Ellison Demands on Amazon Show Guns aren’t Only Things Collectivists Would ‘Control’

Keith wants to sing us all a song of the Revolution. See lyrics, below. (Keith Ellison Facebook photos)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) today sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos inquiring about Amazon profiting from the sale of products and content from groups identified as neo-Nazis and white nationalist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC),” a press release by the congressman’s office claimed Tuesday.

“Amazon’s practice of hosting the sale of hateful literature, toys, and music spreads and normalizes hate ideologies,” Ellison’s letter charged.

Disregarding for a moment that censorship of literature and music that government officials want to see suppressed is the hallmark of a totalitarian, or that book-burning is something associated with real Nazis, we should also consider the source. Per PJ Media:

“[T]he Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) settled a defamation suit filed by Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, whom the SPLC maligned as an ‘anti-Muslim extremist.’ On Tuesday, PJ Media reported that no fewer than 60 organizations are considering similar lawsuits against the SPLC. The organization is still facing a lawsuit from D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM), a Christian organization falsely labeled a ‘hate group.’”

“47 Nonprofit Leaders Denounce the Southern Poverty Law Center's ‘Hate List' in Open Letter to the Media,” a report from a year earlier documented. That one also recalled the story of “a terrorist attack inspired by the SPLC's hate list … Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the Family Research Council offices in Washington, D.C. and shot and badly wounded its building manager, Leo Johnson, who stopped his intended killing spree … Corkins intended to kill everyone in the building, and then go on to terrorize additional organizations.”

Another point to consider for someone like Ellison who claims to be a socialist against Nazis: Even though they’ll argue loudly against it, the truth is they are (once again) lying to deceive the ignorant. Aside from deriving the name from “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (the National Socialist German Workers' Party), there is this inconvenient truth:

“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical,” author George G. Watson documented in “Hitler and the Socialist Dream.”

By way of credentials, Watson was a “scholar, literary critic, historian, a fellow of St John’s College and professor of English at Cambridge University,” who, rather than being some “far right” apologist, was also, incidentally, “an active member of the Liberal Party [who] in his will … left £950,000 to the Liberal Democrats.”

It’s curious that “socialist” Ellison isn’t also putting the squeeze on Amazon to get rid of its communist literature and merchandise. Talk about an ideology of hate and genocide!

It’s just not surprising considering affiliations with the Democrat Socialists of America.

Ellison is a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, co-founded by Bernie Sanders. And the Caucus (with Ellison specifically identified) maintains “ties” with the Communist Party USA and “close ties” with another “progressive” group, the Democratic Socialists of America, the domestic arm of Socialist International.

The DSA devoted a page on their website (until they took it down to try to hide it—this link goes to the Internet Archive record, which they can’t erase) to hymns glorifying their “struggle.” The following examples should be of special interest, since the people they’re talking about are pretty much you and me:

Well, are you?

Here’s something else that shouldn’t surprise anyone: They’re obsessed with “controlling” your guns. That’s because it’s not about controlling guns, it’s about controlling us, including the information they would “allow” us to access. Just like totalitarians have always done.


About David Codrea:David Codrea
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 57 thoughts on “Ellison Demands on Amazon Show Guns aren’t Only Things Collectivists Would ‘Control’

    1. in reading everyone’s post.
      history IS THE BEST TEACHER, people either learn from it, or REPEAT IT.
      the way things are lining up today we are fixing to REPEAT IT.
      and there is not enough space here to explain WHY?
      also watch for the MIDTERMS for things to get HOTTER, and being from Alabama, i can tell all here.
      THE SPLC WAS CREATED BY COMMUNIST JEWS, and STILL RUN BY THEM, AND THEY ARE A TOTAL HATE GROUP OF ANYTHING DO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE.

    2. Good catch with the way back machine of their violent Marxist songs aimed at the deplorables. That alone is reason to stop any new gun laws. Not.exactly a surprise that black nationalist Ellison is in favor – he also wants a black ethnic state created out of the U.S.

    3. It concerns me that some seem to believe that only a Christian can serve in the Gov’t. Wild Bill asserts the oath is only for the public and not for the taker. That seems absurd. It’s for both. I do not agree with Ellison’s politics, nor his religion, but believe he should take the oath on a book of his choice, something he believes in. Again, there is NO religious test or requirement for being elected and serving. What a person does when serving is what counts. If they upset the apple cart too much, they’ll be out next election. Political or religious disagreement should be no hindrance to service. The people vote and we all live with their choice. I am, I suppose, a bit liberal in some areas and a staunch conservative it others, especially the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is absolute to me. And Wild Bill, I did not serve in combat but did do 20 years in the uniform.

      1. All that is well and good until you realize that the creed of Islam commands the murder or enslavement of ‘infidels,’ commands ‘taqiya,’ which is the act of lying and deceiving the infidel in whatever manner necessary to gain dominion over him, and regards the United States of America as “The Great Satan” that must be destroyed by whatever means available and at whatever cost. Ellison professes to be a Muslim, a follower of Islam, and to swear his oath on the Qu’ran is to affirm its command to destroy us. Are you really sure we should accept his “religion” (which is actually a political murder cult ideology masquerading as a religion) as equivalent to any other religion, and one we should naively accept?

          1. Not all Muslims obey the Qu’ran — I have known one who was my wife’s supervisor, and the first to treat her with respect and tout her skills to management for raises, etc., but he also had a Master’s in Business Administration from an Egyptian University and he was married to a lovely Jewish wife, not exactly a typical Muslim. But saying “Not all Muslims are jihadists” is also a trap: 77% of the Muslims surveyed in the world said they hoped for their communities to adopt Sharia Law, and they sent money to support the Jihad, even though the individuals surveyed weren’t jihadists themselves. Sharia Law commands the aforementioned treatment of infidels and apostates, so claiming they themselves are not jihadists is meaningless.

      2. Wild Bill, Navy. I was (here’s a mouthfull) an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Technician. AX.

    4. Wild Bill,

      Let us not be forgetting the Tarpeian Rock!
      I’ve read that it has a wonderful view from the top! There are a couple of hundred members of Congress I would like to show that view too, and then send them on their ways!

      At least two-thirds of the Senate come to mind rather easily as well!

    5. Donald,

      Perhaps it is my formal training during graduate school in German military history, that provides to me an assumption that those who argue such as yourself, would understand the obvious Point within my reference; that sooner rather than later would be better, because sooner would be in favor of constitutionalists and not in the favor of the Socialists.

      What I mean by this, is that right now constitutionalist on the vast majority of weapons, the vast majority of ammunition, and we even have a better level of training, tactical understanding, and of course within our ranks happened to be Hundreds of thousands of men and women who served in the military, and who are more than a little familiar with Weaponry, tactics, Etc.

      Further, the left in this country does not yet have the Tens of millions of illegal aliens on their side, whom they can bribe with all sorts of quote-unquote free goodies, to fight for the Socialist cause.

      This is the reference and the importance, of what I refer to buy a civil war happening sooner rather than later, and that being a better solution.

      It comes down to simple numbers and the ability to control available weaponry, right now those are both in the favor of the constitutionalists. Give it a few years and that balance of power can shift dramatically to the left.

      I would suggest that you read Niccolo Machiavelli’s il Principe and Clausewitz’s treatise entitled ‘On War’; these two monographs are the foundational paradigm for the concept of both realpolitik, and Total War in the modern sense.

      I must again remind you that a civil war is going to happen, it is simply just a matter of when and how greatest scope it is, and how balkanized the USA becomes.

    6. Norman Thomas, the six-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President, said the following in a 1944 speech: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened…. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” And, today, the Republican Party RINOs have adopted it as well. It is no longer a situation of “enemy in the wire”. Today….and for several decades….the enemy sits in the Command Post. America has been overrun.
      As Nikita Krushshev said in 1954, “First, we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then we will encircle the United States which will be the last bastion of capitalism. We will not have to attack. It will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands.” In 1960, Krushchev stated, “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”
      The old Soviet Union may have fallen; but, Krushchev’s statements are ringing true as we look at the changes that have taken place and are taking place in the US today. No longer does Socialism or Communism hold a stigma to be hidden away. Politicians are now openly campaigning on that oppressive platform and winning in some areas.
      Lock ‘N” Load is the only salvation left…..

