The Difference between Keith Ellison and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is Black and White but all the same.

The Difference between Keith Ellison and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is Black and White but all the same.

I have never had love for the Self Hating , Anti Semitic J Street BDS Jew Debbie Wasserman Schultz nor for her lies how she and Obama helped Israel. What she really meant was she helped Obama decide not to support Israel during the last United Nations vote to sanction her. This is the real Debbie Wasserman Schults who would have in 1932  aligned herself with Adolph Hilter and watch her own mother be dragged out by her hair, Wasserman Schultz is an 'Islamic" Jew like the "Nazi Jews" who works for the Muslim Brotherhood telling Jews, Muslims are not all bad but turning her back and sticking her head in the Florida Sand to sit next to an Anti Semitic Congressman Keith Ellison aka Keith E Harken who is closely knitted to the Nation of Islam, just for a Muslim vote. 

This is her Muslim Voters in the video below Watch it if you can stomach it.

And Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not condemn this. Silences means she approved.

Joe Kauffman who ran against Debbie Wasserman Schultz is attacked by a Hamas CAIR!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not crippled and her hands do work refused to applaud a widow of a service man who put his life out to save Wasserman Schultz ass. Wasserman Schultz main interest is to condemn everyone for taking the lives of Terrorist and not the fact they killed Americans. 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not condemn the killer of the Pulse Nightclub where Homosexual man and women were murdered. But she is the first to condemn anyone who speaks against her beloved terrorist who murdered them in cold blood because they were Homosexual. She did not speak out abut the Rabbi in North Miami who was gun down by Black Muslim Kids but choose to ignore it stating that was not her District.

But she became the Chairman of the DNC, With that position she stood with the Prime Mnister of Israel to take pictures for her Jewish voter who are mostly over the age of 89 with dementia. When Col. Allen West ran , she lied stating Allen West sent people to her town meeting to make fun of her breast cancer and actually no one gave a blank. But she stood out infront of his campaign office trying to destroy him and his campaign. Dirty Tricks  Debbie the world does not revolve around you.

According to the following this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Muslim Brotherhood friend

11/29/2016, 6:44AM

Keith Ellison's old Minnesota Daily columns surface amid bid for DNC chair

Ellison wrote four columns with the pen name "Keith E. Hakim" during his final years of law school at the University of Minnesota.

By MN DAILY STAFF

MINNESOTA DAILY ARCHIVES

One of Keith Ellison's columns, "Minister Farrakhan never claimed to be a 'Malcolm X,'" published on Nov. 27, 1989.

As Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison runs to fill the Democratic National Committee's chair vacancy, multiple news outlets have reported on columns Ellison wrote for the Minnesota Daily while he was a third-year law student at the University of Minnesota.

The Daily retrieved Ellison’s four columns from its archives, written under the alias "Keith E. Hakim" in 1989 and 1990. The columns cover a wide array of topics: From reparations for slavery, issues surrounding campus free speech for students of color, and Ellison's stance on leaders of the Nation of Islam — namely the perceived anti-Semitism of Abdul Alim Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan.

Conservative-leaning outlets and bloggers have since hammered Ellison for those columns and other comments perceived as controversial or anti-Semitic.

Ellison has since denounced Farrakhan, saying he didn't grasp the leader's anti-Semitic leanings until several years after he wrote the columns, the Associated Press reported in 2006.

In November 1989, Ellison sparred with Daily columnists over perceptions of the NOI's leaders.

A week prior, Daily columnist Johnny Hazard penned a piece on Farrakhan, claiming the leader's rhetoric improperly drew parallels with Malcolm X — a former NOI member — and inflamed calls for violence.

The Daily has reproduced Ellison’s response to Hazard's column, along with the three other opinion pieces he wrote during his time at the University of Minnesota. Scans of the original print edition are included before the reproduced text.

Ellison could not immediately be reached for comment.

---

Ellison's column, "Minister Farrakhan never claimed to be a 'Malcolm X'" was published on Nov. 27, 1989. In the same issue, the Daily opinion editor, Michael Olenick, wrote a rebuttal to Ellison’s column, pointing out what he perceived to be anti-Semitism.

Here’s what’s wrong with Johnny Hazard’s piece titled “Despite rhetoric, Louis Farrakhan is no Malcom X” (Nov. 17).

First, with police shooting 13-year-old Asian kids in the back, with Yusef Hawkins’ racially motivated murder in Bensonhurst, N.Y., and with the mass beating of black college students in Virginia Beach, there must be a better way of undoing racism than castigating the Nation of Islam. Whom did the Nation ever lynch? Whose neighborhood did the Nation ever redline? Against what people did the Nation ever wage genocide?

Second, Hazard’s piece has a flawed premise. Unlike Vice President Quayle, who attempted to garner support by associating himself with John F. Kennedy, Minister Louis Farrakhan never associated himself with al-Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X). The Honorable Elijah Muhammad resurrected Shabazz and Minister Farrakhan. Minister Farrakhan continues the Honorable Elijah Muhammaad’s legacy; Shabuzz abandoned it. Therefore, Minister Farrakhan might not be another Elijah Muhammad, but he definitely is not another Malcolm X. He never claimed to be.

Third, Hazard wrote, “Ironically, King was more progressive than the Nation of Islam crowd because he understood the economic nature of racism.” Wrong again. The single most distinguishing characteristic of the Nation of Islam, from a black perspective, is the Nation’s message of economic self-determination. Considering the Power Program, the bean pies and the fish stores, the black community knows the Nation to have a definite economic thrust. M. L. King, by contrast, was essentially a social reformer.

Fourth, there’s nothing trendy about the upsurge in interest among black youth concerning Shabazz. This is a response to the upsurge in white barbarism on American college campuses, including this one.

It’s a response to Howard Beach, Virginia Beach, Smalley and Weisse, the Embassy Suites Five and, most recently, the savage murder of two Asian children.

This upsurge indicates that young people are no longer wiling to depend on white largess for material gains. It’s an acknowledgment that power concedes nothing without a demand. And, of course, Shabazz demanded.

