An Anti-Semite by Any Other Name

If Democrats have one advantage over Republicans, it's their innate ability to tailor language to fit their politics.  They use qualifying adjectives to pander to specific identity groups when it suits them – such as "white privilege" and "black lives matter" –  and then chose more universal terms when they find themselves boxed-in by their own ideology.

A prime example of this is the response to the anti-Semitic comments made by Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar.  In January Omar tweeted that Israel had "hypnotized the world," and recently stated that American support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins" and involved "allegiance" to a foreign country.

As David French wrote in the National Review, "Each of these statements represents a classic anti-Semitic trope, and the latter statements were made after she came under fire for her previous comments. She knew she was under scrutiny and yet doubled down."

When pushed to specifically address Omar's derogatory attitude toward Jews, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to issue a more bland, universal rebuke – offering a resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance" without mentioning Omar by name.

According to the New York Times:

It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited "African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others" victimized by bigotry.

Incredibly, it doesn't appear Omar will be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee or be made to apologize.  Because Omar is a Muslim female and refugee from Somalia, she's dealt a different standard of discipline.  She is a member of the Democrat's protected victim class, and reprimanding her directly would be a major conflict of interest.  So instead of demanding a personal apology, Pelosi whitewashed Omar's anti-Semitism by ultimately hiding behind a resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance."

It's so good of the Democrats to rise above the fray and offer a universal resolution that doesn't single out any one race or religion.  God forbid they lower themselves into the muck of identity politics when disciplining a freshman Representative who just so happens to believe Jews are hypnotizing the world, and that Jew loyalty can be purchased with cold hard cash.  

The Democrats' objectivity seems to begin and end with Omar's anti-Semitism, however.  When it comes to other social issues not related to female Muslim refugees from Somalia, they aren't quite so levelheaded.

Take "black lives matter" for example.  Don't all lives matter?  Wouldn't it be better for race relations if we just agreed to come together and promote universal standards of human behavior, much like the general resolution to condemn all "hateful expressions of intolerance"?  

No.  All lives don't matter.  And saying so is racist and misses the point of the mantra to begin with, which is that if you want to exploit America's racial unrest for political gain, you have to qualify your social cause with a word that will demonize your enemies while creating a "victimized" class of loyal supporters.  Hence the phrase "black lives matter," which is conveniently trumpeted in mostly lily-white liberal enclaves and on Ivy League campuses, and not in Chicago where 561 people – mostly African American – were murdered in 2018.

The same goes for "white privilege."  Shouldn't the entire upper tier of society – no matter their color or creed – be aware of their advantages in order to develop tolerance and compassion for their fellow man?  Shouldn't "privilege" be called out in general, so that wealthy Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, tenured professors, Silicon Valley billionaires, and establishment media elites keep their massive egos in check and remember those who aren't as fortunate?  

Not really.  You need the term white privilege to successfully polarize Americans along racial lines, and to achieve the two-pronged goal of demonizing your political enemies while simultaneously developing the loyalty of an angry, resentful victim class. 

Which is why liberals rail against "toxic masculinity" and not "toxic human behavior."  Women can just as easily dominate relationships, be overly aggressive and competitive, and act like pompous jerks.  Yet somehow this behavior is attributed primarily to men, and stereotyped as "masculine."  Why? To exploit sexism and create a culture of bitterness in certain Democrat constituency groups.  Interestingly, the most "toxic" form of masculinity in America is father absence, but good luck getting liberals to admit as much; Democrats aren't big on the whole cohesive family unit thing.  Still, children from fatherless families are more likely to have behavioral problems, become pregnant as a teen, drop out of high school, abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer from obesity, and commit a crime and go to prison.  

Instead of Gillette lecturing men about whistling at women on street corners, perhaps they could ask guys to respect their baby's momma by paying child support and actually fathering their children?

Which leads to the issues of crime and justice. Now, it used to be that a crime was a crime (like failing to pay child support), and justice was justice.  Not anymore.  Liberals have now managed to stamp crime with the qualifying adjective "hate" and justice with the modifier "social," so as to make certain crimes by certain constituency groups more or less heinous, and the punishments they receive more or less deserving.  And how does one know whether the crime is heinous and the justice is proper?

That's for Democrats to decide.  

Like with the anti-Semite freshman Rep. from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar. Because she's a Muslim woman and refugee from Somalia, she can tweet disparaging comments about Jews and not have to apologize for it.  And because Nancy Pelosi is a liberal, and liberals have the innate ability to tailor language to fit their politics, the House just passed a generic resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance," rather than calling out Ilhan Omar's hate speech specifically and mentioning her by name.

Image: Leopaltik1242 via Wikimedia Commons.

If Democrats have one advantage over Republicans, it's their innate ability to tailor language to fit their politics.  They use qualifying adjectives to pander to specific identity groups when it suits them – such as "white privilege" and "black lives matter" –  and then chose more universal terms when they find themselves boxed-in by their own ideology.

A prime example of this is the response to the anti-Semitic comments made by Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar.  In January Omar tweeted that Israel had "hypnotized the world," and recently stated that American support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins" and involved "allegiance" to a foreign country.

As David French wrote in the National Review, "Each of these statements represents a classic anti-Semitic trope, and the latter statements were made after she came under fire for her previous comments. She knew she was under scrutiny and yet doubled down."

When pushed to specifically address Omar's derogatory attitude toward Jews, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to issue a more bland, universal rebuke – offering a resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance" without mentioning Omar by name.

According to the New York Times:

It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited "African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others" victimized by bigotry.

Incredibly, it doesn't appear Omar will be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee or be made to apologize.  Because Omar is a Muslim female and refugee from Somalia, she's dealt a different standard of discipline.  She is a member of the Democrat's protected victim class, and reprimanding her directly would be a major conflict of interest.  So instead of demanding a personal apology, Pelosi whitewashed Omar's anti-Semitism by ultimately hiding behind a resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance."

It's so good of the Democrats to rise above the fray and offer a universal resolution that doesn't single out any one race or religion.  God forbid they lower themselves into the muck of identity politics when disciplining a freshman Representative who just so happens to believe Jews are hypnotizing the world, and that Jew loyalty can be purchased with cold hard cash.  

The Democrats' objectivity seems to begin and end with Omar's anti-Semitism, however.  When it comes to other social issues not related to female Muslim refugees from Somalia, they aren't quite so levelheaded.

Take "black lives matter" for example.  Don't all lives matter?  Wouldn't it be better for race relations if we just agreed to come together and promote universal standards of human behavior, much like the general resolution to condemn all "hateful expressions of intolerance"?  

No.  All lives don't matter.  And saying so is racist and misses the point of the mantra to begin with, which is that if you want to exploit America's racial unrest for political gain, you have to qualify your social cause with a word that will demonize your enemies while creating a "victimized" class of loyal supporters.  Hence the phrase "black lives matter," which is conveniently trumpeted in mostly lily-white liberal enclaves and on Ivy League campuses, and not in Chicago where 561 people – mostly African American – were murdered in 2018.

The same goes for "white privilege."  Shouldn't the entire upper tier of society – no matter their color or creed – be aware of their advantages in order to develop tolerance and compassion for their fellow man?  Shouldn't "privilege" be called out in general, so that wealthy Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, tenured professors, Silicon Valley billionaires, and establishment media elites keep their massive egos in check and remember those who aren't as fortunate?  

Not really.  You need the term white privilege to successfully polarize Americans along racial lines, and to achieve the two-pronged goal of demonizing your political enemies while simultaneously developing the loyalty of an angry, resentful victim class. 

Which is why liberals rail against "toxic masculinity" and not "toxic human behavior."  Women can just as easily dominate relationships, be overly aggressive and competitive, and act like pompous jerks.  Yet somehow this behavior is attributed primarily to men, and stereotyped as "masculine."  Why? To exploit sexism and create a culture of bitterness in certain Democrat constituency groups.  Interestingly, the most "toxic" form of masculinity in America is father absence, but good luck getting liberals to admit as much; Democrats aren't big on the whole cohesive family unit thing.  Still, children from fatherless families are more likely to have behavioral problems, become pregnant as a teen, drop out of high school, abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer from obesity, and commit a crime and go to prison.  

Instead of Gillette lecturing men about whistling at women on street corners, perhaps they could ask guys to respect their baby's momma by paying child support and actually fathering their children?

Which leads to the issues of crime and justice. Now, it used to be that a crime was a crime (like failing to pay child support), and justice was justice.  Not anymore.  Liberals have now managed to stamp crime with the qualifying adjective "hate" and justice with the modifier "social," so as to make certain crimes by certain constituency groups more or less heinous, and the punishments they receive more or less deserving.  And how does one know whether the crime is heinous and the justice is proper?

That's for Democrats to decide.  

Like with the anti-Semite freshman Rep. from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar. Because she's a Muslim woman and refugee from Somalia, she can tweet disparaging comments about Jews and not have to apologize for it.  And because Nancy Pelosi is a liberal, and liberals have the innate ability to tailor language to fit their politics, the House just passed a generic resolution condemning "hateful expressions of intolerance," rather than calling out Ilhan Omar's hate speech specifically and mentioning her by name.

Image: Leopaltik1242 via Wikimedia Commons.