Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Soros-funded groups fight scrutiny of Keith Ellison’s Nation of Islam past

Soros-funded groups fight scrutiny of Keith Ellison’s Nation of Islam past

Ellison claims he didn’t know the true nature of Farrakhan. Seriously.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/make-keith-ellison-the-dnc-chair?link_id=2&can_id=cf57b53d3dae2904833b8f861357d036&source=email-sign-now-keith-ellison-for-dnc-chair&email_referrer=sign-now-keith-ellison-for-dnc-chair___131968&email_subject=sign-now-ready-for-keith-ellison

Keith Ellison, Democratic Congressman from Minnesota, is the favorite to become Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

He has the support of big names like Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Harry Reid, among others.

Yet for years there have been questions about Ellison’s past association with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, as well as his association with anti-Israel groups. We touched upon Ellison’s background in two recent posts:

Scott Johnson of Power Line, who is based in Minnesota, has been following the career of Ellison for a decade. Scott talked about some of what he has learned about Ellison in a recent radio interview, Ten Years On The Ellison Case:

I talked about Keith Ellison with Seth Leibsohn and Chris Buskirk on the aptly named Seth & Chris Show for two segments this afternoon. Seth has kindly forwarded the audio hot off the air (posted here and enbedded below). I’m celebrating ten years on Ellison’s case, trying to warn Democrats off the guy. It turns out I must be Ellison’s good luck charm. If past experience is a guide to future performance, the chairmanship of the Democratic Party has his name on it.

In the course of the interview I cite my Weekly Standard articles “Louis Farrakhan’s first congressman” (2006) and “The Ellison elision” (2014) as well as the Power Line post “Keith Ellison for dummies” (with documents embedded). These pieces have the details to which I only allude in the interview with Seth and Chris.

Ellison once wrote under the names Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad, and supported and defended the Nation of Islam. The extent and timeline of Ellison’s support is part of a whitewash, Scott argues.

Here is Scott’s interview via Sound Cloud (also here if you have a problem accessing Sound Cloud or it doesn’t load).

The Power Line Keith Ellison Archive is a must read to understand the person who may be the next Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Keith Ellison for Dummies, in particular, has the timeline of Ellison’s career with documents, and his strategic 2006 apology to the Jewish community as he was promoting his political career in which he says he didn’t understand the nature of the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan:

What are we to make of this? Take a look at Ellison’s May 28, 2006, letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council; it served as the keystone of his 2006 campaign for election to Congress. That letter to the contrary notwithstanding, the documents posted above nevertheless by themselves establish that 1) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam exceeded any 18-month period, 2) Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the promotion of the Million Man March, and 3) that Ellison himself, far from being ignorant of the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitism, actively supported it.

The steadfast refusal of the local Minnesota media to examine Ellison’s public record in the course of his congressional campaign represented a striking case of nonfeasance, incompetence and willfully averted eyes that remains a story unto itself.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/keith-ellison-for-dummies.php

The Southern Poverty Law Center (which I have repeatedly criticized) is now the darling of the mainstream media and Democrats because it is attacking Steve Bannon, as well as people it labels Islamophobic, like Hirsi Ali. Consider what SPLC says about the Nation of Islam:

Since its founding in 1930, the Nation of Islam (NOI) has grown into one of the wealthiest and best-known organizations in black America, offering numerous programs and events designed to uplift African Americans. Nonetheless, its bizarre theology of innate black superiority over whites — a belief system vehemently and consistently rejected by mainstream Muslims — and the deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders, including top minister Louis Farrakhan, have earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate.

The notion that Ellison did not know the nature of Louis Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam is preposterous. Everyone knew. It was all over the media.

This speech was delivered at a highly publicized Madison Square Garden rally in 1985:

This CBS News profile was in 1990.

This Time Magazine Cover story was on February 28, 1994:

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940228,00.html

This Sermon was delivered at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, March 19, 1995, and generated huge controversy because of the accusation that rich Jews financed the Holocaust and used soap made from the skins of poor Jews to wash:

German Jews financed Hitler right here in America…International bankers financed Hitler and poor Jews died while big Jews were at the root of what you call the Holocaust…Little Jews died while big Jews made money. Little Jews [were] being turned into soap while big Jews washed themselves with it. Jews [were] playing violin, Jews [were] playing music, while other Jews [were] marching into the gas chambers…

Unlike the rest of American, apparently Ellison was unaware that Farrakhan was antisemitic. In a November 6, 1995 Op-Ed under the name Keith X Ellison, he wrote that Farrakhan was a “role model for Black youth; however he is not an anti-semite.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/keith-ellison-for-dummies.php

Ellison’s defenders will claim he has changed. And maybe he has. That he has become the go-to congressman for pro-boycott anti-Israel groups raises doubts as to whether the change is complete.

Regardless, why should the potential leader of the Democratic National Committee escape full and open scrutiny? Ellison will be the face of the Democratic Party at least until the next presidential election cycle.

Will Ellison’s past and present receive a tiny fraction of the scrutiny paid to Steve Bannon? Next question, we already know the answer is No:

Television networks have devoted almost 42 minutes, most of it negative, to covering President-Elect Donald Trump’s choice as chief White House strategist — while ignoring the controversial history of the man who might be the next leader of the Democratic Party.

The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog, compiled the data for a study published Wednesday. Trump’s selection of Stephen Bannon has generated 41 minutes and 46 seconds of coverage on the Big Three networks. Of that, 74 percent has been negative, focusing on topics like Bannon’s alleged ties to white nationalists and other bigots.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) has gotten just two minutes and nine seconds of coverage with his bid for Democratic National Committee chairman. None has been negative, according to the Media Research Center.

“They are covering his bid; they’re just not covering him negatively at all,” said Rich Noyes, the center’s research director.

For some media, the failure to cover Ellison’s background may just be laziness. But for others, it’s part of a strategy.

Ellison, after all, is part of the Soros network, huddling with groups such as Media Matters at a post-election Soros gathering. Politico reports, 2016 Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’ (emphasis added):

George Soros and other rich liberals who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to elect Hillary Clinton are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed door meeting to retool the big-money left to fight back against Donald Trump.

The conference, which kicked off Sunday night at Washington’s pricey Mandarin Oriental hotel, is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club, and will include appearances by leaders of most leading unions and liberal groups, as well as darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison, according to an agenda and other documents obtained by POLITICO….

Since its inception in 2005, the DA has steered upward of $500 million to a range of groups, including pillars of the political left such as the watchdog group Media Matters, the policy advocacy outfit Center for American Progress and the data firm Catalist — all of which are run by Clinton allies who are expected to send representatives to the DA meeting.

Soros-backed groups, it was revealed through Wikileaks document disclosures, are leading the progressive attack on Israel, Soros-funded anti-Israel ecosystem unmasked by hack:

So understand the Soros-funded anti-Israel circle: Soros funds groups that make false claims against Israel. Those false claims are used by other groups funded by Soros.

Installing Ellison atop the DNC would fit nicely with Soros’ goal of undermining American political unity in supporting Israel, as I documented in Keith Ellison’s troubling relationship with anti-Israel groups

It is no surprise, then, that David Brock’s Soros-funded Media Matters is leading the charge to quash publicity about Ellison’s background while simultaneously leading the charge against Bannon.

Media Matters claims inquiry into Ellison’s Farrakhan days is an attack on all Muslims, Here Come The Anti-Muslim Attacks On Keith Ellison:

media-matters-anti-muslim-attacks-on-ellison

By conflating all Muslims with the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, Media Matters may be gaining short-term talking points, but actually causes damage to the vast majority of Muslims who never have subscribed to Farrakhan’s ideology.

A similar tactic is being carried out by Think Progress, part of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, which receives funding through Soros-related entities. Think Progress calls it all a smear campaign, The growing smear campaign against Keith Ellison:

https://thinkprogress.org/the-growing-smear-campaign-against-keith-ellison-233e16fab864#.oxdqhzmaz

It also is no surprise that another Soros-funded outfit, J Street, also is rushing to Ellison’s aid. J Street was part of the Soros-funded network pushing the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Ellison was backed by J Street’s PAC and J Street published Ellison’s call for Obama to impose conditions of a settlement of the conflict on Israel and not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution dictating the outcome:

President Obama needs to set forth parameters for a peace settlement and instruct Ambassador Samantha Power not to veto plans for peace in the United Nations Security Council.

Imposing a settlement on Israel through a UN resolution is a primary goal of the progressive left.

J Street, like its fellow Soros-funded Media Matters and Think Progress, is condemning people who raise Ellison’s Nation of Islam and Farrakhan past. It is “hateful” according to J Street:

j-street-ellison-attacks-hateful

We will see if discussion about Ellison’s past creates enough of a critical mass to make a difference as Democrats who vote on the matter assess their current situation. Moving the Democratic Party further to the left, further into anti-Israel Soros-land, may satisfy some. But Democrats will need to decide if it is good for the party.

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans support Israel.

Gallup Israel February 2016 - Israel v Palestinians

Democrats have been eviscerated at the state level, lost the presidency, lost the House and Senate, and now want to inject divisive partisanship into an issue that still unites most Americans.

Surely some Democrats know about first law of holes.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m pulling for Keith X for ANYTHING the Deemocrats want to put him up for…!!!

    Heck, I’d even throw in Amy Klobuchar for free; together, they haven’t got the brain power of a box of rocks.

    Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | November 19, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Chuck-you Schumer wants you, the white working class of America, to know he and his fellow Democrats have heard you loud and clear.

    Hence he’s backing a black 9/11 truther Muslim to head the DNC.

    Perfect. That’s just the reach-around the Dems need to reconnect with the voters populating the infield at Daytona or tailgating in a blizzard at Green Bay that used to be so reliable.

Congressman are required to take an oath to support and defend The Constitution.

But Islam doesn’t allow free speech, relegates women (and gays) to second-class status, allows for violence against non-Muslims, condones slavery (!), and advocates killing of Jews and Christians.

How do these two belief systems coexist, and when will the media ask Ellison about it?

    murkyv in reply to Paul. | November 17, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    He was sworn in with the Koran.

    That is his one and only allegiance.

      Milhouse in reply to murkyv. | November 17, 2016 at 6:58 pm

      So what? How is the Koran less legitimate than the Bible? If you think an oath taken on the Koran is somehow suspect, then the same must be true of an oath taken on the Bible.

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | November 17, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Quite easily. Supporting the constitution does not and has never meant believing that it’s right, let alone not wanting to amend it. All it means is to prevent it from being overthrown, and “to abstain from all acts inconsistent with it”, for so long as one holds the office that one is taking up.

    Both Christianity and Judaism are also ultimately inconsistent with a belief that this constitution shall endure forever. Like Islam, both of these religions look forward to the future establishment of a literal theocracy, in which God is king, His word is unchallengeable law, and the worship of anyone else is suppressed. This has not prevented generations of Christians and Jews from taking the oath of office with complete sincerity, because neither religion requires that the current constitution be forcibly overthrown; both would allow for its peaceful and legitimate amendment, with the people’s support. The same is true of Islam.

      Walker Evans in reply to Milhouse. | November 17, 2016 at 10:46 pm

      You must not have actually read any of the Qu’Ran or you couldn’t make this comparison. Neither Judaism nor Chritianity advocates the violent overthrow of all government/legal/social/religious systems other than Islam but that is precisely what Mohamed’s book does. The fact that some Muslims don’t totally buy into this dogma makes them the so-called “radical Muslims”; the ones who have sworn to destroy all of the things we hold dear – freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, secular governance – are in fact the True Believers. While other groups may wait and hope and even pray for a kingdom of God on earth they do not openly advocate violent overthrow of the existing order nor the death of all those who disagree; there is no legitimate way that Islam and its adherents can thus be compared to the others.