      1. Unfortunately, no actual citation for this Normal Thomas “quote” has ever been offered, Reagan’s misattribution notwithstanding. It would be wise for us to stop propagating it.

    7. Hello again Donald,

      Sadly, your statement that I expressed that all Republicans are Rinos, is not true. I stated that there are many Republicans who are rhinos, and that their agendas are in Real World terms, the same in outcome as Democrats; it’ll just take them longer to destroy our nation.

      Further, your implication that I want Civil War is wholly erroneous! I do not want to see a Civil War in my lifetime, but the sad fact is that politically, culturally, and as a society, we are now in the same dire situation, in which we found ourselves in 1860!

      We currently find ourselves at an impasse politically, where compromise is no longer possible. I do not lightly make this statement.

      Think on this for a moment won’t you, Brett Kavanaugh, president Trump’s candidate for SCOTUS, has virtually every Democrat not representing a red state refusing to not just not vote for him, what refusing to even meet with the man!

      Remember that he clerked for Anthony Kennedy, the retiring Justice, and most objective viewpoints from Professionals in law, including some with your very leftist in their politics, but still honest- rare as those happened to be, describe Kavanaugh as being very much in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, but just a bit more conservative. No one who has an opinion from the left in such a manner describes him as being anywhere near as conservative as Scalia.

      Please remember also, let’s Scalia was voted a Justice on scotus by 98 to 0, including a large number of democrat Senator still in office, the very same Senators who are refusing to even meet with Kavanaugh.

      Further, the litmus test that used to be unspoken of in the Democrat Party, that of any candidate being required to be in favor of abortion and keeping it legal, long ago came out into the open.

      However, these days it isn’t just for Democratic candidates, it is for every candidate for public office, either elected or appointed.

      Democrats have become socialists, openly, unabashedly, and quite publicly.

      The Democrat Party has become the Socialist Party of America, there is no room for compromise within socialism, with the Paradigm of capitalism.

      This is why I stated quite clearly the Civil War will ensue, it is not a matter of ‘if’, it is simply a matter of when. I must reiterate that I do not want to see the Civil War take place, for the same reasons you described, the utter destruction of our nation physically.

      It is the physical destruction, the loss of life, which I do not wish to see take place. However, the left has embraced physical violence for quite some time now, and on college campuses and University campuses across our nation, students, professors, and administrators, are equating speech with which they are opposed, to being morally and ethically the same as physical violence against them.

      There can be no compromise with people holding such of you, and I believe you understand that, though I doubt you are willing to accept it as fact and confront that fact.

      Again, please take a look at the vote that confirmed Scalia to the Supreme Court, 98 to 0. Look how far down the road to destruction we have come as a nation. There is no pulling back, not because conservatives do not want to pull back, rather, it is because the left will not allow us to pull back.

      Those in control of the Democrat Party desire to politically destroy conservatives in our nation, and Libertarians as well, while the base of the Democrat Party the antifa and ocasio-cortez/ Bernie Sanders supporters except physical violence as in acceptable tool to win their arguments.

      Lastly, I know all about the freedom caucus; 40 to 50 people, just enough to put a monkey wrench in some legislation, but not enough people to get solid constitutional legislation passed. For that matter, not enough people to get a decent Speaker of the House elected, like Jim Jordan.

      I hope this clarifies my position to a considerably better level.

      1. All that sounds good in this message, but in your previous message you said “There’s a strong school of thought that most conservatives, that is most constitutionalists, including myself, given the current state of political Affairs in the nation, which most closely resemble the situation in 1860, that it would be better for Democrats to take control of both houses and the presidency. The result would be a Civil War sooner, rather than later.” That sounds a lot like a “civil war sooner rather than later” … “would be better.”

        Also, do I need to point out that the Democrats effectively held both houses of Congress during ZeroBama’s reign because Obama sycophant subversive Harry Reid refused to bring any House legislation to rein him in to a vote? And not only that, the Constitution says appropriations for money have to originate in the House, and Reid would not bring them to a vote, thereby requiring a string of “Continuing Resolutions” to fund government lest the Republicans be blamed for shutting government down, and under Continuing Resolutions ZeroBama was not constrained from spending our nation into three trillion dollars further in debt?

