Month: April 2019

On March 2, 2017, Vermont’s elite Middlebury College made national news when some of its students barred writer Charles Murray from speaking, because of a book (The Bell Curve) he’d written 23 years earlier.  It was bad for public relations, and in response, the college initiated a new program in its political science department, “The Alexander Hamilton Forum” intended “to engage scholars and thinkers with diverse points of view, including points of view that are uncommon at elite colleges.”

On April 17, 2019, Middlebury College was compelled to cancel one of The Alexander Hamilton Forum’s premier events.  This time, leftist opposition was directed at Polish author and politician Ryszard Legutko, and focused on his alleged “homophobic” comments from 2011 (though Legutko had been invited to address intolerance by the Left in liberal democracies, not homosexuality).

On the Middlebury protesters’ Facebook events page, remarks such as this were postedL “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist),” the protest is advertised as “EXTREMELY NON-DISRUPTIVE.”  Yet within minutes of the cancellation, those who silenced Legutko disingenuously posted: “We are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”  In an interview with local media, “Jason Duquette-Hoffman, assistant director of the Center for Community Engagement at Middlebury College, agreed. “I think [protesters] were very clear that that was not their intent….’ ”

But Jason Duquette-Hoffman (as “Assistant Director for Privilege & Poverty”) was a signatory, with some 830 others, to an open letter demanding that Middlebury’s Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center for Global affairs withdraw support for Legutko.  The letter insists that Legutko not be permitted a forum:

Students have voiced again and again that bringing speakers such as Legutko is not productive….A cornerstone of any kind of “thoughtful citizenship” should always be listening, and we urge you all to recall the events of March 2, 2017 where the administration, including President Laurie Patton and the PSCI Department failed to listen to the voices of students.

After the college was unswayed by this latent threat to repeat the Murray embarrassment, an addition to this letter ominously warned: “More decisive action will follow.”

The letter states “the PSCI department and the RCGA should be sending a strong message that bigotry of any form is unacceptable instead of giving bigots a platform at the expense of student well-being.”  Yet signatories still say it was “never their intent” to shut down the event, and as authority they invoke… a Middlebury assistant director who had demanded that the speaker be denied a platform.

More ironically, the speaker at issue is a professor of philosophy at the storied Jagellonian University in Krakow, whose recent book alleges that left-wing extremism in liberal democracies parallels the stifling of speech under totalitarian communist regimes, and that “…both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.”  Under Poland’s communist rule, Legutko served as editor of an illegal publication in that country. He was subsequently elected to the Polish senate, where he was deputy speaker, and later served as education minister, then secretary of state.  He is currently a member of the European Parliament, on the foreign affairs committee, where he is engaged in Brexit discussions.

What did this distinguished international dignitary do to merit such derision in Vermont? Chief among the complaints of students was his 2011 statement: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.”  Also, he allegedly “argued that gay marriage is an ‘unnecessary, destructive experiment.’ ”  A Catholic from a nation which is 96% Catholic, Professor Legutko’s views are not so extreme there, and his 2011 statement could be rephrased, with political correctitude: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a heterosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a heterosexual.”

But the students were determined.  Opposition leader Taite Shomo declared “….I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person’s presence…. I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.”  Another protest organizer claimed that “…queer identity [is] ….something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak….”  The Rohatyn Center Student Advisory Board unanimously signed a letter expressing their opposition to the College’s sponsorship of the lecture.

Professor Legutko has some intriguing views unrelated to homosexuality.  His Society as a Department Store argues that “…with the triumph of liberalism over communism, these [Eastern European] intellectuals feel compelled to digest an ideology that shares many elements with the oppressive system from which they just liberated themselves.” In a 2013 essay he asserts that modern secular liberal democracy is disconnected from classical foundations and seeks an imaginary utopia based solely on an ill-defined rights-based ideology, leading to ‘misbegotten ideological enthusiasms incited by the prophets of a better world.’ 

President Trump recently signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.  Not one of Professor Legutko’s alleged statements remotely approaches the limits of hate speech as established in numerous Supreme Court decisions.  And yet these students launched a vicious offensive in bad taste, once again employing the “my free speech is the denial of yours” mantra.