Fifth, Shabazz made a clear distinction between the imperialist/slave traders and the other “white” peoples he met in Akebu Lan (Africa) and the Middle East. It’s true that Shabazz came to understand that “whites” living in Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Algeria, Turkey and other places were not devils, but he never came to any similar understanding about the colonial masters and slavers of Western Europe, America, Australia, South Africa and Israel. Shabazz still considered these people very devilish.

In fact, upon his return from Haff, a young white woman asked Shabazz if he would permit any white person to join his new organization, the Organization for Afro-American Unity. Shabazz said, “maybe John Brown.” Brown is a white man who led an armed rebellion to overthrow the slavocracy. He was hanged.

Lastly, Hazard, like more and more people, use the term “racism” in a very loose and erroneous way. Any situation in which an individual of one racial class causes displeasure among members of another racial class is not racism. Under that definition, any black person who speaks of America’s genocidal crimes in unflattering terms is labeled a “racist.” In the same way, people label everyone from the Rev. Al Sharpton to the Rev. Jesse Jackson as “racists.”

Racism, however, has very definite characteristics. It means subjugation of one racial class by another. For Farrakhan to be a racist he would have to be, at least, preaching subjugation of whites. Farrakhan, however, preaches cultural pluralism and repatriation, as opposed to integration.

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.

Racism does not necessarily mean animus or hatred. Before the American Civil War, whites and blacks lived comfortably, according to the diaries of slave holders. Many whites, like Thomas Jefferson, thought so highly of their slaves that they granted them freedom in their wills. These blacks were nevertheless victims of racism. Hatred emerges only when the subjected class attempts to alter the vertical hierarchy racism requires.

Hatred is a sign of racism in disequilibrium — not racism itself. Simply because Farrakhan’s speech evokes feelings of hatred in some people doesn’t make Farrakhan 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. 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 of white supremacist hierarchy will come under attack by the white supremacists and their trained stooges.

Farrakhan, Dr. Abdul Aleem Muhammad, Spike Lee, the Black Law Student Association (BLSA) and the Africana Student Cultural Center (ASCC) have all come under fire because they are all guilty of helping slaves.

Assistance of the subjected class (slaves) is only permitted when that assistance is severely limited, highly publicized and actually bolsters white institutions (e.g., affirmative action).

Certain forces sought to prevent Dr. Muhammad from speaking last week for one reason: He rips slaves away from chemical dependence in Washington, D.C. Hazard attacks Farrakhan because Farrakhan does that is historically illegal and is currently taboo: He frees the slaves from the master.

---

Ellison responded to Olenick’s piece with the following letter entitled, "Daily editorial staff should feel ashamed," on Nov. 30, 1989:

 guess the emotional response would be to lash out at Michael Olenick the same way he lashed out at me, Keith E. Hakim, in his piece entitled "Jews will not stay quiet in the face of hate-promoters" (Nov. 27). I refrain however, because as a black man. I understand why a Jewish person would zealously, even hysterically, attempt to defend his or her people. History, of course, has a way of repeating itself.

But instead, I challenge Michael to identify the word, the phrase or the sentence in which I attacked Jewish people as a class in "Minister Farrakhan never claimed to be a Malcolm X" (Nov. 27). He cannot. My reference to "certain forces" included a broader class than Jewish people, and it did not include all Jewish people. My piece was directed toward anyone interested in the race problem —specifically Johnny Hazard.

It's also false that the Africana Student Cultural Center (ASCC) brings in a disproportionate number of speakers to whom many people, including some Jewish people, object. Last year the ASCC brought in James Turner, Maulana Karanga, Beverly Manley and many others. The year before, the ASCC brought in Ivan Van Serrima, Dr. Ben Jockanan, Dr. John Henricke Clarke and several other speakers. The truth is that several black leaders and black scholars have commended the ASCC on its programming because of its depth, diversity and courage.

Inevitably, however. ASCC brings in some controversial speakers, but that's its job. That's the University's job. Where else will students get the full story on Dr. Abdul Aleem Muhammad of the Nation of Islam? 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. Michael made an understandable, but nevertheless serious, error.

What really upsets me, however, is journalist Michael Olenick's disregard for the sanctity of unpopular opinion. Not so long ago The Daily, in its unsigned editorial section, had a squib entitled "Why?" in which the paper stood up for, what I hope, are unpopular opinions. That piece criticized a University administrator for proposing that the University adopt an anti-hate speech provision. Apparently the administrator was outraged by the campus racism at places like the University of Wisconsin, Dartmouth and the University of Michigan. She wanted to address the growing problem of white supremacist speech on campus. The Daily piece called her proposal "stupid." And it continued to say that any speech, even "racist" speech, must be heard.

Michael did not object; he was silent. Neither did any of the other people who self-righteously denounced Dr. Muhammad. That's very curious and sad. What sort of journalist or newspaper would stand up for anti-black speech, but deny a black speaker the podium as a so-called "hate" speaker? There's a problem, I think.

As a journalist, Michael and The Daily's editorial staff should feel somewhat ashamed. The Daily permitted its Opinions editor to use the page to wage a personal vendetta against a single writer who offered an alternative opinion to the Daily's three articles and three opinions pieces excoriating the Nation of Islam and the ASCC. Michael controls what shall be printed, and it's his job to screen everything. It's hardly fair for someone in his position to write tit-for-tat polemics against purveyors of unpopular views.

This "break with tradition," I'm sure, won't improve the liberal Daily's image in black eyes. Black writers, no doubt, will be shot down from on high and labeled Jew- haters, charlatans or criminals for violating our American social mores.

The saddest aspect of Michael's piece is that he never addressed the issues I attempted to raise. When are we going to talk about white supremacy?

---

In February and April 1990, Ellison wrote two other columns. The first, headlined "Affirmative action does not make up for past injustice," focused on affirmative action — which he believed to be a inadequate response to injustices faced by the black community — and called for reparations:

Conservatives may have a point concerning affirmative action. Why should marginally qualified white college students and blue-collar workers should over 400 years of white supremacy alone? Haven’t all whites — especially the wealthy ones — benefitted from white skin-color privilege? Let’s face it — liberal social programs, including but not limited to affirmative action, foist the burden of brutal white savagery on the most marginally qualified whites, usually students or the white working class.

The liberal social programs have been all roses for blacks either. These programs have made black beneficiaries feel as though their white persecutors, who have dealt them nothing but death and humiliation, are giving them something for nothing. Black students — already plagued with self-doubt — wonder whether they’re really qualified. Worst of all, blacks face the charge that — like whites — they are beneficiaries of discrimination, reverse discrimination, that is. It’s absurd — as if brothers and sisters getting into college under affirmative action amounts to 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.

The liberal social experiment actually represents a sneaky reparations program without whites ever having to admit their collective misdeeds. It adds insult to injury to project the culprit as the benefactor.

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.

This settlement would include compensation for the loss of society blacks suffered when they were stolen from their homes in Africa. It would also include loss-of-society compensation for family members who were separated from each other when the slavemasters sold them separately to increase his profit. The settlement would include compensation for pain and suffering for the mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters of those blacks who were lynched at the hands of the white mob. The settlement would include compensation for the pain and suffering of those who endured the Middle Passage and those who did not.

It’s estimated that at least 50 million Africans died on the trip between Africa and North America. Of course, the settlement would include interest and could not be taxed without consent. Punitive damages would be assessed against the descendants of slaveholders, Ku Kluxers, slumlords, redliners and all parties who caused black men to die in wars to advance U.S. interests.

Black people would not accept money obtained through the exploitation of other oppressed nationalities. Whites would have to tax themselves, or, as usual, borrow from the Japanese. Hopefully, this tax scheme could be severely progressive. Hopefully, poor whites and whites who fought white supremacy would pay the least, but, of course, this wouldn’t be my concern.

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. Black, of course, would not be compelled to move to the black state, and, of course, peace 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. Black 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. Others also have a material interest in black exploitation. Urban renewal money might completely dry up, the social work industry might collapse, and agri-businesses who profit from the food stamp programs might suffer losses. Also, the prison industry and the police apparatus might be scaled back. The mass exodus of black soldiers from the U.S. military might also cause some short-term problems. Weapons contractors would have fewer uniforms, boots, meals and rifles to supply. But this would represent only a short setback, because America still benefits from the exploitation of many.

If you don’t accept my challenge, rest assured that black-white relations will continue to be, at the very best, bumpy. White jubilation over freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe will continue to illustrate white American hypocrisy in black eyes.

---

Ellison's opinion piece published in April, "Blacks struggle for freedom of speech," discussed free speech for black students at the University, and touched on the alleged push by then-University President Nils Hasselmo to stifle students' of color right to free speech.

Over the past two years the Africana Student Cultural Center has been in a pitched battle to preserve its right to free expression and free academic inquiry. That battle intensified when University President Nils Hasselmo imposed his official presidential stamp on the campaign to chill black speech on campus.

Under intense outside pressure, Hasselmo decided to denounce Kwame Ture’s Feb. 2 speech sight unseen in a secret meeting on Feb. 23. Later that week, after black students protested, Hasselmo issued a thinly veiled censure of the ASCC for inviting Ture, Hasselmo said he was offended whe Ture said in an open speech that Zionists collaborated with Nazis during World War II.

Though Hasselmo ultimately stood up for free expression, he denounced Ture’s comment without offering any factual refutation of it, and despite Ture’s continual reiteration that “Judaism as a religion must be respected.”

This struggle started when the ASCC invited the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam to speak on campus three years ago. The views and opinions of the Nation of Islam – a long-standing and vital institution in the black community — are a matter o public interest, as Farrakhan’s recent television appearances suggest. Consequently, the University is clearly a legitimate place for the Nation’s leadership to speak.

Instead of openly challenging Farrakhan’s opinions, however, detractors in and outside the administration attacked the ASCC’s funding and its access to Northrop Auditorium. They also attempted to pub a disclaimer on the ASCC’s posters in following years.

The struggle intensified when Elaine Tyler May, assistant dean of the College of Liberal Arts, wrote an internal memo castigating the ASCC for placing pictures of lynchings in the 1989 Africana History Month flier. She thought the flier did not properly highlight themes of “creative resistance.” Despite several uplifting pictures, speech excerpts and poems on the flier, May still considered the overall theme too black and, therefore, unacceptable.

May’s internal memo only reached the ASCC by accident, and like the parties who plotted against the ASCC for inviting Farrikhan and Ture, May never dealt with the ASCC in a forthright manner.

In fact, this controversy surrounding the decision to invite Kwame Ture is but the latest chapter in a continuing saga over black free-speech rights. Contrary to popular opinion, this controversy cannot be explained as a “black-Jewish” controversy. The attacking faction does not include all Jewish people, but, in fact, it includes many non-Jews. All, however, find their ancestral roots in Europe.

The bottom line appears to be that black students cannot invite speakers who speak of the western world’s genocidal crimes in clear, unflattering terms. Why does America’s most prominent and beloved right, the right to freedom of expression, lose its significance whe black students exercise it?

This phenomenon has historic implications, and at bottom it touches on whether black people are citizens. A right is meaningful only if the state will use its military and economic power to enforce it. To the degree that one’s rights go unenforced, is to the same degree that the statutory right is merely a nominal right. Those with nominal rights are nominal citizens.

Now, if black people are only nominal citizens, then this explains why Hasselmo punishes black students for exercising their First Amendment rights, and conversely rewards white students.

Hasselmo did not feel particularly compelled to speak out when two black women were assaulted and called “niggers” by a group of white fraternity members. However, on March 20, Hasselmo admitted his motivation for releasing the statement was that a teary-eyed “little Jewish girl” asked him to denounce the ASCC.

In January, white supremacist graffiti has stayed for six weeks on the pedestrian portion of the Washington Avenue Bridge. The scribblers declared, “Tar Queens = Welfare Scum,” and “Tax more blacks.” In addition, the scribblers wrote “Hasselmo is white,” and underscored the slogan with a swastika. Hasselmo was not compelled to speak out against racism then. Perhaps the last scribbling had meaning beyond the obvious.

