« FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE CALLS ELLISON “FARRAKHAN’S CANDIDATE” | Home | JOSH HARTNETT CALLS WELLSTONE CRASH “REALLY SUSPICIOUS†»
GINGRICH: MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS NOMINATE RADICAL LEFTIST DEFENDER OF COP-KILLERS FOR CONGRESS
By Michael B. Brodkorb | September 19, 2006
"I am writing you this week from Minneapolis, where the Democrats have nominated a radical left defender of cop killers to be their nominee for Congress.
Keith Ellison, a former member of the radical group the Nation of Islam, is Minnesota Democrats' choice to replace retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D).
The issue is not Ellison's religion but his support for radical leftwing people and causes. Blogs such as Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Powerlineblog.com have uncovered that Ellison was a longtime local leader and spokesman for the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan. He has been a vocal defender of gang members and convicted murderers of police officers, including cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and a cop-killer named on the FBI's most wanted domestic terrorist list currently being given sanctuary in Castro's Cuba.
The nomination of Keith Ellison by Minnesota Democrats is another step in the Dean-Pelosi-Lamont radicalization of the Democratic Party. A Democratic Party that would nominate a person this far to the left and committed to these radical values may become a big issue in the Minnesota Senate race and may be a further step toward defining the Democrats as a party that is unacceptably radical at home and weak abroad." Source: Human Events
Topics: Uncategorized | 34 Comments »
34 Responses to “GINGRICH: MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS NOMINATE RADICAL LEFTIST DEFENDER OF COP-KILLERS FOR CONGRESS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Really? A guy who was caught cheating on his second wife with a campaign staffer thinks this?
A guy who faced 84 ethics investigations durting his term in office?
A guy who paid a $300,000 fine to cover the fact that he had lied to said ethics committee, prolonging their investigation into him?
A guy whose $300,000 settlement required hin to not spin the results, who was later found by the New York Times to be conspiring to do just such a thing?
A guy who predicted in 1998 that the republicans would pick up 30 house seats, only to see them lose 5?
This is the guy you are trusting?
Good to know. This guy is so slimy, if he hadn’t mentioned MDE, I doubt even Michael would quote him.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Now if Newt could just stop porking his staffers and bouncing checks at the capitol bank, and not be crazy, I’d take what he says seriously.
Sean
September 19th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Kieth Ellison has never been a member of The Nation of Islam. He wrote a paper on them while in College back in the 1980’s, but kept a distance. His rallying a Minnesota contingent of men for the 1995 Million Man March is but a weak connection. But to you guys, that is proof he is a member. The garbage that Karl Rove and his ilk will be coming forth in the coming weeks will turn voters off to Republican candidates not just in the 5th CD, but throughout the state. What a better way to get more Democrats elected. If this is all the Rove fear and character assassination machine can produce about Democrat candidates, many Republicans will be seeing retirement on 8 Nov.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:56 am
“Kieth Ellison has never been a member of The Nation of Islam. He wrote a paper on them while in College back in the 1980’s, but kept a distance.”
Kathy — I was the editor who published Keith’s articles and follow-up pieces. I’m also a moderate Democrat: I like Keith’s platform.
But … I KNEW Keith back then. Keith didn’t “keep a distance” from the Nation of Islam: he was in chin-deep. He supported and encouraged their speakers and ideology and made no effort at balance. He even boycotted a Jewish-Black dialog group created in response to his speakers and writings, except to show up for five minutes and yell at me. Keith isn’t a healer, or at least he wasn’t back then.
I should add that it wasn’t only Jews Keith and his speakers railed about. They also went off on whites, women, and gays. Stokley Carmichael (aka Kwame Ture) — a speaker Keith sponsored, stood with, and enthusiastically supported — was asked what position women should have in the black-right’s movement. His answer: “prone.”
September 19th, 2006 at 11:04 am
kathy…honey….move your mouse past the star tribune bookmark will ya? in fact, even they, realizing how much the evidence has piled up, acknowledged yesterday the noi connection into the late 1990’s. rover and sea, you equate that kinda crap with murdering cops? stupid question i guess….this is the new dfl.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:34 am
RR — so you’re concerned with ethical and extra-marital lapses by politicians now? And this disqualifies them from future involvement in politics?
Insert patently obvious Bill Clinton reference here.
