Connect with us

Democrats

Is Louis Farrakhan running the Democrat party through Keith Ellison?

Published

on

Following the 2016 election, Democrats went right to work on re-creating the party. While you would think they would take this opportunity to move the party away from the extreme left-wing ideology that had cost them the election, Democrats instead moved the party even further left.

In their search for new leadership, Democrats selected Obama’s former Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, to be the new Chair of the Democratic National Committee, while choosing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) as Deputy Chair.

Ellison’s rise to this powerful position was viewed by politically correct Democrats—but I repeat myself—as validation of Ellison’s achievement of becoming the first Muslim ever elected to Congress.

But could there be another reason for Ellison’s success?

Before being elected to represent Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, Ellison was affiliated with the anti-Semitic and anti-American Nation of Islam. It was with this organization that Ellison developed close associations with Louis Farrakhan and Khalid Abdul Muhammad—both of whom have long-established histories of promoting violence and murder against whites and Jews.

While Ellison made efforts to distance himself from Farrakhan during his campaign for Congress, his behavior since becoming Deputy Chair of the DNC would not only indicate that he’s not only still involved with the Nation of Islam, but that Farrakhan might still be behind Ellison’s success.

In a recent speech loaded with anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric, Farrakhan defended Ellison’s perceived betrayal to the Nation of Islam. Telling those in attendance that he considered Ellison a “beautiful brother,” Farrakhan chastised anyone who attempted to attack the Minnesota congressman.

“Let me tell you something. When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door. You will turn on your brother for some advantage in their world.

“I don’t want you attacking him, because you ain’t so strong yourself. If you want something from the white man, and you have to denounce me, how will you act when your trial comes?”

Talk about a Messiah complex.

Farrakhan’s defense of Ellison are right in line with the teachings of the Koran where it states that Muslims can lie to unbelievers as a matter of religious policy. In other words, Ellison’s “lie” about severing ties with Farrakhan is permitted if it can be used to advance the cause—a cause Ellison is still actively involved with.

Ellison’s pro-Nation of Islam persona has been in the news a lot lately. In January he endorsed a book that promotes the ideology of ANTIFA—a group recognized by the DHS and FBI as a domestic terrorist group. The book calls for physical violence against ANTIFA’s opponents as a “vital sliver of anti-fascist activity.”

Over the past weekend, Ellison was the keynote speaker for an annual gala at the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR), a group with ties to radical Islamic terror. He and Farrakhan also recently attended a private dinner hosted by the Iranian government.

By the way . . . Ellison has been an advocate for the repeal of the Second Amendment, a frightening little tidbit of information considering the current anti-gun hysteria coming from the White House.

When you consider the capitulation of Trump and the GOP on priorities considered important to Democrats, the ideology of Ellison and Farrakhan could be advanced if Congress flips in 2018. One more reason that true conservatism is the only hope for America.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Shrugged

    March 2, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    When BHO was elected the second time I thought the Dems were on the cusp of inexcusable extremism. Only the post-Obama unraveling of his tenure will prove that – as I am sure it will.

    This step is one step too far. I will not support any party or candidate that infuses hate on any other race or religion. If I had done the opposite to the Muslims that he did with the Jews, there would be all kinds of reaction.

    I won’t take the double standard. These two guys need to be removed from politics.

  2. Chaz

    March 2, 2018 at 7:18 pm

    If true and it gets out, the dumbacrats will never see the light if day, as far as controlling anything in DC.

    • David Leach

      March 2, 2018 at 11:47 pm

      Chaz – You might be right, but the danger is that with the GOP and Trump caving to the Democrats like they are, Dems might have more power than you think. And if that power is influenced by the likes of Farrakhan, the consequences could be devastating.

  3. Sam Dennis

    March 3, 2018 at 7:34 am

    Barack H. Obama was also a personal friend and confidant of Farrakhan before he was elected to the Senate. Obama’s flirtation with Islam, while he occupied the Oval Office, was not just a fluke policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize

Published

on

4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Blue Collar Logic: How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

Published

on

Blue Collar Logic How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

There are many ways to look at the unprecedented lurch to the left the Democratic Party has been experiencing over the last couple of years. Some, particularly the radical progressives leading the charge, see it as a natural evolution of ideas as their delicate sensibilities blossom. Establishment Democrats see them as a backlash against losing so inexplicably with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Many Republicans don’t see much of a difference other than a more vocal expression of what they’ve held in their hearts for some time.

The folks over at Blue Collar Logic have a different take. They’re seeing the strange actions and hyper-leftist lurching by the Democrats as a transition into a criminal mindset. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they’re throwing out ideas that make very little sense even when compared to what they’ve said in the past. Like a criminal that wants to be caught, they’re leaving clues that they know what they’re doing and saying is wrong, but they feel compelled to do them anyway.

The clearest example to me is the notion that abortions can and should be a consideration even after an “unwanted” baby is born following a botched abortion. Even in the most evil levels of consciousness, there has to be a sense of wrongdoing in the way they’re describing the events as they can hypothetically happen based on what’s being proposed in some states today, but they continue down this road as if they’re unaffected by logic or compassion. The push for “women’s rights” has so superseded their thinking when it comes to abortion that the most extreme version of abortion must be the one that they embrace.

As we approach the 2020 election season, let’s keep a close eye on the rhetoric and radical policy proposals candidates are throwing out. Just because it’s on record doesn’t mean enough voters will hear them. We need their ideas to stick to them like evidence in a murder case.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending