The ‘Context’ Makes Omar’s 9/11 and Al Qaeda Comments Worse, and It’s Not ‘Incitement’ to Say So

Indeed, virtually any intense denunciations of Republican figures, rhetoric, or policy could arguably rise to the level of incitement under these rules.  Remember, the attempted mass assassination of GOP Congressmen on a baseball field was perpetrated by a left-wing extremist shouting about a healthcare bill he opposed, and which Democrats said was “evil” and would kill people.  Loudly opposing that bill clearly put lives at risk.  Stop the incitement. 

Exactly. The Democrats’ new line that criticism equals incitement is self-defeating in the extreme, as it undercuts their every criticism of President Trump and so many other people as incitement. But of course they have no need to be concerned about consistency: they know the enemedia will never hold them accountable.

“Analysis: The ‘Context’ Makes Omar’s 9/11 and Al Qaeda Comments Worse, and It’s Not ‘Incitement’ to Say So,” by Guy Benson, Townhall, April 16, 2019 (thanks to Wendy):

Let’s start with a few propositions, as a follow-up to my Friday post: First, too much of our political rhetoric is overheated and intended to whip up outrage. This is a bipartisan phenomenon, though one side’s excesses are more likely to be ignored or even embraced by the media. Second, threats of physical violence against anyone, especially public officials, are execrable and unacceptable. That’s not discourse; that’s intimidation, and it should not be tolerated. Third, harsh criticisms of politicians, even if demagogic, do not amount to threats or “incitement.”

In their defenses of Rep. Ilhan Omar, many fellow Democrats and leftist partisans have conflated vehement critiques with incitement, a transparent and deliberate effort to deflect and disqualify entirely reasonable and justified anger over Omar’s pattern of incendiary, bigoted, or insensitive comments. She’s a walking political problem for the Left, so they’re attempting to paint those who notice and object as engaging in dangerous, out-of-bounds rhetoric. It’s cynical, and it must not succeed. If this is liberals’ new standard, their frequent, vituperative broadsides against President Trump (who faces numerous threats) constitute ‘incitement’ that must be silenced, for his safety. Their vicious campaign against Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination would also certainly have fit the same bill, as he and his family received death threats after Democrats dialed up their language to eleven.

Indeed, virtually any intense denunciations of Republican figures, rhetoric, or policy could arguably rise to the level of incitement under these rules. Remember, the attempted mass assassination of GOP Congressmen on a baseball field was perpetrated by a left-wing extremist shouting about a healthcare bill he opposed, and which Democrats said was “evil” and would kill people. Loudly opposing that bill clearly put lives at risk. Stop the incitement. And imagine the danger liberals have placed Rep. Steve King in through their incitement. Much like Omar, King drew widespread ire over his pattern of deeply insensitive and bigoted comments (unlike Omar, he was confronted with serious consequences from his own party). By calling him a racist, even if true, their words might lead one of their unstable followers to snap and inflict harm. Stop the incitement….