These Keith Ellison columns :wow: #Ellset

Saiyajin

Superstar
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
10,081
Reputation
3,365
Daps
54,029
Keith Ellison Once Proposed Making A Separate Country For Blacks


Some newly discovered columns shed light on the shocking views expressed by one of the Democrat’s favorite politicians.

According to columns written several years ago in the Minnesota Daily, obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Ellison was once a proponent of a blacks-only nation carved out of America and cash reparations paid from whites to blacks. Ellison also called the U.S. Constitution the “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, now in the running to be DNC Chair, has attracted the support of Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Harry Reid. Many think that Ellison, an African-American Muslim, would make a powerful statement leading the DNC. Ellison’s past has gained attention from the media, with Ellison being accused of anti-Semitism and ties to the Nation of Islam.

Back in 2006, when Ellison was first entering national politics, Scott W. Johnson wrote in the Weekly Standard:

“Ellison was born Catholic in Detroit. He states that he converted to Islam as an undergraduate at Wayne State University. As a third-year student at the University of Minnesota Law School in 1989-90, he wrote two columns for the Minnesota Daily under the name “Keith Hakim.” In the first, Ellison refers to ‘Minister Louis Farrakhan,’ defends Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Abdul Muhammad, and speaks in the voice of a Nation of Islam advocate. In the second, ‘Hakim’ demands reparations for slavery and throws in a demand for an optional separate homeland for American blacks.”

The Washington Post also recently wrote about Ellison’s past columns, with an article published last week citing an Associated Press article about Ellison:

Around 1990, Ellison, then a University of Minnesota law student known as Keith E. Hakim, wrote several columns in the student newspaper that are getting a second look.

One column defended Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism; a second suggested the creation of a state for black residents. In 1995, Ellison helped organize a delegation to Farrakhan’s Million Man March in Washington.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation did some digging to find the columns written in the Minnesota Daily under the pen name “Keith E. Hakim.”

TheDCNF obtained scans of four columns written by “Hakim” as a law student. Ellison was around 26 years old at the time these columns were written and published.

Over four columns, “Hakim” advocates cash reparations paid from whites to blacks, calls the Constitution the “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples,” and proposes making a separate country for black people.

The first column, published on November 1, 1989, is titled “African-Americans are best equipped for fighting drugs.”

The piece opens up with the sentence, “Years ago, it was slavery and, more recently, the Jim Crow system. But today it appears that the rationale for black people having ‘no rights which a white man is bound to respect’ is crime.”
Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites. It cannot be intelligently argued that the Nation of Islam is doing this. In fact, blacks have no history of harming or subjecting whites as a class. On the other hand, whites have it written into their very Constitution that blacks shall be considered three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation of their white owners. Their Constitution also makes provisions for the return of runaway slaves. Their constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

The column also seems to defend the opinion that asserting interests of a racial group doesn’t make one a racist.


“I would like to offer an explanation of why anyone who boldly asserts the interests of blacks is assailed as a racist, a philanderer or a criminal,” he continues. “It goes back to those old American laws forbidding anyone from assisting a slave to gain freedom. Any person, black or white, who attempts to disrupt the slavocracy or white supremacist hierarchy will come under attack by the white supremacists and their trained stooges.”
In the same issue, another writer criticizes Hakim and accuses him of anti-Semitism, writing, “Keith Hakim should name the ‘certain forces’ who were opposed to Dr. Muhammad’s speech on campus. These ‘forces’ are Jews, myself included.”

The third column, from November 30, 1989, is titled, “Daily editorial staff should feel ashamed.” This column addresses some conflict with the staff of the Minnesota Daily over the previous column Hakim penned.

“The news media prints only the most sensational bits and pieces, never the whole story. This leaves people believing that the Nation of Islam is some kind of black Ku Klux Klan, and they immediately dismiss all of its laudable work,” Hakim writes.