BTW, that fine and all those `charges’ from the 90s were bogus, and you know it.
His porking the staffer? That was enough for me to never vote for him again. But unlike BC, he’s actually an idea man, and has interesting things to say.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
“A guy who faced 84 ethics investigations durting his term in office?”
83 turned out to false. The Dems made them up because they hated Newt. The one that stuck was something about him teaching a college course that was supposedly too political. Imagine with the right started enforcing that law/
September 19th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Michael-
you need to speak out more. You seem to have more firsthand knowledge about Ellison’s character than anybody on any of these boards.
Have you approached the Strib or PiPress lately and asked if you could write a piece about Keith’s behavior in the 90’s? I think your eyewitness accounts would be fascinating and illuminating.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Mr.Olenick and worried have pretty well summed everything that needs to be said ! Mr. Olenick
could you Email the STAR TRIBUNE and CITY PAGES
with this INFORMATION? They NEED TO MAKE SOME CORRECTIONS IN WHAT THEY HAVE SAID ABOUT ELLISON
AND THE NATION OF ISLAM.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Let’s say Mike O. does call the Strib, and they interview him.
Can you just see the headline:
“Disaffected Democrat criticizes Ellison”
And this’d be on E14. In the Metro section.
I wouldn’t blame Mike if he didn’t bother. He doesn’t fit their template.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Yeah, telling the Strib would be like (insert excretory verb here) into the wind, I guess.
This whole thing with Ellison is just so utterly frustrating and sad if you’re a moderate Democrat. Here they had a seat that was GUARANTEED to stay Democratic and they blew a decade’s worth of political capital on handing the seat to a radical (who will get absolutely nothing accomplished in Congress) and who belonged to a hate group and couldn’t be bothered with following those “pesky” laws we all have to follow. In the end, Hatch and even Klobuchar could be hurt by the association with Ellison…and for what? So that the Far Left crazies could push their candidate through at the expense of the good of the party and possibly at the expense of losing the huge governor’s and Senate races? This is utter madness! Fire Party Chair Brian Melendez now!
A few nutjobs from the extreme wing of the party endorsed Ellison and they got the requisite support from the moderate lemmings who were so intimidated that they didn’t dare raise their voices to say “Wait, what are we doing? Sabo’s seat is going to stay Democratic! Why are we wasting valuable political capital on this at all????”
Shame on you, all of you, who supported Ellison, because, in the end, you have done possibly irreparable damage to the Democratic Party…for what? For what? So that you could elect the first Muslim? That’s more important than helping the working people of Minnesota?
Don’t be surprised when those working people tell you all to get lost – they’ve been betrayed too many times now by the Far Left-hijacked Democratic Party.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
So, getting endorsed and winning the primary was not good enough of a sign to you that the democrats are not buying this filth you all are peddling?
I guess a 75-25 victory probably won’t be enough either, eh?
September 19th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
we ain’t peddling s***, rover. it’s all over the place for you to see. even where you worship at the oracle of startribune.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Ellison actually only won about 40% of the primary vote with over 50% being split between Junge and Erlandson. Maybe that 50% is Ellison’s for the taking, but one hopes that moderate Democrats have enough independence to split from the party when it’s not in the best interest of the state.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
What “filth?” Keith WAS an active member of a hate group. That’s not filth: that’s history. On second thought maybe it is “filth” but it’s also history. If David Duke was the front-runner in Minneapolis his past associations would be filthy, but also highly germane to his worthiness as a candidate. Keith’s in the same position. Just like David Duke couldn’t say “ignore my past: concentrate on the positive” neither should Keith be able to.
Strangely, I think if there is any racist behavior being exhibited it’s by Keith’s supporters. Minnesota Democrats seem to be either infantalizing Keith or condoning his past behavior. Either position is indefensible and the former definitely stinks of the same bigoted charges Keith’s supporters are fast to throw around. It is depressing as a moderate democrat to witness what is happening. I said in a prior post this will be a Democratic disaster in the ‘08 presidential race when my south Florida neighbors — that solid block of Jews who usually vote Democrat — realize who the Democrats have supported.