        There was no civil war as a result, and today the only thing that will start a civil war is a declaration that our right to keep and bear arms is null and void and people who refuse to turn them in will be incarcerated in concentration camps.

      2. I think perhaps you are misconstruing my position as much as you claim I am misconstruing yours: “This is why I stated quite clearly the Civil War will ensue, it is not a matter of ‘if’, it is simply a matter of when. I must reiterate that I do not want to see the Civil War take place, for the same reasons you described, the utter destruction of our nation physically.” I agree, and like you, I believe it will be forced upon us by the socialists. But I do not want to see it “sooner rather than later” because while things are moving inexorably in that direction, other things are moving in both the opposite direction and in the direction of preparing for that result if and when it happens. I am also greatly concerned that every time our nation approaches a flashpoint some kind of convenient little war or threat or false flag (perhaps I should say
        “and” false flag rather than “or”) intervenes and distracts us from what the other hand is doing.

        Nonetheless, my primary reason for challenging your position in the first place remains: If we take care NOT to cause the civil war “sooner rather than later” we have more time to counsel people like you to get out and vote in a manner that will do some good instead of hiding behind the ‘purist’ position that you can’t support the lesser of all evils because you can’t support evil. Not only does that give us more time to overcome the opposition (who are imploding even as we speak anyway), it also gives us more time to acquire the tools and supplies and materiel to deal with a civil war if it ultimately occurs.

        You want to know why the Left has now become implacable and totally unwilling to compromise? First, because Trump pulled the rug out from under their flag bearers like Slithering Hillary and Bolshevik Bernie, and second, because people like me, who have been dealing with these issues for forty-plus years, have been exposing the Left’s low-grade communist insurgency we have endured since COMINTERN in 1925, and third, because people like me have stopped kowtowing to the Left’s demand for “just one more chip out of our right to keep and bear arms’ that has never been sufficient to satisfy the Left. In short, they have become implacable in response to our implacable stance because they know if they don’t win to their prize now, they will be done for another hundred years.

        We can win this battle without a civil war if we make it clear we are armed, we are trained, and we are not going to accept their rule. Not now, not ever.

    8. Ellison and Waters are a couple of flea bags that should be reined in and reeducated. If the civil war had not occurred they would both be keeping their filthy mouths shut.

    9. I know well the past work of SPLC’s founding member Mark Potok, who from inception made it crystal clear that “justice” meant something entirely different to him and his chorts than to those of us who live by and with justice. His was indeed a ruse, using the convenience of racial issues to gather support and create a brand. SPLC has never been anything more than a blackboard pointer to identify targets for it’s fabricated lists of “hate groups”. One of the greatest ironies in this is that SPLC lies squarely in the definition of a “hate group”, only focused in one political and idealogical direction. A huge hypocrisy, every pronouncement they make.

    10. Donald,

      I should have provided a caveat when referring to myself as a pragmatist, in that my pragmatism is personally based in everyday life: if something works I use it in maintain it, if it doesn’t work I jettison it, based upon empirical results.

      When it comes to political issues, I refuse to allow my pragmatism to supersede my moral and ethical premise he’s, upon which I base my actions, thoughts, and points of view.

      In real-world terms, there is no real difference between a Rino and a Progressive; the former is destroying the nation more slowly than the latter, but they are still destroying it.

      Case in point, when it comes to Illegal immigration and open borders, Rinos and Progressives are on the same page: they both want massive illegal immigration.

      The Rinos want massive illegal immigration for commercial purposes; cheap labor, fewer labor taxes, which translate in the greater profits at less cost.

      The Progressives want massive illegal immigration for new voters and overwhelming political power! They know they are losing American voters in droves, so they see illegals as their new base.

      Sadly, the Rinos understand this but literally do not believe that the illegals will vote only for the Democrats; they believe that at some point they can coop the illegals in the voting for the Republicans.

      This is delusional thinking on the part of the Rinos, any electoral evidence from California, New York, Michigan, and Florida, prove my point Beyond any reasonable doubt.

      So at the end of the day, the Democrats will destroy the country much faster than the Rino Republicans, but that’s pretty much the only difference.

      There’s a strong school of thought that most conservatives, that is most constitutionalists, including myself, given the current state of political Affairs in the nation, which most closely resemble the situation in 1860, that it would be better for Democrats to take control of both houses and the presidency.

