Tucker Carlson Responds to Liberal Attacks Over His Criticism of Ilhan Omar
“No country can survive being ruled by people who hate it. We deserve better.”
During a recent monologue on his show, Tucker Carlson took on Rep. Ilhan Omar and offered a harsh, but entirely fair criticism of her. He must have struck a nerve, because progressives in media are fuming.
It all goes back to what was recently written about her in the Washington Post, specifically this passage:
In Omar’s version, America wasn’t the bighearted country that saved her from a brutal war and a bleak refugee camp. It wasn’t a meritocracy that helped her attend college or vaulted her into Congress. Instead, it was the country that had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a place that had disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees and minorities like her.
In the following video, Carlson points out that Omar’s story is an American success story, while noting her tendency to criticize America at every turn with accusations of racism and injustice.
Watch the whole thing. I defy anyone to disprove any of the points Carlson makes. Also, pay attention to the positive things he says about Omar. He calls her a powerful young woman and says Americans were proud to see a former refugee become a member of Congress.
All the left heard was the part where he suggests that if Omar’s story doesn’t inspire a love of America, then maybe there’s something wrong with our immigration system. It’s a fair point.
Here’s how the left reacted.
Conor Friedersdorf writes at The Atlantic:
Tucker Carlson Has Failed to Assimilate
While I favor granting citizenship automatically to children born in the United States, I was reminded of birthright citizenship’s biggest downside Tuesday while listening to Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show.
Unlike immigrants, natural-born citizens such as Carlson are neither screened nor forced to pass a citizenship test nor made to swear an oath. And when they stray from the American way, no one thinks to tell them that they’re failing to assimilate.
But isn’t “failure to assimilate” an accurate way to characterize Carlson’s angry identitarianism? Carlson, who broadcasts to millions of viewers on national television, keeps fueling xenophobia and needless social strife by singling out people who weren’t born in America for special ire, then attributing negative qualities to whole groups. He just can’t get with the program of the American experiment.
Ryan Bort wrote at Rolling Stone:
Tucker Carlson Thinks a Muslim Woman in Congress Is a ‘Fire Alarm’ Warning About Immigration
On Tuesday night, Carlson took aim at Omar, an immigrant from Somalia who last November became (along with Tlaib) the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. Like her colleagues who voted against the bill, Omar has been a vocal critic of the conditions of federal facilities housing migrants at the border…
Feigning confusion, Carlson then wondered if maybe America should be asking more of its immigrants, or if the nation should stop “importing” people nations whose “values are antithetical” to those of the United States. “No country can import large numbers of people who hate it and expect to survive,” he said, going on to call Omar a “fire alarm” signaling what could happen if America doesn’t change its immigration system — presumably to keep out anyone who won’t swear a blood oath to defend the Trump administration’s treatment of migrants at the border.
Jenna Amatulli of the HuffPost highlighted Omar’s adverse reaction:
Ilhan Omar Calls Tucker Carlson ‘Racist Fool’ After He Claimed She Hated America
Rep. Ilhan Omar pushed back on comments made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson calling the freshman congresswoman “living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country.”
On Tuesday night, Omar tweeted that “it’s kinda fun watching a racist fool like this weeping about my presence in Congress” after Carlson’s segment on Omar ran on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
Here’s Omar’s tweet:
Not gonna lie, it’s kinda fun watching a racist fool like this weeping about my presence in Congress ????????
No lies will stamp out my love for this country or my resolve to make our union more perfect.
They will just have to get used to calling me Congresswoman! https://t.co/nRS13yWivK
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) July 10, 2019
Omar then went after Tucker Carlson’s advertisers. Where have we seen that before?
Fox News is now giving a nightly platform to white supremacist rhetoric. It’s dangerous.
Advertisers should not be underwriting hate speech. https://t.co/iQdMJ0heXR
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) July 10, 2019
Where are all the brave people in the media who continuously accuse Trump of threatening their profession?
If the left wants to defend Omar, AOC and the rest of their clique, they are going to have to come to terms with a harsh truth. To most people, they seem genuinely hostile to the country they were elected to represent.
Every time they are in the news, it is because they are offering a vision of America that is negative at best, and downright hateful at worst.
Tucker Carlson was not wrong to point this out. He was merely saying what millions of Americans already believe to be true.
Tucker responded to Omar’s criticism last night. Check it out:
Tucker also posted this tweet after his show last night:
No country can survive being ruled by people who hate it. We deserve better. Here’s my full commentary. https://t.co/G7XYL0pqem
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) July 11, 2019
He’s not wrong.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The truth is an enemy to those it exposes. It is the feared enemy of the left and cannot be tolerated. The left always tells you who and what it fears.