On its “Statement of Protest Event,” organizers pontificate that “Middlebury’s elevation of Legutko to a legitimate academic platform echoes that of Charles Murray in 2017 and once again represents an attack on Middlebury students of marginalized identities.”  That is, having a speaker about free speech must not be permitted any more than Murray, because his very speaking is ‘an attack.’  Organizers then lash out at a Middlebury professor’s appeal to ‘academic freedom’:

We feel that it is necessary to interrogate the nuances of “academic freedom,” as the academy has long been a sphere that reproduces and legitimizes oppressive rhetoric, action, and knowledge claims under the guise of “freedom”. We see the legitimization of Legutko’s speech as inseparable from other instances of unethical educational practice.

The Statement of Protest assures that “We are not protesting his right to say these hateful things.  We are protesting Middlebury’s decision to invite him to our campus, give him a bigger platform….”  Apparently he can say these things — that he last said in 2011, and that most any Catholic or Christian, or Muslim or Jew, might say — just not in public.  And he can’t say any new things, or unrelated things, or anything at all, at Middlebury, ever….

The day before the event, organizer Taite Shomo posted on her ‘Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe’ facebook page:

Hi everyone!  Middlebury College is bringing Ryszard Legutko, far right member of Polish party PiS and raging homophobe and racist, to speak!  Go Panthers!!!!!!!

If you’re as pissed off as I am, join us outside of Kirk Alumni Center to show Midd that we will not stand for blatant homophobia on our campus.  Signs, and informational pamphlets about Legutko’s homophobia will be provided, but feel free to make your own sign too!!

Also, PLEASE don your ~gay~ apparel!  We’re here, we’re queer, we’re ready to fricken educate.

Then, minutes after cancellation: ‘we are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”

Someone needs an education.

Image credit: Middlebury College, via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 3.0

On March 2, 2017, Vermont’s elite Middlebury College made national news when some of its students barred writer Charles Murray from speaking, because of a book (The Bell Curve) he’d written 23 years earlier.  It was bad for public relations, and in response, the college initiated a new program in its political science department, “The Alexander Hamilton Forum” intended “to engage scholars and thinkers with diverse points of view, including points of view that are uncommon at elite colleges.”

On April 17, 2019, Middlebury College was compelled to cancel one of The Alexander Hamilton Forum’s premier events.  This time, leftist opposition was directed at Polish author and politician Ryszard Legutko, and focused on his alleged “homophobic” comments from 2011 (though Legutko had been invited to address intolerance by the Left in liberal democracies, not homosexuality).

On the Middlebury protesters’ Facebook events page, remarks such as this were postedL “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist),” the protest is advertised as “EXTREMELY NON-DISRUPTIVE.”  Yet within minutes of the cancellation, those who silenced Legutko disingenuously posted: “We are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”  In an interview with local media, “Jason Duquette-Hoffman, assistant director of the Center for Community Engagement at Middlebury College, agreed. “I think [protesters] were very clear that that was not their intent….’ ”

But Jason Duquette-Hoffman (as “Assistant Director for Privilege & Poverty”) was a signatory, with some 830 others, to an open letter demanding that Middlebury’s Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center for Global affairs withdraw support for Legutko.  The letter insists that Legutko not be permitted a forum:

Students have voiced again and again that bringing speakers such as Legutko is not productive….A cornerstone of any kind of “thoughtful citizenship” should always be listening, and we urge you all to recall the events of March 2, 2017 where the administration, including President Laurie Patton and the PSCI Department failed to listen to the voices of students.

After the college was unswayed by this latent threat to repeat the Murray embarrassment, an addition to this letter ominously warned: “More decisive action will follow.”

The letter states “the PSCI department and the RCGA should be sending a strong message that bigotry of any form is unacceptable instead of giving bigots a platform at the expense of student well-being.”  Yet signatories still say it was “never their intent” to shut down the event, and as authority they invoke… a Middlebury assistant director who had demanded that the speaker be denied a platform.

More ironically, the speaker at issue is a professor of philosophy at the storied Jagellonian University in Krakow, whose recent book alleges that left-wing extremism in liberal democracies parallels the stifling of speech under totalitarian communist regimes, and that “…both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.”  Under Poland’s communist rule, Legutko served as editor of an illegal publication in that country. He was subsequently elected to the Polish senate, where he was deputy speaker, and later served as education minister, then secretary of state.  He is currently a member of the European Parliament, on the foreign affairs committee, where he is engaged in Brexit discussions.

What did this distinguished international dignitary do to merit such derision in Vermont? Chief among the complaints of students was his 2011 statement: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.”  Also, he allegedly “argued that gay marriage is an ‘unnecessary, destructive experiment.’ ”  A Catholic from a nation which is 96% Catholic, Professor Legutko’s views are not so extreme there, and his 2011 statement could be rephrased, with political correctitude: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a heterosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a heterosexual.”

But the students were determined.  Opposition leader Taite Shomo declared “….I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person’s presence…. I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.”  Another protest organizer claimed that “…queer identity [is] ….something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak….”  The Rohatyn Center Student Advisory Board unanimously signed a letter expressing their opposition to the College’s sponsorship of the lecture.

Professor Legutko has some intriguing views unrelated to homosexuality.  His Society as a Department Store argues that “…with the triumph of liberalism over communism, these [Eastern European] intellectuals feel compelled to digest an ideology that shares many elements with the oppressive system from which they just liberated themselves.” In a 2013 essay he asserts that modern secular liberal democracy is disconnected from classical foundations and seeks an imaginary utopia based solely on an ill-defined rights-based ideology, leading to ‘misbegotten ideological enthusiasms incited by the prophets of a better world.’ 

President Trump recently signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.  Not one of Professor Legutko’s alleged statements remotely approaches the limits of hate speech as established in numerous Supreme Court decisions.  And yet these students launched a vicious offensive in bad taste, once again employing the “my free speech is the denial of yours” mantra.

On its “Statement of Protest Event,” organizers pontificate that “Middlebury’s elevation of Legutko to a legitimate academic platform echoes that of Charles Murray in 2017 and once again represents an attack on Middlebury students of marginalized identities.”  That is, having a speaker about free speech must not be permitted any more than Murray, because his very speaking is ‘an attack.’  Organizers then lash out at a Middlebury professor’s appeal to ‘academic freedom’:

We feel that it is necessary to interrogate the nuances of “academic freedom,” as the academy has long been a sphere that reproduces and legitimizes oppressive rhetoric, action, and knowledge claims under the guise of “freedom”. We see the legitimization of Legutko’s speech as inseparable from other instances of unethical educational practice.

The Statement of Protest assures that “We are not protesting his right to say these hateful things.  We are protesting Middlebury’s decision to invite him to our campus, give him a bigger platform….”  Apparently he can say these things — that he last said in 2011, and that most any Catholic or Christian, or Muslim or Jew, might say — just not in public.  And he can’t say any new things, or unrelated things, or anything at all, at Middlebury, ever….

The day before the event, organizer Taite Shomo posted on her ‘Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe’ facebook page:

Hi everyone!  Middlebury College is bringing Ryszard Legutko, far right member of Polish party PiS and raging homophobe and racist, to speak!  Go Panthers!!!!!!!

If you’re as pissed off as I am, join us outside of Kirk Alumni Center to show Midd that we will not stand for blatant homophobia on our campus.  Signs, and informational pamphlets about Legutko’s homophobia will be provided, but feel free to make your own sign too!!

Also, PLEASE don your ~gay~ apparel!  We’re here, we’re queer, we’re ready to fricken educate.

Then, minutes after cancellation: ‘we are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”

Someone needs an education.

Image credit: Middlebury College, via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 3.0

Religious illiteracy is alive and well at the New York Times.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold reports a doozy of a Times correction around a flowerily written story (reported as if it were witnessed firsthand), about the priest who rescued the ‘Body of Christ’ from the burning Notre Dame cathedral in Paris Monday. To be fair, it was respectfully written. But it sure as heck got a big fact wrong. Griswold begins:

I was intrigued today by the mystery of a small Jesus statue that features prominently in a New York Times story on Father Jean-Marc Fournier, the Paris Fire Department chaplain who risked his life to save many of Notre Dame cathedral’s prized relics. “I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and a statue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.

The statue continues to star in the story:

As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.

With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.

After that, the Times made a correction stating that it had misstated the object the priest had recovered in the flames – the ”Blessed Sacrament” rather than a statue of Jesus. It was a weird error, and unavoidably pointed to a problem of the reporter thinking the words ‘Body of Christ’ had to mean ‘statue of Jesus,’ something that would seem logical to someone who had never heard of Catholicism.

Griswold observes:

Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the “Body of Christ” and the wine the “Blood of Christ,” a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.

There’s the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which would fit the New York Times and its smarmy urban hipsters on staff to a tee.

The problem of course is that the paper was covering the biggest religious story of the year, with a reporter who knew nothing about the religion, and an editing staff that apparently didn’t spot the discrepancy in its coverage compared to other news outlets’ coverage, so as to ask the reporter if he knew what he was talking about. New York Times reporters are among the best paid in the business – and have a reputation of being staffed by people who are always ‘the smartest kid in the class.’ Ummm…

Sounds like a case of style over actual substance.

I am struck by how the reporter wrote the story as if he did know what he was talking about because he was there – his on-the-ground descriptive details suggest someone who watched the whole thing unfold himself instead of glommed off other people’s reporting, misinterpreting the phrases.

That’s where the credibility killer is. Next time you read a New York Times report in this style, are you going to believe the paper knows what it’s talking about? They not only were not there, they didn’t understand what they were told by people who were there.

Hat tip: Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

Religious illiteracy is alive and well at the New York Times.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold reports a doozy of a Times correction around a flowerily written story (reported as if it were witnessed firsthand), about the priest who rescued the ‘Body of Christ’ from the burning Notre Dame cathedral in Paris Monday. To be fair, it was respectfully written. But it sure as heck got a big fact wrong. Griswold begins:

I was intrigued today by the mystery of a small Jesus statue that features prominently in a New York Times story on Father Jean-Marc Fournier, the Paris Fire Department chaplain who risked his life to save many of Notre Dame cathedral’s prized relics. “I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and a statue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.

The statue continues to star in the story:

As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.

With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.

After that, the Times made a correction stating that it had misstated the object the priest had recovered in the flames – the ”Blessed Sacrament” rather than a statue of Jesus. It was a weird error, and unavoidably pointed to a problem of the reporter thinking the words ‘Body of Christ’ had to mean ‘statue of Jesus,’ something that would seem logical to someone who had never heard of Catholicism.

Griswold observes:

Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the “Body of Christ” and the wine the “Blood of Christ,” a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.

There’s the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which would fit the New York Times and its smarmy urban hipsters on staff to a tee.

The problem of course is that the paper was covering the biggest religious story of the year, with a reporter who knew nothing about the religion, and an editing staff that apparently didn’t spot the discrepancy in its coverage compared to other news outlets’ coverage, so as to ask the reporter if he knew what he was talking about. New York Times reporters are among the best paid in the business – and have a reputation of being staffed by people who are always ‘the smartest kid in the class.’ Ummm…

Sounds like a case of style over actual substance.

I am struck by how the reporter wrote the story as if he did know what he was talking about because he was there – his on-the-ground descriptive details suggest someone who watched the whole thing unfold himself instead of glommed off other people’s reporting, misinterpreting the phrases.

That’s where the credibility killer is. Next time you read a New York Times report in this style, are you going to believe the paper knows what it’s talking about? They not only were not there, they didn’t understand what they were told by people who were there.

Hat tip: Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

The opening shots of a bloody civil war between socialist fanatics and old guard Democrats have been fired…

The so-called resistance is swarming like a horde of angry hornets after Nancy Pelosi’s nationally televised smackdown of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday.

The leader of House Democrats has been sending signals that she may be at the end of her patience with the former bartender who has dominated the media and repeatedly embarrassed Pelosi who despite being a leftist herself, is a longtime member of the party establishment.

Ocasio-Cortez’s act may have crossed Pelosi’s red line after the PAC that was behind her candidacy – Justice Democrats – promoted a blacklist targeting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and threatening to primary House members who didn’t bend to their extremist agenda.

Pelosi’s condescending remarks to Stahl about the size of AOC’s following and her firm rejection of socialism were only the beginning.

She continued her mockery of the 29-year-old freshman when she further punctured the thin-skinned Twitter diva’s bubble by remarking that a “glass of water” with a “D” next to it would have won New York’s 14th congressional district.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes another shot at socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), says a “glass of water” with a “D” next to it “would win” in Ocasio-Cortez’s district. pic.twitter.com/sPbhEUTeir

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 15, 2019

Fighting words!

Count Michael Moore among those who are really, really pissed off at Pelosi and true to form, the porcine propagandist took to Twitter to vent his displeasure with both ageist and racist remarks about Madame Speaker.

Moore invoked the left’s dog whistle term of “privilege” which is every bit as racist as the N-word and other slurs only the left continues to get a pass on such vile terminology.

White people. Nobody likes giving up power. And they never see the writing on the wall. The new day arrives and no one has the heart to tell them they and their old tired privileged ways are over. https://t.co/jAGjzEjLgp

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) April 15, 2019

Via The Hill, “Michael Moore slams Pelosi after ’60 Minutes’ interview: Her ‘old tired privileged ways are over’”:

Liberal activist and filmmaker Michael Moore slammed Speaker Nancy Pelosi Monday after she appeared on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” saying the California Democrat’s “old tired privileged ways are over.”

Moore included a clip from Pelosi’s interview in his tweet where she said that the progressive flank of the House Democratic Caucus, including freshmen such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is “like five people.”

The hypocrisy of Michael Moore is endless.

He himself is a wealthy white man who it could be pointed out would have personally benefited from such “privilege” were such a thing to actually exist outside of being a junk term bandied about by cynics and bitter losers looking for someone else to blame for their own failures.

One of those bitter losers would be the grumpy old man in the ratty baseball cap who used to be relevant. According to the most recent barometer of his success which was the heavily-hyped anti-Trump movie “Fahrenheit 11/9”  which bombed at the box office, is the one whose days are really nearing the end while he brays like a mastodon being sucked under in a tar pit in 280 characters.

The deterioration of what was once a legitimate party is gaining momentum…

Democrats are in complete lockstep with their defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar over her latest controversial outburst and that is especially the case with many of the contestants who are competing for the party’s presidential nomination next year.

Despite the simple fact that Omar just can’t keep her mouth shut and spare her party the indignity of having to defend her anti-Semitism and other insulting remarks, there is no distance between those seeking to run the country if they can beat President Trump.

The Somali-born freshman’s latest firestorm was set off when during a speech to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which have been widely interpreted as being disrespectful if not dismissive to the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

According to Omar:

“Here’s the truth: Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen. And frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it”

“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

She then doubled-down by trying to suggest that what she said was nothing that then-President George W. Bush didn’t say:

“The people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” President George W. Bush

Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack?

What if he was a Muslim 🤔 https://t.co/XMazssoD49

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 12, 2019

There is an unwritten rule in politics that “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” but Omar continues to ask for a bigger shovel and her bigotry and hatred for the country that took her in as a refugee continues to be enabled by top Democrats.

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls have come out in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar after the president and conservative media attacked her for comments they portrayed as minimizing the September 11 attacks https://t.co/JHyjk7Tvmt

— POLITICO (@politico) April 13, 2019

Via Politico, “2020 Dems defend Rep. Omar from Trump amid controversy over 9/11 remarks”:

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls have come out in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) after conservative media and President Donald Trump attacked her for comments they portrayed as minimizing the September 11 attacks.

Omar has reportedly since received death threats for the remarks, but her fellow Democrats were quick to denounce Trump for going after Omar and taking the comment out of context.

“Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted Friday.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren both condemned the attacks against Omar as not only dangerous for the congresswoman, but Muslims in the U.S. in general.

“President Trump’s inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric towards Ilhan Omar is jeopardizing her safety. He is deliberately putting her and all Muslim Americans in harm’s way,” Inslee tweeted Friday.

Warren also tweeted Friday in a similar vein: “The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It’s disgusting. It’s shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.”

Whether Rep. Omar has actually received “death threats” as per the party talking points is likely viewed by many with appropriate skepticism in the aftermath of the Jussie Smollett hate hoax.

For two years, this President has used the most powerful platform in the world to sow hate & division. He’s done it again. Putting the safety of a sitting member of Congress @IlhanMN at risk & vilifying a whole religion is beyond the pale. I’ll be blunt — we must defeat him.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) April 13, 2019

Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2019

The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It’s disgusting. It’s shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 13, 2019

After 9/11 we all said we were changed. That we were stronger and more united. That’s what “never forget” was about. Now, a president uses that dark day to incite his base against a member of Congress, as if for sport. As if we learned nothing that day about the workings of hate.

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) April 13, 2019

We are stronger than this president’s hatred and Islamophobia. Do not let him drive us apart or make us afraid.

— Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) April 13, 2019

Someone has already been charged with a serious threat on Congresswoman Omar’s life. The video the President chose to send out today will only incite more hate. You can disagree with her words—as I have done before—but this video is wrong. Enough.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) April 13, 2019

And some chatter from the “kid’s table” field of candidates:

As a Senator who represents 9/11 victims, I can’t accept any minimizing of that pain. But Trump’s dangerous rhetoric against @IlhanMN is disgusting. It’s a false choice to suggest we can’t fight terrorism and reject Islamophobic hate at once—a president should do both.

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) April 13, 2019

President Trump’s inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric towards Ilhan Omar is jeopardizing her safety. He is deliberately putting her and all Muslim Americans in harm’s way.

— Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) April 13, 2019

The grandstanding is just more hypocrisy from the left who never expressed much outrage when a lunatic Bernie Sanders supporter attempted to massacre the entire Republican congressional baseball team when they were at practice in 2017 after he was pushed over the edge by Democrat and media hate mongering.

There should never be any doubt as to which side that these radicals are standing.