Wingnut Lies About Keith Ellison

Wingnut Lies About Keith Ellison November 26, 2016

Keith Ellison, one of two Muslims in all of Congress, is one of the leading candidates to be the next head of the Democratic National Committee. That, of course, has the right-wing bigots spouting lies and nonsense about him, like this guy quoted by the AFA’s “news” service.

Credit: JMacpherson
Credit: JMacpherson

David Rubin, the former mayor of the Israeli town of Shiloh and author of several books on the Israeli struggle against Islamic terrorism, tells OneNewsNow this is “a shocking development that the Democratic Party would even consider him.”

“And apparently,” he continues, “he’s the odds-on favorite at this point. Even the mainstream Democratic Party seems to be supporting him. Keith Ellison is a card-carrying Muslim who believes very strongly in jihad. In fact, when he was sworn into Congress, he was sworn in with his hand on the Koran. His hand was not on the Bible.”

So if Ellison does become the DNC chairman, Rubin believes it could mean the death knell of the Democratic Party.

“It will just be seen clearly as this far-left party that is anti-Judeo-Christian civilization, that is anti-Israel,” the author warns. “This is Keith Ellison. They’ve taken a step way beyond Bernie Sanders in looking at Keith Ellison as the potential DNC chair.”

Wait, that’s his evidence that Ellison “believes very strongly in jihad?” That he was sworn in on a Quran rather than the Bible? Why would you want him to swear on a Bible if he’s a Muslim? That isn’t his holy book. He feels no obligation to that book. If you buy the ridiculous notion that swearing on a holy book makes one more likely to perform their duties in an honorable manner, surely swearing on a holy book that you don’t believe in would do quite the opposite, wouldn’t it? It means they would start with a lie. If you believe in that nonsense, you should at least want them to swear their oath on a text that they accept as holy and binding, shouldn’t you?

But these people are doubly irrational. First, the buy into that absurd idea (as if most of the people who have sworn their oaths on a Bible haven’t violated every at least half the commands in that book. Second, they buy that but still demand that others of different religions take their oath on a holy book that they reject. And without even a hint of understanding of how ridiculous their position is.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment