Is Chelsea Clinton Islamophobic now?

In early February, the only child of the “indefatigable” former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, did the unthinkable when she condemned Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) over the congresswoman’s anti-Semitic remarks.  In response to Omar’s Jew-hating rhetoric, Chelsea tweeted:

We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.

Fast-forward a month, and a lunatic shoots up a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 49 people.  Again, in a tweet, Chelsea expressed her sympathy for the victims and used the opportunity to show camaraderie with those who blame white nationalism for everything terrible in the world.  On Twitter, Chelsea wrote this:

Heartbroken & horrified by the white nationalist terrorist attack during Jummah on the mosques and Muslim community in Christchurch. Keeping all affected by this tragedy in my heart and prayers. We need a global response to the global threat of violent white nationalism.

Wait, “Jummah”?

Anyway, like a dutiful liberal, pregnant Chelsea did what she’s never done for the multitudes of Christians murdered the world over, every day: she slipped on her maternity top and waddled on over to the New York University campus to join her brethren for a vigil for victims of the massacre.

Let’s face it: Chelsea had to go to NYU.  For liberals, the Christchurch catastrophe is equivalent to hitting the SJW lotto and achieves everything the Jussie Smollett debacle failed to accomplish.  For starters, it ties racism (since when is Islam a race?) to Trump’s immigration policy and exploits the unfortunate event as a vehicle to demand sympathy for Muslim refugees coming to America from hotbeds of terrorism around the world.  As a bonus, and despite the carnage having transpired in a country with strict gun control laws, the tragedy has also become a sounding board for leftists to condemn America’s Second Amendment further, as well as demonize every Trump-supporter having the misfortune to have been born white.

After arriving, much to her surprise, Chelsea found out she was an unwelcome attendee.  Instead of spending the evening weeping and hugging women in hijabs, a female student accused Chelsea of having “stoked” the bloody massacre some 9,000 miles away.

Ambushed in a hallway, Chelsea’s February tweet condemning Omar’s anti-Semitism was referred to by Muslim Bernie Sanders–supporter and NYU senior Leen Dweik.  While her friend videoed the encounter, Leen got in Chelsea’s face, saying:

This, right here, is a result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world.  And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep down inside.  Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.

Stunned by the confrontation, Clinton responded to the accusation by explaining that inciting a terrorist attack against Muslims was “certainly … never [her] intention.”  Then Chelsea attempted to commiserate with the woman’s outrage by saying, “I do believe words matter.  I believe we have to show solidarity.”

Over and over, Chelsea repeated, “I’m so sorry that you feel that way.”  Unimpressed, a male student responded to Clinton’s heartfelt expression of sorrow with, “What does ‘I’m sorry you feel that way’ mean?”

Campus activist Rose Asaf then posted the video of the confrontation, along with a tweet, stating: “People haven’t forgotten the Islamophobic mob she incited against @IlhanMN. There is no sense of responsibility.”

So is this how it works?  Jew-hating Ilhan Omar spews hatred, and Chelsea Clinton publicly condemns that hatred.  Then, weeks later, there’s a terrorist attack, Muslims die, and Chelsea is personally responsible for the bloodshed?  Among some on the Left, it seems, is the new standard that even if the criticism is warranted, if one dares to criticize a Muslim, and even if the one doing the criticizing generally embraces Islam, any form of disparagement is defined as “stoking” violence against the whole Muslim community.

Think about it: by criticizing a woman who practices a faith she usually extols, even Chelsea Clinton has managed to be attacked by a person who, based on her politics, is undoubtedly like-minded on most other issues.

Notwithstanding the scrumptiousness of the schadenfreude, as crazy as it sounds, maybe there is a larger lesson for Chelsea Clinton to glean from all of this.  By desperately trying to be on the cutting edge of cultural diversity and by wrongly defining many injustices as justice, people like Chelsea Clinton place themselves in a precarious position.

Much like Mom, Chelsea lives her life striving to be politically correct.  In addition to shilling for Muslim Barbie, Chelsea also defends the right to dispose of unborn babies.  So, in light of what happened at NYU, the obvious question for Ms. Clinton to consider is whether or not it is also possible for anti-life activists to one day turn on those who lament that their grandmothers were denied the right to abort their mothers.

If a Muslim-supporter like Chelsea can be blamed for inciting a massacre in a mosque, that means that the things liberals embrace, like abortion, also have the potential to make those who support those policies potential victims.  And so, as the left publicly attack their own on liberal stomping grounds like NYU, the rest of America should take note as the policies Chelsea Clinton supports are making victims of the left’s fiercest advocates.

Published at American Thinker on March 17, 2019

Back to Top