Lynne Torgerson #fundie

Lynne Torgerson #fundie salon.com

Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, has drawn a Tea Party challenger who says she is running because she believes Ellison is a "radical Islamist."

Lynne Torgerson wrote a post last week on the website of Tea Party Nation on the need to ban Shariah in the U.S., and her claim that Ellison sees Islamic law as supreme:

" I, Lynne Torgerson, am running for Congress in Minnesota, against radical Islamist Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison fails to oppose banning Islamic Sharia law in the United States. He accuses people of trying to ban it as "conspiratorilists." [sic] Keith Ellison also fails to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law. "

Torgerson actually ran last cycle, garnering 4 percent as an independent. A Minneapolis criminal defense attorney, her campaign website was dominated by critiques of Islam:

"And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911."

85 comments

old comment by Xotan

"Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, has drawn a Tea Party challenger who says she is running because she believes Ellison is a "radical Islamist."

- Adduce the evidence, please.

Lynne Torgerson wrote a post last week on the website of Tea Party Nation on the need to ban Shariah in the U.S., "

- how can you ban what doesn't exist?

"...and her claim that Ellison sees Islamic law as supreme:

- again, adduce the evidence.

"Torgerson actually ran last cycle, garnering 4 percent as an independent. A Minneapolis criminal defense attorney, her campaign website was dominated by critiques of Islam:

"And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911."

- I am overwhelmed by such profound knowledge. 9/11 has more to do with the US's foreign policy, one0sided support for Israel, and its unpreparedness to face attack from within on the part of the Bush government, despite the evidence that was available.

The mention of Sharia is a distraction from the US's real problem, - its indebtedness to China!

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, has drawn a Tea Party challenger who says she is running because she believes Ellison is a 'radical Islamist.'"

Correction: she was running up until she said something that stupid. Now she has no chance to win since the Tea Party alone doesn't have near enough votes to elect a nut like her and she's just shown rational voters her true colors.

"I, Lynne Torgerson, am running for Congress in Minnesota, against radical Islamist Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison fails to oppose banning Islamic Sharia law in the United States."

Probably because such a thing cannot happen. Please familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution prior to running for an elected office higher than that of crossing guard.

"He accuses people of trying to ban it as 'conspiratorilists.'"

That's just because calling such people "fucking nutjobs" isn't very professional.

"Keith Ellison also fails to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law."

Again, he doesn't do this because he doesn't fucking have to. The U.S. Constitution is supreme over all laws within the United States--particularly religious laws of any kind.

"Torgerson actually ran last cycle, garnering 4 percent as an independent."

That's likely 4% more than you'll get this year after what you've just said.

"A Minneapolis criminal defense attorney, her campaign website was dominated by critiques of Islam:

'And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911.'"

You weren't a very good attorney, were you? Obviously not if that's the best argument you could come up with.

No wonder you went into politics.

old comment by His4Life

Good for her. I would vote for this woman if I had the chance. My husband, Ron, is considering running for a local seat here in Eastpointe, but he likely does not have the support to get elected when election time comes around. However, the point is really just to get the message out. This woman may not have strong support yet, but she is speaking her mind and raising awareness of the issue and that is what's important.

My husband's platform is visionary and is based on the Holy Bible. Obviously, atheists, many liberal Jews, muslims, etc., will not support that. But, they can't help hearing it and reading it. It may reach a few people, then a few more, and finally the entire city is rallying and ready for a change.

Some of the ideas he'd enforce would be:

1.) Mandatory English for immigrants (although they can speak their native languages at home, etc.)

2.) Ban gay marriage and make homosexual activity a crime with stiff penalties, like drug use.

3.) Schools teach a conservative and academically rigorous curriculum that includes instruction on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Movement and the Holy Bible.

4.) Church attendance compulsory on Sundays, unless you are ill or unable to attend.

5.) Strict ban on the construction of mosques and Hindu places of worship. Some leeway for orthodox and conservative Jewish synagogues, but on a strict ratio of 1 new synagogue for every 10 new churches build.

old comment by His4Life

6.) Illegal aliens to be deported immediately, with no "path to citizenship" unless they choose to migrate legally into Michigan.

7.) Abortion clinics to be closed or strictly taxed, with services only provided in cases where the woman or baby's health is in danger.

8.) Withdraw all tax dollars from the Federal Government and keep it in the city, until the Federal Government reforms.

9.) Lower taxes for residents, particularly property taxes to make home ownership easier for minorities and others.

10.) Repeal Obamacare and replace it with a charitable, free enterprise and faith-based initiative that would provide care for the needy through area churches working in partnership with private investors.

11.) Ban secret societies from building meeting places in Eastpointe and strictly ban all city and state employees from holding membership in Bohemian Grove, Freemasons, Shriners and other organizations that seek to corrupt our culture and erode our national sovereignty.

old comment by rikalous

@His4Life

1.) "Mandatory English", huh? So, do they get fined if someone catches them speaking their heathen furrin tongue, or what? I guess we'll have to abolish language classes, or just fine students who practice the language they're learning in public.

2.) OK. Let's treat it the same way we treat nicotine. Two people having consensual sex is about as bad as an addictive carcinogen that can poison bystanders with secondhand smoke, right? So make it illegal before 18 and not really bother to enforce that, because people got better things to do.

3.) Right, because nobody learns anything about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Movement, or Christianity in school today.

old comment by rikalous

6.) Because legally immigrating is an easy process that anyone can accomplish, right? http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg

7.) Eh, abortion's a dicey issue. I'll let you slide on this one.

8.) I had to read this a couple times to take it in. You're seriously advocating taking away all the money from the federal government? How the fuck is the government supposed to "reform", whatever that means, if it doesn't have the power to do anything?

9.) This actually doesn't sound too bad. We do need tax revenue, but I've got nothing against shifting the burden away from the middle and lower classes.

10.) See, the nice thing about the way the government helping the poor is it doesn't refuse to help heathens, or require people to change their ways to get enough care to get by. Not all churches do that, either, but too many do to justify putting the whole burden of charity on the churches.

11.) Hey, you got some CSTDT in my FSTDT! If those not-very-secret societies were as dangerous as you claim, their members would just start meeting in actual, you know, secrecy and doing their same nefarious deeds.

old comment by Professor M

@ His4Life --

Your and your husband's position on abortion is not just un-Biblical (like the large majority of the positions you list), but anti-Biblical. The Old Testament in particular is clear: an assault on a pregnant woman which causes miscarriage draws an extra monetary penalty to be determined by the husband, but it not murder. A fetus is not a full human life until the third trimester.

No, the Bible is not a magical box which says whatever you want it to say in order to conform to your own stereotypes and opinions. It also prohibits (and it's a red-letter prohibition) the sort of whoring your religion out for political purposes that you, your husband, and most of your peers engage in as a fundamental sacrament.

old comment by TheJebusFire

Hisforlife:

1.) Mandatory English for immigrants (although they can speak their native languages at home, etc.)

The First Amendment doesn't apply to English only.

2.) Ban gay marriage and make homosexual activity a crime with stiff penalties, like drug use.

Another violation of not only the first amendment, but the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well.

3.) Schools teach a conservative and academically rigorous curriculum that includes instruction on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Movement and the Holy Bible.

Schools should teach facts.

4.) Church attendance compulsory on Sundays, unless you are ill or unable to attend.

Again, violation of the first amendment.

Wow, another violation of the first amendment. I thought you people loved America?

old comment by Noneofyourbusiness

How dare he fail to oppose a nonexistent threat and not assert that which is already guaranteed? Next you'll tell me that he hasn't made one single statement decrying the mass slaughter of Americans with auburn hair.

"And, what do I know of Islam? Well, I know of 911."

A statement that speaks for itself of how you need to know more.

old comment by Giveitaday

Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, has drawn a Tea Party challenger who says she is running because she believes Ellison is a "radical Islamist."

And her evidence to back up this assertion is what? Oh wait.. she doesn't have any evidence? Why am I not suprised.

Lynne Torgerson wrote a post last week on the website of Tea Party Nation on the need to ban Shariah in the U.S., and her claim that Ellison sees Islamic law as supreme

So where can I find Representative Ellison claiming the "supremecy of islaic law" in his own words as opposed to your asserting it?

I, Lynne Torgerson, am running for Congress in Minnesota, against radical Islamist Keith Ellison.

Wow! It only took her two very short paragraps to go from opining that she believes Rep. Ellison is a radical islamist to asserting it as if it were an incontravertible fact without providing so much as a scintilla of evidence.

Keith Ellison fails to oppose banning Islamic Sharia law in the United States.

As he rightly should, such a ban is a pointless and sophmoric waste of taxpayer money annd time that would be better spent governing. The Constitution already has an ammendment that prevents the imposition of sharia law, it's called the first ammendment.

Keith Ellison also fails to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law.

Refusing to support pointless and superflous religion baiting "laws" (and I use that word loosely) does not mean or imply that Rep Ellison supports the imposition of sharia law over the constitution, it means that he, unlike Ms Torgerson recognizes the fact that this whole matter of the supremacy of secular law over religious dogma has been settled law since 1789.

Lynne Torgerson #fundie salon.com

85 comments

Confused?