Concerning Zionism and Ture’s speech, the ASCC’s position is simply this: 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. Anyone, including black people, has the right to hear and voice alternative views on the subject — notwithstanding our nominal citizenship.

If Zionism is nationalism — and not religion — then, it necessarily is a political matter. Political matters are always subject to debate, which means support or criticism. Those who opt to criticize Israel are not necessarily ant-Jewish. Moreover, history teaches that nationalism is not inherently good or bad. Nationalism helped most colored nations of the world throw of colonialism and it helped the Nazis gain state power in Germany. Analyzing Zionism as Jewish nationalism lends nothing to the greater understanding of Zionism.

If prominent Jewish writers like Lennie Brenner, who wrote Zionism in the Age of Dictators, ALFRED Lithenthal, who wrote The Zionist Connection, and Edwin Black, who wrote The Transfer Agreement: The Untold Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, can question Zionism, then so can Ture. If the United Nations can equate Zionism with racisms and apartheid, then black students can invite black speakers to campus who hold views critical of Israel and Zionism.

If the world’s most prominent political prisoner, Nelson Mandela, can hug and kiss Yasser Arafat, and then state publicly, “Yasser Arafat is fighting against a unique form of colonialism, and we wish him success in his struggle,” then certainly a speaker, invited by black students, can question the legitimacy of Israel and its behavior. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winner, said recently, “when you hear descriptions of the incidents taking place on the West Bank, all you need to do is change the names and the descriptions would be apt for south Africa.”

Now, of course, Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu, Kwame Ture, Lennie Brenner, Alfred Lilenthal and countless others may very well be nothing more than Jew-haters, but it seems unlikely. These people have pretty good credentials; their criticisms merit some investigation.

Alternatively, the Unviersity’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.

On March 20, Hasselmo claimed his decision to issue his poorly disguised denunciation was “principled” despite the fact that his decision was based on emtion, an despite the fact that he provided absolutely no factual refutation of Ture’s statements. In issuing this statement he sent a message to the greater University that the ASCC should suffer any sanction outside of explicit censorship. By his own words, he acted because he was “offended” — so offended that he felt compelled to abandon his position of impartiality. And create an even more chilly environment for black students. This method of decision-making seems unbefitting of the “the Brain State’s” chief academician.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

This is who Debbie Wasserman  Schultz Supports to be Chairman of the DNC!!!

"Who is Keith Ellison?" 

There are no simple answers. Throughout a checkered career, this liberal American politician has adopted many guises and presented different messages. He is an African-American who has moved from the fringe to the center of politics. He is a Democrat with a predictably liberal voting record, yet he consorts with groups and individuals that represent a threat to democracy and America. He is a convert to Islam but challenges Islamic orthodoxy on numerous issues legislatively. He identifies strongly with his faith, yet the details of his conversion and his current sentiments as a Muslim are obscure. He considers himself a friend of Israel[1] but, at other times, has appeared on the same platforms with speakers vocal in their opposition to the Jewish state and their support for terrorist groups that have murdered its citizens.

For many, he holds out hope of increasing Muslim influence in the U.S. government. At present, he is only one of two Muslims serving in Congress, the other being André Carson. He has strongly encouraged his fellow Muslims to engage in politics saying,

Getting engaged, getting involved, running for office, helping people run for office, organizing your community—these are the things that are going to make a change come about. We have to build the kind of country that we want with the help of some people who are like-minded. We cannot leave that responsibility to anybody else.[2]

Others, however, worry that he has too great a sympathy for Islamist radicals, of being at best naïve in his associations, and at worst a fifth columnist, someone whose status within the House of Representatives provides cover for anti-American discourse and, possibly, anti-American actions.

He is forty-six and a relative newcomer to Congress with the potential to be reelected to office for some time to come. In due course, more Muslims will stand for state and federal office, which will almost certainly lead to the creation of a minority caucus in which Keith Ellison will be a senior member. It is time to look more closely at Congressman Ellison and his history.

The Nation of Islam

Ellison was born in 1963 into a Catholic family in Detroit. Almost nothing is known of his childhood and teenage years. He studied economics at Wayne State University and in 1982, in his sophomore year, converted to Islam. He has been extremely reluctant to reveal more than a glimpse of the motivations behind his conversion: In a December 2006 interview (about one month after his election to Congress), Ellison said,

I have been a Muslim since age 19, and I am 43 now. Of course my faith strengthens me and guides me. How I came to it is a deeply personal matter, and I'm not ready to talk about it now.[3]

However, in a more recent interview with Al-Jazeera's Riz Khan, he was more forthcoming:

I can't claim that I was the most observant Catholic at the time [of my conversion]. I had begun to really look around and ask myself about the social circumstances of the country, issues of justice, issues of change. When I looked at my spiritual life, and I looked at what might inform social change, justice in society … I found Islam.[4]

As testimonies about conversion to Islam go, this is somewhat atypical as it is rare for converts to have mulled over wide political and social issues before conversion.[5] The spiritual dimension of Ellison's conversion receives just a passing mention. Nothing seems to be known about what mosque he attended, what books he studied, whether he went to Islamic classes or conferences or engaged in any of the religious activities in which young converts usually involve themselves.

What is known is that, for several years, he associated with or belonged to the Nation of Islam (NOI). Ellison himself denies that he was ever a member of the NOI,[6] then as now under the leadership of Louis Farrakhan, an anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-establishment demagogue.[7] In a letter sent in May during the 2006 congressional campaign to the Minnesota Jewish Community Relations Council, Ellison claimed that his association with the NOI had lasted for only eighteen months about the time of the Million Man March in 1995.[8] However, there are problems with this assertion.

On the death of NOI founder Elijah Muhammad, his son Warith Deen Muhammad inherited the movement only to transform it soon after into a new group based on authentic Sunni Islamic principles (later, the American Society of Muslims). Louis Farrakhan remained with Warith Deen Muhammad's organization for a few years, only to break away in order to reestablish the original Nation of Islam in 1978. The NOI was widely condemned within the orthodox Muslim community, which considered Farrakhan's organization to be so far from doctrinal truth, it could not even be regarded as Islamic.[9] While NOI converts have often later moved into normative Islam, there seems to be no evidence of Muslim converts moving the other way; Ellison may be trying to conceal the truth behind both his conversion and the length of his tenure with the controversial NOI.

Despite these disclaimers, Ellison's open support for the NOI for over a decade is a matter of public record. After earning his economics degree in 1987, Ellison moved to Minneapolis and enrolled at the University of Minnesota Law School. While there, he wrote several columns under the pseudonym Keith E. Hakim, in which he spoke respectfully of Farrakhan and defended the NOI's national spokesman and Farrakhan's right-hand man, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, notorious for his anti-white, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay opinions.[10] Elsewhere, Ellison used other pseudonyms, including Keith X Ellison[11] and Keith Ellison Muhammad.[12]

Ellison's involvement with the NOI resurfaced in 1995. He helped to organize the Minnesota contingent of Farrakhan's Million Man March and appeared onstage alongside Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune proclaimed, "If words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced." Muhammad was already infamous by the time of the march; indeed, by the 1970s and 1980s, his hate speech and Holocaust denials were well known and continued into the 1990s.[13] Just two years before the rally in a 1993 Kean College, New Jersey speech, Muhammad had described Jews as "hook-nosed, bagel-eatin', lox-eatin' impostors,"[14] a speech that elicited a 1994 resolution of censure from both houses of the U.S. Congress.[15] In his 2006 letter to the Minnesota Jewish Community Relations Council, Ellison wrote that he "did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed [sic]."[16] As both men were nationally infamous, it is hard to lend credence to Ellison's seeming ignorance.

In fact, Ellison had defended Farrakhan in 1995. Writing as Keith X Ellison, he published a column for Insight News, in which he condemned a Star Tribune editorial cartoon lampooning NOI's leader as a role model for blacks because of his anti-Semitism. Ellison wrote:

Minister Farrakhan is a role model for black youth; however, he is not an anti-Semite. He is a sincere, tireless, and uncompromising advocate of the black community and other oppressed people around the world. Despite some of the most relentless negative propaganda anyone has ever faced, most Black people regard him as a role model for youth and increasingly, a central voice for our collective aspirations.[17]

Despite this spirited defense, Farrakhan's statements before and after this column belie the claim.[18]

In 1997, two years after the Million Man March, Ellison continued to defend the NOI while displaying further tolerance for hate speech. In October of that year, Joanne Jackson, executive director of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism (MIAR), created an uproar by saying to a group meeting held in Temple Israel Synagogue that she considered Jews "the most racist white people I know."[19] At a subsequent MIAR board meeting, according to the Star Tribune, Ellison defended Jackson on behalf of the Nation of Islam, stating, "We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction."[20]

His Record in Congress

A year later in 1998, Ellison ran for the Democratic-Farmers-Labor Party nomination for state representative, going by the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad. In this, his first outing, he was unsuccessful, but in 2002, having dropped Muhammad from his name, he was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives and reelected in 2004. As a state representative, he showed signs of a more balanced attitude, something that was later to emerge more clearly when he became a national representative. For example, in 2004, he led an ethics complaint against State Rep. Arlon Lindner after Lindner made remarks in the state congress, saying homosexuals had not died in the Holocaust.[21] Ellison was backed by sixty other members of the Minnesota State House and by U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.[22] In the end, the vote on the motion of censure failed in a 2-2 draw in the Minnesota House Ethics Committee.[23] Lindner was eventually denied the Republican nomination in the 2004 elections; for his efforts, Ellison picked up support from the local Jewish publication, American Jewish World.[24]

In 2006, Ellison ran for the U.S. Congress and won with 56 percent of the vote in Minnesota's fifth congressional district.[25] His election was controversial, sparking some extreme reactions to the fact that he was a Muslim[26] and asked to be sworn into office on a Qur'an.[27]

Ellison's record in Congress has been in line with broad Democratic and liberal policy, and he has made no attempt to use his position to advance projects with an overtly Islamic or Islamist bent. Sometimes, in fact, he has done quite the opposite. For example, on March 21, 2008, on the eve of the summer Olympics to be held in Beijing that year, he issued a statement criticizing both the Chinese and Sudanese governments over their policies in Tibet and Darfur[28]; many a Muslim would not have openly condemned a Muslim country such as Sudan in this way. Ellison has praised religious freedom in the United States, saying, "Religious tolerance has a much longer pedigree in America than some of the intolerance we've seen lately."[29] This perspective would run counter to the viewpoint, embodied in much Muslim jurisprudence, in which restrictions on nonbelievers are a doctrinal and legal requirement.[30]

Ellison defies Islamic norms in other ways. He is pro-choice, not just for the first trimester, but beyond. Most Muslim jurists do not permit abortion after four months; some not at all.[31] He supports emergency contraception for those serving in the armed forces while most Muslim scholars permit contraception only in limited circumstances and not for what may be deemed a licentious purpose.[32] He permits interest on credit cards; Islam forbids the taking of interest under any circumstances. He opposes job discrimination based on sexual orientation despite the fact that homosexuals are discriminated against by Islamic law in an extreme way and approves of same-sex marriage, something unthinkable in Islam. He has called for the enforcement of laws on anti-gay hate crimes while Islamic law demands the execution of homosexuals.[33] He opposes the death penalty, which is a regular punishment under Shari'a law and supports the regulation but not the banning of online gambling: In Islamic law, all forms of gambling, even insurance, are prohibited. He has also voted to support federal funding for homeland security, which some elements in the Muslim community denounce as a thinly-veiled assault on the umma (Islamic nation).[34]

On a personal level, when in Minneapolis, Ellison attends the Masjid an-Nur mosque,[35] whose imam, Makram El-Amin, he has known since 1996.[36] El-Amin has a reputation as an advocate of interracial harmony and, in particular, interfaith relations. In addition, Ellison has publicly denounced the architect of Muslim extremism, Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), calling him one of several theorists "responsible for what we would regard today as violent extremism with what I call a Muslim veneer."[37] All in all, Ellison could be viewed as a garden variety liberal politician, someone whose youthful associations have been jettisoned in favor of a more sober but still progressive approach to American governance and efforts to achieve social justice.

