Connect with us

Culture and Religion

History, sentiment, and words all mean something, Ilhan Omar

Published

on

History sentiment and words all mean something Ilhan Omar

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has found herself in the middle of controversy for the umpteenth time since taking office forever ago (it’s only been three months but seems much longer). This time, she referred to the radical Islamic terrorist attacks on 9/11 as “some people did something.” Patriots around the nation have reacted negatively, oftentimes regardless of their political affiliation. Leftist media is characterizing it as strictly conservatives who are upset, but I haven’t seen much support for her from the left other than attacks on the criticism she’s receiving.

In other words, the left seems to be focused on condemning the right’s response rather than defending Omar’s words.

People on both sides of the political aisle often say “words matter.” This is true, and I’d like to add two more things that matter in context of what Omar said. History and sentiment both matter as well. These three elements are why she is unfit to serve in Washington DC as an elected official. Let me explain…

History Matters

There are two types of history at play when we look at Omar’s statement. The first is our nation’s recent history just before, during, and ever since the 9/11 attacks. The attack obviously couldn’t be classified as some people doing something. That’s like saying the moment Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon for the first time was a guy getting out of his vehicle.

There’s a theme to this that I’ll also discuss in the next two points. That theme is the extremely precise and conspicuous phrasing she used. “Some people did something” does not match what American history books say, but it matches what those opposed to America itself would want us to remember.

The second is Omar’s history itself. It’s not like this was Senator Chuck Schumer or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who have decades of their own history without being either antisemitic or pro-terrorism. Omar’s history, as brief as it has been in politics, is loaded with anti-American, antisemitic, and pro-Islamic comments. Some would say there’s nothing wrong with being pro-Islamic, and I would agree, but her history within Islam is not one that demonstrates the kindness and peace-loving nature of the vast majority of Muslims. Her public history with Islam has been to support organizations and leaders who embrace sharia law and oppose the American way of life. While falling just shy of supporting radical Islam, her history is not one without controversy as it pertains to her faith and how it’s to be spread to the rest of the world.

Sentiment Matters

This point needs very little explanation. Omar’s sentiment as it pertains to America, Israel, Islam, Republicans, conservatives, and patriots has been crystal clear since her political career began. Her statement about 9/11 matches that sentiment perfectly.

To most Americans, 9/11 was the most significant and life-changing event that has happened in the United States in at least half-a-century. It was a terrorist attack perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists who believed they were obeying the Quran perfectly by taking as many American lives as possible, striking the heart of our economic system in New York, our defense system at the Pentagon, and nearly the seat of our government itself with flight 93.

The sentiment of her statement matched the sentiment of any statement she makes about Islam. She is extremely harsh when denouncing terrorism in general, which is what many on the left latch onto and say, “See, she’s denouncing terrorism!” But here’s the thing. When it’s specifically radical Islamic terrorism, her sentiment is toned down completely. It’s just some people that did something.

Words Matter

Let’s look at the words and the context behind them.

She was speaking at an event hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations where she is heralded as a great accomplishment of their efforts. This is important because the audience was her religious peers.

“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar said.

In reality, CAIR was founded seven years earlier, but 9/11 was the gateway through which they were able to grow in both numbers and influence.

But words matter. She chose those precise words to characterize the tragic event because to characterize the terrorist attacks in a negative way would go against Islam itself. Most Muslims in America unflinchingly denounce the terrorist attacks, but most Muslims in America do not speak at CAIR events. Most Muslims in America are not looked upon to spread the Islamic message through the halls of government. For her to publicly discuss the attacks using words that seemed to denounce them would be a betrayal to her faith.

Words matter, and the words Omar selected to characterize 9/11 were the exact words with the exact meaning she intended to deliver to her audience at the time and any in the world who would listen.

Conclusion

The spin game is in full swing to try to paint Ilhan Omar as a victim of right-wing bigotry. This is all subterfuge. Her choice or words was precise and intentional. She clearly does not view the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a bad thing.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

The false narratives behind Portland’s Antifa versus Proud Boys

Published

on

The false narratives behind Portlands Antifa versus Proud Boys

Depending on which news outlets you use, there are two primary narratives that are being pushed. Narrative one is, “Far-right group and Antifa clash in Portland.” Narrative two is, “Antifa gets violent. Again.”

The first narrative is what you’ll get from progressive legacy media outlets as they offer cover for the violence being perpetrated almost exclusively by Antifa as they clash with the Proud Boys. The latter is being classified as a “far-right” group, but they’re actually more of an “alt-right” group that does not believe in true conservative principles. Nevertheless, anything “right” is painted by the media as part of the conservative movement, the GOP, and President Trump’s base. This is important to understand because in the narrative the left is painting, their goal is to make the Proud Boys appear to be white supremacist and therefore attached to President Trump because according to their latest agenda, they have to portray him as a racist at every turn.

The second narrative is the reality, and you won’t find it reported this way by many news outlets, even on the right. There’s a disassociation some publications are actively engaged in where they believe reporting that seems to favor the Proud Boys makes the news outlet seem like it’s supporting white supremacy. This is the progressive propaganda machine at work; even conservative journalists are hesitant to lose credibility over perceptions.

Quillette journalist Angy Ngo is reporting live on Twitter. We’ll try to update it as he adds more:

As you can see from Ngo’s reporting, the violence seems to be undertaken exclusively by Antifa. But legacy media will only report it as clashes “between” the two groups and not as violence instigated solely by the side that holds the left’s progressive mantle. All of this is secondary to the overarching narrative they’re driving, that the Proud Boys represent the right and their white supremacy beliefs are defended by the President.