      I sincerely urge you to read the Qu’Ran, and steep yourself in the dogma of Islam, paying particular attention to the Doctrine of Abrogation. Here, let me give you a clue: under the Doctrine of Abrogation, which is essential to Islam, anything Mohamed said that contradicted anything he had previously said completely nullified that earlier pronouncement! As a consequence, every single “peaceful” sura was abolished; it as if they never existed at all!

      Ellison’s rhetoric over the years, his support of U.S.- based Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, and his virulent attacks on anyone who speaks the truth about these groups negates any idea that he is one of the “peaceful radicals”.

        Milhouse in reply to Walker Evans. | November 18, 2016 at 1:54 am

        Neither Judaism nor Chritianity advocates the violent overthrow of all government/legal/social/religious systems other than Islam

        No, of course not; they both advocate the overthrow of all government/legal/social/relgious systems other than themselves. Not right now, and not necessarily with violence. But the same is true of Islam. Moslems living in the USA, where they are a minority, are not expected or encouraged to overthrow the government. There is no state of war between Islam and the USA; only a caliph can declare such a war, and if you’re not an ISIS supporter then there is no caliph.

        Moslems are expected to vote for laws that are more in accord with Islam, just as Christians and Jews are expected to do with regard to their religions. Christians and Jews are both expecting a future state in which the whole world will recognise and accept God’s kingdom, and the USA will voluntarily dissolve itself. There’s not much daylight between the two positions.

          “No, of course not; they both advocate the overthrow of all government/legal/social/relgious systems other than themselves.”

          Lie, straight up.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2016 at 11:20 am

          You, sir, are “Ye Olde Compleat Idiot.”

          Because only a complete idiot could argue there is not much daylight between Islam, Judaism, and Chritianity when it comes to governing authority.

          http://media.clarionproject.org/misc/pdf/43380629-2009-order-on-Holy-Land-Foundation-unindicted-coconspirator-list.pdf

          “Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and datey May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a seciton titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America,” which states that the work of Ikhwan in the United Staes is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Id.) Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Foundation (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.) Government Exhibit 3-64, titled “Preliminary vision for preparing future leadership” and dated December 18, 1988, further ties ISNA to the Muslim Brotherhood by listing it as an “apparatus” of the Brotherhood, (Gov’t Ex. 3-64 (Elbarrasse 4) at 5.)…”

          To say there is not much daylight between what Christianity and Islam profess is like saying there’s not much daylight between the North and South Poles. Christians are commanded by Christ through his Apostles not to behave in ways that the supposed Allah commanded his followers through his prophet to behave.

          To use the biblical term, it is bats**t crazy to suggest what Milhouse is saying.

      Your attempt to draw a moral equivalency between an anticipated second coming of Christ and the push for Sharia Law on Earth today is silly.

      If somebody is running for public office and intends to push for an overthrow of our existing legal framework and advocate for Sharia law, people should know this and talk about it. The candidate should be grilled on it and forced to state a position publicly. Does he support or disavow Sharia Law? And if he disavows it, how can we be sure he is not practicing taqiya?

      And given our society’s laser-like focus on the rights of women, gays, trans, etc why are Muslim politicians not being forced to reconcile their beliefs with today’s progressive political correctness doctrine? The hypocrisy of the left on these issues is astonishing.

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2016 at 10:32 am

        He has every right to advocate sharia, so long as he doesn’t propose to impose it by force, here in the USA, at this time. And he doesn’t. Hardly any Moslems who live here do. Like Jews and Christians, they look forward to a time when the USA will be ready to accept religious rule voluntarily, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

        Arminius in reply to Paul. | November 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm

        Paul, Milhouse will never get it. Or admit to getting it. The night and day difference between the Christian attitude toward civil government and the Islamic attitude.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKoZiD4V86w

        “Without threat of DEATH for apostasy for leaving Islam imam admits Islam would not exist”

        Qaradawi is a cleric solidly in the mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence.

        Surah 5:33 Al-Ma’idah (The Table Spread)

        “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,”

        Its gobsmacking,really. Shariah is indivisible. You can’t advocate for Sharia finance without advocating for the death penalty for apostates.

        Sunan Abu Dawud, Khutub al Hudud (the book of prescribed punishments):

        “‘Ikrimah said:
        ‘Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn ‘Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have burned them, for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Do not inflict Allah’s punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them on account of the statement of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion. When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly Ibn ‘Abbas said!

        Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم :
        Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4351
        In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 1
        English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4337

        Abu Burdah said:
        A man who turned back from Islam was brought to Abu Musa. He invited him to repent for twenty days or about so. Muadh then came and invited him (to embrace Islam) but he refused. So he was beheaded.

        Grade : Sahih in chain (Al-Albani) صحيح الإسناد (الألباني) حكم :
        Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4356
        In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 6
        English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4342″

        You can not advocate for Sharia and not advocate for killing cartoonists and editors of Charlie Hebdo.

        Sunan Abu Dawud, Khutub al Hudud (the book of prescribed punishments):

        ” Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

        A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed about it.

        He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

        He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

        Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

        Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم :
        Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4361
        In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 11
        English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4348″

        You can not advocate for Sharia family law courts without advocating for wife beating.

        Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Dress:

        ” Narrated `Ikrima:

        Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that `AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”

        Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
        In-book reference : Book 77, Hadith 42
        USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 7, Book 72, Hadith 715
        (deprecated numbering scheme)”

        No Islam, err, daylight to see here, folks.

        Sez Milhouse.

    SDN in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Islam also has specific doctrines that it is acceptable to lie to infidels to advance Islam, and also that no oath or agreement given to an infidel person or government is binding. See taqqiya and hudna.

If he didn’t know about Farrakhan, then he is in the Sheila Jackson-Lee class of ignorant.

I say make Ellison the head of the DNC… Let the Dims keep digging… They have learned absolutely nothing from Trump’s election!

The Friendly Grizzly | November 17, 2016 at 7:21 pm

Schumer and Sanders supporting Ellison? Joseph Göbels could be in the running and those two would support him. I guess the “D” is cause to look the other way.

Does LukeHandCool have Extraordinary Insight Powers into the Worldviews of Public Figures, or are Keith and Barack Extraordinarily Obtuse?

Me: LukeHandCool, ordinary white, gentile dude.

Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam: First thing that comes to my mind is a virulently anti-Semitic demagogue who has expressed his admiration for Hitler. I’ve never met nor worked with Farrakhan, but I’ve been aware of his views for as long as I can remember.

Barack Obama: Supposed “kind of god” and “smartest guy in the room.”

Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church: America-hating, anti-white racist and virulent anti-Semite. Obama had a close relationship with Pastor Wright for 20 years but claimed complete surprise as to Wright’s views and all-consuming hatred.

Keith Ellison: Prospective Chair of the DNC and savvy politico who worked with Farrakhan and the NOL, yet who professes he knew less about the views of Farrakhan and the NOL than ordinary white gentile dude LukeHandCool.

LukeHandCool (who, ordinary lad that he is, still is often aware of important current events before President Obama, who claims he only becomes aware of them through the media)

The Obama administration, the Democrat Party, and Hillary Clinton, because of the primary blockout of Sanders, are now regarded with deep disatisfaction from their own liberal base and wider party, especially the younger Sanders supporters. As we know from Wassername and Brazile, the Dems have no problem switching out DNC chairmen. So, they put in Ellison to hopefully please their upset liberal base, knowing that they can (and will) replace him at any time.

The uberliberal Democrat Party is collectivist and the idea that ends justify lives in their stony little hearts. They will excise any individual in favor of the collective. If named DNC chairman, Ellison will find this out the hard way. He is being used as salve on the base’s tattered hearts. They are Borg.

