Keith Ellison goes to dinner with Farrakhan after being invited by Iranian president

Son of Jamin

Make MMA Great Again
@Silver
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
11,868
Reaction score
875



My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal recentlunearthed what should be a major political scandal. It involves an anti-American government, a prominent member of Congress, and a far-right group that traffics in anti-Semitism, homophobia, and conspiracy theories. In the current climate of anxiety about “collusion” and the alt-right, you might think the liberal media would give this story top billing.


You would think wrong. Nearly a week later, the prestige press is still giving the Journal exposé the chirping-crickets treatment. Perhaps that’s because the foreign regime in question is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the member of Congress is Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison, and the far-right group is the Nation of Islam.

The original Journal report by Jeryl Bier appeared in the op-ed pages. It meticulously documented a 2013 meeting in New York hosted by Iranian President Hasan Rouhani and attended by Ellison and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. “The Nation of Islam website documents the event,” Bier wrote, “noting that Mr. Rouhani ‘hosted the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Muslim leaders from different Islamic communities and members of the U.S. Congress at a private meeting.'” Several Nation of Islam outlets reported Ellison’s participation at the time, and the Minnesota representative hasn’t denied the story.

The episode raises serious questions about Ellison’s judgment and his real ideological convictions.

Ellison has spent much of his political career running away from Farrakhan. His ties to the group almost derailed his first congressional run, in 2006. After it emerged that he had worked with the Nation of Islam for at least 18 months in the 1990s, Ellison wrote a letter to the Jewish community distancing himself from Farrakhan and denouncing his “anti-Semitic statements and actions.” Ellison reiterated his opposition to the group’s “anti-Semitism” and “homophobia” in 2016 when he contested the DNC leadership.

But revulsion at his former associates in the Nation of Islam didn’t stop Ellison from breaking bread with Farrakhan in 2013–bread that was provided by the Tehran regime. So which is the real Ellison: The one who drafts earnest letters of apology to Jewish groups? Or the one who, as recently as 2013, saw it fit to dine with Farrakhan under Iranian auspices?

The Ellison-Farrakhan-Rouhani shindig is also a reminder that progressive Democrats had no compunction about hobnobbing with representatives of an anti-American terror state–until recently, that is. Today, Ellison is among the party’s loudest tub-thumpers regarding claims of Trump-Russian “collusion.” Yet he met privately with the Iranian president two years after the Obama administration’s Justice Department uncovered a plot by the Tehran regime to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil.

Ellison does not appear to have done anything illegal in meeting with Rouhani. Nor does this revelation neutralize or invalidate concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Republicans and conservatives can be forgiven for wondering if the Democrats’ newfound and highly selective hawkishness is a genuine effort to reckon with national-security realities or a ploy in a political game.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/keith-ellison-goes-to-dinner/
He doesn't sound like a good candidate for a potential presidential candidate for the DNC.
 
Farrakhan is a great speaker. I'm almost entranced whenever I listen to him. He appeals to a lot of emotions, resentments and aspirations that I have, and that are shared amongst blacks and Africans in North America, even internationally.

Which is I find it so unfortunate that he's an absolute scumbag opportunist.

It would be nice if we had leaders of unimpeachable character. Even better if we made it so that only leaders of unimpeachable character were allowed to lead us.
 
Farrakhan is a great speaker. I'm almost entranced whenever I listen to him. He appeals to a lot of emotions, resentments and aspirations that I have, and that are shared amongst blacks and Africans in North America, even internationally.

Which is I find it so unfortunate that he's an absolute scumbag opportunist.

It would be nice if we had leaders of unimpeachable character. Even better if we made it so that only leaders of unimpeachable character were allowed to lead us.
As a mixed person growing up with a white mother in a very diverse Swedish suburb, I studied the Nation of Islam a lot out of curiosity growing up and I have to agree, Farrakhan is a great orator but an absolute con man!
 
His past comments have disqualified him from the top.
 
Any theories for how that could be brought about?

Easy. Make them follow the same rules of accountability that everyone else has to.

