doe eyes and recorders just taking it all in and nodding along like sheep. In fact, I fully expect CNN and MSNBC to load their primetime lineups with segments defending the idea that speech is violence during the coming week.

I’ll also note that the Democrat reaction here is completely hypocritical. Donald Trump, and Republicans in general, are savaged rhetorically every single day. Never have Democrats suggested their outrageous comments, including accusing the President of being a Russian plant, were dangerous or put Trump’s life in danger. They want this new standard to only go one way and it can not stand.

There are some things more important than petty politics. This is one of those things. What we are hearing from the left on speech is profoundly dangerous to the very basis of the country and must be rebutted in whatever way possible. This is also another reason why 2020 is so important. Any “conservative” still saying they are going to vote for a Democrat to protest Trump is endorsing this stuff and they deserve to reap the consequences.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.