Rep. Keith Ellison

Lynne Torgerson, an Independent Conservative who we profiled before as an opportunist who was trying to play off of people’s fears to win votes confirms our suspicions in an interview with some die hard anti-Muslims.

Hart Van Denberg breaks it down.

When you launch an independent campaign to unseat the first American Muslim to ever hold a seat in Congress, and you introduce yourself to the public by saying the guy is unfit for office by tarring him with a guilt-by-association link to Islamic militants, it’s only a matter of time before right-wing Christians with a persecution complex come calling, looking for some action.

And so, over the weekend, Lynn Torgerson was interviewed by a couple of people most folks have never heard of, Babe Huggett and Warner Todd Huston, in an online-only broadcast from BlogTalkRadio called “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Conservatism.” What ensued was ensued was a journey through the two hosts’ dark paranoia.

Sometimes Torgerson went there with them, sometimes she didn’t. Mostly, she had a hard time getting a word in edgewise, as the hosts gradually steered her away from her criticisms of incumbent 5th District Rep. Keith Ellison, and towards an endless attack on Islam. Here are a few highlights:

Ellison and the Council on American Muslim Relations

Torgerson: “He has been a person who has regularly appeared at their fundraisers and CAIR regularly appears at Keith Ellison’s fundraisers. So here we have an elected federal official with too close of ties to a named co-conspirator organization funding terrorism.”

Note: A Texas jury convicted five Holy Land Foundation organizers in 2008 of funneling money to the Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist organization. CAIR was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the link is used by right-wing activists, lawmakers and journalists to paint CAIR as a terrorist front — an accusation the group vehemntley denies.

Ellison has supported CAIR group and spoken at its gatherings aimed at generating better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. He has known the group’s leader since the two were at college together, and has received campaign donations from some CAIR members.

Moderate Muslims

Haggett: Muslims “squeal and they scream for tolerance. And if you criticize them, they immediately accuse you of bigotry. Yet they are the most intolerant of people, correct, when it comes to their religion? They consider themselves superior and either you’ve got to convert or die.”

Torgerson: “I think we have to be careful. There do exist moderate Muslims.”

Immigration

Haggett: “Here’s the problem with moderate Muslims. As long as they are 1 percent or less of the population in any given area, they can be such model citizens. They can be wonderful. They’re just nice and sweet and everything. And then when their numbers increase, to like 2 to 5 percent, they start proselytizing, and then they start pushing, and at 5 percent they get more aggressive. And when you get to 10 percent, like they have in France right now, that’s when the riots start. that’s when the lawlessness starts. That’s when the burning of cars starts — you know its winter season because that’s when the cars are going up in flames. … Should we allow unlimited immigration of Muslms into this country? I don’t think so.”

Torgerson: “Right. I would agree with that position. These are very difficult issues to address. But I do think we do need to limit immigration.”

Note: For a reality-based review of the riots in France, click here.

Infidels

Haggett: “We have to be very careful about letting Muslims in because unfortunately a good Muslim is forbidden by the Koran to live among the infidels unless he intends on using (his) demographics to convert the area he moves to to Islam. So, what do you see as the threat of Islamic sharia law getting established here, because in the UK they’ve had massive Islamic immigration and you start getting Islamic no-go zones where people who are not Muslims literally take their lives in their hands going into these areas. Like firemen. Like ambulance people. They get attacked because they’re not Muslims.”

Huston: “Not only that, but these same communities start pushing for a parallel set of laws. They want to have their own courts. They want to settle their own issues. And unfortunately England has allowed this to happen.”

Torgerson: “Yes, clearly we cannot have in the United States separate sharia courts and separate sharia law. This particular form of radical Islam that cannot be practiced in the United States. All people, no matter what their religion or nationality, in the U.S. have to be subject to the U.S. Constitution.”

Note: The UK sharia courts exist outside the legal system. And here are some basics on Islam.

Death Cult

Haggett: “To me, Islam is a religio-political death cult. So how do you manage to divorce the politics from the religion. Because essentially anytime it imposes its will through sharia it goes from being a religion that somebody practices, you know, within their religious community to a political statement. And that’s the whole aim of Islam, to be dominant in all areas, including politics.”

Torgerson: “These are very difficult issues I think to even grasp and then to formulate into words.”

Subversion

Haggett: “If Islam is so antithetical to the American political system, why are men like Keith Ellison running for, and getting into office? Are they trying to subvert us from within?”

Torgerson: “I’m not sure.”

Note: Later, when asked why she stalled on that answer, she said she hadn’t ever thought about whether Ellison’s faith is actually trying to subvert us from within and added that no evidence of any such nefarious plot actually exists. Torgerson has hinted before of some shadowy effort by Muslims to take over the world. But, maybe because she’s a lawyer and sensed too many assertions masquerading as questions wrapped into one, Torgerson balked in the interview with Haggett.

Lawfare

Haggett: “It doesn’t matter what your background is. The first time that anyone — you could be a saint, you could walk on water — the first time you say something a Muslim doesn’t like, they’ll immediately shout “bigotry” at you. I mean, it’s just the way they work. As a lawyer, what are your thoughts on the Islamic practice of Muslims using lawfare (sic) in their cultural jihad to overthrow western civilization in general and America in particular?”

Torgerson: “Did you say ‘lawfare?’”

Haggett: “‘Lawfare.’ It is a thing that Muslims do — especially the cultural jihadists — when they want to get sharia established, they’ll start bringing lawsuits. It can be the most frivolous lawsuits. It doesn’t matter. But they will bring lawsuits against anybody who speaks out against them, or like the wearing of the hijab. My research has shown that the muslim veil, that the women wear, is not a requirement in their religion. Yet they will force the issue and claim it is, and then sue if you try to say, ‘no, you can’t wear that in here,’ because it establishes a hostile atmosphere for other muslim women who do not wear it. Right?”

Torgerson: “With regard to the law I think we need to do exactly what we are doing, which is expose what this radicalized form of Islam is trying to accomplish and how the are trying to accomplish it. One is through terrorism and one is through culture. And to expose that is to bring to light the infringements on, I think, our freedoms of speech. We need to educate America that this is not a left or right issue.”

Ibrahim Hooper

Haggett: “The head of CAIR wants sharia law to sub-plant the Constitution.”

Torgerson: “Yes I believe that statement has been attributed to Ibrahim Hooper”

Note: Nihad Awad is the Executive Director and co-founder of CAIR. Hooper is CAIR’s national communications director. A Muslim convert, he once worked as a worked as a news producer at KSTP-TV.

The full interview is here.

The Moral Contortionist

On November 25th, we wrote about a wacky article that the failed academic and full time Likud apologist, Daniel Pipes wrote for the Jerusalem Post, in which he argued that US Congressman Keith Ellison, intellectual Tariq Ramadan and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan were a greater threat to Western Civilization than Al-Qaeda.

We wrote at the time,

According to the illogic of Pipes the greatest threat doesn’t come from Al-Qaeda, Ayatollah Khomeini or Nidal Hasan but rather from people like Dr. Tariq Ramadan and Congressman Keith Ellison. He accuses the two of being part of something he terms “Islamism 2.0.” This ridiculous term translates essentially into what Islamophobe Robert Spencer calls “Stealth Jihad,” or the subtle takeover of the West by peaceful, law-abiding Muslims who have a secret, sinister (stealth) goal to takeover the West and replace Democracy with Shariah law: in other words it’s a conspiracy theory.

Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a US congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization. (emphasis mine)

That Erdogan, Ramadan and Ellison can even be mentioned in the same sentence as equivalent to, or even more dangerous and threatening to the West than Bin Laden speaks volumes about Pipes’ preposterous agenda. Would Bin Laden have Turkey make peace with Armenia as Erdogan did? Would Bin Laden affirm Democracy as the way forward to better governance and equal rights as all three do? Would Bin Laden pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an as Keith Ellison did?

We never imagined Daniel Pipes would offer a response, as he usually isn’t too keen to get into a debate with anyone who challenges his weak and biased arguments. However, it seems this time Pipes couldn’t hold himself back. Prompted by a reader of his website, Aliya, who alerted Pipes to our rebuttal of his article, he responded by bringing the all too familiar response of those who have no arguments: comparing your subject to Hitler.

The questioner sounds like another loon that we know, Pamela Geller who surmised that Loonwatch was a George Soros funded website, but she takes it a step further and includes all the possible conspiracy theories she can think of, not only are we George Soros funded but we are an, “Islamist Jewish/Eurabian (apparently George Soros and Saudi funded) website.” I love these loons, if half of what they said were true (Alas, my meager pockets) we would be rolling in the dough!!  Soros and company we are still waiting on our checks!

Notice that Daniel Pipes really didn’t answer any of the arguments or questions in our article, my guess is he probably didn’t even read it. He looked at the way Aliya framed the question and answered it by equating Keith Ellison, Tariq Ramadan and Recep Erodogan, all fierce proponents of Democracy to the greatest mass-murderer of the 20th century. Quite despicable, and it seems to have become Daniel Pipes’ forte to side on the side of the despicable.

The real question however is, if Pipes is truly interested in “protecting Western Civilization,” why is he as silent as a mouse on the real threat: the new little Hitler’s springing up all over Europe? Why does Pipes ignore neo-fascist Geert Wilders who calls for the deportation of Mooslims, banning of the Quran, taxing the hijab, etc? Why does he not speak out against the fascist Northern League, why does he give his tacit approval of the minaret ban in Switzerland which he charachterizes as a vote against “Islamization?”

The new amendment also validates and potentially encourages resistance to Islamization throughout the continent.

The reality is ever clearer, Mr.Pipes doesn’t give two hoots about Democracy, for him Democracy is convenient when it fits his agenda but should be discarded the moment it is no longer of use.

Lynne Torgerson

Ever since Keith Ellison got elected as a House Representative from Minnesota he has been making news and headlines. He is a brilliant mind and a strong advocate for liberal policies and social justice/civil rights, but a lot of times his great work gets overshadowed by the fact that he is….Muslim.

First there was the controversy created by right-wing windbags that Ellison should swear on a Bible and that he was undermining America (a secular government by the way) by swearing on a Qur’an. Then there was Glenn Beck saying he was “scared” of Ellison and wanted Ellison to “prove that he was a true American,” not too long ago Daniel Pipes said Ellison was more dangerous to Western Civilization than AlQaeda and other terrorists and now we have Lynne Torgerson who has almost no shot of winning the upcoming race against Ellison resorting to the one hail Mary strategy that might give her a shot at victory: Islamophobia. Stranger things have happened but aside from having no real critique about Ellison’s record, Torgerson seems dead set on trying to bash voters over the head with the fact that Ellison is a “Mooslim.”

Gawker has a great satirical piece on the rabid lunacy that is Islamophobe Lynne Torgerson:

Most Vile Politician in America Hellbent on Vanquishing Muslims, Muslim Congressman by Azaria Jagger

Lynne Torgerson—who is running against Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a popular, well-respected U.S. Congressman—wants to stop the “globalization of Islam” and “Ellison [who] is a Muslim.” She cites 9/11, Fort Hood, and the book Muslim Mafia as evidence.

It is our patriotic duty to ridicule this woman and her bigotry. She’s hit the national stage despite describing herself as “apolitical” but for her disgust for Ellison, who, in 2006, was the first Muslim elected to Congress. From her campaign website:

Keith Ellison is a Muslim, a person who was raised Christian and converted to Islam. … Now, with all due respect, America, and its people, should be lauded for its goal of promoting to public office and other high ranks, people of color, women, minorities, etc. However, quite frankly, in our zeal, we simply went too far with Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison simply is not a proper person to have in our federal government. [emphasis mine]

Torgerson, an independent candidate, devotes a third of her “Issues” page to “Freedom of Religion,” but she explains that Islam “is not ‘religion’ recognizable under the First Amendment” because it wants to “kill people not of their faith” and to “Islamize the entire world.” (Torgerson aligns with the Catholic Church, which has never killed a nonbeliever or converted a wayward, thank Allah.)

And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911. Nineteen (19) men from Saudi Arabia, all Muslim, hi-jacked planes, and flew into the two (2) World Trade Towers murdering thousands of people, and tried to fly into our Pentagon…

People say that we can’t include the moderate, peace loving Muslims. Well, I agree. But, who are they? … I cannot tell. It is not for me to go and try and find them. Rather, it is their duty to stand up and identify themselves, if there are any.

I know why Lynne can’t find “peace loving Muslims.” It’s that when a Muslim tells her “I love peace,” what she hears is, “I am going to kill you”:

I think it is interesting that Keith Ellison, in the past year or so, introduced a bill entitled “Global Peace.” “Global.” I think that word is telling. Globalization of Islam. It is also my understanding that when people of the Muslim faith use the word peace, that “peace” to them means the elimination of Christians and Jews. [emphasis mine]

Let’s return to the screed:

Recently, I was in the courthouse, the new Public Safety Facility in Minneapolis, and I saw an Islamic mother, covered in fabric from head to toe, and walking 5 to 15 feet BEHIND her son….

What else have I heard about Muslims? Fort Hood. What was the result of the teachings of Islam on a Muslim, who was an officer in the United States’ military? Well, the result was him killing, I believe, 13 American soldiers, and injuring many others. Not one person killed or injured was a Muslim. In another book I am currently reading, entitled Muslim Mafia, it is suggested that Muslims want to infiltrate our police departments, our governments, etc., with the goal of Islamizing America.

You’d think the person espousing these beliefs would be a low-functioning nobody. But the lady is a lawyer, meaning she was smart enough to pass the bar, so her IQ can’t be so low as to allow her to plead innocent by reason of mental defect.

Me, I am a Christian. If someone criticizes Jesus, I am not going to go kill them. I may not even notice.

I’m glad you don’t kill people who criticize Jesus, Lynne, because I’m going to do so right now: Jesus Christ, what the f**k is wrong with you to allow this hateful monstrosity—with a belief system more repugnant than Michele Bachmann’s and a hairdo worse than Kate Gosselin’s—to be unleashed unto humanity?

Luckily, Lynne Torgerson appears to be incompetent. Her website is farcically amateurish: The part where she attempts to embed a YouTube video, but fails, is actually sad. Here is a screen grab of her homepage, which was designed by the same fourth grade militiaman who wrote her campaign platforms:

So she definitely won’t get elected. God help us if she ever runs for a smaller political office, like one where she is the only candidate. She has managed to cobble together opinions on a number of topics, unified by a thin fiber of self-righteousness and crazy—but ultimately, Lynne Torgerson is running an entire congressional campaign on bigotry, ignorance, and arbitrarily deployed pigheadedness. And finally, let it be known that, if you are working on your political website and find yourself needing this caveat:

Now, these are very sensitive subjects. And, I should apologize in advance for those who I offend or whose feelings I hurt.

What you actually need is to stop being in politics.
[HuffPo] [MNIndy] [Torgerson4Cong]

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes, the academic who dropped academia long ago to pursue anti-Islam polemics and apologia for Israeli policy is at it again. In a Nov, 24, 2009 article in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes writes about his favorite topic, “the Muslim threat to Western Civilization.”

