Image 01 Image 03

Activists accuse Chelsea Clinton of causing New Zealand massacre because she condemned Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism

Activists accuse Chelsea Clinton of causing New Zealand massacre because she condemned Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism

NYU student confronts Chelsea in viral video: “a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world”

Last month, Chelsea Clinton was among the many Democrats who condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for her anti-Semitic ravings.

Yesterday, Chelsea was surrounded by a mob of NYU students who berated her for these comments and blamed her and her comments for the New Zealand mosque attack that left 49 dead and another 48 injured.

According to the students in the released video, Chelsea’s condemnation of Omar’s anti-Semitism was directly responsible for the New Zealand mosque attack.

The Daily Mail reports:

Muslim students have berated Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the victims of the New Zealand mosques massacre, saying she is to blame for the attack.

Clinton, who is pregnant with her third child, was attending the vigil at New York University on Friday when senior Leen Dweik began castigating her in an astonishing moment caught on video.

‘This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,’ says Dweik, gesturing to the vigil for the 49 who were killed in Christchurch when a white nationalist shooter stormed two mosques.

‘And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deeply – 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there,’ Dweik continues, jabbing her index finger toward Clinton as other students snap their fingers in apparent approval of her words.

The activist in the video and her friend who shared it bragged about it on Buzzfeed:

We did a double take when we first noticed Chelsea Clinton was at the vigil. Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country. As people in unwavering solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle for freedom and human rights, we were profoundly disappointed when Chelsea Clinton used her platform to fan those flames. We believe that Ilhan Omar did nothing wrong except challenge the status quo, but the way many people chose to criticize Omar made her vulnerable to anti-Muslim hatred and death threats.

It’s an attempt to prevent criticism of anti-Semitism:

Following release of the video clip of the confrontation, the internet lit up in response as some on the left leapt to Chelsea’s defense, and the person who first tweeted the video apparently falsely claimed that she was getting legal advice from none other than Michael Avenatti.

This person is, according to her Twitter profile, a “Jewish leftist, organizer, parody ire & known in alt-right circles as “Antifa chick R*se.” , she/ her, instagram.”

She also seems a bit unhinged.

And a bit of a snowflake.

Having long been the victims of such tactics, the right was quick to come to Chelsea’s defense; however, Michelle Malkin shares a reminder for us all.

A preview of the nightmare to come as we head into the 2020 presidential election?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


These people who attempt to equate words with violence are truly fucking morons. Have they not thought this through? Where, exactly, do they think this will lead?

    Observer in reply to Paul. | March 17, 2019 at 9:58 am

    If we’re going to be logically consistent (lol), then it should lead to the banning of Islam.

    After all, if “hateful” words and rhetoric kill, then they kill no matter who speaks them. They don’t just kill when they’re spoken by white people.

    The prophet Muhammad spoke some very “hateful” words, according to the quran. He instructed his followers that homosexuality is obscene and an abomination, and told his followers that they should throw homosexuals “from a great height, then stone them.” Muhammad also told his followers that they had a duty to kill non-believers (non-Muslims): “Kill them where ever you find them,” and “Strike off their heads and strike from them every fingertip.”

    If Chelsea Clinton’s words caused the killings in NZ, then how is it possible that Muhammad’s words (which are much more overtly hateful, and explicitly encourage killing, unlike Clinton’s words) did not cause all the Muslim terror attacks that have taken place around the world? Yet we all know that whenever a Muslim terrorist attack occurs, the MSM and various government officials always rush to tell us that the killings had absolutely nothing to do with Islam, which they insist (against the evidence) is a “religion of peace.”

    Either “hateful” words kill, or they don’t. And if they do kill, then we can’t just ban whites from speaking “hateful” words, while ignoring the even more “hateful” words of Muslims and their prophet.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Paul. | March 17, 2019 at 10:27 am

    Muslim ingrates attacked Obummer, and now Chelsea. She, and other Democrats need to recognize that from the Muslim perspective that they are useful idiots.

    What would be funny is Chelsea seeing the light, and leaving the Democratic party. We could all see Hitlery melt down again, and blame Trump.

Commiecrats are CANNIBALS !
They are eating their own !
Hip hip HOORAY !

    Chelsea Clinton oozes incompetence and corruption.

    She is the Lori Laughlin of New York – without the looks. Or the usefulness. Or the amount of brains. (Let’s face it, at least Lori was useful.)

    To watch creepy lunatics attack her that were in part by the barely-walking obscenity that is her mother, is great karma.

Donald Trump Jr. piled on poor Chelsea by standing up for her. Now her base political base will never trust her again.

Always looking for wrong in others, never themselves.

johnnytremain | March 16, 2019 at 8:13 pm

The tweets quoted from @Esor__Fasa appear to be of a parody account. Might want to clarify.

Not “Activists””. They are WACTIVISTS”

DieJustAsHappy | March 16, 2019 at 8:31 pm

I gather critical thinking (that is, thinking that is informed, rational, and open to examination) is not high on the list for NYU students.

The left attacking their own for not being far enough to the (insane) left. This is both frightening and funny.

Sharon Tate was not immediately available for comment.

LukeHandCool | March 16, 2019 at 9:54 pm

These students either believe what they’re saying or they don’t.

1) If they DON’T believe what they’re saying, the good news is they’re sane. The bad news is they are not only cynically trying to normalize anti-Semitism, they’re trying to demonize any criticism of it.

2) If they DO believe what they’re saying, the bad news is they’re completely and probably irreparably nuts.

