Keith Ellison Is Disgraceful
Minnesota's Keith Ellison, the hard-left Democrat elected to Congress in 2006, is finally showing his true beliefs. From the Telegraph:
America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Comparing Bush to Hitler, and Republicans to Nazis in general is nothing new on the part of the hard-left. What is new is having a sitting Congressman make these kinds of comparisons. Regardless, it is repugnant and shows a level of hatred for Republicans and ignorance of history and facts.
There is also a significant difference between the Reichstag Fire and the events of 9/11.
The Reichstag Fire was blamed on communists; there is significant evidence that Goring was involved with the planning and execution of the fire, as well as the plot to frame the communists. The point of the Reichstag Fire was to get the Enabling Act, which would hand Hitler significant dictatorial powers, passed.
After the Reichstag Fire, thousands of communists were arrested; the death penalty reinstated and concentration camps were set up. The Communist party, which at that time held 17% of the seats in the German Parliament, was banned, further aiding in the consolidation of Nazi power.
9/11 has been proven, repeatedly, to have been planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is an organization bent on destroying Western ideals and implementing a Caliphate world-wide.
Since the events of 9/11, there have been no similar acts within the United States against Muslims, nor has there been infringement of civil liberties (despite the claims to the contrary by the Left). No Muslim has been denied the ability to hold office, nor has any member of an opposing party.
President Bush does not have, nor has he ever asked for, the power to enact laws by presidential Decree as was given to Hitler in the aftermath of the Reichstag Fire (or as was recently given to the dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, for no particular reason at all). Bush would not be able to get such power even if he were to ask for it, nor do I believe he would ever ask for such power even if he thought he could get such from Congress; the American people would be outraged beyond all belief should there be such an attempt by any President of any party.
The kickoff on Ellison's statements actually hit the wire on Friday. This goes to show you one can no longer take a weekend off from watching what goes on in the world.
The Red Star Tribune, always ready to push its anti-Bush agenda, published an editorial that had this to say about the incident:
Although he was careful to keep his comments in context, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., took predictable flak for alluding to the Nazi era during recent comments about the Bush administration. It's a lesson that keeps being learned the hard way: Unless you're talking about some other murderer of millions, comparisons to Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust or even the Reichstag fire are inappropriate. The author Reza Aslan proposed that as a rule of civil dialogue in a Westminster Town Hall speech in Minneapolis last year, and he was right.(emphasis added)
Apparently, in the eyes of the Red Star Tribune, President Bush (and by extension, our Armed Forces) is a mass-murder of millions of people. This is very troubling, especially when you combine it with the word play of a Congressman who has sparked the current round of comparisons.
The editorial asks the questions would the Patriot Act or the authorization to invade Iraq would have passed if 9/11 never took place? Probably not. However 9/11 did, in fact, happen. I can't always say I am in agreement with the Patriot Act, however I sure haven't experienced any infringement on my civil liberties since Congress and the President enacted it some years back. I have yet to see any documented incidents where an American has had their civil liberties suspended since 9/11, whether as a part of the Patriot Act, or any other law that has been implemented or as a result of other activities, such as the monitoring of international cell phone calls involving known terrorists (the so-called wire-tapping of the last few years).
No credible observer believes that the attacks were some kind of inside job (though an alarming number of people in Muslim countries are happy to think so). But neither is it credible to suppose that the Bush administration has failed to take advantage of the popular support presidents enjoy in times of crisis. Any president would do so.
Few, however, would go as far as this president has gone. Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration. Geneva Conventions? Quaint. Habeas corpus? Flexible. Court approval of wiretaps? Outmoded. Rising calls to replace a secretary of defense? "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."
The Strib implies that the administration believes that the Geneva conventions as being "quaint." This is probably in response to the holding of hundreds of Taliban fighters and other foreign terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the Strib editors, as well as the Left-wing nuts that abound in this country, believe that these terrorists should be accorded the same treatment accorded to uniformed members of a nation's armed forces. Actually they would be subject to the same treatment that mercenaries are accorded, which is zilch, or, more accurately, a bullet in the head (which is what happened to a number of Americans who fought in Rhodesia as mercenaries when the country finally collapsed to the communist insurgency and became Zimbabwe).
They also believe that the writ of habeas corpus, which the Constitution guarantees in Article 1, Section 9, applies to foreign nationals captured on the battle field in foreign lands. Nope, it does not apply to them under the U.S. Constitution.
So far as I am aware, President Bush has not done anything that any of his predecessors have done where the U.S. constitution is concerned.
Once again, the editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune, as well as the hard-left Moonbats show their utter contempt for America and President Bush.