Author Steyn Sees Potential for ‘New Dark Ages’

Author Steyn Sees Potential for ‘New Dark Ages’
By Kevin Mooney Staff Writer
January 11, 2007

( – Worldwide demographic shifts are working to the advantage of Islamic extremists, according to author and commentator Mark Steyn.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, Steyn, author of “America Alone,” said foreign policy “realists” in the U.S. and Europe who seek to accommodate rather than confront Muslim radicals have bought into an “illusion of stability.”

At a time when much of the western world is experiencing “civilizational exhaustion,” Steyn said, the Muslim world is benefiting from significant population growth.

The G-8 nations, he said, have “given up on having children” while they acquiesce to a large influx of Muslim immigrants.

As a result of the demographic changes in Europe and parts of Asia, Steyn anticipates the Muslim world will have three reliable votes on the U.N. Security Council in the not too distant future. Furthermore, by 2050, Russia well may be a majority Muslim nation, he added.

In 1970, Steyn said, the developed world represented nearly 30 percent of the global population, in comparison to the Muslim world, which accounted for 15 percent.

By 2000, the developed world’s share of the global population had fallen to about 20 percent, and the Muslim world had increased to 20 percent, he said.

The demographic shifts are important, because although most Muslims dissociate themselves from terrorist acts, many share many of the objectives of extremists, including the desire to live under shari’a (Islamic law) in Europe, Canada and eventually the U.S., Steyn said.

While America currently “stands apart” from the demographic challenges facing much of the international community, its superpower status presents a special set of challenges, he said.

“A new Dark Ages” could take hold, unless the U.S. acts.

Steyn called for a more concerted effort to export genuine American values – those linked to economic strength and greater freedom – rather than simply promoting elements of American popular culture.

Steyn said the war in Iraq was just “one front in a larger struggle” and identified neighboring Iran as a major source of terrorist activity, claiming Tehran was funding both Sunni and Shia elements in Iraq.

“The mullahs do not fret about Iran not having an exit strategy from Iraq. It’s something American legislators do, not Iranian ones,” he said.

Steyn said he wrote his book in part as a rejoinder to what he terms “The Larry King School of Foreign Policy” which he described as “distinguished old people reminiscing about other distinguished old people.”

The panel discussions on the CNN talk program, which often feature a mix of U.S. senators and former secretaries of state, frequently yield foreign policy prescriptions that are ill-suited to the challenges of the present age, he said.

Al-Maliki tells Shi’ites to surrender

Al-Maliki tells Shi’ites to surrender

By Steven Hurst
Published January 11, 2007

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister has told Shi’ite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said yesterday, as President Bush said he will commit more than 21,000 American combat troops to the war.
    Under pressure from the United States, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has agreed to crack down on fighters controlled by his most powerful political ally, Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shi’ite cleric, officials said. Until now, Mr. al-Maliki had resisted the move.
    “Prime Minister al-Maliki has told everyone that there will be no escape from attack,” said a senior Shi’ite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser. “The government has told the Sadrists: ‘If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups.’ ”
    In his address to the American people last night, Mr. Bush said Mr. al-Maliki had promised that U.S. forces would have a free hand and that “political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”
    He also warned that the United States expected the Iraqi leader to keep those promises. “America’s commitment is not open-ended,” Mr. Bush said. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.”
    The Iraqi prime minister on Saturday announced that his government would implement a new security plan for Baghdad, which consists of neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweeps by Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops.
    In the past, the Iraqi government has tried to prevent American military operations against Sheik al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, while giving U.S. forces a free hand against Sunni militants. The Bush administration has pushed Mr. al-Maliki, who took office in May, to curb his militant allies or allow U.S. troops to do the job.
    Although Mr. al-Maliki withdrew political protection from the Mahdi Army, there was no guarantee that the Shi’ite fighters would be routed easily from the large and growing area of Baghdad under their control.
    The militia has more fighters, weapons and sophistication today than it did in 2004, when it battled U.S. forces to a standstill in two strongholds, the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf and Sadr City, Baghdad’s sprawling Shi’ite slum.
    Sunni militants, meanwhile, have put up fierce resistance in the five days since Mr. al-Maliki announced his new security initiative for Baghdad.
    Iraqi and U.S. troops have battled Sunni insurgents along Haifa Street in central Baghdad in two major battles.
    The neighborhood is about 21/2 miles north of the Green Zone, site of the Iraqi government headquarters, the U.S. Embassy and base for thousands of American soldiers.
    Eighty suspected insurgents were killed in the fighting — 50 of them on Tuesday alone, in an assault backed by U.S. troops, fighter jets and attack helicopters.
    Mr. al-Maliki has not commented on the Bush administration’s plans to create a set of benchmarks to measure the Iraqi government’s progress on improving security.
    Washington wants the prime minister to come up with a plan to equitably share the country’s oil wealth, ease restrictions on former Ba’ath Party members and hold provincial elections — steps regarded as critically important to drawing Sunnis into the political process.
    An Iraqi general, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose details of the plan, said a mainly Kurdish force would be sent into the Sadr City slum in northeast Baghdad, which serves as headquarters of the Mahdi Army.
    The general said Kurds, who are Sunni but not Arab, were being used against the Shi’ite militia because soldiers from other Iraqi units were likely to refuse to fight fellow Shi’ites. An estimated 80 percent of Iraq’s army is Shi’ite.
    Under the new security plan, the general said, U.S. and Iraqi troops will sweep Baghdad neighborhoods in an effort to dislodge the Mahdi Army, as well as Sunni extremists — including al Qaeda in Iraq and two of its allied groups, the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Omar Brigade.
    Iraqi and U.S. officials said Iraqi commanders will be put in charge of each of nine city districts. Each commander will operate independently of Iraqi military headquarters.
    Mr. al-Maliki has named Lt. Gen. Aboud Gambar, an Iraqi general who was taken prisoner of war by U.S. forces during the 1991 Gulf War, as the overall commander.
    Gen. Gambar, a Shi’ite, will have two assistants, one from the police and one from the army, Iraqi military officers said on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information. Gen. Gambar will report directly to Mr. al-Maliki.
    The latest drive to pacify Baghdad is at least the fourth since the war began. All have had only limited success, with insurgents and militants swiftly returning to neighborhoods after U.S. and Iraqi military forces departed.
    In the most recent of these operations, Iraq’s army fielded fewer troops than promised. That made it impossible to maintain control of areas that U.S. forces had cleared of gunmen.
    Police yesterday reported that at least 92 persons had died violently or been found dead across the country.
    In a single deadly attack, Sunni gunmen opened fire on a convoy of buses carrying Shi’ite Muslim pilgrims home from the hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia, said police and Akeel al-Khazaali, the governor of the southern province of Karbala. At least 11 persons were killed and 14 wounded.   

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Written by Rene Guerra
Thursday, January 11, 2007
       David Brooks, the conservative columnist of the New York Times, came out with an article proposing the hypothesis that millionaire Nancy Pelosi is just another fake populist.  He portrayed her and her kind of opulent leftist Democrats, as just infants terribles engaged in a childish duel for power with their Republican counterparts. 

        But, Alas: Pelosi and her leftist brethren consider themselves part of something that resembles the nomenklatura, the top-stratum elite in any communist or socialist society (and notoriously made highly noticeable in the defunct Soviet Union) that places itself in a superior privileged position to the proletariat, or the populace.  That is, all the rest of us. 

        Those who may think it bizarre that a millionaire could spouse leftist ideas, should just remember that the best place for miscreants to hide well is among their opposites. 

        The nauseating
Wichita, Kansas BKT serial killer didn’t hide in skid row; Dennis Lynn Rader
was a model family man, an active church member, and a law enforcement officer . . . well, a dog catcher.

        Not many people would have dared to even think the terrible heresy that the sanctity of many Catholic priests was mere self-serving–until the worldwide news of raped altar boys came out in the open a few years ago. 

        The say goes: “The habit doesn’t a monk make”; affluence doesn’t make one a capitalist.  Friedrich Engels, a billionaire under current standards, is the co-author with Karl Marx of “The Communist Manifesto.”  Engels is furthermore one of the most venerated theoreticians and ideologues of the
Valhalla of the left, and he was Marx’s financier and only source of sustenance.

        Enrique Álvarez-Córdova, a Salvadoran millionaire acquaintance that I had met in my youth as a polo player, and whom I later in life met again as a colleague in the Salvadoran government cabinet of 1979, was abducted, and most savagely tortured and murdered by the infamous Salvadoran ultra-right death squads, around the end of 1980.  He had been a clandestine member of the Communist Party of El Salvador since his young adulthood, and made the lethal mistake of “outing” himself precisely at the apex of urban political violence in
El Salvador.  Sometime in December 1979, he confided to me that he acquired his leftist leanings during his college-student years at

University.  He was a warm man with a huge heart, an idealist who, unfortunately, grew to believe in communism.  He, as many, became polarized by the socio-economic feudalism and stone-age political environment that reigned in El Salvador at the time, and that fortunately ended about 15 years ago, upon the monumental collapse of the
Soviet Union.  Such a momentous event in part provided a safer environment for the broad political aperture that then started to take place in El Salvador; there were no more of Moscow’s agents roaming through
Latin America sowing Bolshevik revolution.

        Had Álvarez-Córdova lived in communism, or had
El Salvador turned communist, he would have been among the first to be purged, Stalinist style.   Paradoxically, he believed in participatory, horizontal democracy, and not in that abominable leftist contraption called “democratic centralism,” referring to the rule by the Central Committee of the Communist Party or by the nomenklatura.

        See also the case of billionaire George Soros, who uses the vast fortune he accumulated via one of the most extreme expressions of capitalism, speculating on currencies, to advance even the most bizarre leftist enterprises aimed at undermining

        What about the late billionaire Armand Hammond, the son of the United States Communist Party founder, Julius Hammond?  Armand Hammond was the most prominent purveyor of western goods and services to the Soviet Union since the times of Lenin until his, Hammond’s, death when only Russia was the leftover of the
USSR.  And he hid so well his true nature that he was a generous political donor to the Republicans, particularly to Richard Nixon.  Hammer even went to jail for illicit donations he made to the Nixon presidential campaign.  The western goods and services he provided to the Soviet Union were of great importance to help keep the
Soviet Union going.  He did a great service to Soviet communism while lining his pockets and living in opulence.

        Lenin preached to leftists to use capitalism’s proficiency to acquire and accumulate wealth, and, in the process, use it to destroy capitalism itself.  The mechanism is similar to what a virus does when taking over a healthy cell to reproduce itself many million times and in the process leach its host to total extinction.          That technique has been embraced by those sectors of the left who clearly understand that revolution by peasants and laborers in developed economies is not possible, as it perfectly is in feudalistic ones. Hence some in the left in the West, and particularly here in the
United States, morph themselves, like perfect chameleons, into apparent capitalists.  They know that words talk, but money works, and money they accumulate by tons.  They know that in a capitalist society what weighs the most is the accumulation of wealth, and that’s logically and precisely what they do to finance the advancement of their cause.  In the process they live la vie en rose.

        The leftist sector that has been in control of the Democrat Party since the mid 1960s won’t be happy until it socializes
America.  The rest of the world would then follow like lemmings jumping down the precipice.  (Well, that’s not exactly true; most of Europe is already well advanced on that route, plus most of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the
United States and less that a fistful of Latin American countries.)

        American leftists dream of a socialist
America, with them in the nomenklatura at the top, and the rest of us as an ant colony of androids and zombies, obeying their dictates.  They won’t relent until they see Americans queuing in long lines, with their ration coupons in their hands to get the most basic staples, or waiting for months to get a medical appointment even with the greenest physician.  They dream of all of us sharing the misery–but with them, the nomenklatura, exempted, of course.

        But the most lethal danger that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general pose to America and the free world, is that in the process of attempting to socialize America they inevitably must debilitate her to mass hopelessness and malaise.  Then they, the leftists, can come out like knights in shining armors to save America from its predicament, with the left’s destructive socialist policies. 

        And in the process of debilitating
America, leftists make her more vulnerable, than what as an open society she inherently is, to an apocalyptically deadly enemy: Islamo-Fascism.

        That’s how Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general are in effect in a symbiotic alliance with Islamo-Fascism.  The left knows that Islamo-Fascism seeks to debilitate America, and more; Islamo-Fascism knows that the left seeks to debilitate
America, and more.  Neither of the two likes what they correctly see in
America: the world’s utmost inextinguishable beacon of freedom, perpetual fountain of effective democracy, inexpugnable bastion of individual rights, and the inexhaustible mother lode of free entrepreneurship.

        What else could explain Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general adopting attitudes, promoting policies and playing politics that in effect help Islamo-Fascists? 

        Pelosi and other millionaire leftists in the Democrat Party nomenklatura are not just the infatuated-with-power spoiled brats that David Brooks wishes they were; they are a real threat to America, and the only hope is that Democrats who at least care for America’s national security, such as Joseph Lieberman (despite that he is an abortionist, homosexualist, and big-brotherist), one day rescue the Party of Thomas Jefferson from the claws of Karl Marx. 

        And, finally, even if Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura were just populists, see what populists do to nations. 

        See what Juan Domingo and Eva “Evita” Perón made out of
Argentina, in the first third of last century. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, but now it is a complete basket case.  See what the arch-corrupt PRI (Partido Revolutionario Institucional or Institutional Revolutionary Party) has made out of Mexico, a country of vast natural resources, but another basket case in
Latin America.  See what Hugo Chávez is making out of immensely petrodollar and minerals rich
Venezuela.  It’s not attractive.



Then see how stagnant and stale socialists have made
Western Europe. 
There’s n

othing attractive there either! 

        No, this is not a squabble between vineyard-tycoons and cattle-ranch barons, as naively, or maybe wishfully thinking, Brooks attempts to portray it.  It is a titanic battle for
America between leftism and capitalism.  Plain and simple!

Report: U.S. Troops Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq

Report: U.S. Troops Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq
By Howard Schneider and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 11, 2007; 5:08 PM

U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran’s main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic’s role in Iraqi violence.

Iran released news of the raid through its Islamic Republic News Agency in a dispatch that was broadly critical of Bush’s plan to deploy about 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The IRNA report said that U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate in Irbil, in Iraq’s Kurdish-dominated north, and seized computers, documents and other items. The report said five staff members were taken into custody.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry appealed to the Iraqi government to obtain the release of its personnel.

U.S. officials have not confirmed the raid but did say in a press release that they had taken six people into custody in Irbil during the course of “routine security operations.” The release said the individuals were “suspected of being closely tied” to attacks on Iraqi and U.S. forces.

The incident could provide an early test of promises by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to enforce security laws more strictly regardless of the political or ethnic affiliation of the suspect.

In December, the United States apprehended two men described as senior Iranian agents, in the process seizing lists of weapons and weapons shipments, organizational charts and other documents. In a decision that angered U.S. officials, the Iraqi government decided to simply expel them to Iran.

Maliki’s Shiite government has ties to Iran and has been accused of overlooking security breaches on the part of Shiite militias and death squads.

In his speech Wednesday night calling for deployment of more U.S. troops, Bush said that part of Iraq’s security “begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Although U.S. officials have not confirmed that an Iranian diplomatic building was involved in today’s raid, a man who lives next to the consulate, Sardar Hassan Mohammed, 34, said he saw what he believed to be U.S. forces surrounding the building with their vehicles before entering it. Mohammed said at least five people were taken.

An official with the Kurdistan Democratic Party, who declined to give his name, said the U.S. troops confiscated belongings inside the consulate in addition to arresting people inside.

Without addressing the recent incident, top U.S. officials in Washington were pointed in remarks today about how they intend to follow up on Bush’s pledge to curb Syrian and Iranian influence in Iraq.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States is systematically trying to identify networks of people who bring weapons and explosives into the country — a central allegation against Iran — and will move to shut them down.

Improvised explosives have been a key source of U.S. casualties and deaths since the war began.

“We will do what is necessary for force protection,” Rice said at a press conference. “Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Peter Pace, referring to the earlier arrest of Iranians, said that Tehran’s involvement in Iraq “is destructive. . . . They are complicit . . . and we will do what is necessary.”

Partlow reported from Baghdad.

No Substitute for Victory The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism


Individual Profile:
–>At this particular time in history, it is a matter of note that Congress is about to receive its first Muslim member. Keith Ellison, currently a Minnesota state representative, is poised to succeed 14-term incumbent Democrat Martin Sabo in the Fifth District, which includes the city of Minneapolis. Ellison’s endorsement by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is tantamount to his election in what is one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. Thus, at age 43, Ellison stands positioned not only to win that office but also to hold it as long as he chooses.Ellison’s Muslim faith has generated no controversy in the campaign. On the contrary, it has served to insulate aspects of his public record from close scrutiny in a city whose dominant news organ, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, is a paragon of political correctness. With the exception of columnist Katherine Kersten, the Star Tribune has scrupulously avoided examining Ellison’s long train of troubling associations, foremost among them his ties to the Nation of Islam.

Ellison’s record also includes a multitude of embarrassments of the traditional kind. He fell afoul of the IRS after failing to pay $25,000 in income taxes; he ignored fines that he had incurred for parking tickets and moving violations so numerous that his driver’s license was suspended more times than he can remember; he was fined for willful violation of Minnesota’s campaign finance reporting law. It amounts to a striking pattern of lawbreaking since he undertook the practice of law in 1990.

But it was the link to the Nation of Islam that stood as the most serious impediment to Ellison’s primary campaign. He addressed it in a letter to the local chapter of the Jewish Community Relations Council following his endorsement by the DFL in May. In the letter, Ellison asserted that his involvement with the Nation of Islam had been limited to an 18-month period around the time of the Million Man March in 1995, that he had been unfamiliar with the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitic views during his in volvement with the group, and that he himself had never expressed such views. The Star Tribune has faithfully parroted these assertions as facts.

As a result, the three assertions have become the cornerstone of Ellison’s campaign, securing him the support of prominent Minneapolis Jews and the endorsement of the Minneapolis-based American Jewish World newsweekly. Nevertheless, a little research reveals each one of them to be demonstrably false. Ellison’s activities on behalf of the Nation of Islam continued well beyond any 18-month period, he was familiar with the Nation of Islam’s anti-Semitic views, and he himself mouthed those views.

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. In February 1990, Ellison participated in sponsoring Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) to speak at the law school on the subject “Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?” Jewish law students met personally with Ellison and appealed to him not to sponsor the speech at the law school; he rejected their appeal, and, as anticipated, Ture gave a notoriously anti-Semitic speech.

Ellison admits that he worked on behalf of the Nation of Islam in 1995. At a rally for the Million Man March held at the University of Minnesota, Ellison appeared onstage with Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who ran true to form: According to a contemporaneous Star Tribune article, “If words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced.”

Even in 1995, Ellison’s work on behalf of the Nation of Islam extended well beyond his promotion of the Million Man March. That year, he dutifully spouted the Farrakhan line when Qubilah Shabazz, the daughter of Malcolm X, was indicted for conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison organized a march on the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis demanding that Shabazz be released and alleging that the FBI itself had conspired to kill Farrakhan. In a November 6, 1995, column for the Minneapolis periodical Insight News, Ellison wrote under the name “Keith X Ellison.” He condemned a Star Tribune editorial cartoon that was critical of Farrakhan as a role model for blacks because of his anti-Semitism. Ellison argued to the contrary.

Then, in February 1997, Ellison appeared as a local spokesman for the Nation of Islam with the last name “Muhammad.” He spoke at a public hearing in connection with a controversy involving Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism (MIAR). Jackson was alleged to have said, “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.” Jackson denied making the statement or insisted that it had been taken out of context. Ellison appeared before the MIAR on behalf of the Nation of Islam in defense of Jackson’s alleged statement. According to the Star Tribune and the full text of the statement published in the Minneapolis Spokesman-Recorder, Elli son said:

We stand by the truth contained in the remarks attributed to [Ms. Jackson], and by her right to express her views without sanction. Here is why we support Ms. Jackson: She is correct about Minister Farrakhan. He is not a racist. He is also not an anti-Semite. Minister Farrakhan is a tireless public servant of Black people, who constantly teaches self-reliance and self-examination to the Black community. . . . Also, it is absolutely true that merchants in Black areas generally treat Black customers badly.

The last sentence alluded to another of Jackson’s alleged statements, providing a personal basis for characterizing Jews as “the most racist white people” she knew. Ellison’s May 28 letter acknowledges only that others supported Jackson’s alleged statement in that controversy while falsely denying that he himself did so.

Ellison first emerged as a candidate for public office in 1998, when he ran for the DFL nomination for state representative as “Keith Ellison-Muhammad.” In a contemporaneous article on his candidacy in the Insight News, Ellison is reported still defending Louis Farrakhan:

Anticipating possible criticism for his NOI affiliation, Ellison-Muhammad says he is aware that not everyone appreciates what the Nation does and feels there is a propaganda war being launched against its leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

Ellison says now that he broke with the Nation of Islam when “it became clear to me that their message of empowerment intertwined with more negative messages.” However, Ellison himself was the purveyor of the Nation of Islam’s noxious party line in his every public utterance touching on related issues over the course of a decade. Moreover, Ellison’s unsavory associations were not limited to the Nation of Islam.

Perhaps the lowest moment in Minneapolis’s history was the September 1992 execution-style murder of police officer Jerry Haaf. Haaf was shot in the back as he took a coffee break at a restaurant in south Minneapolis. The murder was a gang hit performed by four members of the city’s Vice Lords gang. The leader of the Vice Lords was Sharif Willis, a convicted murderer who had been released from prison and who sought respectability as a responsible gang leader from gullible municipal authorities while operating a gang front called United for Peace.

The four Vice Lords members who murdered Haaf met and planned the murder at Willis’s house. Two witnesses at the trial of one of the men convicted of Haaf’s murder implicated Willis in the planning. Willis was never charged; law enforcement authorities said they lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.

Within a month of Haaf’s murder, Ellison appeared with Willis supporting the United for Peace gang front. In October 1992, Ellison helped organize a demonstration against Minneapolis police that included United for Peace. “The main point of our rally is to support United for Peace [in its fight against] the campaign of slander the police federation has been waging,” said Ellison.

Willis was the last speaker at the demonstration. According to a contemporaneous report in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Willis told the crowd that Minneapolis police were experiencing the same fear from young black men that blacks had felt from police for many years. “If the police have some fear, I understand that fear,” Willis said. “We seem to have an overabundance of bad police. . . . [W]e’re going to get rid of them,” Willis said. “They’ve got to go.” The Pioneer Press account concludes with Ellison’s contribution to the demonstration: “Ellison told the crowd that the police union is systematically frightening whites in order to get more police officers hired. That way, Ellison said, the union can increase its power base.”

Ellison publicly supported the Haaf murder defendants. In February 1993, he spoke at a demonstration for one of them during his trial. Ellison led the crowd assembled at the courthouse in a chant that was ominous in the context of Haaf’s cold-blooded murder: “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace.” Ellison’s working relationship with Sharif Willis came to an end in February 1995, when Willis was convicted in federal court on several counts of drug and gun-related crimes and sent back to prison for 20 years.

The various themes of Ellison’s public commitments and associations all came together in a February 2000 speech he gave at a fundraising event sponsored by the Minnesota chapter of the far-left National Lawyers Guild, on whose steering committee he had served. The event was a fundraiser for former Symbionese Liberation Army member Kathleen Soliah after her apprehension in St. Paul (under the name “Sara Jane Olson”) for the attempted murder of Los Angeles police officers in 1975.

Ellison weirdly referred to Soliah/ Olson as a “black gang member” (she is white) and thus a victim of government persecution. He described her as one of those who had been “fighting for freedom in the ’60s and ’70s” and called for her release. (She subsequently pleaded guilty to charges in Los Angeles and to an additional murder charge in Sacramento; she is serving time in California.) Still toeing the Nation of Islam line, he recalled “Qubilah Shabazz, the daughter of Malcolm X, [who] was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan.” He also spoke favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur. (Shakur has been on the lam in Cuba since 1984; last year she was placed on the FBI’s domestic terrorists list with a one million dollar reward for her capture.)

Having spoken out over many years as an advocate of the Nation of Islam under guises including Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, and Keith Ellison-Muhammad, Ellison might reasonably prompt Fifth District voters to wonder where he really stands. His recent account of the nature and extent of his relationship with the Nation of Islam cannot be squared with the public record. During his congressional campaign, Ellison has nevertheless held himself out as a friend of the Jewish people and of Israel. As if to shore up his identity as a Muslim activist, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, flew to Minneapolis to appear as a featured guest (along with Ellison himself and Guantánamo chaplain James Yee) at an Ellison fundraiser in suburban Minneapolis on August 25. Awad is notable, among other things, for his past expressions of support for Hamas.

The Star Tribune didn’t get around to reporting on the fundraiser until several days after Ellison won the September 12 primary. Ellison commented to the Star Tribune regarding issues raised by Awad’s attendance at the fundraiser: “The Republicans are in a tough position. Iraq is a failed policy. They haven’t done much for homeland security. We still have a health care crisis. The Earth is warming up, and they’re not doing anything about it. What else are they going to do? They have to try to engage in smear politics.”

Unfortunately, it won’t be necessary for Ellison to come up with a more compelling response than that before he makes news in November as America’s first Muslim congressman.

This profile first appeared as an article titled “Louis Farrakhan’s First Congressman,” written by Scott W. Johnson and published by The Weekly Standard on October 9, 2006. It is reprinted here, with permission.

Charlie Rangel Doesn’t Get Real Men

Charlie Rangel Doesn’t Get Real Men
By Julia Gorin | January 11, 2007

When Charlie Rangel closed out the year by seconding John Kerry’s sentiment that men end up in the military by default rather than choice, he exposed something that many have long suspected not only about Rangel and Kerry, but about the Democratic Party itself: they don’t understand the nature of men.

To review Rangel’s precise words:

If there’s anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment…If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

The first faulty premise is that someone goes into the military based on a “gimme” attitude—that is, they see the military as Democrats do: a social program providing scholarships, career training, jobs and benefits. This means that Rangel is unfamiliar with the battle envy that many a man who has never served feels when in the presence of men who have. Manly men who have not served, such as my husband, often feel humbled, soft and inadequate before men who have seen battle or at least are trained for it and have worn the nation’s uniform. (To compensate, he’s lately been talking about setting up a scholarship fund for children who have lost parents in
Iraq, called the “Wish I Had Served” Foundation.) If the military were just for those who lack opportunity or are looking for “a bonus,” that gnawing, empty spot in the pit of a man’s stomach wouldn’t be there.

But such feelings are for men of character. And Rangel revealed the extent of his own character with what he said next: “Everyone will see what we already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities in this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old.”


Here Rangel isn’t shy to tell us that the only reason he served is that he had no choice. Nice to know, Chuck. Thanks for sharing.

Again, Rangel’s understanding of the military is symptomatic of his party’s as a whole: They think that others are like them, that the men in the armed forces have as little character as they do and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into fighting for anything that this country stands for. In short, the fighting man is an alien creature with whom they can’t identify, which is why they bring us “men” like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson and so on. Meanwhile, all the party’s testosterone seems to be locked up by their manly women: Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. That’s why this matriarchal political party is known as “the Mommy Party.” (Significantly, a much talked-about children’s book last year was titled Why Mommy is a Democrat.)

This mindset illuminates the mainstream-Left’s popular slogan “Support the Troops: Bring Them Home.” That is to say, “We support the troops—when they’re not fighting.” To a party that stands for nothing of substance, men who do stand for something just don’t compute. It’s little wonder that the same party is obsessed with stem cell research. They need all the stem cells they can get to rebuild their spines.

On the heels of Rangel’s very helpful revelation about his and his party’s character, he offered a further revelation when he responded to The New York Observer’s question, “So now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, what should they do about the war in
Iraq?”: “I never understand that question. You have a President that’s in deep sh–. He got us into the war…and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?'”


As James Taranto wrote in the Wall St. Journal’s Opinion Journal, “[T]he country will be dealing with [the war’s] consequences, for both good and ill, long after the president has retired. Rangel makes no pretense of even thinking about the interests of the country,” and “disclaims all responsibility for addressing the problem.”

Rangel’s second faulty premise is that people who join the military are otherwise unsuccessful. Let’s not mince words even that much. Rangel—like Kerry before him–is calling enlistees ‘losers’, whether because of their own incapacities or because of their circumstances.

And yet, in reading letters from a number of military personnel and families of military personnel, published by Opinion Journal over the holiday week, readers learned that some had earned PhDs prior to joining the armed forces, and others left thriving doctors’ practices. One letter writer mentioned cramming years of engineering study into six months of military training.

Democrats tell me that I am intelligent. It usually goes like this: “You’re Republican?! But you seem intelligent.” So let’s presume they are right and I am intelligent. However, I can’t read a map, much less understand math, science or computers. In short, I am not remotely smart enough to serve in our military. In fact, I’m probably saving American lives just by not serving. And so I have focused my energies into being a good writer—a talent that I’ve alternately tried to parlay into broadcasting, stand-up comedy, commentary, blogging or becoming some kind of reality-show or other on-air personality.

But even in such renaissance ambitions, guess who I find I’m getting competition from these days: military folks. There they are, stringing for networks and newspapers, getting their own radio shows, reality shows, gigs as Fox News or MSNBC contributors and analysts, blogging to a wider audience than I have, and giving me a run for my money on the stand-up stage. Two of my colleagues are Marines. Marines! That means that, during off-time from saving the free world, they’ve gotten as far as I have in stand-up comedy and in fact are better networkers than I am.

Add PhDs and MDs—pursuits I never even considered in my singular focus on becoming a prominent figure of some sort, something they’re effortlessly becoming as an afterthought. And when I couldn’t make ends meet even in my well-defined intellectual pursuits, I got married.

Today, with my parents’ help, my husband and I have moved into a somewhat swanky neighborhood—only to find that the Marines in the two houses across the street have bigger yards, as well as balconies and pools.

No, these people aren’t losers, Chuck; they make us look like losers. Especially those of us who go into that social program for formally educated private-sector-skipping folks: politics–where they chatter mindlessly, too dumb to realize what their own words reveal.