Rep. Keith Ellison wrote that the Constitution is evidence of a racist conspiracy
With Rep. Peter King’s hearing on the threat of radical Islam set to begin today, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has been in the news. Congress’ only Muslim member, Ellison will testify in today’s hearing and has vocally criticized its intent and purpose.
But Ellison’s past as an apologist for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten. Writing for a college newspaper, The Minnesota Daily, on November 27, 1989, Ellison wrote an article defending Farrakhan from critics. That article is not posted online but the Tatler has obtained the article in its entirety. Writing under the name Keith Hakim, Ellison wrote the following to defend Farrakhan and the NoI against charges that he and his organization are racist. Ellison/Hakim first establishes his own definition of racism, then makes the very incendiary charge that “their Constitution” is racist.
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 provision for the return of runaway slaves. Their constitution [sic] is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples. (emphasis added)
The repeated construction “their Constitution” hints that, at least in 1989, Ellison did not accept the US Constitution as a legitimate source of legal authority.
Farrakhan, of course, has a very long history of making remarks that can only be fairly construed as racist, and that history dates back to before 1989, and up to the present.
Elsewhere in the 1989 article, Ellison/Hakim attacks “white barbarism,” blasts “America’s genocidal crimes,” and defends Malcolm X (Malik Shabazz’s) distinction of “colonial masters and slavers of Western Europe, America, Australia, South Africa, and Israel” as “very devilish.”
The article dates to 1989. The question is, does Ellison continue to hold any of these views today?
The Three-fifths compromise
=== ===
Southern and Northern states reached the Three-Fifths compromise during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787
Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state.
Delegates supportive of slavery generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers.
Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College.
The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.
=== ===
you are correct, but there are many people who are so into their victimization of their ancestors that they will never, ever understand the Constitution.
I wonder how they explain the slavery that is practiced my Muslims in the Middle East and in Africa? At least we changed our Constitution to forbid it – by amending it.
The Islamic countries have no constitution – they have no rights at all, yet these people defend Islam to the very death.
Beth-it was ISLAM that started the slave trade. The name that is Arabic for slave is the same name Arabs use for blacks. It was the moslems who first sold slaves to slave traders, who brought them to the West.
Ellison is yet another historical genius who doesn’t understand the 3/5 Compromise. Can you believe there’s a rapper who calls himself “3/5″?
He might as well call himself “N.B.F” or “Urban Myth”.
The fact that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 did not seek to address the evil of slavery – as it was practiced – head on and instead sought (as you wrote) a “compromise” on the evil institution, left a stain on this great nation. Are you saying, you believe it is proper to compromise on a great evil or injustice? That having been said, Keith Ellison is not to be trusted. Like Mr. Obama, he associated and still associates with evil-doers like Hamas and other jihadists.
It was either “compromise” or drop the idea of a union altogether since the south was immovable. The hope at the time was that it would just fade away – as was happening until the advent of the cotton-jin.
Blame Eli Whitney….
The fact that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 did not seek to address the evil of slavery – as it was practiced
The fact that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 did not seek to address the evil of slavery – as it was practiced
Actually that’s not true. Slavery itself wasn’t abolished AT the convention, but the groundwork was laid there thru the 3/5ths compromise and the abolitionist delegates worked tirelessly the rest of their damn lives trying to end it. Unfortunately then, just as today, you democratic types are pretty pig headed. Even though it’s been formally abolished you people still believe in and support slavery thru your “tax the rich – its not their money” policies.
You ignore the reality of the times. This compromise was a way to keep Southern States from having too much representation, and thus, was a tool used to allow the Union to exist, while weakening the cause of slavery.
The U.S. Constitution considered Black men, women and children as SUB-HUMANs! 3/5 of a human being quite worthy of being considered property to be raped and murdered at will!
The U.S. Government was indeed based on the perverted ideology of White-Supremacy!
ARE YOU ANY BETTER than your fathers or do you embrace their sick ideology?
