Follow by Email

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Keith Ellison Is A Well known Anti-Semite


If you go back to his positions, his statements, his speeches, the way’s he voted, he’s clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.
 Keith Ellison had defended Nation of Islam bigots from Khalid Abdul Muhammed (“that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating… just crawled out of the caves and hills of Europe, so-called damn Jew”) to Joanne Jackson ("Jews are among the most racist white people I know") through a large section of his early adult life.
Keith Ellison spent a likely eleven years of his life affiliated with a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. Since then he has lied about it and distorted his past. That alone should be disqualifying.
The radical extremists supporting Keith Ellison's candidacy have no response to this. So they have simply resorted to repeating the same lies. With the aid of a compliant media that makes it very clear that it has taken Ellison's sideThe first Muslim elected to Congress has over several decades praised the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, who in the words of the Anti-Defamation League “has embarked on a wide-ranging campaign specifically targeting the Jewish community.” Ellison has recently expressed regret over his defense of Farrakhan in the 1990s, but Ellison’s own writings reveal that he has, at least at one point in the past, entertained a similar worldview.

“Whether one supports or opposes the establishment of Israel in Palestine and Israel’s present policies, Zionism, the ideological undergirding of Israel, is a debatable political philosophy,” Ellison wrote in 1990, protesting the University of Minnesota’s criticism of a campus visit by Stokely Carmichael, who famously claimed that Zionists collaborated with Nazis during World War II.
“The university’s position appears to be this,” Ellison continued: “Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with — like South Africa. This position is untenable.”
His writings and statements later in life suggest a consistency in this political belief well beyond the ‘90s.
“The United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” he said at a 2010 fundraiser for his reelection hosted by a man named Esam Omeish, who had three years prior faced controversy for telling Palestinians that “jihad way is the way to liberate your land.”
“A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic?” Ellison continued. “When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”
During the same event, Ellison suggested the US foster closer ties with Saudi Arabia and Libya, which at the time remained under the dictatorial leadership of Muammar Gaddafi.
And in 2014, Ellison was only one of seven House members to vote against supplementary funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system– a vote he cast during an emergency ballot, when the country was enduring over 4,000 rocket strikes by Hamas.
There is a pattern in Ellison’s statements and behavior, Jewish American groups are now asking Democratic members of Congress to block his appointment as DNC chair. 
“If you go back to his positions, his statements, his speeches, the way’s he voted, he’s clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” Haim Saban, a billionaire and Democratic megadonor who generously gave to Clinton this election cycle, said before a baffled crowd of top Democratic lawmakers in December, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Keith Ellison would be a disaster 
The Anti-Defamation League has characterized Ellison’s past comments as “disqualifying.” 

Saturday, February 25, 2017

If Ellison Is elected DNC Chairman I will leave the Party


Tomorrow the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will have to choose the direction of the Democratic Party, as well as its likely composition. It will be among the most important choices the DNC has ever had to make. There has been a powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to elect Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting. I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution. My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party. I will urge other like-minded people — centrist liberals — to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. We will not be leaving the Democratic Party we have long supported. The Democratic Party will be leaving us! Let me explain the reasons for this difficult decision. Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism. He worked with and repeatedly defended one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan. And worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a “gutter religion” and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade. Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth. Ellison’s anti-Semitism is confirmed by his support for another anti-Semite, Stokely Carmichael. When there were protests about Carmichael’s speaking at the University of Minnesota, Ellison responded that: “The University's position appears to be this: Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with — like South Africa. This position is untenable." But the connections are more recent as well. In 2009, Ellison headlined a fundraiser for Esam Omeish, a former candidate for Virginia state delegate who had told Palestinians that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.”If With regard to Israel, Ellison was one of only a small number of Congress people who recently voted against funding the Iron Dome, a missile system used by Israel to protect its civilians against rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the Nation State of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress. Ellison is now on an apology tour as he runs for DNC chairman, but his apologies and renunciations of his past association with anti-Semitism have been tactical and timed to his political aspirations. He first claimed to realize that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite when he ran for office in 2006 seeking Jewish support. His claim to be a supporter of Israel was timed to coincide with his run for the chairmanship of DNC. I do not trust him. I do not believe him. And neither should centrist liberal supporters of Israel and opponents of anti-Semitism. The DNC has a momentous choice this weekend. It can move the party in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s labor party in England, in the hope of attracting Jill Stein Green Party voters and millennials who stayed home. In doing so they would be giving up on any attempt to recapture the working class and rust-belt voters in the mid-western states that turned the Electoral College over to Donald Trump. Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain. I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe. Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis — all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undo for many years. So, tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals, who support Israel, like me and many others in their party. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice. Alan M. Dershowitz

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Sunday, January 29, 2017

This is Why Most Americans Voted Against trump



Another massive trump snafu.
Another stark reminder of why most Americans voted against trump.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are once again taking to the streets as a result of trump's ham-fisted idiocy.
If trump had even the least bit of common sense he would have had experts vet this idea, plan for it, and implement it in a way that at the very least would have minimized the chaotic nature of this Muslim Ban.
MFBSR

Despite a decade of working to help America in Iraq, Hameed Khalid Darweesh was welcomed to the United States with handcuffs. Darweesh had received a special immigrant visa on January 20 for his work as a contractor, engineer, and interpreter for the Army's 101st Airborne Division in Baghdad and Mosul. But when he arrived at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday night, he was among the refugees detained upon arrival in the wake of President Donald Trump's latest executive order.

On Friday afternoon, Trump banned refugees from Syria indefinitely, suspended all refugee resettlement to the United States for 120 days, denied entry to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), and reduced the number of refugees to be resettled this year by more than half. After nearly 19 hours of detention and a lawsuit filed on his behalf, Darweesh was released on Saturday. Countless others remain stuck in limbo.

While Trump's executive order claims to be in the interest of "protecting the nation," experts in national security and counterterrorism who spoke with Mother Jones argue that it poses potentially disastrous immediate and long-term security threats to the nation and US personnel overseas.





"At the exact moment we need them most, we're telling these people, 'Get screwed.'"
"Not only is it immoral and stupid, it's also counterproductive," says Patrick Skinner, a former CIA counterterrorism case officer who now works at the Soufan Group, a security consulting firm. "We've got military, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel on the ground right now in Syria, Libya, and Iraq who are working side by side with the people, embedded in combat, and training and advising. At no time in the US's history have we depended more on local—and I mean local—partnerships for counterterrorism. We need people in Al Bab, Syria; we depend on people in a certain part of eastern Mosul, Iraq; in Cert, Libya. At the exact moment we need them most, we're telling these people, 'Get screwed.'"

Kirk W. Johnson, who spent a year on the reconstruction in Fallujah in Iraq with the US Agency for International Development (USAID), echoes Skinner's fears: "This will have immediate national security implications, in that we are not going to be able to recruit people to help us right now, and people are not going to step forward to help us in any future wars if this is our stance."

The US-led war on ISIS is but one front in a constellation of fights against extremist groups that could be hampered by Trump's decision. "The US is officially banning people in these countries at the same time we're trying to build up local support to fight ISIS," Skinner says. "It takes a long time to build trust with these people. This is like the Abu Ghraib thing. You have to start over, say, 'Okay, starting now, trust me.' How many times can you get away with that?" It also sends a message that groups like the so-called Islamic State can exploit. Elizabeth Goitein, the codirector of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Program, says, "The message this projects is that America sees Muslims as a threat—not specific actors who are intent on committing terrorist acts. The message that America really is at war with Islam will be ISIS's best friend."

BuzzFeed reporters Mike Giglio and Munzer Al-Awad spoke with five current or former ISIS fighters who cited Trump's divisiveness as a factor that will weaken America. They added that his rhetoric against Muslims will help them reinforce their narrative that America and the West are fighting not just terrorism, but Islam itself. "Trump will shorten the time it takes for us to achieve our goals," said one.

Meanwhile, the very allies who have operated alongside US personnel in war zones for years—contractors and translators like Darweesh—are once again being abandoned. For the past decade, Johnson has been leading an effort to resettle Iraqi allies, many of whom, he says, face torture, kidnapping, and death after collaborating with American soldiers. It all started in 2006 when he heard from an Iraqi USAID colleague who'd been identified by a militia. The militia left a severed pig's head on his door step, along with a message saying that it would be his head next. Despite his years of helping the United States, the US government offered no help, and he had to flee the country with his wife.

"We are not going to be able to recruit people to help us right now. And people are not going to step forward to help us in any future wars if this is our stance."
Johnson discovered that there was no mechanism in place to help US allies like his colleague, and he began a personal crusade to change that. Since then, through legislation and a special immigrant visa platform, Johnson's efforts have helped thousands reach the United States, but the process is cumbersome, long, and often too late for the people who need it most. Johnson speaks of interpreters "who were having legs shot off, cut off, their wives raped, their children abducted." Some of his colleagues were even killed. And though Johnson has been critical of the process for years, now he's in the "awkward position" of defending it, because it was at least better than shutting those allies out as a matter of policy.

Skinner, Johnson, and Goitein all point out that the executive order reads as if whoever wrote it had no understanding of, or done any work with, US refugee admissions programs. Indeed, a senior Department of Homeland Security official reportedly told NBC News that career State Department and DHS officials had no input in the order, saying, "Nobody has any idea what is going on." Johnson says, "It reads as though 9/11 happened yesterday, and that 9/11 was carried out by refugees, which it wasn't, and it creates a series of policy prescriptions to solve a problem that doesn't exist, as if the stringent measures that have been put in place over the past 15 years to screen refugees don't exist."

Johnson, exasperated at the thought of US allies being turned away by the very country they spent years helping, adds, "These people who are directly and immediately impacted by this have done more to help our country than just about every breathing American has—especially the president. Shame is not a strong enough word for today. This is a disgraceful moment."

Susan Walsh/AP

Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel

Never Again!


website page counter