Posted on 10/08/2025 8:20:19 AM PDT by Heartlander
Loyalty can elevate or enslave. Placed in truth, it anchors. Placed in tribe, it distorts. Though I have known both, I abandoned the latter and embraced the former. That is why when I look at Ilhan Omar and Charlie Kirk, I see two distinct moral universes.
Charlie’s foundation was faith in Christ and country, in family and the free market. His faith was that America embodies true freedom and dignity because our country was founded on biblical principles—principles that demand that power be checked and the weak be protected.
Ilhan Omar’s foundation rests on three pillars: clan, Islamism, and leftism. Each demands loyalty not to principle but to faction. Each reduces life to a struggle for dominance.
I know Omar’s world. It is a place without law, where men with swords and guns decide the fate of neighbors, where girls are cut to mark them as pure, where bribes stand in for justice. These are not random misfortunes, but the dynamics of the system Omar embodies. It incentivizes and rewards absolute and unchecked power—even at the expense of life, limb, and property.
The foundation of Omar’s world is the clan. From birth, children are taught to display unquestioning loyalty to their group, to obey a rigid code of honor and shame without question. Loyalty to kin is praised above all else. The cost of such loyalty, however, is naked, irrational hostility to all outsiders. Distrust, concealment, and perceived persecution feed collective paranoia, and zero-sum thinking rules daily life. Lying and cheating are not sins if they serve the group.
Layered on that is Islamism. The headscarf Omar wears is not a symbol of modesty but a political marker. Her rhetoric on Jews and Israel follows the Muslim Brotherhood script: condemn Israel at every turn, blame Jews for every setback, and treat unbelievers as entirely expendable. There is no depth, only disdain.
And then comes today’s prevailing Leninist leftism. Omar merges the absolutism of clan and the dogmatism of Islamism with the mantras of Marxism: take from the rich and hand to the poor, sanctify grievance, and frame history as an endless struggle between identity groups. But here lies the irony. She now enjoys the wealth of the very system she supposedly despises. She is not the barefoot refugee she once was. She is a multi-millionaire, living in luxury, lecturing Americans about redistribution while securing her own fortune. Her maxims remain Marxist, but her lifestyle is decidedly capitalist.
Charlie Kirk refuted the identity politics of Ilhan Omar and called out Islamism. Instead of fantasizing about socialist utopias, he urged young people to marry, stay faithful, raise children, and build more than they inherited. He believed America’s greatness came not from grievance but from gratitude. He stated his values openly and treated his opponents with respect. For Charlie, faith was not tribal. And he believed wholeheartedly that the universal truths on which America was based were available to all.
This is why Omar’s response to Charlie matters. She lied about him. She smeared and slandered him. When he was killed, she mocked him with grave-dancing remarks. For her, these tactics are permitted. For him, they never would have been. His moral universe did not allow it. Hers encourages it.
Clan, Islamism, leftism: each is a cage. Together they form a prison of mind and soul. Ilhan Omar is the elected, walking, talking example of this blighted mindset.
This is why I reject moral relativism. This moral posture was clearly demonstrated by the journalists who allowed Omar to hurl false accusations at Charlie Kirk. It breeds the racism of low expectations, which is something Kirk also called out. For it is taboo in leftist culture for white girls in the media to ask a black girl with a headscarf to support her statements with some facts. Moral relativism is the false comfort blanket of the liberal West. It pretends all cultures, all creeds, and all systems are equal.
They are not.
Opportunists like Omar exploit this weakness. They demand rights without accepting obligations. They demand protection while scorning the principles that grant it.
The vast differences between Charlie and Omar lead to a larger question: What does citizenship mean? Citizenship was once thought to be a covenant. It meant shifting loyalty away from old allegiances—to foreign leaders, foreign ideologies, foreign gods—and giving it wholly to America. It meant embracing the Constitution and the creed of liberty under law. It was a privilege to be earned, not a welfare card to be handed out.
Omar wants the rights of citizenship but not the responsibilities. She has never spoken with outrage about the atrocities committed against Christians in Somalia or across Africa. She has not condemned the violence of Islamist rule. She has learned instead how to draw from America without giving back. She takes, but she does not adopt. She enriches herself while preaching envy.
This is not about denaturalizing or deporting her. It is about recognizing that she should never have been granted citizenship in the first place. Her life is a warning of what happens when citizenship is treated not as a covenant but as an entitlement.
Charlie Kirk stood for honor, sacrifice, and loyalty to country. Omar stands for deceit, division, and loyalty to faction. He built his message on faith and family. She builds hers on resentment and rupture. He called Americans to unite and find some common ground. She divides and drives her followers toward malice and mistrust.
I fled the warped world Omar actively endorses. I chose the world Charlie defended. And I say with genuine urgency: America must learn the difference.
Citizenship must again be tied to allegiance—not to bloodline or to imported ideologies. To belong here should mean to believe in what America is. Without that, our nation will not endure.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
- Frank Herbert Children of Dune
muslims, somalis and other nefarious ethnicities seek to use our freedoms against us......and if we’re not careful, they’re gonna be successful.
Ilhan Omar Betrays the Meaning of Civilization.
I’ve seen Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak to college students in much the same way Charlie Kirk did. She’s a brilliant woman and a powerful speaker.
P
I was hoping she would be offered a position with the Trump Administration. She is a courageous person, living fully and realistically in the moment. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would be unlikely to support such an idea.
Omar is a muslim and can never assimilate, ergo, her intellect can never accept Americanism and legislate accordingly.
When is her citizenship going to be investigated?
Thanks for posting this. Years ago, I read a book of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and was much impressed with her, “The Challenge of DAWA” - so revealing how she was raised etc. We used to see a lot of her articles but it’s been a long time. There were two or three other ladies with much the same background who wrote a lot at the same time..their names won’t come to me now. One was Noni Darwish...still working on the others...
Oh, it should be. Why isn't this being prosecuted? Are there laws protecting criminals in Congress?
Ayaan would be a great addition to the administration, especially in a visible role such as a spokeswoman. I hope that whether working in a private role as now or in a public role that her visibility keeps growing. With Charlie gone we need others stepping into his shoes, and she’s one of the more capable ones to be doing it.
A perfect description of this conundrum we are in.
Congress needs to make a rule banning the worship of Allah in the US. We can’t go back to the days before we opened the gates to them, but ban their synagogues. Classify Islam the same class as the KKK. Track them, break up their meetings and hopefully chase them back to Bum-fuq Egypt.
Islam is not a religion, it is a cult. The word “islam” literally means “submit”
IslamISM is a political ideology pretending to be a religion.
Islam is a religion.
She’s the one who married her brother.
Political Ideology, Slavery of Infidels, Murder of Infidels, Subjugation of women and World Conquest are the backbone of Islam. It is a cult, a very large cult due to ignorance, but a cult nonetheless.
You can call it what you like, but to millions it’s their religion. There are many who don’t agree with the violence in its history and modern political expression any more than Catholics today agree with the historical Inquisitions of the Roman Catholic Church.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/muslims-vs-islamists
Declare it a cult. Tommy Jefferson saw it as a danger. He was a founding father.
What law permits the government to declare an organization a ‘cult’ and outlaw it?
If there were such, I’m sure we have some people here who would push to have SDA, LDS, and certainly Vodun and Scientology outlawed...Heck, judging by some of the religious arguments here, some would even want the RC Church outlawed.
But none of that has happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.