On cue, the President chimed in:

The left pounced, as they’re wont to do, by saying this is evidence the President is sympathetic to the Proud Boys because he singled out Antifa in a “mutual” conflict. What they won’t tell you is Antifa is starting the fights. They’re bringing the weapons. They’re pepper-spraying people. They’re attacking buses. One does not have to believe in the Proud Boys’ rhetoric to realize Antifa is instigating violence here.

As Beth Baumann reported, even journalists are being targeted:

So Much For Being ‘Peaceful’: Antifa Attacks Reporters And Conservatives In Portland (Again)

Not quite seven weeks ago, conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked while covering an Antifa protest in Portland, Oregon. Mayor Tom Wheeler ordered police to stand down at the time and received backlash for doing so. The city prepared for the Proud Boys to hold a rally on Saturday, with Antifa showing up to counter protest. Wheeler made it clear that Portland is taking a “zero tolerance” policy during Saturday’s activities.

Despite the warning, Antifa, once again, became violent.

At one point, Antifa protestors had The Washington Examiner‘s Julio Rosas surrounded. They wanted him to report on what was taking place from the other side of the street because he “wasn’t with” them.

Rosas attempted to explain that he was simply reporting on the events for his job but Antifa didn’t care. They thought he was “spying” on them.

The irony in all of this has become a recurring theme between Antifa and their supporters in progressive media and the Democratic Party. They claim Antifa is simply “anti-fascist” while ignoring the fact that they’re the ones using fascism to promote their ideas and to quash opposing ideas. Reports on the ground in Portland demonstrate this clearly.

Here are Rosas’s Twitter reports:

The left’s narratives: (1) Proud Boys and Antifa are equally to blame, (2) Proud Boys are white supremacists while Antifa are anti-fascists, and (3) President Trump support white supremacists. Don’t believe the lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque: report

Published

on

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque report

Wahhabism, the anti-American fundamentalist Islamic sect that drives the religious culture in Saudi Arabia, has as one of its stated goals to spread their beliefs around the world through any means necessary. Mosques promoting their radical ideology have been popping up across America over the last few years, including in Philadelphia. Alleged cop-shooter Maurice Hill attended one of them.

According to Clarion Project:

The mosque, called Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as “Wahhabism.”

Clarion Intelligence Network has been aware through its sources that the area where the shootings took place is known for trafficking in guns, drugs and counterfeit items. This criminal market has a strong Islamist element that includes extremist gangs.

Hill’s older sister said he “occasionally attended” an unnamed mosque, confirming initial reports from our sources that Hill is a Muslim. The sources do not yet have first-hand evidence of the shooter being personally involved in Islamist extremism.

Clarion Intel’s sources report that Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar is a Salafi mosque which follows the theocratic teachings of Saudi Arabia’s top Wahhabist scholars.

At this point, there is no indication that Hill’s shooting of police officers was motivated by Islamism or anything other than a desire to resist arrest.

Today, a march was scheduled to “Free Maurice Hill” by Black Community Control of Police, a group adamantly opposed to law enforcement. There are no indications the group is aligned with Masjid Ahlil Hadeeth Wal Athar, but it is a common practice among radical Islamic groups to disguise their associations and operate apparently independent from one another.

The details surrounding the gunfight seem to indicate it was not prompted by Wahhabism as Hill was apparently approached as a result of a separate warrant enforced against a neighbor. But the clear disregard for police authority and the willingness to attempt to murder multiple law enforcement officers indicates an ideology that is prepared to kill and die. Was this ideology sparked at the radical mosque Hill attended?

As expected, the appetite of legacy media to cover Maurice Hill died down quickly despite the rampant calls for gun control. His story has too many things that go against the progressive media’s narrative.

Any connections to Islam in situations like these are automatically dismissed as Islamophobia. But it’s highly unlikely Maurice Hill’s alleged actions were completely disparate from the radical teachings of the mosque he attended.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the left’s war on liberty

Published

on

By

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the Lefts war on Liberty

The commonsense civil right of armed self-defense is the canary in a coal mine for the cause of liberty.

It was a little over a month ago that John Lovell from the Warrior Poet Society produced this video, but it seems longer given recent events. He expresses the thoughts of many that are becoming increasingly prescient by the day. We are witness to the fact that while those on the national socialist left like to profess support of liberty as being ‘liberal’ they are becoming ever more strident towards the concept.

While the common sense human right of self-defense is literally the tip of the spear in the defense of liberty. The people on the left who only pretend to be liberal are now branching out from this basic human right, going after other civil liberties with a vengeance. Topping their list is a concept that eviscerates several civil liberties with on fell swoop, Gun Confiscation SWATing [aka so-called ‘Red flag’ laws ]. So far they’ve done little to solve the problem and according to an article from colleague Blaine Traber: Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect. Thus, these abominations of Constitutional Liberties are not only useless for their intended purpose, they are making the situation even worse.

Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris belched forth an even more egregious example in which she expanded her ire for self-preservation to what George Orwell characterized as ‘Wrongthink’. As reported in Bearing Arms, Senator Harris proposed opening up the criteria for gun confiscation to the realm of improper viewpointsThis case illustrates that the 2nd amendment is just the first target in the Left’s war on Liberty, but it certainly won’t be the last.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending