So much focus is on the selection of President-elect Trump's cabinet and staff that the Democrats' possible election of the radical Keith Ellison to be their party chairman isn't getting the attention it deserves.
From the Daily Caller:
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, considered an early favorite to be the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, failed to disclose that a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood paid for him to embark on a pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008, eventually leading the House Ethics Committee to open an investigation into the matter.
Ellison’s secretive trip to the Islamic holy site, resurfaced Monday by the Washington Free Beacon, was first reported back in 2009 but has taken on renewed significance as Ellison jockeys for the top spot in a Democratic party reeling from a disastrous election.
The costs of the trip — totalling $13,500 — were covered by the Muslim American Society. Federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing that the group “was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” A House Ethics Committee investigation later concluded that the trip had to be disclosed as a gift to a public official.
Since announcing his bid for DNC chair, Ellison has faced questions about his ties to radical groups like the Nation of Islam and its radical leader, Louis Farrakhan.
While speaking to an atheist group in 2007, Ellison stopped just short of accusing former president George W. Bush of orchestrating the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to reports at the time.
“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Ellison said of 9/11. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”
Do the Democrats really want Ellison to be the chairman of their party?
Someone so openly anti-Semitic and with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood seems like a bad choice, especially given that the Democrats are spending a lot of time accusing Steve Bannon of being an anti-Semite.
I am not surprised that the head of a party's national committee would be an ideologue, but Keith Ellison is a disastrous choice. The lesson that liberals seemed to learn is to continue to retrench into the hard left, the popular tides of nationalism be damned. To the extent that the self talk has been that Bernie would have mopped the floor with Trump's onion loaf--I saw repeated posts on Facebook from liberal friends about how Bernie would have won--Bernie galvanized support on economic inequality, not cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't change that a Steve Bannon appointment places the worst of bomb-throwing far-right nationalism--including his open support of the alt-right--footsteps from the oval office. But if we're going to be consistent, you can put red or blue lipstick on a deplorable, and it's still a deplorable.
Bernie certainly generated more real excitement than Hillary could ever dream of mustering. I doubt he would have won, based on his whole unapologetic socialist identity. His candidacy may have convinced some Never Trump people to vote for Trump. But who knows? Some states went to Trump by razor-thin margins.
ReplyDeleteYes, Ellison, a Muslim Brotherhood buddy, is not a good choice for the Dems; and Steve Bannon is definitely controversial.
People should call them like they see them, but not flip out and make threats of violence and behave like loons.