Simple: to accept a position as an elected official, one must swear or affirm an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Although not stated, implied is the “as written”, not “as you’d like to make it” or “as you think it should be”. And if one makes anti-constitutional and/or anti-American statements while a sitting legislator, one is failing one’s oath.
Here’s the problem: there’s no penalty for ignoring or violating one’s oath, except that one could be replaced in the next election, which–witness Pelosi, Schumer, Kaine, et al., who regularly vote against the Constitution and are STILL in once-hallowed Halls of Congress–doesn’t often happen until the people get tired.
Our Founding Fathers swore an oath, then defended the Constitution with their lives to their dying breaths. And today? Not so much, with obvious and notable exceptions (Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, to name a couple). To those who have other plans, the oath has no meaning and, since violating it has no penalty, once the oath is sworn (as a merely symbolic acceptance of office), the leftist legislators are free to say what they want and legislate however they see fit, mostly based on feelings and emotions.
“Although not stated, implied is the ‘as written'”
Actually it is stated. Expressly.
The two-word phrase “this Constitution” is used 12 times in the 1787 document. Examples, (1) Preamble, “We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution” (2) Article VI, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land . . .”
The count is 15 if Washington’s letter of transmittal to the then Congress (that was the congress existing under the 1777 Articles of Confederation) is included. That letter can be found at,
http://constitutionus.com/
(found right after the 1787 document itself, but just before the amendments)
The use of the definite article “this” is direct evidence that it was the black-and-white written text which the reader held in his/her hands that was the Constitution, with the words therein understood to mean what they meant at that moment in time, namely, in 1787. The convention in short had made a particularized choice.
The convention used the “this Constitution” phrase to focus the reader’s attention on the precise written words appearing before the reader’s eyes. That is, its meaning was framed by the meaning of those words as they were then commonly understood. Those words were then the sole source, the origin as it were, for what the Framers intended.
“Those words were then the sole source, the origin as it were, for what the Framers intended.”
And that’s why, when the Constitution says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
It is plainly stated that all persons born on US soil are US citizens. Doesn’t matter who their parents are, doesn’t matter if their parents have only been here for 5 minutes. They’re citizens, like it or not. If we don’t like it (I don’t) we have to Amend the Constitution. No other choice.
1) We need to greatly restrict numbers of people coming from incompatible cultures.
2) We need to reproductive rates into account when bringing in immigrants.
3) We do need to change birthright citizenship, the vast majority of countries only convey citizenship in this manner when at least one parent is a citizen.
4) I think that naturalization should come with assimilation and lawful conduct requirements, and be subject to being revoked if they turn out to be bad players.
5) Legal immigration from the south should be limited to one legal immigrant per 100 illegals deported.
6) Deported illegals who return should receive capital punishment. One free pass.
“this Constitution” – good observation.
Article V describes the process by which the Constitution may be changed/altered/amended. That two-word phrase “this Constitution” is used twice in Article V.
If the Constitution were a living and dynamic invention on its own, inserting an amendment process would have been superfluous. Because living constitutions are self-correcting, what otherwise would have been the point of an Article V?
But Article V’s presence puts living constitutionalists in a bind. Supreme Court jurisprudence has a long standing principle that holds that every word of the Constitution is important and is to be given due weight. Yet if every word of the Constitution is malleable with changing generations, fashions, and meanings, if the living constitutionalists are to be believed, then Article V would represent a significant embarrassment going head-to-head against the same jurisprudence that holds that there is nothing superfluous in the Constitution; that every word of it is to be given meaning and deference.
From clips I’ve seen, I think Tucker has been shinning light on this gang of four which includes Omar and AOC. Funny thing, some of his worst critics at least on social media are, ahem, “conservatives” who agree he is racist in effect. Of course, these seem to be those conservatives who spend all their lives around DC. And who probably have little respect for Joe Sixpack. They just hate boorish people who would never be welcome for cocktails in Georgetown. George Will type folks, who deny their own backgrounds.
In other words, the Never Trumpers. There’s an epic twitter feed out there today where Tom Nichols, leading NeverTrumper, basically said he’d vote for Socialism Forever and the Death of America, as long as he was voting against Trump. That’s where these so-called “conservatives” are.
Sounds like a desperate cry from someone with high self-importance finally realizing they have almost no impact on the society, much to their disappointment. Hence the completely irrational and emotional, perhaps non-stop temper tantrums. They’ve probably earned millions only to find out they are a nobody outside of the beltway.
WTFO?
“He [Carlson] calls her a powerful young woman and says Americans were proud to see a former refugee become a member of Congress.”