The only possibly potential good news then is the idea that those 49 people would still be alive if the shooter hadn’t been aware that Chelsea Clinton (Chelsea Clinton!!!) criticized Omar for her anti-Semitism is so laughably beyond bizarre that this will become an intersectionality-has-no-clothes moment for young, sane students.

I wouldn’t bet on that, though. It might take a collection of such moments for it to finally register, if at all, after years of public-school indoctrination.

Yeah, kind of hard for me to feel sorry for Chelsea.

Can’t these commie libs at least try to get along!?

An important point that is often lost in this type of discussion is that it matters greatly whether the harsh or even hateful things one says about others are true or false.

Many people are very uncomfortable at the idea that some things are true and others false, some right and some wrong; they want to treat everything the same, and they want ethical or moral rules to deal only with the process, not with the substance. In other words they want it to be wrong to say certain things in all circumstances, or else right to say them in all circumstances, without having to inquire into the underlying truth in each case.

The truth is that everything depends on the circumstances, both words and actions. Let’s consider an extreme example, and what seems like an absurd question: Why was the Holocaust a bad thing? The answer most people would like to give is that it was bad because genocide is always and inherently bad, because hatred is always and inherently bad, because making any kind of group judgement is always and inherently bad. Therefore the Bible’s commandment to wipe out Amalek, which was read in every synagogue this morning, is evil, the Bible is the same as Mein Kampf, and we must remember the Holocaust by suppressing Judaism. And we’re now in the absurd space occupied by such groups as JVP.

Let’s take that one again, and let me say something that is going to rub some people the wrong way: The Holocaust was wrong because the Nazi narrative about the Jews was false. Had their narrative been true, then they would have been right to act as they did. If Jews really were vampires, monsters destined from birth to predate on Aryans, if our continued existence posed a constant danger to all humanity, then getting rid of us would have been a justified act of self defense. The reason it was wrong is because none of this is true.

The same goes for lesser situations. One must be careful not to exaggerate and say things about others that are not true, but one must not refrain from saying those things that are true. To home in on this particular story, those who claim and spread the idea that all Moslems are dangerous enemies of humanity are responsible for this massacre. Even if this shooter didn’t directly see what an individual wrote, he definitely saw and was radicalized by many identical instances of such hateful falsehoods. Because if it were true, then we would have to do things like this in order to protect ourselves. But this should not prevent anyone from telling the truth about Islam. Islam is complicated, but there’s no doubt that it is a dangerous doctrine. There’s no doubt that many terrorists draw their inspiration from it, or that many Moslem preachers stoke the flames and actively encourage their audiences to hate and to perpetrate atrocities. There’s no doubt that while in thousands of mosques yesterday the message was one of grief and comfort and shared humanity, in thousands more it was one of anger, hatred, and revenge, not just against the shooter but against all Kuffar. That is not all Islam is, but it is one of the things Islam is. There is much to admire in Islam, but there is also much to rationally fear. This is the truth, and we can’t just pretend it isn’t just because we’re horrified at the very wrong conclusion one person took it to.

None of us know what sort of message was preached in the two Christchurch mosques that were attacked. And even if the shooter had evidence that dangerous messages of hatred were preached there, what he did would not have been the appropriate response. But in that hypothetical event some response would have been appropriate, and let’s not pretend otherwise, or forget that it’s not an unlikely hypothetical.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | March 17, 2019 at 2:24 pm

    “There is much to admire in Islam”

    There is no where enough to admire, that is not more than offset, by what is barbaric.

*golly* – How barely perceptibly harrowing for the sacred cow Clinton. It was really swell of Chelsea to apologize profusely for having simply spoken natural truth, too. Must be some of that there “fearless women” and “smart power” Ma Clinton always speechifies on and on about. ¯|_(ツ)_/¯

The funny thing is that many of the same people who see a connection between Chelsea’s condemnation of Omar’s comments/anti-Semitism and the shooting in NZ can’t see a connection between Hillary’s position as SoS and the piles of money the Clinton Foundation raked in while she held that post.

I thought the popular narrative was that President Trump was responsible for this–now it’s Chelsea Clinton who’s responsible? How about the guy who pulled the trigger?

Rusty Shackelford | March 18, 2019 at 3:32 am

Leen Dweik’s and Rose Asaf’s criticism of Chelsea Clinton employs self-defeating logic. If Clinton’s criticism of Ilhan Omar has no merit then neither do Dweik’s and Asaf’s criticism of Clinton. Dweik and Asaf accused Clinton of being anti-Muslim even though Clinton’s criticism of Omar didn’t even mention the fact that she is Muslim. Thus, Dweik’s and Asaf’s argument is that Clinton’s tweet is anti-Muslim due to the mere fact that the person it criticized happened to be Muslim. The same logic would prove Clinton was right to criticize Omar for anti-semitism. Clinton accused Omar of anti-semitism even though Omar’s criticism of American supporters of Israel didn’t even mention that they are Jewish. Thus, Clinton’s argument is that Omar’s statement was anti-semitic due to the mere fact that the people it criticized were Jewish.

If Dweik and Asaf were right to call Clinton anti-Muslim then it means that Clinton was right to call Omar anti-semitic. But if Clinton was right to call Omar anti-semitic then it would mean that Dweik and Asaf had no good reason to criticize Clinton. The potential damage Dweik and Asaf could do to the pro-Palestine movement in the U.S. in incalculable. For years, one of the movement’s main arguments has been that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic. These two now reject the logic of that argument in order to accuse others of being anti-Muslim. If the pro-Palestine movement has any sense it will immediately throw Dweik and Asaf under the bus.