      The result would be a Civil War sooner, rather than later.

      The timing would be key as to who would win that Civil War, as well as the amount of suffering involved as the Democrats destroy the nation.

      I hope this helps clarify my reference pertaining to my pragmatism, I am not willing to abandon the Morality In which I believe, and the ethics by which I live in order to vote into office, someone who does not believe in the Constitution, and will destroy the country, but just more slowly, just so that it says GOP in office.

      1. Oh so well stated. I pray daily that you and I have allies, Mr. Bailey, when and where needed. I would hope anytime, anywhere, and in sufficient numbers to succeed going forward. I do not know that, for the time has yet to draw nigh. It WILL be a test of courage, of committment, and of honesty, and will likely separate the “wheat from the chaff” – who rises to help, to walk the talk, and who continues to sit at the keyboard and talk the talk. Some of us have already been forged by our past, warriors who keep their Oath nearby; others will be yet determined, perhaps forced into committment by events we currently glimpse as a likely future.

        But as with any prior revolution, and this will surely be one, the catalysts to act must, by moral and ethical necessity, be offered by those seeking to harm, to eliminate, to annihilate, and to bring forth an ugly, socialist world over the carcasses of loyal, faithful and truthful Americans, believers in our foundations, our legacies, our future as a Constitutional Republic. This will not be my future, regardless.

        1. @Tim V, We have not the logistics, secure communications, or weapons to fight a civil war in the way that our fore bearers did. We have to use other techniques. In stead of being organized. We must be completely solitary. Instead of firearms we will use a gallon of gasoline, here, a hammer, there, or a junker car, on the way to the Congressional lunch counter . In stead of great battles, we will pick key individuals, various bureaucrats, judges, and legislators. Whoa to you who ignore the Constitution.
          Me must think in asymmetric ways, and there will be no fame or glory in it.

      2. I’ve heard all this before, James, and I regard it as extremely foolish. The most foolish thing you could have said is the suggestion that a civil war might be better sooner or later. Under no circumstance is a civil war better than anything any time. It will destroy our country; it will destroy the principles our nation was founded to preserve and protect, and it would be entirely unrecoverable short of a Divine Miracle at least as monumental as the one — or I should say the many — that allowed our nation to be founded, the first, only, and probably the last nation on Earth to be founded upon principles of INDIVIDUAL liberty under the rule of law rather than the Divine Right of Kings to Govern.

        I’m sorry to have to say this, but that one remark brings your entire thesis under suspicion even if it didn’t have any additional reasons to be suspect, and we do: You thesis is clearly based on the idea not that ‘RINOs’ are as bad as Democrats, but that all Republicans are RINOs and just as bad as Democrats. We have a very good crew of Republicans in the Freedom Caucus, and while the two ‘Republican In Name Only’ Senators of my State are absolutely worthless, several of our Representatives in Congress are very examples of why we should not have term limits in that body.

        Your rebuttal failed miserably to mitigate my thesis remains that if you do not vote for a Republican, you are going to get a Democrat. I am very libertarian-leaning (with serious rejection of the anarchic wing such as you sound like you may represent), but while ‘that government is best that governs least,’ the government that governs least does in fact govern for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people.

        The point of view expressed in your rebuttal is not a viable position, it is an excuse to avoid taking a position — that is, it is a position in name only. You offer principles that serve no purpose, that do not advance the cause of liberty, and do not limit the communist insurgency infesting the democratic party and the democratic party infesting our political governance. I strongly request you stop ducking the work and get busy restoring our Constitutional government.

        1. Donald,

          You seem to be forgetting what President Jefferson wrote concerning our tree of Liberty, but it must be watered every so often with the blood of tyrants and Patriots!

          Freedom has never been free, whether during the time of Cicero in Julius Caesar, or today, freedom must be bought and paid for either by word or deed, and sometimes in blood.

          I replied to you concerning the Great Divide in American politics, using the two scotus candidacies of Scalia and Kavanagh as examples of just how far apart, and just how irreconcilable are the positions of the left and the constitutionalist.

          Objective left-wingers, and they do exist still to this day but only a handful, who personally know Cavanaugh, and we’re in fact some of his professors, highly recommend him for the position because of his integrity and his contextual understanding of the Constitution.