I have written to the Star-Tribune: never heard from them. Didn’t bother with the Pioneer-Press. Yesterday I wrote Katherine Kersten but haven’t heard from her either. The City Pages seems to be the worst basket case of all: I won’t waste my digital ink. I’ve also written to my editor way back when, who is now a staff reporter at the Washington Post: there’s no way he could believe Keith didn’t know about Farrakhan and what the Nation of Islam stood for.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
***As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”
That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.
This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.
***
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm
Yep! “radical” is on Newt’s list….
So nice to see that Newt still uses those words…
Anybody else want to see how many of Newt’s words made it into the “story”, above?
September 19th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Holy SMOKES!!!
Newt used “radical” FIVE – count ‘em, FIVE times!!!!
Plus, a gratuitous “radicalization”!!!!
C’mon, folks, it’s fun! See how many of Newt’s “Divide & Conquer” words YOU can find!!!
September 19th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
TPT, if being a front man for the NOI isn’t radical, what is, in your view?
September 19th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
The jealousy and envy of the Democratic party for the accomplishment lead by Newt eludes and will continue to elude the party forever. However, some of the left could be considered unfortunate underdogs since they don’t understand the electorate and will never gain the leadership role of anything as long as they continue to live in the past as they do.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I wonder if the DFL apologists for KE are all that fired up about his non-involvment as they are for, say, Robert Byrd being a KKK grand dragon? (oh wait, they already ARE!!!)
Ya see, its really easy for the left to forget who they stand behind, so long as its someone who says they plan to impeach Bush, that is the candidate of choice!!! (regardless if that candidate is for enslaving women, killing gays, imposing sharia law and tearing up the constitution [which the DFL are well on their way in accomplishing])
September 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
11. John:
well said!
Michael Olenick:
Your frustration is showing. We see that you are trying very hard to create a clearer picture of Ellison…the truth.
I have a very serious question for all of you.
If Ellison is elected…what next?
What happens?
Not in office, but, in the getting him to office.
His offenses will have an impact on his ability to even TAKE the job.
We can elect him as voters, but he is involved with terror related org’s and that is very, very crimminal in the US.
Will this government, the CIA, the FBI, the Treasury Department, and the DHS allow him to go to Washington, or will he be FORBIDDEN to become a COngressman?
It is HIGHLY likely that he will be held back.
He should know this fact.
I am to woner seriously if Keith X is not simply a lead-in act for the imminent warring about to negin with the Muslims in this country.
Bush has been warning us that attacks are to come.
The POPE has taken it all on himself to cause the media to take a closer look at the Muslim communities all areound the world now.
Jews, Alan Fine specifically, is speaking out about being ‘offended’ by Ellison.
And the catholics are being threateneed, nuns killed, and their POPE is in serious danger from the Muslims.
Keith displays a disregard for the so-called past, however that ‘past’ netted him over 30,000 dollars in contributions already.
And that ‘past’ is causing him to show NO conscience about his ‘past’ to anyone about it.
I ask; if you are a Congressman in this time of Orange Terror alerts and no lipstick on a flighht…if it were called to your attention that you have contributions from terror sources…would you not stop and say, oops!!!???
It is clearly not an oops for him…it is acceptable because it is a goal for him.
A Muslim goal…on his way to a majot Muslim/American war.
George Bush has been working tirelessly to fend off a terror of the haulocaust size for years now.
The NOI has been nipping at the US and Isreal for years.
We are in the firing line of them and it is not pretty! Nor will they relent.
Ellison needs to make a choice.
DENOUNCE ISLAM or state your relationship to the Nation of Islam Keith X!
Republicans need to help the short-sighted and desperate DFL now!
Why do you think that Bill Clinton and George Dad Bush are so chummy?
Scary things ahead.
The DFL and the Rep should NOT be at each others throuats at this time…
We should ALL unite against the Muslim activity abounding and the goals of Islam.
Ellisons election will springboard us into hell!
It may already be too late.
If he loses he will remain active in their plans.
If he wins and cannot serve or is removed by our government (CIA)…we have a war of the most desperate kind and in our own backyard.
Start doing the math here.
You are smart enough…but are you brave enough?
NO MUSLIMS…in our government!
September 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Can anyone identify and of Keith Ellison’s platform positions or votes in the Legislature that could be fairly characterized as racist or anti-semitic?
Lots of people have skeletons in the closet. Samuel Alito belonged to a racist and sexist organization of Princeton alumni. Robert Byrd and Hugo Black belonged to the KKK as young men, but turned their lives around and became anti-racists.
That’s what counts.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Paul, exactly how did Byrd turn his life around and become an anti-racist? Seriously, the guy just called people the N word on national television (ironically enough in an interview with Tony Snow) a few years ago. People who are anti-racists don’t use the N word like it’s nothing.
As for Keith Ellison, the best as they say is yet to come.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:18 am
“People who are anti-racists don’t use the N word like it’s nothing.”
So, Rich Stanek is a racist?
September 20th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Paul L. you throw around the words racist and sexist recklessly, like to many on the left.
Do you have any knowledge at all about what you speak? I assume you refer to the Princeton CAP.
Here’s a hint pal. Just because one of your fellow travelers calls something racist, that doesn’t make it so. Do some research first.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Diane- the new truthful voice of the Republican Party. SIEG HEIL!
September 20th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Overboard on that last comment. Diane is just a run of the mill bigot. She’s no Nazi.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:24 am
OK. One commentator disagree that Rbt Byrd is now anti-racist, despite voting consistently for civil rights legislation since the late 1960s, and another disagrees that the Concernecd Alumni of Princeton was racist or sexist because it advocated against admitting women and affirmative action to admit blacks.
So reasonable people may disagree with these examples. (But why did Alito feel compelled to disassociate himself with CAP if it was so innocent?)
Should I have cited one-time liberal Democrat Ronald Reagan who became a conservative Republican? Or one-time conservative operative David Brock who now is anti-conservative? The point is, people can change, and it’s what people — especially politicians — do now that counts.
Will anyone anwer my question:
Can anyone identify any of Keith Ellison’s platform positions or votes in the Legislature that could be fairly characterized as racist or anti-semitic?
Thanks.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
DJZ
Yes that was over the top…however I don’t speak German and didn’t know what you typed there until you wrote it in English and retracted it in English..hahahahaha
I would like you to go to insight magazine, newspaper for blacks. Well done paper.
Enter Keith Ellison in the Archives box.
His columns will appear. Please note that he extends a MLK quote.
If character does matter…why can he not recognize that his own character is in question?
Where is the disconnect in this guy?
I think he is troubled. And I think that our US government will NEVER allow him to take office if he is elected.
Why?
Because he has to be, HAS TO BE, on a watch list by now.
The CIA does a wonderful job of keeping guys like this on the radar. And so does the FBI.
Think of the tremendous embarrassment to the state…and to the DFL if he is arrested or rejected.
Look ahead to election day and consider the worst…’cause that is who is running for the DFL right now in the fifth!
In this democracy; anyone can campaign and run for office, but, criminals cannot serve! That is a fact.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
OK Mrs Duke, tell us what crime has Ellison committed.
Criminals can’t practice law either in this state, Ellison was working in the courtroom just last week after his primary win.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
DJZ,
Strawman. Nobody accused Ellison of a “crime”.
Merely of hiding huge, inconvenient swathes of his past.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Paul L,
No, because it’s not really ‘on topic’. Why not ask that question on your own blog?
September 21st, 2006 at 4:21 am
Your strawman in in the last sentence of Diane (AA) the Bigot’s post.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:33 am
Troy — How can a question about Keith Ellison’s character a point of discussion on this blog when it seems to have been the ONLY point of discussion since the primary?
As odd as it might seem, I asked the question because I really wanted to know if there’s something real about Keith’s character that I should worry about before voting for him. I asked the question because I’ve been favorably inclined towards him and voted for him in the DFL primary — primarily because he’s right about the war — but I realy want to know whether there’s something about him — about his present day behavior or beliefs — that I should know before deciding whether to vote for him again.
But so far, no one has answered my question.
It reminds me of Jon Stewart’s comment about Janet Jackson’s apology for having her breast exposed at the Super Bowl: “Janet Jackson today pretended to apologize to all of those who pretended to be offended by her actions at the Super Bowl.”
I’m beginning to think that you all don’t really have any moral outrage with Keith Ellison, or genuine sympathy for human equality. You’re simply pretending to have moral outrage because it advances your political agenda. I’m all in favor of advancing a political agenda; I just think that it ought to be done honestly, about real issues. That’s all.
If that’s off topic, so be it.