Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein really wanted to attack Obama administration adviser Mohamed Elibiary in an Oct. 18 WorldNetDaily article for using the word "Christianist" to describe right-wing activists:
Department of Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary has warned the tea party movement against attempting to change the U.S. political landscape through “Christianist Xenophobia.”
Elibiary further charged some “white identity/privilege types” have a problem with a “black president” and “brown Mexicans.”
“If #TeaParty wants US revived then we must swing Blue seats Red & that is only achievable thru Libertarianism, not Christianist Xenophobia,” Elibiary tweeted.
Asked by WND in an email to clarify his remarks, Elibiary replied: “’Christianist’ is a term coined about a decade ago and like ‘Islamist’ (for Muslims) and ‘Zionist’ (for Jews) refers to Christians who mix theology and nationalism.”
But Klein decided to push his luck and make it personal:
Elibiary said WND falls into his definition of “Christianist.”
“WND certainly would often times fall in this camp as well as perhaps a subset of Christianists that political scientists refer to as ‘Christian Zionists’ because of its foreign policy worldview through a dispensationalist end-time theology.”
Interestingly, Klein makes no effort to challenge what Elibiary actually said; rather, he reaches into his big bag o' guilt by association and spends the rest of his article attack previous alleged offenses by Elibiary.
Does that mean Klein agrees with Elibiary's description of WND and other far-right activists as "Christianist"? It sure looks that way -- it can be argued that Klein's silence equals assent.