Which means if you are a liar, a hypocrite, or have broken the law or have something that has had a negative impact on the cause you've set yourself up as the leader or spokesperson for; you need to go. Immediately.

No apologies, no do-overs. You're done.

I'm not talking about the knee jerk outrage- culture method either. Just a paradigm shift that recasts all leadership roles as a subordinate position.

My dream is of a paradigm that serves as a collective and continuous memo to all men who think they are worthy enough to lead. That the service element of public service is sacrosanct. That leadership is a privilege, not a right or a career.
 
Last edited:
As a mixed person growing up with a white mother in a very diverse Swedish suburb, I studied the Nation of Islam a lot out of curiosity growing up and I have to agree, Farrakhan is a great orator but an absolute con man!
There's only one great orator....unfortunately a scumbag....
a7abf9ab35e706afe7fdd2cbb18db090.gif
 
Easy. Make them follow the same rules of accountability that everyone else has to.

Which means if you are a liar, a hypocrite, or have broken the law or have something that has had a negative impact on the cause you've set yourself up as the leader or spokesperson for; you need to go. Immediately.

No apologies, no do-overs. You're done.

I'm not talking about the knee jerk outrage- culture method either. Just a paradigm shift that recasts all leadership roles as a subordinate position.

My dream is of a paradigm that serves is a collective and continuous memo to all men who think they are worthy enough to lead. That the service element of public service is sacrosanct. That leadership is a privilege, not a right or a career.


So that’s a cultural change you’re describing and I get that. What I’m asking is, how do you bring that about? The answers aren’t obvious to me.
 
So that’s a cultural change you’re describing and I get that. What I’m asking is, how do you bring that about? The answers aren’t obvious to me.

I don't think it happens naturally. There is a huge percentage of people that will only quit smoking when they see blood in their phlegm. Will only lose weight until their pants don't fit. People seem to be able to tolerate all types of fuckery from their leadership as long they are comfortable (or think they are comfortable.)

My guess is that the change will come when it's forced; when things hit critical mass and the old modes of leadership (pandering, cronyism, lying etc) become too blatantly ineffectual to be ignored. This usually means a huge shock, maybe in the form of bodycount from a natural disaster, a terrorist event or even social upheaval from something relatively innocuous as a back-alley shit-kicking from a cop, or a neglected patient who dies in ER. Any spark can light the kindling. But I don't know. wish I did.

I can only guess that as wealth disparity increases, the likelihood of such a change occuring will also increase.
 
Last edited:
If only leftists were as outraged by Keith Ellison having multiple dinners with Louis Farrakhan as they were with Mike Pence for having dinner w/ his wife.
 

He doesn't sound like a good candidate for a potential presidential candidate for the DNC.

Hey, boss... This breaking news is five years old.

A lot of dems opposed Ellison's nomination to head the DNC for this exact reason.
 
Farrakhan is a great speaker. I'm almost entranced whenever I listen to him. He appeals to a lot of emotions, resentments and aspirations that I have, and that are shared amongst blacks and Africans in North America, even internationally.

Which is I find it so unfortunate that he's an absolute scumbag opportunist.

It would be nice if we had leaders of unimpeachable character. Even better if we made it so that only leaders of unimpeachable character were allowed to lead us.

Fuck Farrakhan, he got Brother Malcolm killed. I'm definitely going to be one of the many that pisses on his grave when he finally kicks it.
 
Why do we hate Iran? because the Jews tell us to hate them. Simple as that.


Groups during WW2 that opposed war with Germany were branded as being fascists and anti-semites. This is because they were full aware that there were Jews pushing for the wars that largely we, not them die in.

So how many Americans here want to go and die for the Jews again?

In a war that really isn't needed other than Jewish extremists wanting to exterminate anyone they see as a threat.
Yawn
 
Hey, boss... This breaking news is five years old.

A lot of dems opposed Ellison's nomination to head the DNC for this exact reason.
Tell that to WSJ that felt the need to write about it.

He seems to have quite the support within the party as well, despite for signaling support for ANTIFA lately.
 
Back
Top