          They further stipulate that he is in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, though a bit more conservative than Kennedy, but most certainly nowhere near as conservative as Scalia.

          Scalia was voted to the scotus bench buy a 98 to 0 vote!

          Many of the same Democrats who voted for Scalia have stated publicly and on the floor of the Senate, that they will not even meet with Kavanaugh.

          This is one of the key aspects, one of the key proofs, that there is no room for compromise anymore at either local or national politics, the left refuses to compromise even for a reasonable candidate.

          The other example that I used in my response to you, was that of how the left views verbal opposition to there left-wing paradigms.

          College and university students, as well as their professors, and college administrators, as well as many, many Democrats now view verbal opposition to left-wing policies as physical violence.

          Let me make this clear to you, a great many left-wingers have stipulated that mirror policy opposition’s to their views and desires are literally physical violence upon their persons, and vests legitimate the left’s response in committing gross physical acts of violence against conservatives, constitutionalist, and Libertarians.

          Mainstream media have taken up this point of view, that words are physical violence.

          You cannot possibly consider a greater divide than this last point: there can be no room for compromise when one side refuses to hear the viewpoints of the other, which they literally view as physical violence against them.

          I’m not the one promoting violence here Donald, I do not want a civil war, especially in my lifetime, I do not want to see it much less be involved in it.

          However, that’s Civil War will literally be forced upon us, and we will have a choice at that point in time to either Walk The Walk rather than just talk the talk.

          We Must at that point in time Tuesday to live is free men and women on our feet, as opposed to servants and slaves on our knees.

          My Lord Jesus of Nazareth, God In the Flesh, stipulated that words were not enough for those who profess to follow him. He promised us that with the world was doing to him and would do to him, the world would also do to us.

          He gave us this Comfort though, reminding us that the world hated him before it hated us, and that he had overcome the world through his willingness to sacrifice his blood on the cross.

          This judeo Christian salvific paradigm is inherent within our constitution, and most certainly within the writings of the founders who wrote the Constitution and ratified it.

          Politics are not stable. Human nature is not stable. When the two meet, there is all together more often conflict than comity.

          I would suggest that you put your static ideologies aside for the nonce, and take a bit wider view of the situation that we all face at this current point in time.

          I suggest that you then reread the Federalist Papers, and specific subject matter papers by the leading fathers of our nation.

          1. Ohhh, Larry Bickerly is sooo wise. Actually, Larry, our last Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) was a snowball fight compared to the way we fight, today. It is a matter of standards … one can not measure yesterday’s events by today’s standards.
            Why don’t you get some so that you know what you are writing about.

            1. Wild Bill, I was just being semi funny. Didn’t work, I guess. I used to have respect for you. I didn’t always agree but liked the way you thought. Now you can’t seem to post to me without personal insults. How childish.

            2. What a lib fib. Save the emotional barbs, they won’t work. And don’t write about war, until you get some fire and maneuver experience of your own. It is just annoying.

    11. James Russell Bailey – I don’t know why I received an email announcing your comment on this forum, and I cannot find it here (I found a couple of yours, but not the one I received in email), and I wanted to challenge one little things you said that I would like you to think about: I quote from the email under your name I received: “Just as an aside, I have voted for a third-party candidate since 2004 for president. Simply put, I am a pragmatist, …”

      No, you’re not. A pragmatist would understand that third party candidates have absolutely zero chance of ever reaching the Office of POTUS, and that if you vote for anyone but a Republican, you are going to get a barking mad liberal swigging the Kool-Aid. If you vote for a Republican you might get a Republican In Name Only (RINO) but then at least you can call them on what they are doing that is the opposite of what they said they would do. But over the last sixty years or so, at least, the only reason we have EVER gotten a leftist administration it has been because a whole lot of ‘purists’ have made the Perfect the Enemy of the Good and failed to vote for the Republican.

    12. Don’t forget to take into account Ellison’s history…

      when he was to take his oath of office he demanded he be allowed to use a copy of the moslem book the quran. AND he made a big deal out of the provenance of ths specific copy he wanted to use, that of Thomas Jefferson, lying to us about who and why he (Jefferson) came into possession of it.
      We all know the meaning of the word “taqiyya”. If you don’t, take some time and learn about it. Ellison is a master at it.

      That leopard’s spots won’t change.

      1. Not to mention that Ellison is a vary good friend of the biggest raciest in America and a follower of him , and that raciest is Farakon , who has more followers that any and all white supremacist groups put together, Ellison is a raciest and try’s to hide that fact , but it came out on video of himself and Mad Maxine waters along with other politicians greeting Farakon and hugging him with smiles on their faces , not to mention that they take his money to……

        1. Because to have any meaning the oath of office must be sworn to the God of creation, the One who made us. The only thing that is greater than we are. Since the god of the koran is no god at all, made no one, and nothing, and has no authority, nor is he a higher being, then to swear to that whatever it is is not to swear at all. Might as well swear to the neighbour’s cat.

          1. Is your belief the only one that counts? What would a Hindu swear on? While you don’t accept the Quran, Ellison does and it’s his right to do so.

        2. @Larry bricky, He may as well have taken his oath on the Book of Aesop’s Fables! The oath of office taken in public, and before the public is for the public. The oath is not for him!
          The oath has to have meaning to We the People, who he is supposed to serve. It is a demonstration of sincerity, honesty, and patriotism to the public. The Holy Bible has that meaning. The koran is … paper.
          I can not hardly believe that anyone would have to ask. Are you that far away from the meanings of our system?

          1. The oath should be sworn on whatever the individual believes in. The Constitution says there is no religious requirement for service. What about an elected Atheist? If the Bible is meaningless to him/her why use it. If a Baha’i was elected/selected why would it be wrong to swear on the Writings that he/she believes are from God, every bit as much as a Christian believes in the Bible. The nation is getting more and more diverse and we’re going to have to adapt at least a little bit. The real test is what does the oath mean to the individual taking it. Only he or she knows that.

            1. The ceremony is for the people to observe. The oath taker is making a demonstration of patriotism, loyalty to the Constitution, and honesty to the people. It has to mean something to the people. The ceremony is not for the oath taker. Ellison knew that he was slapping us in the face.
              As to our nation adapting, the new diverse are supposed to adapt to us. The libtards want more foreigners and encourage the destruction of our well planned system. You support that destruction.
              The Romans had a ritualized strangulation ceremony for betrayers like Ellison, Shumer, Pelosi and … others.

    13. David,

      I must congratulate you on writing that paragraph concerning the clear historical, and objective, delineation concerning the Socialist founding aspect of Hitler’s Party!

      I have for decades attempted to get American liberals, then progressives, and certainly the Socialists, which are now all in one the same thing call the Democrat Party, to understand the dichotomy in European politics concerning socialism.

      I must say that in large part, the severe ignorance on the part of the left in America can directly be laid at the door of the National Education Association and public education administrators shifting away from teaching objective historical subjects, and severely slanting those few historical teaching programs which exist.

      Most Americans have no clue whatsoever, that in European politics socialists and socialism come in both far-right flavors and far-left flavors, as it were. This is why during the 1920s and 30s in Europe, and in America for that matter, you could have concurrent socialists of the far right, those being the blackshirts of Italy and of Great Britain, IE, il Duce in Italy, and Hitler’s brown shirts in Germany ( and of course Germany’s own black shirts, the SS which supplanted the SA, after the Night of the Long Knives in 1934), and several far-left socialists groups in Germany, Italy, France, Etc.

      The vast majority of leftist in Europe were communists, overarchingly controlled by the ComIntern ( aka, the Communist International), who took orders and aligned themselves ideologically with Moscow and Stalin’s regime.

      Most American college students, in point of fact those are 40 years of age and under, overwhelmingly do not either understand or believe that socialism has a full scope of range from the left to the right. Sadly, they are not interested in learning the objective historical truths pertaining to socialism, as facts do indeed get in the way of their emotionally based ideologies.

      Thank you so much again, for doing excellent work and bringing to light the factual realities of modern politics!

    14. The SPLC’s list of ‘hate groups’ is largely based on their own opinions and ideologies, rather than hard evidence.

        1. Larry,

          You’re kidding me right?

