Like the saying goes: Two heads are better than one. Well, better
qualify this as valid some of the time but not always.
In fact, we have an example of two who brought their heads
together and laid — not an argument for the ages — but an egg. They are Seth
Barron and Judith Miller who wrote: Democrats need to oust anti-Semite Ilhan
Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” published on March 4, 2019 in the New
York Post.
Whatever the real motive of the two authors may have been for
demanding the ouster of Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
they started with an idea as to how they will present their case to the
readers. And they proceeded in a deliberate fashion at constructing a presentation
that has allowed them to make the following closing argument:
“As GOP leaders removed Rep. Steve King from all committees for
having promoted white nationalism and supremacy, Democrats should insist on
Omar's expulsion from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Her animus towards Jews
should disqualify her from a leadership role in congressional oversight of US
foreign affairs. Britain's Labour party has been torn asunder by leader Jeremy
Corbyn's anti-Semitism. Permitting Omar to remain a spokeswoman on foreign
affairs risks elevating her personal status and affirming her statements as a
legitimate viewpoint in the party”.
There are four major points in that argument, each of which
necessitates a separate commentary:
First, Steve King was punished because he basically said: ‘We were
the predators that enjoyed hunting our preys. This privilege was taken from us,
and we must regain it.’ In contrast, Ilhan Omar is saying: ‘A false picture of
what's happening in the Middle East is presented to the American people and government
every day. When I started to show a different picture, predators from all sides
began to hunt me as if I were a helpless prey. Well, maybe I am a helpless
prey. But I'll push back whatever the cost … not just for me, but for the
American people that deserve better than being ruled by merciless predators.’
And so, to equate King with Omar, is to equate the predator of one set with the
prey of another set. It is illogical.
Second, by what logic have the two authors, Seth Barron and Judith
Miller — now choosing to play the role of predators — established a connection
between foreign policy and the animus that Omar has developed toward predators
like themselves for coming after her? The truth is that she never failed to
thank the Jews of her constituency and the rest of the country who continue to
support her. And there are many of them as demonstrated by the thousands of
tweets that pushed back against people like Bret Stephens who suggested she may
need a course on anti-Semitism. Ordinary Americans in all walks of life love
what Ilhan Omar is doing for them and for the country.
Third, trying to figure what's what in the North American
situation, is hard enough. So then, what twisted minds would drag Britain's
travails into the mix, pretending that this will help clarify the situation
here?
Fourth, in civilized countries, people are punished for what they
do that's wrong, not for what predatory authors speculate might enhance
someone's stature. This kind of speculation happens only in Fascismo-Nazi
regimes like the one that Ilhan Omar is working to prevent from establishing
roots in North America. Seth Barron and Judith Miller should find something
better to do with their time and energy, than work to establish that kind of
Judeo-messianic tyranny in North America.
So we ask: How did the two authors construct the presentation that
allowed them to reach those weird conclusions? Well, the two began by leveling
accusations against Omar to the effect that she falsely insinuated she was
required to support Israel as a condition of serving in Congress. They added:
“as if anyone had demanded that.” Wow! When reading this part, the thing that
will explode inside your head is the big question: WHAT?
Here they are, our two Jews are demanding — as did a number of
other Jews — that Ilhan Omar be kicked out of a Congressional committee, if not
out of the Congress altogether, having accused her of “hating” Israel instead
of supporting the little twerp. And they want the readers to believe that this
does not indicate a requirement to support Israel? Do these people take their
readers for stupid? Or have they been genetically programmed to live a life of
stupidity and not know it?
And then there is this very revealing passage:
“Ilhan Omar says that her Jewish constituents shares stories about
safety and sanctuary for the people of Israel, even though there is no actual
relative or family member in danger ... She insinuates that Jewish concern for
Israel is rooted in tribalism, and supremacist agenda. This is not a reasoned
critique of Israeli policy in the occupied territories; it is an attack on
American Jewish identity”.
What's this about? It's about Omar telling what her experience has
been with regard to the discussions she had with her Jewish constituents. She
reported that even those that have no relatives in danger in Israel have
expressed concern about the safety of the people of Israel in general. Well,
the truth is that nothing is new in any of this. For half a century, we have
been deluged with Jewish propaganda of this kind. It is how devious Israel has
managed to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from gullible America.
But Barron and Miller saw something more in that statement. They
say Omar has insinuated that Jews in America live a tribal existence, and they
harbor a supremacist agenda. But all that Omar did was report on something for
the sole purpose of rectifying the false picture we are constantly given about
the events in the Middle East. So, we must ask: What is causing Barron and
Miller to see Jewish tribalism and a supremacist agenda in Omar's innocent mention
of discussions she had with someone?
Let me tell you something, my friend. You don't have to be a psychiatrist
to put two and two together and come up with the answer. All you need to do is
recall the time when Sheldon Adelson paid Mitt Romney a million dollars to say
that Jews are superior to Palestinians. Also recall that on a few occasions,
Jewish publications in America have opined that the Palestinians love being
occupied by the Jews. If this is not tribalism and supremacy rolled into one,
what could it be?