In the same issue, Hakim is criticized by another writer for the newspaper who writes, “To hear Hakim blather, one might think that slavery was invented and employed solely by Western Europeans (ever heard of the Zulus?). One might think that blacks are a very unique group of humans in that they are incapable of practicing racism.”

A scan of both Hakim’s columns and two others criticizing him can be viewed here.

The fourth and final column written by Hakim is the most inflammatory. Published on February 2, 1990 and entitled “Affirmative action does not make up for past injustice,” the article pushes for reparations for slavery and giving black Americans the option of a separate black homeland.

“Since no one but the WASP elite really appreciates affirmative action, I have a challenge for all fair-minded middle- and working-class white people: I will urge black people to abandon white-dominated, integration-oriented, give-away programs, if you urge white people to justly compensate black people for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.

The settlement could be a straight cash transfer for all the black exploitation. This means just compensation for all the labor hours put in by the slaves and just compensation for all the intellectual and artistic property ripped off by all the Elvis Presleys and Pat Boones. It means compensation for all the money ripped off through sharecropping and just compensation owing to all the black athletes of yesterday, such as Jack Jefferson and Joe Louis. It means back payment of the ‘black tax,’ which is the price hike that ghetto merchants and pawnbrokers charge black consumers.”

The article proposes a separate country for blacks as well, writing,

“Finally, blacks would have the option of choosing their own land base or remaining in the United States. Since black people toiled most diligently in the southeastern section of the United States, this land, quite naturally, would be most suitable. That means Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. Blacks, of course, would not be compelled to move to the black state, and, of course, peaceful whites would not be compelled to move away.

This is a bargain.


Whites would be relieved of the burdens of the black-faced but white-dominated social programs. Blacks would employ themselves, teach their own children the truth and control their own neighborhoods. Black-white interaction would be voluntary instead of compelled. No more busing, no more affirmative action and, best of all, no more white guilt. White people could righteously say they have ‘settled their debts with blacks. Urban blacks, long alienated from society by poverty, forced segregation and media-vilification, would no longer strike fear in whites. Think of it, whites could reclaim their cities — without dispossessing anyone.


Now the liberals may oppose this reparations program because, of course, they justify their existence by championing so-called lost causes.”
 

B!tchuoffendingme

Superstar
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
2,739
Reputation
590
Daps
15,830
Reppin
GTA
I hate Whites who take pseudo offense to Black people advocating for things like separatism, like these fukking people havnt pushed pro White segregationist policies in the cities, suburbs and jobs for decades. Its 100% about White entitlement, they can do it to us, but they cant stand the idea of us excluding them and thriving independently. It burns their soul to the core, so much so that they'll go into straight up Nazi extermination mode, like they did in Philadelphia, Tulsa & Rosewood.
 

Saiyajin

Superstar
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
10,081
Reputation
3,365
Daps
54,029
The Smear Campaign Against Keith Ellison Is Repugnant but Reveals Much About Washington

Ever since he announced his candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison, the first American Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, has been the target of a defamation campaign that is deceitful, repugnant, and yet quite predictable. At first expressed in whispers, but now being yelled from the rooftops by some of the party’s most influential figures, Ellison is being smeared as both an anti-Semite and enemy of Israel — the same smears virtually any critic of the Israeli government reflexively encounters, rendered far worse if the critic is a prominent American Muslim.

Three days ago, the now ironically named Anti-Defamation League pronounced Ellison’s 2010 comments about Israel “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” Other Israel advocates have now joined in. What are Ellison’s terrible sins? He said in a 2010 speech that while he “wanted the U.S. to be friends with Israel,” the U.S. “can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM.”


As the full speech makes clear, he was referring to the indisputable fact that while Israel continues to take billions of dollars every year from the U.S. — far more than any other country receives in aid — it continually disregards and violates U.S. requests to stop ongoing expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, often in ways seemingly designed to impose the greatest humiliation on its benefactor:
Stop, you know why are we sending a mill — $2.8 billion dollars a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground? …

… Now you got Clinton, Biden, and the president who’s told them — stop. Now this has happened before. They beat back a president before. Bush 41 said — stop, and they said — we don’t want to stop, and by the way we want our money and we want it now. [Ellison laughs.] Right? You know, I mean we can’t allow, we’re Americans, right? We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans.

Equally sinful in the eyes of the ADL was this statement on U.S. foreign policy:

The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? [A male says “no.”] Is that logic? Right? When the people who, when the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.

As J.J. Goldberg of The Forward noted, Ellison wasn’t lamenting the insidious influence of U.S. Jews — as the ADL shamefully claimed — but rather was “plainly describing how American Muslims could have greater influence on American policy if they learned to organize.”

And agree or disagree with those positions, it is an indisputable fact that Israel receives far more in U.S. aid than any other country yet continually does exactly that which numerous U.S. presidents have insisted it not do, often to the detriment of U.S. interests. And many prominent foreign policy experts — including David Petraeus — have warned that excessive U.S. support for the worst actions of the Israeli government endangers U.S. national security by alienating Arabs in the region and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. The idea that a member of Congress is not permitted to debate these policies without being branded an anti-Semite is sheer insanity: malicious insanity at that.

But that insanity is par for the course in Washington, where anyone who even questions U.S. policy toward Israel is smeared in this way — from James Baker to Howard Dean to Bernie Sanders and even Donald Trump. So pernicious is this framework that the U.S. Senate just passed legislation expressly equating what it regards as unfair criticism of the Israeli government with “anti-Semitism.” And when one is an American Muslim, ugly stereotypes and pervasive Islamophobia are added to this toxic brew to make the smears worse by many magnitudes.



This smear campaign against Ellison received a major boost Friday night when the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, said at the Brookings Institution, a part of which he funds: “If you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” Saban added: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”


That Saban plays such a vital role in Democratic Party politics says a great deal. To the New York Times, this is how he described himself: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” In late 2015, Ali Gharib wrote in The Forward: “Saban’s top priority isn’t a liberal vision of American life. It’s Israel.” When Hillary Clinton in 2015 condemned the boycott movement aimed at ending Israeli settlements, she did it in the form of a letter addressed personally to Saban.

The Democratic Party’s central reliance on billionaire funders like Saban is a key reason that debates over Israel policy are not permitted within the party. It’s why any attempt to raise such issues will prompt systematic campaigns of reputation destruction like the one we’re witnessing with Ellison.

To get a sense for just how prohibited the most benign and basic debates are when it comes to Israel, consider the quotes from Ellison’s college days dug up by CNN as supposedly incriminating. In 1990, while a law student at the University of Minnesota, Ellison blasted the university president for condemning a speaking event featuring the anti-Zionist civil rights icon Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael); Ellison’s argument was that all ideas, including Zionism, should be regarded as debatable in a college environment:

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.

In other words, Ellison — 26 years ago, while a student — simply argued that college campuses should not be deemed “safe spaces” in which debates over Israel are barred: an utterly mainstream view when the topic to be debated is something other than Israel.

Leave aside the bizarre attempt to use someone’s college-aged political activism against them three decades later. As my colleague Zaid Jilani very ably documented several days ago, even the most inflammatory of Ellison’s campus statements — including his long-ago-renounced praise for the Nation of Islam — were grounded in righteous opposition to “white supremacy and the policies of the state of Israel” and “show him expressing sympathy for the plight of underprivileged whites and making clear that he was not antagonistic toward Jewish people.” Writing about the smear campaign circulating on the internet against Ellison, The Forward’s Goldberg said he found “the evidence to be either frivolous, distorted or simply false.”

As CNN itself acknowledged when digging up these old Ellison quotes: “None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.” How is that, by itself, not the end of the controversy?



The reason why it isn’t is a glaring irony. With the advent of Donald Trump and policies such as banning all Muslims from the country, Democrats this year incorporated anti-Islamophobia rhetoric into their repertoire. Yet what is being done to Ellison by the ADL, Saban, and others is Islamophobia in its purest and most classic form.