According to the illogic of Pipes the greatest threat doesn’t come from Al-Qaeda, Ayatollah Khomeini or Nidal Hasan but rather from people like Dr. Tariq Ramadan and Congressman Keith Ellison. He accuses the two of being part of something he terms “Islamism 2.0.” This ridiculous term translates essentially into what Islamophobe Robert Spencer calls “Stealth Jihad,” or the subtle takeover of the West by peaceful, law-abiding Muslims who have a secret, sinister (stealth) goal to takeover the West and replace Democracy with Shariah law: in other words it’s a conspiracy theory.

Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a US congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization. (emphasis mine)

That Erdogan, Ramadan and Ellison can even be mentioned in the same sentence as equivalent to, or even more dangerous and threatening to the West than Bin Laden speaks volumes about Pipes’ preposterous agenda. Would Bin Laden have Turkey make peace with Armenia as Erdogan did? Would Bin Laden affirm Democracy as the way forward to better governance and equal rights as all three do? Would Bin Laden pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an as Keith Ellison did?

All of the above are of course rhetorical questions because there is an obvious wide gulf that separates the likes of a Bin Laden and a Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison, is an American whose family history in the Americas goes back centuries, longer even than Pipes’ family history. He is a liberal Democrat who believes in Democracy, the rule of law, universal suffrage and equal rights for all. That is why his district in Minnesota overwhelmingly voted for him.

The most condescending aspect to the vile piece from Pipes and what he ignores or fails to mention is that Erdogan, Ramadan and Ellison are Westerners. In fact, they represent all that is good about the West, they are consistent on their values, are educated, active and participatory citizens: one doesn’t have to agree with their beliefs or ideas to see the common values in that. They call on their fellow citizens to be active and educated and they foster understanding between different communities while also being self-critical; that is more than we can say for Daniel Pipes.

Pipes goes on to state that “lawful Islamism” is growing in the West and may be worse than “violent Islamism” which is retreating,

Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.

In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.(emphasis added)

Instead of bizzarely bemoaning the fact that these once violent organizations have renounced violence, Pipes should see it as most sensible people do, a positive development which brings these groups into the system and opens them up to the scrutiny of checks and balances and eventually the electorate. Also notice the highly disingenuous way in which Pipes again lumps these once violent organizations onto the same wavelength as Ramadan and Ellison who, yes, are proud Muslims (not a crime by the way) but at the same time are staunch Democrats who are the fiercest and most affective opponents of the violent ideology that motivates groups such as Al-Qaeda.

Ellison and Ramadan stand as a strong counter example against Bin Laden and his cohorts for Muslims, especially young Muslims. They see two Muslims, strongly grounded in their faith, belonging to their society and giving back on various levels from the social to the political; instead of deriding them Pipes should be encouraging them. As more examples such as theirs increase in the West it will enable Muslims to better fight those minority elements within their faith that seek to cause chaos and violence and that is what really threatens Daniel Pipes who seems to be motivated by the paranoid fear that the “enfranchisement of American Muslims…will present true dangers to American Jews.”

So what does Daniel Pipes propose? How do we stop this “stealth Islamism 2.0?” Do we restrict the free speech of Tariq Ramadan and deny him entry into the US? ( Pipes does support that) Do we disallow Muslims such as Keith Ellison from holding public office? Do we not allow Muslims to enter into the military? Do we watch Muslim peoples’ every move? What practical solutions is Pipes proposing from this highly opinionated and doomsday scenario article?

We can only assume that he is in league with other believers in these conspiracy theories who do put forward pratical solutions to the “stealth Muslim problem.” Believers like Geert Wilders whose solutions include: no religious freedom for Muslims, banning the Quran, taxing Muslim women who wear the Hijab, deporting Muslim citizens etc.

One must ask Daniel Pipes, does he agree with such a program? Some of his colleagues and friends such as Robert Spencer have already given their backing to Wilders, where does Pipes stand? Does he stand for Democracy, equal rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion or is he a hypocrite cloaking himself as a champion of Western civilization when in reality with every word he undermines it?