Defenders of Rep. Ilhan Omar Would Have Made Good Defense Witnesses at Nuremberg
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) defended Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) from charges of anti-Semitism by arguing she should receive some leeway because of her upbringing in Somalia. Her family moved to the United States in 1995 when she was 14 years old. This means that she has been in this country for nearly 25 years.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CNN that Rep. Omar’s controversial remarks about Israel were “just part of a learning process.” How long does it take her to learn? She got elected because of her views. Her Minnesota district is a hotbed of violence and Islamic radicalism.
Middle Eastern Women’s Coalition (MEWC) director Nahren Anweya on Wednesday warned Americans who visit Minnesota’s 5th district, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district, the 2016 “terrorist recruitment capital of the country.”
“You won’t even think you’re in America,” she said of the district that elected Ilhan Omar. (Breitbart)
Following Schakowsky’s logic, does this mean that if rape and honor killings are accepted in “a different culture” that they should be excused in ours? “Different culture values” are being implemented into law by Democrats who have passed laws that allow women to kill their unborn babies any time during their pregnancy and even thereafter. It’s no wonder that there is little if any condemnation of people like Rep. Omar.
Let’s put Schakowsky’s “logic” to the test by considering the acts of some pagan cultures.
The Aztecs had raided neighboring tribes for years, capturing thousands of victims for human sacrifice. Cortez and his men were horrified at what they saw. Aztec temples were stacked with human skulls. When Cortez spotted a sacrificial pyramid, he made his way up the hundred and fourteen steps with some of his best soldiers following close behind. Montezuma was at the top waiting for him. What Cortez and his battle-hardened men saw shocked them. Montezuma had just sacrificed some boys and blood was everywhere.
Bernal Diaz, an eyewitness, describes the scene: “All the walls … were so splashed and encrusted with blood that they were black, the floor was the same and the whole place stank vilely…. The walls were so clotted with blood and the soil so bathed with it that in the slaughterhouses of Spain there is not such another stench.”1
As the Spaniards climbed down the temple pyramid and made their way through the city, they saw more unspeakable horrors. They passed rooms where the bodies of sacrificial victims were being prepared for feasts. They saw racks that held more than a hundred thousand human skulls. Aztec society was built on blood, the blood of thousands of helpless victims.
It was their tradition and culture. Who was to say it was wrong?
In his defense, Montezuma should have said to Cortez, “I’m a cultural Aztec. You can’t rightly judge my cultural traditions and customs by your arbitrary foreign traditions.”
The same was true of the Inca. The following is a description of the traditions and customs of that equally bloodthirsty civilization:
Terrible as human sacrifice seems to us, we should remember that the Inca thought it necessary to their well-being. Sacrificial victims were not being punished for any crime; they were being rewarded for their beauty. The killing was done as painlessly as possible and without anger or hatred. Being sacrificed was, indeed, an honor that guaranteed eternal life with the gods and thus a “favor.”2
It took an outside moral worldview to put an end to these atrocities. Rep. Ilhan Omar is a Muslim. She does not like the United States, its Christian history, or its moral foundation. She wants to impose Sharia law on our nation.
Dutch professor of sociology Ruud Koopmans claims than no Western country has managed to successfully integrate Muslims. “Muslims are much worse at integration than other groups of migrants, and there is no doubt that in most other groups of migrants, we see great progress from one generation to the next. Although it’s not completely absent in Muslims, the change is much slower,” he told Danish newspaper Berlingske recently…. The fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran, which is prevalent among Muslims, prevents them from being integrated into Western countries. (Voice of Europe)
There’s a modern component to the effect of accepting cultural values as legitimate. Consider the arguments that Nazi defenders used during the Nuremberg Trials:
When the Charter of the Tribunal, which had been drawn up by the victors, was used by the prosecution, the defendants very logically complained that they were being tried by ex post facto laws; and some authorities in the field of international law have severely criticized the allied judges on the same ground. The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.3
The last sentence is instructive. Rep. Jan Schakowsky would have made a great defense witness for the Nazis.
Faced with this dilemma, “Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States at the Trials, was compelled to appeal to permanent values, to moral standards transcending the lifestyles of particular societies—in a word, to a ‘law beyond the law’ of individual nations, whether victor or vanquished.”4
We’re a long way from Nuremberg. Almost no one believes in a higher law. A law is what elected officials and the judges say it is. The states of New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Mexico prove it by permitting women to kill their unborn and born babies and applaud and cheer the sanctioning of murder.
- Quoted in Albert Marrin, Aztecs and Spaniards: Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico (New York: Atheneum, 1986), 111. [↩]
- Albert Marrin, Inca and Spaniard: Pizarro and the Conquest of Mexico (New York: Atheneum, 1989), 34–35. [↩]
- John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 24. [↩]
- Montgomery, The Law Above the Law, 24. [↩]