“The U.S. Constitution considered…”
Note the use of the Past tense. ARE YOU LIVING IN THE PAST, all caps user?
JB, you are wrong. Go look it up, if that’s not beyond your capabilities. For purposes of representation, “free Persons” including indentured servants and excluding untaxed Indians are counted as full people, and “all other Persons” count as three-fifths. Note the specific absence of an adjective describing color or race.
Rick, that is pure bollocks! You can’t defend the indefensible! It is foolish to infer that the 3/5 rule was not referencing the humanity of the Blacks held as sub-human property!
Even if this inhumane reference was not written in the Constitution (as human bargaining chips), the fact of the matter is while the words, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.. written in the Declaration of Independence, the authors hypocritically excluded certain human beings who they deemed to be beasts of burden!
If you can’t recognize the contradictions based on this demented White-supremacist mentality, God help you!
For the millionth time: it had nothing to do with considering them sub-human. It was about reducing the power of the slave states.
Now, if you’re still ticked off — well, you can leave. No one’s keeping you here.
JB, the Three-Fifths compromise was almost the exact opposite of what you think it was. It was a limitation on the power of slaveowners, probably the best that could be managed at the time.
JB – Had the Southern proposal been accepted — to count slaves as equal to freemen — the likelihood is that Abe Lincoln would never have been elected and slavery would have continued much longer. Had the Northern proposal been accepted, of not counting slaves at all, slavery would have ended earlier.
But big caveat here – Both proposals were unacceptable to the other party; so the likelihood is that there would have been no Constitution, and who knows what would have happened then.
JB, the 3/5 Compromise was thoroughly an anti-slavery act – just take our word for it. It limited representation in Washington by the Southern states.
Had it been 0/5 it would have been a triumph for the Abolitionists, not the other way around.
You blithering idiot: it was the Southern delegates who wanted to count slaves as full “people.” Note also that the 3/5 compromise did NOT apply to free blacks.
Slavery was the issue that nearly derailed the Convention; it was the census count, and the compromise policy of banning the importation of slaves after 20 years, which made the Constitution possible.
Actually, it was only black Males – women still didn’t count at all.
3/5 is still more than 1/2 – which is what non-muslims and muslim women are currently considered to be in all islamic countries.
The hypocrisy is amazing – if it happens to women, or melanin-deficients it is ok? If it happens in the name of some imaginary god it is ok?
And yet they still demand respect! Well, sod that!
“white supremacy”- I guess you never heard of John Brown, Simon Perkins, or Horace Greeley. They were all white, and they were known as aboloitionists. Washington never owned slaves, Jefferson released his, George Mason also was never a slave owner. As a matter of fact, only about 20% of all plantations had slaves. Even in the confederacy, only Pierre Beauregard, Nathan Forrest, AP Hill, Jeb Stuart and Jubal Early were slaveholders amongst there top generals. Lee Abhorred slavery , but gets tarred and feathered because he put his loyalty to his home state above common sense. Stonewall Jackson wasnt even a native southerner, he went south when he attended VMI. Better get a clue, Ellison and his anti-western ilk are the enemies, not George Bush or a virtually non-existent KKK. This isnt the 1920s anymore.
“It is foolish to infer that the 3/5 rule was not referencing the humanity of the Blacks”
So then why did it mention NEITHER color nor humanity and SPECIFICALLY mentions 3/5 as counted towards REPRESENTATION?
JB, in your own reply you used the past tense “considered”. I won’t defend the constitution as it stood in the 1800s. But I’ll defend it as it stands now, and as it stood at the time I was born in the 60s. If you can point to a major fault in the constitution as it stands now, I’ll pound your pointy little head into the ground in any debate you care to have. If, on the other hand, your point is simply to bash America by any means possible then you’ve definitely hit on your best bet: find sins that are a century or two old and harp on them. The more recent “sins” are mostly very defensible and the few that aren’t are pretty much individuals violating or overreaching the constitution or our laws.
JB, read Andrew Garland’s post. The slave holders wanted slaves to count as full people for the census, the abolitionists wanted them to not be counted at all. Yes, they were defined as 3/5ths of a person, but you are completely wrong about the motivation and effect of that compromise.
“worthy of being considered property to be raped and murdered at will!”
Untrue, as the prosecution and conviction records of whites for the murder of slaves will attest.
But don’t let historical fact get in the way of good propaganda, hey?
There were free blacks in the U.S. at the time. They were considered full people. Nothing in the Constitution mentions race. (There were also white slaves, and presumably they didn’t count as full “people” either).
Slaves, not blacks. There were white slaves and even black slave owners.
JB, I see you agree with the racist views of Judge Taney and Stephen Douglas. You probably also support Roe Vs. Wade.
However, Abraham Lincoln contended that “all men are created equal” was NOT limited by color. And the dissent from Justice Taney pointed out that free blacks had the right to vote in five of the original thirteen colonies.
JB, you have a thorough misunderstanding of history and the Constitution.
You don’t have to argue fine points with JB. The United States is the country that other people from all over the world want to come to. JB is against the constitution, which is to say, he is anti-American. Nothing more be said. You don’t have to argue with people who try to tell you your mother was ugly and evil either.
Bryan,
As you probably know, the folks @ Powerline have dug deeply into Ellison’s past, primarily in the run-up to his 1st Congressional election in 2006. Here is a good starting-off point:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/09/015165.php
Thanks for all your hard work!
John Pearson
It was fashionable in the late ’80s and early 90′s to define racism such that only whites could be racist. While it may be fair to demand he repudiate these views, I doubt they tel us much about his thinking today. Based on the publication, I am assuming that he was a college student at the time. People are supposed to be politically and economically stupid at that time in their life. IMO, 18 is a time to be a communist.
Actually, there’s no evidence Ellison has changed his mind and much evidence he still believes the same thing. Or worse.
Ellison is lost in a search for who he is,so, anything he says comes from someone lost in a search for himself… let’s not help him find himself.
Ellison is nothing but a black man pretending to be a muslim. I saw this thing begin on the south side of Chicago years ago with Elija Poole Muhammad. Grown black men running around dressed in sheets; just like the KKK.
oldguy, you overlooked one minor detail and that is the KKK is a homegrown, well documented White-supremacist terrorist group which bombed, raped and murdered thousands of Black people. How many White people did Elijah Poole Muhammad’s group bomb, rape or murder?
Your Prophet approved (and participated in) both rape and slavery. I’d say the race doesn’t matter, as he was only concerned about the religion. Read your Qur’an. I have.
Qur’an (23:5-6) – “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…”
Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.”
Abu Dawud (2150) – “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’”
JB… you do realize that the KKK was/is a Democrat organization.
The KKK came about because the Southern Democrats were upset that they had not only lost the war, but lost slavery as well…
At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights.
Read up on the now deceased Senator Byrd of West Virginia
who was a Klan member and a sitting Democrat Senator..
If it were up to JB’s best friend, the Democrat, blacks would still be choppin’ cotton.
Don’t forget about Catholics. The clan killed white people too.
Phranc, am confused. Are you saying the Klan killed Catholics? Or Catholics killed people? Your meaning is unclear….
Since the 700′s? Several hundreds of millions of people.
Next.
It is clear to any semi concious person that JB is not capable of reading or comprehending the english language used in the constitution. Ther are those among us that prefer to hear what they want to hear regardless of the facts.
RL, take note that ad hominem responses are an indication of the weakness of one’s position.
JB, there are enough people around who love their country to take people like you, tie them to a rail, tar and feather them, and put them on a boat to somewhere else … and the day is coming when that will happen.
don’t take the communist bait. JB has nothing to say. and he says it well.
Or at least loudly.