          Even a cursory examination of the splc’s history proves that they are a scam organization, solely created for the fiduciary self-aggrandizement of the founders!!

          Time and again they have listed people as leaders of hate groups, or major proponents of hate and racism, including former Muslims, women who are politically conservative, and pretty much anyone on the right politically who opposes the Socialist agenda in America.

          The proof can be found with 20 or 30 minutes research on Google using objective sourcing.

          Should you be too lazy to do the 20 or 30 minutes worth of work, that’s on you!

          They have caused hate-filled lunatics to murder people, by the rhetoric they have used in their incitement of others by placing, improperly, and knowingly improper, people and organizations on their lists.

          Please wake up and smell the hate which the splc exudes in Himalayan quantities.

          Cheers from an independent conservative who did not vote for Trump.

          1. I did not vote for either major candidate. Sure, I can and will search but when somebody puts up a comment shouldn’t they have some proof with it?

            1. Hey Larry,

              Normally, I would agree with you 100% where the subject matter at hand some obscure academic issue or point, ( such as my reference to the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, in my comment to David Codrea, but David is an exceedingly well-educated fellow, and one with whom I have had previous interaction when we both wrote for an online magazine.) However, the splc is not some obscure organization, or some unknown small entity tucked away in some Podunk town somewhere, does not have an extensive and prevailing historical record to what they have printed, what they have presented publicly, and what they have espoused on their website.

              This is why I recommended doing an online search to you, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence proving that that organization, the splc, is a truly rabid, left-wing organization dedicated to making money for its owners, a pair of brothers who are simply in it for the money.

              They have proven themselves to be muckrakers, and were it not for the fact that they have literally gotten people killed through an indirect Nature, by what their spouse, and what they print online, and what they project during interviews with mass media, this would not even really be an important matter.

              The sad fact however, is that lives have been lost due to their indirect in citation and rhetoric, which has inflamed the Looney Tune folks on the left!

              Just as an aside, I have voted for a third-party candidate since 2004 for president. Simply put, I am a pragmatist, empirically based, and a professionally trained historian. I reject the emotionalism of the left and the far right, which does nothing to enhance a constructive engagement for the solution of the Myriad problems which face us all.

              Cheers

            2. @Larry Prickey, He did offer you some proof. He testified. That is proof in any court in the country. Surprising that you did not recognize that.
              When you demand more proof, you are calling his credibility into question. That is to say that you are calling him a liar. I am glad to hear that you wasted your vote or maybe I should demand proof, first.

          1. Hey, Tionico,
            Your use of the word “posit” tells us that you are not as secure in your knowledge as you would have us believe.
            The splc, Kieth Ellison and, obviously, you are committed to the same political ideology, which you refer to as a “religion” simply as a ploy to use
            the second amendment of our constitution as a shield against those whose oppose you.
            The quran is nothing more than the hysterical rantings of the reprobate you refer to as “The Prophet” muhammed and, as with him, you have embarked on a fool’s errand, the destination of which resides in the deepest pits of Hell.

            1. You ust have confused my post with soneone else’s. Yes I used the word “posit”, so what. It has a specific meaning and that has naught to do with your averring I am not secure in that of which I speak.

              And o WHAT basis do you comprehend my political idealogy, or that it is the same as Ellison’s, or SPLC? And where did I refer to that idealogy as a “religion”?
              I have no need to “use the second ammendment of our costitutioin as a sheild against those who oppose (me). What ARE you on about? Indubitably it has no relation to my words or intent.
              I never referred to ‘the prophet” muhammed…… what makes you think I agree with those guys anyway? You are clueless. Or confused. Both? It seems like you’ve decided to go on a rant and were looking for someone to bash.

      1. Yup, they cause far more hate and dissension than they cure these days, they have grown far from their routes!

    15. Well all that “struggle” and “see how they run” crap will be after the fight. For all you Marxist liberals out there I’ll look for you on the field. Good luck.

    16. “…who, rather than being some “far right” apologist, was also, incidentally, “an active member of the Liberal Party [who] in his will … left £950,000 to the Liberal Democrats.” Uh … not to put too fine a point on it, but in the UK and Australia, the ‘Liberal Party” is the conservative party, and the “Labor Party” are the communists, like our Democratic Party.

    Comments are closed.