Faiz Shakir is a senior adviser to Harry Reid who previously worked for Nancy Pelosi and the ThinkProgress blog at the Center for American Progress. He explains, from personal experience, that the vile treatment to which Ellison is now being subjected is common for American Muslims in political life:



In that last tweet, Shakir is referring to the fact that, to their credit, other Democratic voices — such as American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, J Street, and, most important, Chuck Schumer — continue to defend Ellison. J Street’s statement made the critical point: “It is time to retire the playbook that aims to silence any American official seeking high office who has dared to criticize certain Israeli government policies.”

But even these commendable defenses of Ellison illustrate how constricted the permissible range of views on Israel is within the Democratic Party. J Street vouched for Ellison by saying that he “is and has long been a friend of Israel” and is “a champion of pro-Israel, pro-peace policies.” Schumer went further, saying that while he disagrees with Ellison on numerous issues, “I saw him orchestrate one of the most pro-Israel platforms in decades.” Notably, demonstrating steadfast support for the polices of the Israeli government is literally a job requirement to lead the Democratic National Committee — and for every other significant position in Washington.

But Ellison has actually fulfilled that requirement. Even his opponents admit: “Ellison unambiguously self-identifies as pro-Israel, supports a two-state solution without reservation, has repeatedly said that Israel has a right to defend itself and expressed the importance of protecting and maintaining Israel’s security, and there is no evidence that he has ever supported or advocated for BDS.” It’s true that, as Jay Michaelson wrote in an excellent Daily Beast column, Ellison “has been critical of Israeli settlements, of right-wing Israeli governments, and of America’s unconditional support for Israel.” But even his Israel advocacy is rather banal, as Goldberg wrote:

It must be acknowledged that Ellison’s first loyalty in the Middle East is not to Israel. He is a Muslim, and he makes no secret of his sympathy for the Palestinians. That said, he is a Muslim peacenik. Since entering politics, he has consistently spoken out in favor of the two-state solution, by which he means Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. He’s been active on that front, frequently partnering with J Street and other liberal Zionist groups on efforts to promote peace and security.

In other words, Ellison is a mainstream liberal Democrat, albeit situated on the left wing of the party as it is currently constituted in Congress (which is not very far to the left given that Nancy Pelosi resides in a nearby ideological precinct).

What makes him such an easy and vulnerable target for smear campaigns such as the one Saban and the ADL are pursuing is that he is Muslim — a black Muslim to boot. Just look at the obvious codes in this paragraph from Michael J. Koplow, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, writing in Haaretz under the headline “Keith Ellison Has a Real Israel Problem”:

Ellison is not a figure whom anyone would normally expect to be a supporter of Israel. He is an African-American Muslim who did not grow up in a particularly Jewish area of the country, came of age after 1967, when Israel’s image as a David began shifting to that of a Goliath, did not have any prominent Jewish mentors, and has a background in radical politics. As a student, he was harshly critical of Zionism and its legitimacy.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
111,881
Reputation
14,185
Daps
317,060
Reppin
NULL
many prominent foreign policy experts — including David Petraeus — have warned that excessive U.S. support for the worst actions of the Israeli government endangers U.S. national security by alienating Arabs in the region and fueling support for anti-American terrorism.


YES, goddamnit. of course these arabs hate us. we give them a great reason to :beli:

fukk israel :scusthov:
 

Breh13

Smh.
Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
13,811
Reputation
3,685
Daps
70,293
Yeah. No-one should be surprised.

I'm sure some people will say it's all right-wing smear campaign but I wouldn't be surprised if some left/liberals are getting in this too.

Just disgusting. :francis:
 

Saiyajin

Superstar
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
10,081
Reputation
3,365
Daps
54,029
Yeah. No-one should be surprised.

I'm sure some people will say it's all right-wing smear campaign but I wouldn't be surprised if some left/liberals are getting in this too.

Just disgusting. :francis:
its almost entirely democrats smearing him
 
Top