How will this head of the DNC reconcile gay, transgender, etc with the tenants of Islam? Nevermind, it will NEVER be brought up by any dinosaur media.

    Milhouse in reply to Romey. | November 17, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Islam has tenants? How much rent do they pay?

    If you mean tenets, he can reconcile them exactly the same way a Christian or Jewish head of the DNC (or the RNC, or anyone else) would: under US law as it currently stands they have the right to be treated like anyone else. Ultimately, when the nation comes to recognize God’s sovereignty, it will change the law, but until then the law must be upheld.

      “…when the nation comes to recognize God’s sovereignty, it will change the law…”

      Another way of saying that is: “When Muslims become a majority, they will overthrow our legal system and implement their own, Sharia.”

      These are two fundamentally incompatible belief systems. Letting them immigrate here in large numbers is suicide.

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2016 at 10:36 am

        If Moslems ever become a supermajority they will have every right to alter the constitution in accord with their views. That is not “overthrowing”, and there is no reason to object to it. Christians and Jews both intend to do the same thing, when and if the time is right for it.

          ‘That is not “overthrowing”, and there is no reason to object to it.’

          Bullshit. It most certainly would be “overthrowing” and I can think of many, many reasons to object to it.

          I appreciate your perspective on many topics Milhouse, but on this one I think you’re delusional.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm

          “If Moslems ever become a supermajority they will have every right to alter the constitution in accord with their views.”

          This is by definition un-American and anti-American.

          “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

          The idea that a country such as ours could be compatible with Sharia is, disgusting.

          mochajava76 in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2016 at 12:27 am

          ” . . . and the USA will voluntarily dissolve itself”

          I’m not really into eschatology, but since the USA is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, I don’t see where you get this from.

          “If Moslems ever become a supermajority they will have every right to alter the constitution in accord with their views. That is not “overthrowing”, and there is no reason to object to it. *Christians and Jews both intend to do the same thing, when and if the time is right for it*”

          I realize there are some fringe people on the alt right that want this, but I think the great majority of Christ followers and leaders desire peace and righteousness, not a forced overthrow of the government. But I don’t travel in circles where a rewrite of the constitution is discussed, nor read theologians who pander to that.

Ramos Washington | November 18, 2016 at 6:38 am

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” — H.L. Mencken

“Oh yeah?” — George Soros

David Letterman, on his old show “Late Night with David Letterman” noted that Louis Farrakhan had just received five million dollars from Moammar Qaddafi. “When I heard that,” said Letterman, “I lost all respect for Qaddafi.”

He worried about “big Jews” and the Nazis, but I suppose he has no problem with George Soros? Hypocritical beyond the pale. I really want Ellison to take over the DNC; it would be a gift to us.

realityinAction | November 18, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Quran 9:5 vs. Bible, “thou shalt not kill”. There is only Islam, loyalty only to Allah. Abrogation of conflicts Between Mecca and Medina writings are not valid.
Keith X is a fraud.
“Reliance of the Traveler”, lays out the path of the devoted.

    Always nice to see that other deplorables have their own copy or have at least perused Umdat al-Salik. So you know that according to the mainstream Shafi’i school of Sunni jurisprudence Allah has staked out a position on everything from heating hot, wet towels for sex (it’s halal to use a microwave) to killing your own children (there is to be no retribution under Sharia, so f*** off everyone who says honor killings are unislamic).

    Again, nice to have you onboard. I think we’ll get along well.

realityinAction | November 20, 2016 at 9:19 am

…. During continued retrospect, the statist Pagans actually demonstrate a delusional Aurora that the Outputs of HIJRA INVASION OF USA W/ REPUB. FUNDING W/N INCLUDED THEIR GENITALS to partake in the 5 daily Yoga Rug Drills….Freshing to capture their surprise acknowledgment If this occurs….

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend