Author Topic: Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)  (Read 144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • My oath of enlistment has no expiration date
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 127,687
  • Gender: Male
Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)
« on: October 06, 2019, 07:20:16 AM »
Posted on October 4, 2019 by Scott Johnson in Ilhan Omar, Media
Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)

What does it mean to disparage the case that Ilhan Omar married her brother in 2009 as a “conspiracy theory”? We saw in part 1 that the Daily Beast, the New Yorker and others have dismissed it by resort to this term or term.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells characterizes it as such in his New Yorker profile of Omar. Perhaps nothing more about the profile of Omar need be said than this: it represents an embarrassing piece of agitprop or fanboy journalism. Making the necessary changes, it might be drawn from the archives of Soviet Life or Tiger Beat. By contrast, however, Will Sommer pretends to contend with the facts of the Omar case in his Daily Beast article on it.

As a general matter, I can understand the reluctance to believe the story. It is almost unbelievable. Mark Twain observed long ago that we have no native criminal class except Congress, but he was talking about old-fashioned misconduct of the kind with which we are all familiar. In Congress, the Omar case presents a novel form of corrupt misconduct.
Give a Democrat a fish and he'll eat for a day.  Teach a Democrat to fish and he'll steal your rod, take your wallet, sexually assault the fish, and then blame President Trump.

Author unknown