JB, an ad hominem response is one that attacks a speaker’s position by trying to discredit the speaker. RL is simply noting, correctly, that you are an idiot with no idea what he’s talking about, and no sense of historical perspective whatsoever. Thus, it’s not an ad hominem response.
Don’t you feel better now?
But, those who follow idiotic, historically disproven ‘theories’ are the ones we should emulate, right JB?
JB: Your comment indicants intelligence. I would hope that your intelligence would allow you to understand history. BTW, the FIRST slave owner in the colonies was a BLACK man. Did you know that?
Didn’t Ellison take an oath to defend the Constitution? I guess swearing on the Koran doesn’t count.
“The question is, does Ellison continue to hold any of these views today?”
The better question is whether Obama holds those views today.
The evidence points in the direction that he does.
While the Constitution may have read that way at its’ inception, reflecting the times, it has been amended to change with the views and mores of the times, through the amendment process provided by the framers. But some refuse to acknowledge the changes in society, or the updated document, choosing only to see the original. Sort of like trying to force others to live in today’s world under rules laid down in the seventh century…..
Christian Patriot, it is good that you acknowledge that there were some flaws in the mindset of the framers of our great constitution. The problem is when that historic fact it denied and attempted to be obfuscated from history like some posters here.
JB, the only one doing and denying and obfuscation here is you.
The 3/5ths compromise was only about reducing the political power of the slaveholding South to be closer to the ideal of one person, one vote.
And it was good enough at the time because it was the best that could be done at the time.
Among other troubling things in the article is the use of the present tense in Mr. Ellison’s screed:
Use of the present tense is strong evidence either of abysmal ignorance of the U.S. Constitution or intentional deceit on Mr. Ellison’s part. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1865) abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) changed voting representation to eliminate any reference to 3/5ths for non-free persons.
Gah! Thank you! You beat me to it!
Keith Ellison is a barely concealed Islamic radical.
It is inherently contradictory to take an Oath to uphold the principles of the United States Constitution on the Koran. The ideas and principles on which law is elaborated from the Koran, the Shari’a, are antithetical to the Constitution.
Anyone with half a functioning brain can tell where Keith’s sympathies lie…right there with the Muslim Brotherhood’s determination to sabotage the miserable house of the unbeliever from within.
Hey Keith, stop the race hustling & using that cudgel of hatred to herd the faithful and grow your own power base.
Stop taking your lead from that lowly Jew hater, Louis Farrakhan.
You’re transparent.
Allah isn’t impressed, either.
I’ve never quite figured out why, if Keith Ellison is truly a converted Muslim, he hasn’t taken an “Islamic” name: Hell, even Cat Stevens took that plunge (along with Cassius Clay, Lew Alcindor, etc,).
But then, I’ve lived in the Twin Cities, and I’m more than a little familiar with the problems of Northern Somaliland (such as it is)….
Rep King’s hearings are urgently needed!
Over 80% of mosques in the US have been radicalized by Saudi money & influence. This is happening globally! Imams go into US jails & have converted & radicalized inmates. Any nation that ignores the facts is committing national suicide!
Muslims and Leftists are silent over the frightening reality of more than
16,921 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11
Terror attacks by other religions: NONE.
And deathly silent over severe persecution endured by non-Muslims in majority Muslim countries and areas. In Pakistan, Bangladesh & Egypt, persecution of Hindus, Sikhs & Christians is so bad, they ALL need rescuing.
There are in fact terror attacks by other religions; India alone is fertile ground there.
is 700 years of muslim aggression against Hindus supposed to increase feelings of Hindu peacefulness…
Hey, you know why Hindu widows started the tradition of throwing themselves onto their husband’s pyre? To prevent capture by muslims..
(also, the Sikh Kirpan is protection against muslim aggression)
====
Be aware…
There is only one religion of terror on this earth, with a mass murdering terrorist thug for its founder, and that religion is Islam.
