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

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that's politically-incorrect and always "right." His articles can also be found on RedState.com. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
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 *

Democrats

The real reason Ocasio-Cortez is afraid of the press

Published

on

The real reason Ocasio-Cortez is afraid of the press

For at least the second time, reporters were barred from covering an event featuring Socialist Democratic darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The campaign’s reason: we want attendees to feel comfortable since there’s so much national press covering her.

This is an absolutely ridiculous excuse, of course. Nobody goes to a campaign event without knowing the press will (should) be there. It doesn’t make them less comfortable and may actually give some a sense of security knowing the answers to their questions will be judged by more than the audience at hand. That’s one of the reasons for the press in the first place, to give information about an event to people who cannot attend.

Instead, the press is getting another roadblock:

Ocasio-Cortez bans press from covering campaign event

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/ocasio-cortez-bans-press-from-covering-campaign-event.htmlAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist star running for New York’s 14th congressional district, is facing criticism after her campaign banned journalists from covering a town hall meeting with voters this week.

The Queens Chronicle, a local news outlet, reported that the campaign for the 28-year-old progressive prevented reporters from attending a campaign event in Corona on Sunday, even though it was open to the rest of the public. The campaign reportedly barred reporters from a prior event as well.

It’s conspicuous that a local publication was barred because it runs contrary to the narrative the campaign is trying to sell. So why is she being hidden from reporters at these types of events?

My Take

It’s clear that her exposure is her best friend and worst enemy. Being talked about is a politician’s best friend on the campaign trail, but it also offers a risk of failure. This is most common in events like the town hall meetings she is holding because she’ll be forced to think on her feet.

What if she can’t think on her feet? What if her answers when placed in an unscripted situation the type of answers many would expect from an inexperienced socialist?

Until she’s ready to handle the pressure of having press cover these events, she won’t be ready to hold public office at this level. The House of Representatives isn’t for people who need to be protected from their own answers.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Bettie Cook Scott is a racist politician. And she’s a Democrat.

Published

on

Bettie Cook Scott is a racist politician And shes a Democrat

Racism is owned by the Republican Party. That’s the narrative the press and their handlers, the Democratic Party, wants America to believe. Someone forgot to get that memo to Michigan state representative Bettie Cook Scott.

Detroit Rep. Bettie Cook Scott on Asian opponent: ‘Don’t vote for the ching-chong!’

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/08/16/detroit-rep-bettie-cook-scott-on-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chongMore than a dozen community groups have called on Rep. Bettie Cook Scott (D-Detroit) to apologize for a series of racial slurs sources say she used to describe her primary election opponent, Rep. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit).

Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as “ching-chang” and “the ching-chong” to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday’s election. She’s also said to have called one of Chang’s campaign volunteers an “immigrant,” saying “you don’t belong here” and “I want you out of my country.”

My Take

There are two important takeaways here. First is the hypocrisy surrounding Scott, a (formerly) rising star in the Michigan Democratic Party. If the comments she made were spoken by anyone other than a Democrat, the calls wouldn’t be for an apology. The press and social groups would be calling for her to step down and jump into a hole somewhere.

The second point is that in the real world, the one not seen through the lens of liberals and the media, racism exists everywhere. It is not owned by Republicans, conservatives, old people, white people, or any other classification. One can even make a valid argument that it’s no more prominent in the Republican Party than it is in the Democratic Party that supports groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Racism must be eliminated from society. That will never happen as long as so many people naively believe it only exists in the minds of certain people on the political right. It exists everywhere. Accept that and we can work to make it stop.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Elizabeth Warren introduces dangerous anti-capitalist bill

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren introduces dangerous anti-capitalist bill

Elizabeth Warren made a big announcement this week in introducing her new bill called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Her bill aims to “eliminate skewed market objectives” and return America to an era in which “American corporations and American workers did well together.” It’s unclear when the utopia like conditions were according to Warren; however her website lists the 1980’s as the time period in which corporations shifted focus to maximizing shareholder returns. In any business college, it is taught that the job of a CEO is to maximize shareholder wealth. Senator Warren wants to shift this mentality with her new bill. In the statement on her website, she asserts that the “shift” has led to booming profits and less reinvestment into the companies themselves. She claims that wages have not increased despite booming corporate profits. Elizabeth Warren then moves to make the argument that the top 10% owns 84% of American stock and only 50% of households own stock. Thus, she claims, that this reinforces a cycle of the rich getting richer. This is a growing socialist sentiment that poor people, and even middle class, are incapable of affording stock. The main bullet points are outlined below. Read the text of the bill here.

Office of United State Corporations (more government!)

The bill creates a new administration within the Department of Commerce. Corporations earning more than $1 billion in revenue are required to obtain a charter from the federal government, per this new created office. The charter obligates these large corporations to consider the interests of all stakeholders. Failure to obtain this permit to exist results in loss of corporation, which in business terms mean, it would no longer be treated as a separate entity. Therefore there would be no liability protection. The Director of this office would be a Presidential appointee and requires Senate confirmation. The term last four years. Warren seeks to create a new and powerful tentacle of the Federal government.

Employee Chosen Board of Director

Employees, not shareholders, will have the ability to choose no less than 40% of a company’s board of director. This bullet point is perhaps the most ridiculous and anti-capitalist. Company boards serve to set goals for the company. The board is usually chosen by investors. In the world of private investment, the board of directors is a bargaining chip for control of the company, as opposed to just percentage of stock. Warren’s bill doesn’t outright say it, but she wants unions to control company boards. Meaning instead of the company’s interest, the board will be powerful weapon of the union. Boards start out as founding members, investors and their appointees, and neutral parties because entrepreneurs and investors craft such interesting deals. Insisting that 40% must be elected by employees renders a board relatively useless for small investment worthy companies or inflates company boards well beyond what they should be for their size (ie small company with GM size board.) This will possibly lead to more empowered officers and weakened boards so that CEOs can perform their fiduciary responsibilities without a labor union threatening their disposal. This could also make companies more risk adverse because undoing mistakes, laying off workers, and other rainy day measures are now more difficult to undo. Ultimately this would empower worse CEOs, ones who aren’t as interested in shareholder wealth. The Securities and Exchange Commission along with the National Labor Relations Board are responsible for enforcing this part of the act, as further indication that this applies to all corporations. Stiff daily fines are to be imposed for failing to comply.

Government control of stock options

Elizabeth Warren claims top executives are compensated mostly with stock options. Her bill restricts these executives ability to sell their shares for five years so that they can focus on long term company success. Basically these executive will be given stock, but will have no real ownership of that stock. This would be the government restricting private property. These types of issues are best left to corporations and shareholders who already impose vesting periods to ensure the same exact goal.

Supermajority for political expenditures (not for unions)

This is a jab at Citizens United because Elizabeth Warren and others are butthurt about the outcome of a critical first amendment case Supreme Court case. It forces company shareholders to vote in order for a corporation to make any political expenditures. It imposes a 75% supermajority threshold. Conspicuously absent from this requirement are labor unions.

Revoking of charter

The corporate charter resembles a “rule of club” for large companies. If they don’t meet the requirements of their charter or have a history of illegal activity, they will have their corporation status removed in time. The question is how political will the enforcement of these charters be? Will there be a separate set of rules for democrats and republicans? If the rest of government is any indication, the answer is clearly foreshadowed.

Closing Thoughts

The socialist movement wants to fundamentally change the purpose of starting a business and running a company. This would most certainly lead to lower caliber CEOs. The bill makes no mention of labor unions yet it’s intentions are clearly to empower them in companies that still allow them and to create politics in organizations that do not. This ideas pressed fourth in this bill are sure to gain traction, just as “Medicare For All” became a socialist rallying point. It brings about questions of how business literate politicians like Senator Warren are? Do they fundamentally misunderstand what a corporation is, or do they not care? The bill aims to reduce a shareholder’s power and return on investment which will only hurt our economic growth. While Elizabeth Warren’s bill isn’t socialist, it is heavily anti-capitalist.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.