HOLLYWOOD, FL – Promising to support the higher principles that comprise the foundation upon which a free republic is built is a reasonable requirement, for immigration, for holding any public office, and for people, generally, who reside in such a republic.
Freedom must remain at risk as long as those in government do not bear allegiance to certain principles. And as long as they are permitted to immigrate to America who oppose those principles, internal social and political conflict must be perpetuated within the nation, as proponents of principles in opposition to freedom would support freedom’s eradication.
Those who ratified the Constitution understood the risks of permitting opposition to the principles upon which it was ratified. That is why they included the Supremacy Clause found in 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Ad Disclosure: This site earns revenue from ads, some within content. You can support independent journalism and help us stay afloat by donating or purchasing our merch following us on social media (Facebook |
Feedspot) or just sharing content you like.
Unless adherence to the supreme law of the land is required and enforced, rule of law crumbles and tyranny increases, along with disorder, poverty, and injustice. That process of progressive crumbling of the rule of law is what America has been experiencing for several decades.
But why should adherence to the Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof be strictly enforced? Were those founders who ratified the Constitution so righteous and perfect that no dissent to their opinions might be tolerated?
Men are men, imperfect, flawed, and shortsighted. Those who ratified the Constitution might have made clearer certain aspects of that document. But arguably, the most perfect statement in it is the first sentence of it, know as the Preamble, which clearly and succinctly defines the purposes for which it was ratified, and for which America exists:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
So while the constitutionality of certain aspects of the law might be debated, it should be beyond debate that any point of law must conform to the purposes expressed in the Preamble in order to be considered constitutional, or “in pursuance thereof.”
Which brings us to certain published opinions of Ilhan Omar, such as her following tweet:
“Our democracy is built on debate, Congresswoman! I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee. The people of the 5th elected me to serve their interest. I am sure we agree on that!”
Seems like a reasonable statement, doesn’t it? It does, although Omar’s having stated that Somalia is her country might lead one to wonder whether she means to serve Somalia or America in Congress.
Allegiance to America’s constitutional principles might appear to be that which Omar recommends. But further examination of evidence regarding Omar’s actual allegiance raises questions.
While her statement, under the circumstances, seems a bit ambiguous, it does not help to put it into the context of some of her other statements. For example, Omar also tweeted this:
“We must be willing to combat hate of all kinds while also calling out oppression of all kinds. I will do my best to live up to that. I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same.”
There we have another perfectly sensible comment, woefully tainted by Omar’s ongoing support of jihadi terrorists groups, such as Hamas, whose charter, in Article 7, calls for compliance with Mohammad’s instructions on annihilating all Jews. Omar’s ideology, in fact, based mainly on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, is essentially, profoundly hateful.
And Omar’s following tweet raises some concern, as well:
“I am in the Horn of Africa this weekend, proud to see peace prosper here and to be part of the first American delegation to Eritrea🇪🇷 in decades is one I am grateful for. I fight peace and justice because only those who experience the pain of war, know the joy of peace.”
Not to be overly demanding with regard to conventional grammar, but where Omar states, “I fight peace and justice,” she leaves unclear as to whether she means that she fights for or against them. Evidence suggests that she fights against them.
And as a final example of her statements, consider this tweet:
“My Americanness is questioned by the President and the @GOP on a daily basis, yet my colleagues remain silent. I know what it means to be American and no one will ever tell me otherwise.”
Omar knows what it means to be American? While supporting self-defined enemies of America, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who have published their objective of destroying America? How disingenuous, not to say treasonous.
Congresswoman Omar seems conflicted. She’s an anti-American American (who appears to have committed fraud in order to obtain citizenship), supporting America’s enemies. She’s a pro-terrorist jihadi supporter, who claims to support her country (whichever one that is). And she claims to support democracy, while adhering to an ideology antithetical to democracy.
Maybe Ilhan Omar is just confused about the true meaning and intent of the Constitution. Maybe a few remedial classes would get her onto the right track. Then she could help to reorient Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and all her other congressional colleagues who oppose the Constitution.