Recommend us on Facebook


Free yourself from pain & sickness Click to find out how - it's worked for me...


Please consider helping us to offset our investigative costs. Any assistance is very much appreciated.



A Constitutional Crisis due to Congressional Candidate?

It must be considered that should congressional candidate Keith Ellison be elected to his position within the United States congress, he will be forced by the tenets of his religion to either abandon his beliefs or subjugate the laws of the US constitution to Islamic (Sharia) law. If he chooses the former, he will be choosing apostasy, which in accordance with his religion, warrants the death penalty. He simply cannot have it both ways.–Douglas J. Hagmann

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
director@homelandsecurityus.com

23 September 2006: Keith Ellison recently won the DFL primary in the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota that encompasses Minneapolis and its near suburbs, and could be on his way to winning a seat in the United States Congress. Keith Ellison is also a Muslim.

cong5ellison1

As part of his political platform, Mr. Ellison is calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the impeachment of President Bush. Although he has every right to do so under US law, one must ask that if he is elected, will he serve his constituents in conformance with the constitution of the United States, or will he make decisions for the country as a result of the political doctrine imposed by his religion? An important aspect of our democratic society is the separation of church and state, which is the antithesis of orthodox Islam. Under Islam, there is no separation between church and state; Allah is the sole author of the law and it is up to the state to implement the laws of Allah. One only has to look at any country ruled by a Muslim government: the type of government is either dictatorial or autocratic. A true Muslim stipulates that the Qu’ran is the constitution. I doubt that when our forefathers drafted article 6 of the US constitution, they anticipated the dynamics of the events taking place in America today. Article 6 states, in part, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That is, of course, as it should be, unless one understands that orthodox Islam is unique to all other religions as it strictly imposes its own legal system upon its followers – Islamic jurisprudence via the Qu’ran and the Hadith above all other forms of governance. In other words, an orthodox Muslim is required, through the tenants of the Islamic faith, to subjugate all forms of government to the doctrine of Islam as outlined in the Qu’ran and Hadith. The consequences for failing to do so are severe and outlined in those very texts.

Having established, then, that a true follower of Islam is required to make decisions based not on constitutional law but on the basis of Sharia, one must ask whether a Muslim can be a suitable candidate for a political office in the US by virtue of this fact alone.

When America was in the midst of the darkest days of WWII, what might have happened if a candidate for a congressional seat stated that his primary allegiance was to the Nazi party? For the purpose of brevity, I must presume that the reader is familiar with accurate historical facts pertaining to the National Socialist German Workers Party and the role of the US in WWII, and would stipulate that no true American would have tolerated any such candidacy while our troops were fighting the spread of the Third Reich and dying in the European theater of operation. While Hitler extended the dogma of the Nazi party from a political ideology to a quasi-religious doctrine, we must look at Islam for what it is: a religion that extends its doctrine into a comprehensive political ideology and culture through Sharia. Today, our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in part to preserve our democratic society and to stop the spread of Islamic fascism and terrorism. During WWII, by comparison, we fought to stop the spread of the fascism of Nazi Germany.

While doing so, it would have been unthinkable that a member of the Nazi party could potentially gain a congressional seat while the blood of American troops was being shed to stop the very ideology from taking over our country. Yet today, because people fail to understand the political ideology that is part and parcel to the religious aspect of Islam, it is possible that we could have a member of congress casting votes and steering the country based on the same ideology we have been actively fighting for the last five years, all while being legally protected by our own constitution.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, the author of four books on Islam, and a man I greatly admire. In an article he wrote yesterday about a separate matter, Mr. Spencer clearly stated that the implementation of Sharia – even here in the US – is a goal of those we are currently fighting and also draws a parallel to the WWII era:

“Imagine if there had been a group in the U.S. in 1940 that declared that it wanted to see a National Socialist America, but intended to accomplish our Nazification through education, not violence. What would authorities of the day have thought of such a group? What might they have done about it? Ah, you will say, but Sharia isn’t Nazism. Of course it isn’t. But it is nevertheless inimical to Western values and Western civilization, and harmful to all non-Muslims, in a host of ways. And it is Sharia that is the goal of those we fight. The manner in which they are advancing it is simply a question of their tactics, not of whether or not they are enemies of our way of life.”

It has long been established that the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), through its spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has expressed a desire to see the U.S. become an Islamic state. In that same article, Mr. Spencer suggests that this goal can be achieved by means other than the use of bombs and terrorism, and states:

“So evidently the attempt to accomplish by peaceful means what Osama bin Laden wants to do by violent means is perfectly fine. Only the means matter, not the end. It’s perfectly all right if we all end up living under Sharia, with its institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, as long as nobody gets hurt on our road to Islamization.”

Link to Robert Spencer’s article

It must be considered that should congressional candidate Keith Ellison be elected to his position within the United States congress, he will be forced by the tenets of his religion to either abandon his beliefs or subjugate the laws of the US constitution to Islamic (Sharia) law. If he chooses the former, he will be choosing apostasy, which in accordance with his religion, warrants the death penalty. He simply cannot have it both ways.

If elected, what about the oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), that is administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

“I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

And if not Keith Ellison, what about the next Muslim candidate? Regardless of the candidate’s name or district, is it not a conflict of interest at the very least, or more appropriately a constitutional crisis when our laws permit the implementation of Sharia due to our perilous lack of understanding of orthodox Islam?

[b]Who is Keith Ellison?[/b]

Constitutional issues aside, who is Keith Ellison? Ellison is a Detroit native who grew up in a Catholic household before converting to Islam as a 19-year-old student at Wayne State University, known for its black activism. Ellison has expressed support Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan for at least a decade. In 1995, he was a Minnesota organizer for the Million Man March, which the Nation of Islam convened. In 1997, Ellison publicly supported the executive director of the Minneapolis Initiative Against Racism when she allegedly called Jews “among the most racist white people.” The Star Tribune described Ellison as a “representative” of the Nation of Islam in an article about the incident. In 1998, when Ellison made his first run for the Minnesota House of Representatives, the paper described him as “well-known in the black community as … a supporter of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.”

[b]A well-documented and thorough expose of Keith Ellison can be found at the [url=http://powerlineblog.com/]Power Line Blog Web Site[/url] in a series of articles under this index. The articles are a “must read” to see exactly who Mr. Ellison is – and who is backing him in his congressional campaign.[/b]

[b][color=CC0000]Link to indexed articles:[/color][/b] http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015302.php#015302

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.