Every mosque on earth that teaches the Koran as the literal and absolute truth of God is teaching the radical view that war, terror and bloodshed is a legitimate instrument for spreading the faith.
Ellison is basically a waste of skin.
He does have a vey tiny amount of amusement value, however, since it’s always amusing to watch Democrats complain about slavery and racism.
The article dates to 1989. The question is, does Ellison continue to hold any of these views today?
Do polar bears defecate on ice?
In the New Age only white people can be racist. Just ask POTUS how BLT views white people.
Now, La Raza which means The Race, is a great example of what I am writting here. The Race. Does it get more racist that that?
In a correct history book Muhammad viewed blacks as rasins, and Islamic Arabs started slavery by selling Africans to whites.
Ellison is an agent for the Muslim brotherhood here inside these United States.
I note with interest that JB has obviously still not read the debates leading to the 3/5th’s compromise.
Not letting facts get in the way of the narrative eh?
JB is really Bagdad Bob.
I thought Robert Gibbs took over for Baghdad Bob!
Well, yeah, duh! Of course We (I, us) still embrace their sick ideology. Why would we (I, us) not want to remain sick? It ain’t like we can learn from our past, you know! And thanks for questioning our capacity for growth. I still can’t figure out how all those white folk managed to march with yall and Martin Luther King Jr. What were they thinking?
Oh the trolls. Verbal bomb throwers. Most suffer from a level of ASPD.
They get an endorphin rush from causing decent. Nothing of intellectual worth to add to a conversation.
Ignore the trolls. Trying to discuss anything with them is an exercise in futility. It just feeds their self delusions of grandeur.
#1-3-7-etc..
You tried and were pretty decent to JB. More so than a lefty site would be to you. You tried, some people just want to cling to their slavery, victimization, and hate of America like Christians want to cling to their God and Guns…
I really wish they would go live in an oppressive country for awhile so they can really appreciate America…
It’s a shame that we have people that hate Western Civilization, like Keith Elison, as representatives in our legislature, a fifth column.
CRYPTO-RADICAL MOSLEM CONGRESSMAN WEEPS AT KING HEARING
Peter King’s hearings on the radicalizing of Moslem Americans began with an inappropriate emotional testimony by the crypto-radical Moslem congressman Keith Ellison. If you recall this is the same Keith Ellison-Congress’s first Moslem member-who took his oath of office on the Koran: Islam’s “holy” book of intolerance, war and conquest that damns infidel nations, such as America, as the enemies of God and summons believers to subvert and conquer them. As Ellison is the friend and ally of CAIR, and other radical Moslem groups pursuing the Koran’s agenda of jihad, he’s opposed to King’s hearings because of the damage it could do to the cause-the cause of subverting and Islamizing America.
With voice cracking and eyes tearing Ellison absurdly voiced his opposition by recounting the sad story of one Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 9/11 victim. Hamdani was a 23 year old Muslim American firefighter who gave his life while saving others as a first responder to the 9/11 attack. As he was growing up in Bayside, Queens Ellison described Hamdani as someone who was striving to fit in, be one of the guys, “an all American kid;” and that he should be “remembered as an American not a Moslem.” That’s to say this young, self-sacrificing hero was Americanized (more American than Moslem)-fully integrated into our secular culture which he wanted to live in and serve. In other words, being an American had more value and meaning for Hamdani than his Muslim faith with its focus on rituals, submission to God and a fanciful afterlife-which is more than I can say for Ellison who holds the opposite view as we know from his radical ties and the offensive, unAmerican act of his Congressional oath.
The King hearings are not about the Sal Hamdanis of this world; they’re not about the good, patriotic American Moslems who are Moslem in name alone and love America above their faith; they’re about radicalized Moslems like Ellison who insanely hate this country as God’s greatest enemy and define themselves as citizens of Islam hellbent on our destruction.
Click my name to continue reading this widely linked article
There is an erroneous perception Muslims become terrorist because of trigger moments i.e. Radical Cleric(s) come riding into town, or intense whispering in Prison cubicles, etc
If this were the case we non-Muslims would all be aware of neighbors and distant relatives suddenly turning into terrorists.
This simply does not occur for the reason we have not already textually constructed other as evil via the text we base our beliefs on.
The reason for the terror is instruction from birth. This is the trigger which lends itself to the opportunity for terrorism when it arises.
To simply say all of a sudden a perfectly normal good Muslim boy turned to terror without the foundation already in place to accept such diabolical notions is absurd.
Plato thousands of years ago gave humanity some good advice for harmonious societies delete text purported to be from Gods which informs evil action.
Everyone of us base our lives on less than perfect text. To target one without the other is rather hypocritical.
It should be about all text which vilifies other Religious or Secular not persons.
The fact is Muslims are already radicalized the reason being from the Islamic texts Quran foundation chapter “THE COW” onwards vilification of and justification of ‘grevious harm’ against other is the main theme.
This is why terrorists are good boys and girls coming from good Muslim families. It is that simple.
The radical Muslim clerics are not triggering anything they are simply providing the opportunity. The trigger has already been created by the basic Islamic text which forms all Muslims.
The fact all Muslims do not act on it is irrelevant for as we see enough Muslims do from generation to generation to perpetuate the terror against other.
If you read the Quran – Chapter “THE COW” which sets up the framework by which the Islamic text will be challenged, vilifies the perpetrators, sets them as less and then informs the remedy ‘grevious harm’ with the ultimate authority God authorizing all within, given this is an old recipe for genocide against other and the terror we clearly are experiencing would it not be rational to be rightfully concerned?
Also more importantly as we are all formed by textual constructs such as the Islamic text, there may just exist evil text informing evil action and we should seek it out be it secular or religious so we can change the future for humanity?
Change the text forming our new citizen’s change the outcomes otherwise more of the same.
This means not just looking at Islamic text but other texts within our communities which are used to form new citizens and accept the fact finally ‘Freedom of Religion’ has been a curse on society because we are not able to easily challenge such Religious text which generates real evil against other without being erroneously labeled and censured.
Excellent point. We’re now hearing the bull from liars like Ellison that the King hearings will serve as such a “trigger point” for many US Moslems.
If there is a flaw in the Constitution it’s the fact that the framers thought people would understand the clear intent of their language for the rest of time, and that government would actually follow the restraints of the negative rights imposed on them. The Constitution IS deeply flawed because it makes no provisions for those logical eventualities.
We’re living it today. We know have a socialist country where the biggest liars and thieves get the vote. The very worst compete to “represent” us, when they really do no such thing at all. So we end up with those who steal, lie, and manipulate for a living, all while extolling the virtue of the theft. America is on its last legs, since the treasury has been effectively looted, and the counterfeit printing presses of the federal reserve have destroyed any sense of sound legal money.
All of this is the result of the fact that the Constitution has no teeth, besides the people, and we saw what happened the last time folks tried to get out of the relationship. 600,000 dead and a giant centralized government, where nearly half the people live off the others through coercive forced taxation.
RIP, Constitution. You’re dead.
I bet Ellison has never even read the entire Constitution. And if he has read it, doubt that he understood most of what it says.
The only constitution that matters to Ellison is the Koran-which I’m certain he has committed to memory to smooth his journey to heaven.
Twenty years is a long time to hold someone accountable for the words spoken as young, firebrand student. Why don’t you check out the early words of a few of your right-wing heroes.
in 1979, dolt, Bad Mood Im a Dumb Jihaddi(of Iran) was just a “firebrand student” who was attacking the American embassy. Now , he wants to build nukes so that he can bring the “return of the 12th imam” or “mahdi”. Oh yes, the indescretions of youth. Im sure if Bad Mood gets his way, it wont be “youthful indescrestion”. it will be because of IDIOT ENABLERS like you.
Ellison/Hakim is a fairly lightweight lefty, Anti-American Democrat and typical Shariah apologist. He makes this clear every time he opens his big mouth. Our constitution does not, any longer, consider a black to be 3/5 of a person (in the early days of our founding it would have been 3/5 of a White Man) Even after it was changed (as a result of the Civil War), women still didn’t count at all until the 20th century…. but I suppose this Muslim would have opposed a woman’s right to vote. Most of the people he defends do. Sounds like Ellison/Hakim is still trying to “Get Even With Whitey”. I wonder if he beats his wife?
This article is going to hurt his feelings and make him cry again. Shame on you.
I hope it hurts his feeling so bad that he quits his job as a congressman!
Ellison, you black RACIST filth. Since you think ISLAM is so damned great, Im proposing that we as Americans therefore try you under SHARIA LAW for being a lying sack of racist excrement and TREASON. Ill bet Sharia isnt very approving of TREASON. I certainly can promise your other heroes, the communists, didnt approve much of treason, either. There punishment was EXECUTION. The same should apply to you, Racist pig Ellison.
This disingenous spectacle by Ellison should get an Academy Award- he had the nerve to say this (from Reuters yesterday)
“Democratic Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in the House, wept as he recounted how a 23-year-old Muslim paramedic died when he responded to the September 11 attacks in New York City and later was smeared because of his faith.
“Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was really with the attackers because he was a Muslim,” he said.”
No people or religion has spread more false rumors about JEWS than MUSLIMS (hypocrite liars) Every one of these radical morons accuse Mossad or Bush of setting up 9-11- despite every evidence to the contrary and so many other attacks, attacks openly admitted to by MUSLIMS.
However, I am not surprised that most Muslims hate Jews and Americans as they have told us loudly and clearly for so long- or that they lie to justify their attacks and condemnations-or efven that they try to attempt to persuade Americans 0of their non-existent “peaceful” intentions.
The truly scary thing for me is knowing that many of my fellow Americans not only agree with, but defend these people. Some are just eyond oblivious to any threats from Muslims inside, they simply deny or ignore. The real enemy for me is not ISLAM as much as AMERICANS – progressives lefties libs Dhimmicrats many black Americans many liberal Jews -hell they are in my own damn family- THEY hate ME and YOU and REPS – their anger is palpable and vitriolic – the spew- the hate rants- the demonizations- the character assassinations- it is a witchhunt now- and they have no inkling of the irony of accusing us of MCCarthyism. I am able to see how brother fought brother in the Civil War- as a kid I was stunned to learn of that.
That these people prefer to see the patriots trying to root out treason, seditionists and traitors and future attackers, to see those who attempt ot protect our laws and nation, instead as racists bigots or enemies of humanity, is truly disheartening.
Divided like this, we will surely fall.
Dear Osama – Mission Accomplished- you have taught us how to embrace SUICIDE instead of fighting. Yes Mr Simmons we are all Muslims now.
It’s a fool’s game to hold people who lived hundreds of years ago to the moral standards of today. The fact that the authors of our Constitution bequeathed us the richest, most powerful, most influential nation in history suggests their effort was worthwhile.
Whatever sins hindsight ascribes to them have been cleansed by amendment. Yes, they thought of that too.
Was Rep. Keith Ellison’s oath of office an example of taqiyya?
It appears that Ellingson committed perjury by violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, if these are his beliefs. Appropriate charges to have him expelled from Congress seem to be warranted. He is an enemy of our Constitutional republic.
So in other words, Rep. Keith Ellison LIED when he swore under oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. This is how Muslims infiltrate countries, folks. He should never have been sworn into Congress….
In addition to the 3/5ths man apportionment clause in the constitution, the founders also realized that the slavery question would eventually need to be resolved.. Many wanted to abolish slavery to be consistent with our revolutionary rhetoric about “all men being created equal”. But, the slave owners had billions of dollars of capital tied up in their slaves. To counter the abolitionists’ efforts, the slaveholding states wanted some degree of certainty as to their economic future. As part of the constitution’s drafting, the federal government was restrained for twenty years from enacting any restriction on the importation of slaves, other than a per capita tariff. (The importation of slavery was then, in fact, banned in 1808.) The founders did their best to establish and guarantee an effective and permanent union, even in the face of the slavery issue. As politicians, they achieved agreement on what could be achieved at the time—union— and they kicked the can—slavery— down the road a bit—finally, after years of legislative compromise, ending in our Civil War, and the Reconstruction constitutional amendments.
Even Lincoln did not believe slaves could be freed by legislative decree. As a former Whig, he originally favored government compensation of the slave owners (essentially, using eminent domain) for being deprived of their “property”. (As a side note, British slaveholders in the British Caribbean islands were compensated. Slaves were thus liberated peacefully and without the necessity of civil war.)
Ellison’s and others’ profound error is to smugly impose present day sensibilities and enlightenment, and Farahkan’s racist dogma, upon the legal and moral sensibilities of people who lived two centuries ago.
Historians do not refer to the existence of our now oldest republic in the world as the American Solution. They, more accurately and realistically, call our great republic the American Experiment. Solutions are final, often failed, and sometimes apocalyptic. Experiments are tentative, fluid, and can be adjusted to meet the complex competing demands of the times.
Benjamin Franklin warned us that the founders gave us a republic—if we can keep it. Unfortunately, if Ellison’s understanding of the workings of our constitution is indicative of the norm, we will not be able to keep it.
God save our Republic.
Apparently Keith Ellison fails to have a problem with comprehending the US Constitution or he is illiterate. The 2nd reason is maybe he is just your run of the mill racist with a megaphone!
It has been a very long time since I studied algebra. Rather than thinking a slave in a slave-holding state was worth 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, the better way to look at it would be that a slave was considered a whole person, again for purposes of representation in Congress, but that persons living in non-slave-holding states were worth more than a whole person.
In corporate settings, one has common stock and preferred stock. Preferred stock, share for share, has more voting power–more oomph– than common stock in making important decisions about the corporation. By analogy, the 3/5ths measure for purposes of representation in Congress, in essence, gave more preferred stock to the non-slaveholding states—-the abolitionist states. Therefore, the slave-holders, and the slave-holding states held less legislative power in Congress.
A similar issue came up in the recent federal census, a decennial process used to determine apportionment of the fixed number of representatives in Congress. Were the census takers supposed to count only citizens? Or were the census takers supposed to count all residents—citizens and illegal aliens? For purposes of representation in Congress, illegal aliens should be counted as 0/5ths; citizens as 5/5ths. Does this call into question the humanity of citizens versus the humanity of illegal aliens? Of course not.
In the sight of God, citizens and illegal aliens today, and slaves after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and prior to the Reconstruction amendments after the Civil War, have equal humanity. This is the point so many on the left misunderstand. But then again, when you don’t believe in God or a religion, you will believe anything.
These are the people Congressman Ellison speaks to.
Quote from Rep. Keith Ellison at the recent Netroots Nation convention: “We all get better when we all get better.” To vilify someone for an instance of poor choice of words, especially in the distant past, or for failure to exactly and perfectly express an opinion that we find acceptable or agreeable, is not the behavior of an intelligent and civilized mind. Undoubtedly, racial discrimination was practiced at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, and it has been practiced even up to our present day by certain individuals and institutions. Of course, technically, according to the likes of such deep thinkers as Clarence Thomas (future ex-Supreme Court Justice, God willing and national conscience willing), it was not racial discrimination back then, it was slavery, which is not proscribed against in the U.S. Constitution, but in fact is LEGALLY permitted. And so it is that such perversions of logic flow facilely and smoothly off the lips of the Breitbarts and other Republican scoundrels of the world, including Mr. Thomas.