On that point Carlson speaks for himself. I never, ever want to see a Muslim have power over us. 1400 years of Muslim behavior based on Islamic doctrines has persuaded me.
Agree, I prefer to not be governed by a full fledged member of a 7th century death cult.
I would in a heartbeat. For example if Zuhdi Jasser ever ran for office where I could vote for him, I would.
Jasser isn’t quite the benign Muslim you might think.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/zuhdi-jasser-endorses-pro-sharia-islamic-supremacist-says-no-greater-jihadists-than-foes-of-jihad-terror
btw, all Muslims, Jasser too, read and take instruction from the same Qur’an which includes all those murderously uncomfortable instructions like Surahs 9,5 and 9.29.
LOL. I’d vote for him 10 times before voting for Robert Spencer. Or Roy Moore. Or….it might get to be a pretty long list…..
When does the stuff she tweets cross over into actual slander?
They’re both public figures, so that is a virtual impossibility. Please do not force me to defend Rep. Omar any further. She has the same right to freedom of political speech that I defend for President Trump, and incidentally, for blogs like this.
ty..I’ll try and figure it out..
Ilhan Omar: “They will just have to get used to calling me Congresswoman!”
Honestly, does she realize there is something higher than being ‘just’ a Congresswoman? She could actually become one of America’s ETERNAL CONGRESSWOMEN! That’s a golden ring she should attain unto, becoming that Eternal Congresswoman. A simple transformative act can accomplish this right now or in the near future. This would put her name in the history books for as long as this union shall stand. Just consider the acclaim, glory and honor you would receive by being an ‘Eternal Congresswoman’!
She was ‘chosen,’ much like cortez was cast.
Look behind the ‘thrones, and we’ll find sedition on a scale unimaginable.
We need to take back our schools, period.
Notice how the public comment is trying to bury what Carlson actually said? That’s one way they do it — a full court press to lie about the content of a video or article, in hopes of suckering people into believing a dishonest summary of the original statement.
I think the effect is less that it suckers people, or at least those who take a moment to read or listen. My view is it is much more about algorithms and internet data. Having word clouds with Tucker and negative keywords is one aim. Signalling AI to allow your content is another. Even having things survive for archives is important to those who know how to leverage the digital age. For example a future search – even a LexisNexis style search – about Tucker and Omar will turn up many more negative hits. That’s one of the goals. Digital inertia. Truth will only matter to those dig in to find it. To me that’s one reason why modern “journalists” LOL have no problems with hit pieces followed by corrections. The corrections will never be evaluated or ranked as primary in future searches.
Old: intersectionality
New: identitarianism.
Good grief. How do they invent these words, lie awake at night to think of them?
Throw her back in Somalia. Let’s hear from her again after she gets her clitoris sliced off – without anesthesia.
What makes you think that she still has one? There was a doctor in Detroit taking care of that for people from Minnesota.
Personally, I think that any father who allows this to happen should be subjected to the same procedure, and then be known as stub.
This is just one more example of Muslim barbarbic conduct.
I am glad I was born white in this country. Not only did I benefit from living in the richest, most fair country on Earth, but I was given the gift of being white. As a white person I was forced to do everything without benefit of special privileges such as Affirmative Action or special excuses such as being able to claiming to be a victim of racism. or what ever. The result was that I had to work harder than others.
>
When in college, I watched as year after year busloads of blacks from Chicago were brought in on full ride scholarships only to seen them flunk out after an extended semester long party. Upon leaving they never acknowledged how they attended few classes, refused to complete assignments, did not study for exams, etc. but instead blamed the racism inherent in the system, racist professors who demanded academic achievement, etc. I was never given any such excuses so I had to perform all the time, every time.
>
When I got a real job, I had to out perform so many others even when the playing field was uneven. Time and again I lost a promotion to another who was inferior in every measurable way but being a female, black, Hispanic, or whatever, was the critical measure which counted the most and something at which I failed. While many viewed this as inherently unfair, but I viewed it as a challenge that made me perform at levels I had previously thought not possible. Not only did it make me a better professional, it also instilled in me patience, a deeper sense of ethics, more compassion, and an understanding, that I could never have gotten any other way. In essence, it made me a better person.
>
I say let these complainers have their shortcuts, their ready made excuses, their false claims, and such, for all it really does is to provide them a false sense of accomplishment while cheating themselves out of what matters the most. As for me, I welcome the uneven playing field because it made me into a far better person than I ever could have imagined and, since I am the one I have to live with, that is what really matters to me. I have nothing left to prove to anyone because that is what one enjoys when inner peace is earned after years of working hard to become the very best you can be.