The CAIR Connection

But things are not as simple as they look, and Ellison may not be quite the reformed public official that he appears to be. Not long after sending the 2006 letter to the Minnesota Jewish Community Relations Council, Ellison received major funds to help finance his imminent election campaign from several Muslim organizations and individuals, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[38] The donated money included thousands of dollars raised by Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director (a man with a history of support for movements including Hamas).[39]

Founded in 1994, CAIR is ostensibly an advocate for religious pluralism and civil liberties, especially as applied to America's Muslim community. Its public image is that of a liberal, human rights-based group that seeks to bridge American Muslims and the secular democracy of the United States.[40] The council's many critics have argued, however, that it is a front for the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas. CAIR had close links to the Holy Land Foundation,[41] an Islamic charity that channeled millions of dollars to Hamas and which was found guilty in 2008 on charges including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, providing material support to a foreign terrorist, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. In 2008, the FBI cut off contacts with CAIR over concerns that the organization had its roots in a Hamas-support network.[42] Ellison has continued to defend the group, but even before the FBI severed relations with CAIR, it had achieved such a level of notoriety that Ellison could not pretend to be unaware of problems with the organization.

CAIR's two founders, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, were formerly officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine, an organization intimately linked to the senior echelons of Hamas.[43] Awad has repeatedly shown support for Hamas and its military actions against Israel, has acted as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, and has often defended Islamist organizations, including the Holy Land Foundation, against U.S. attempts to investigate and, where possible, indict them.[44] Ahmad is perhaps best known for a statement made before a crowd of Californian Muslims in 1998 and reported in the San Ramon Valley Herald: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."[45] Although the statement has been denied by Ahmed and CAIR over the years, Daniel Pipes has provided much evidence as to its veracity.[46] Ahmad has also served as president of the Islamic Association of Palestine, a fund-raising organization for Hamas.[47] Another donor and CAIR national board chairman, Parvez Ahmed, has also supported Hamas and Hezbollah.[48]

Thus, any connections Ellison might have to CAIR are, at best, unwise for a politician seeking to improve the nation's understanding of Islam and at worst an indication of his true sentiments. On October 14, 2006, shortly before the national congressional elections, Ellison appeared as the keynote speaker at a closed-door meeting of CAIR in Pembroke Pines, Florida.[49] While attending CAIR-Tampa's sixth annual banquet in 2008, Ellison called on listeners to a local Tampa radio station to support Sami al-Arian. Arian, a former professor at University of South Florida, confessed two years earlier to conspiring to supply goods and services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad,[50] a terrorist organization responsible for numerous suicide attacks on Israel.

In 2009, after the FBI cut off contact with CAIR, Ellison spoke at no fewer than three fundraising dinners for the organization and gave videotaped statements at others and has also appeared with CAIR officials at meetings on healthcare reform and Eid festival celebrations.[51] In October 2009, he rebuked four House of Representatives Republican members who called for an investigation of CAIR for infiltration of government committees.[52] Although the congressmen were focused on the question of CAIR's role, Ellison cast the inquiry as a modern-day witch hunt, declaring: "The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers cherished so dearly."[53] Soon afterwards, he attended a CAIR fundraising event in Washington and called for CAIR supporters to apply for jobs in the incoming Obama administration.[54]

Associations with Other Islamist Groups

Muslim American Society: Ellison's connections to other groups such as the Muslim American Society (MAS) reinforce questions about where he stands. MAS was founded in 1993 following an arrangement reached between Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America and Egypt. MAS is, in fact, the Brotherhood's American chapter.[55] That the Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) represents a significant threat to Western civilization is made clear from this excerpt from a 1991 briefing captured by the FBI:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions. … It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.[56]

In December 2002, for example, MAS used its website to denigrate non-Muslims, speaking of "the degenerate moral condition of the Jews and Christians" and declaring: "If you gain a victory over the men of [the] Jews, kill them," and "May Allah destroy the Jews."[57] It also issued statements endorsing terrorism and praising Hamas.[58] According to an extensive dossier prepared by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MAS has links to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Its websites have praised Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and godfather of modern Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, and provided links to several extremist and terrorist organizations. Mahdi Bray, executive director of the MAS Freedom Foundation and the public face of the society, has claimed that the United States is engaged in a war against Islam and has defended a long list of terrorism-linked organizations and individuals. The MAS magazine, The American Muslim, often contains references to suicide bombings as "martyrdom operations" and to terrorists as "freedom fighters" while condemning U.S. antiterrorism actions. At MAS conferences, extremist speakers address their audiences while Islamist and jihadi literature is on sale.[59]

It is, then, disturbing to see that one year after his first election to Congress, Ellison was the keynote speaker at MAS-Minnesota's fourth annual convention in May 2007.[60] The following spring, Ellison was again the keynote speaker at the MAS-Minnesota convention, appearing alongside Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted coconspirator of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.[61]

Islamic Society of North America: Ellison also enjoys a relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that has been linked by several agencies to support for terrorism. In December 2003, U.S. senators Charles Grassley and Max Baucus of the Senate Committee on Finance formally identified ISNA as one of twenty-five American Muslim organizations in a probe into groups that might "finance terrorism and perpetuate violence."[62] More recently, in July 2008, Federal prosecutors in Dallas filed documents showing a link between ISNA and Hamas.[63] In an account of the 2008 conference, Dave Gaubatz, coauthor of Muslim Mafia, writes:

In 2008, ISNA had several booths with anti-American slogans on shirts, along with pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel garments … It was easy to find DVDs, books, manuals, and pamphlets calling America a terrorist organization and for the destruction of our country and Israel. It was very easy to find material calling for killing innocent men, women, and children in American [sic] who did not believe in an Islamic Ummah (Nation) worldwide and under Sharia law. … If you wanted Muslim Brotherhood material, this was the location to obtain the intelligence you desired.[64]

Despite these troubling connections, Ellison has spoken at ISNA's 2007, 2008, and 2009 conventions, events estimated to be the largest annual Muslim gatherings in the Western hemisphere.[65] In 2008, Ellison spoke on "mobilizing the Muslim political machine."[66]

Muslim Public Affairs Council: Ellison also spoke in December 2006 to the sixth annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC),[67] a seemingly moderate body that seeks to conceal its strong anti-Semitic,[68] pro-Hamas, and pro-Hezbollah views.[69] Again, he addressed a town hall forum during MPAC's "Activate '08 Election Campaign," at one of the Council's "Rock the Muslim Vote" events.[70]

North American Imams Federation: He also addressed the North American Imams Federation (NAIF) at their November 19, 2006 conference in Minneapolis.[71] Many of NAIF's imams, in charge of mosques across the United States, are trained through an institution called the American Open University (AOU), a distance-learning medium for Muslims wishing to train as clergy. The AOU is a radical school that emphasizes the paramount role of Shari'a law in an American context. Its chairman Jaafar Sheikh Idris regards democracy as "the antithesis of Islam," arguing that human beings have no right to make their own laws. "No one," he claims, "can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to the divine law."[72] He also declared that no Muslim elected to Congress can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and remain a Muslim "for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism—which is practically another religion."[73] That Keith Ellison supports an institution linked to someone who holds views in such deep conflict with normative American values is deeply troubling.

Conclusion

Once, in an interview with CNN's Glenn Beck, Ellison said, "There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to prove my patriotic stripes."[74] Judged by his legislative record, he is well within the mainstream of American life. But he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution despite the fact that he fundraises for groups whose leadership would replace that Constitution with the laws of Islam.

Does Ellison simply display poor choice in his associates as he did when younger? Or should his motives be questioned at a higher level? Are there no moderate Muslim groups he can speak to or support? Why does he return again and again to address and support Islamist organizations, some with ties to terrorism?

What politician, careful of the press and the generality of his constituents, does not trouble himself or his staff to check out the bona fides of a group he may be speaking to, all the more so if that group already has a less than savory reputation? Ellison's constituents, the American public, and his fellow congressmen, deserve answers to the many questions his curious bipolarity raises. The mixed messages he gives may be an expression of deep-seated contradictions. Few politicians hold self-contradictory views for long and often abandon those they recognize to be potential irritants to voters. Ellison's worrisome affiliations have drawn little criticism from the mainstream media. It is possible that this reluctance to expose comes from a combination of a dislike to criticize Muslims and an ignorance of what links to CAIR, MAS, and other bodies and individuals really imply.

It is also not at all improbable that Ellison is aware of and makes use of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, the principle that it is permissible for a Muslim to lie in order to protect Islam and its reputation from harm, or to do so as part of waging jihad with nonbelievers. From CAIR to ISNA to MPAC, Muslim groups in the United States claim to be victims of discrimination or outright persecution at the hands of state agencies or individuals. They have mastered the art of being, in a British phrase, "economical with the truth." Keith Ellison may well be among them.

Denis MacEoin is editor of The Middle East Quarterly.

[1] Natasha Mosgovaya, "Head to Head/Rep. Keith Ellison, Do You Think the US Could Live with an Iranian Bomb?" Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), May 24, 2010.
[2] "Ellison Inspires Voters at 1^st 'Rock the Muslim Vote' Townhall Forum," Muslim Public Affairs Council, Sept. 24, 2008.
[3] Alan Tuttle, "Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison: An Interview with the First Muslim Congressman," The Philadelphia Jewish Voice, Jan. 2007.
[4] "Riz Khan's One on One—Keith Ellison," Al-Jazeera TV (Doha), Feb. 20, 2010.
[5] See, for example, Uriya Shavit and Frederic Wiesenbach, "Muslim Strategies to Convert Western Christians," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, pp. 3-14; "Converts (Reverts) to Islam," Islam Awareness website, accessed June 17, 2010; "Converts to Islam: Stories of New Muslims," accessed June 17, 2010.
[6] The Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2006.
[7] "Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam," The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University, accessed June 17, 2010.
[8] Scott W. Johnson, "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman," The Weekly Standard, Oct. 9, 2006.
[9] Michael Young, "The Problem with the Nation of Islam," Islam for Today, Aug. 1, 2001.
[10] Johnson, "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman."
[11] Keith X Ellison, "Editorial cartoon insulted our intelligence," Insight News (Graphic Services, Inc.), Nov. 6, 1995.
[12] "Keith Ellison-Muhammad will run for house 58B seat," Insight News, 1998; The Washington Post, Sept. 11, 2006.
[13] "Khalid Muhammad's Message," The Nizkor Project, accessed June 18, 2010; Barry Mehler, "African American Racism in the Academic Community," The Review of Education, Fall 1993; "Muslims and Afrocentrics speak out," conference, New York, Dec. 22, 1991; "Transcript of Mohammad's November 9 Speech," Barnard Bulletin, Nov. 23, 1992, p. 12-3, Dec. 7, 1992, pp. 14-6, Dec. 14, 1992, pp. 10-7.
[14] "Kean College Lecture 'Khalid Muhammad,'" The New Jersey Record, accessed June 18, 2010.
[15] Amendment 1368 to Senate bill 1150, U.S. Senate, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, 1994; H567: House res. 343, U.S. House of Representatives, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1994.
[16] Gabriel Schoenfeld, "Jews, Muslims, and the Democrats," Commentary Magazine, Jan. 2007; Andrew Walden, "Farrakhan's Candidate," FrontPageMagazine.com, Sept. 19, 2006.
[17] Ellison, "Editorial Cartoon Insulted Our Intelligence."
[18] "Farrakhan in His Own Words: On Jews: On 'Jewish Conspiracies,' On the Holocaust, On Jewish involvement in the slave trade, On Israel, On Dialogue with Jews," Anti-Defamation League, accessed June 18, 2010.
[19] Scott Johnson, "Who Is Keith Ellison? 2" PowerlineBlog, June 5, 2006; idem, "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman."
[20] Johnson, "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman."
[21] News and Features, Minnesota Public Radio, Apr. 24, 2003; "Minn. Kampf-Politics—Minnesota state representative Arlon Lindner," The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2003.
[22] Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Mar. 12, 2003.
[23] News and Features, Minnesota Public Radio, Apr. 24, 2003.
[24] Citypages, Sept. 1, 2006; Johnson, "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman."
[25] "Official Election Results—Nov. 7, 2006," Minnesota Secretary of State.
[26] WorldNetDaily, Dec. 6, 2006.
[27] USA Today, Dec. 1, 2006.
[28] The Minnesota Post, Mar. 24, 2008.
[29] McClatchy News Service, Mar. 7, 2007; Melissa Rogers, "Representative Ellison and State Department Join Hands on Public Diplomacy," Melissa Rogers, Mar. 7, 2007.
[30] See Yohanan Friedman, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relationships (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2003).
[31] See, for example, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "Abortion from an Islamic Perspective,"
Islam Online, Jan. 18, 2004; "Abortion: Forbidden at All Stages?" European Council for Fatwa and Research, Islam Online, Dec. 13, 2004.
[32] "Is Contraception allowed in Islam?" Islam Awareness, accessed June 18, 2010.
[33] "Islam and Homosexuality," Mission Islam, accessed June 18, 2010; Denis MacEoin, "Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?" Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 15-25.
[34] For Ellison's views on these and other issues, see "Representative Keith M. Ellison (MN)," Project Vote Smart, accessed June 18, 2010; "Keith Ellison," On the Issues, accessed June 18, 2010.
[35] Reuters, Sept. 18, 2006.
[36] The New York Times, Feb. 10, 2007.
[37] "Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Nov. 23, 2009.
[38] Joe Kaufman, "Keith Ellison's Dangerous Liaisons," FrontPage Magazine, May 30, 2007; "Keith Ellison's Muslim Brotherhood Support," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Apr. 22, 2010.
[39] "Apologists or Extremists: Nihad Awad," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed June 18, 2010; Joel Mowbray, "Democrats' Dilemma," The Washington Times, Sept. 24, 2006.
[40] Daniel Pipes, "CAIR: 'Moderate' Friends of Terror," The New York Post, Apr. 22, 2002.
[41] "Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Links to Holy Land Foundation," Anti-Defamation League, Mar. 2, 2010.
[42] Mary Jacoby, "FBI Cuts off CAIR over Hamas Questions," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jan. 29, 2009.
[43] Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 149.
[44] "Apologists or Extremists: Nihad Awad," accessed June 18, 2010.
[45] San Ramon Valley Herald, July 4, 1998; Nonie Darwish, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Rejected the Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror (New York: Sentinel HC, 2006), p. 140.
[46] Daniel Pipes, "CAIR and the San Ramon Valley Herald," DanielPipes.org, Oct. 20, 2003, updated Dec. 11, 2006.
[47] Matthew Epstein, "Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States," testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, Sept. 10, 2003.
[48] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sept. 3, 2007, cited in "CAIR's True Colors," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jan. 30, 2009.
[49] Joe Kaufman, "Keith Ellison's Mysterious CAIR Meeting," FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 16, 2006; "Protesting CAIR's Candidates," Little Green Footballs, Oct. 13, 2006.
[50] The Tampa Tribune, Apr. 15, 2006; The St. Petersburg Times, Mar. 6, 2009.
[51] "Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill."
[52] Keith Ellison, "Tri-Caucus Welcomes All Interns and Staff," U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Congressional Record, 111th Congress (2009-10), 1st sess., Oct. 26, 2009; "Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill."
[53] Ellison, "Tri-Caucus Welcomes All Interns and Staff"; "Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill."
[54] "Rep. Keith Ellison, the Islamists' Man on Capitol Hill."
[55] "Muslim American Society: The Investigative Project on Terrorism Dossier," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed June 18, 2010.
[56] Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," May 19, 1991, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, accessed June 18, 2010.
[57] Joe Kaufman, "Keith Ellison's MAS Hate Affair," FrontPage Magazine, May 30, 2008; "Violent and Hateful Statements Published by the Muslim American Society," screenshots from the MAS website, Americans against Hate, accessed June 18, 2010.
[58] Kaufman, "Keith Ellison's MAS Hate Affair"; "Mehdi Bray's Photos," of Ahmed Yassin, the founder of and ex-spiritual leader of Hamas, screenshots from the MAS website, Americans against Hate, Mar. 17, 2009.
[59] "Muslim American Society: The Investigative Project on Terrorism Dossier."
[60] Fox News, Jan. 8, 2009.
[61] Kaufman, "Keith Ellison's MAS Hate Affair"; The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 24, 2003.
[62] "Senators Request Tax Information on Muslim Charities for Probe," Militant Islam Monitor, Feb. 23, 2005.
[63] Fox News, Jan. 17, 2009.
[64] Dave Gaubatz, "The ISNA Conference," The American Thinker, July 2, 2009; "Conspiracy Theories, Terror Support Found In ISNA Convention Literature," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Aug. 27, 2009.
[65] "Congressman Keith Ellison at ISNA 2007," Mujahideen Ryder, Sept. 22, 2007; "Ramadan—A Time for Change," 45th Annual ISNA Convention program, Columbus, Oh., Aug. 29-Sept. 1, 2008, p. 11; Liali Albana, "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—ISNA 2009," Elan, July 9, 2009.
[66] "Ramadan—A Time for Change," p. 11.
[67] "Keith Ellison addresses MPAC and the Muslim American public," YouTube, posted Feb. 9, 2007.
[68] "Hate Speech Long an MPAC Specialty," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Feb. 10, 2010.
[69] "," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Mar. 25, 2010.
[70] 2008 MPAC Annual Report, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[71] M. Zuhdi Jasser, "Congressman Ellison Carries the Islamists' Water," Pundicity, July 19, 2007.
[72] Dr. Ja'far Sheikh Idris, "Shoora and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis," Islaam.com, accessed June 23, 2010.
[73] Dr. Jaafar [sic] Sheikh Idris, "Separation of Church and State," Jaafaridris.com, accessed June 23, 2010.
[74] CNN, Nov. 14, 2006.

Other articles http://thenewmainstreammedia.blogspot.com/2016/11/keith-ellison-saudi-arabiamuslim.html