As I noted in December 2008, when it was first revealed that Ellison's Hajj was paid for with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society:
The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.
What does that have to do with Congressman Ellison? Everything. The Muslim American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood.
"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.
Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever heard about Ellison's Brotherhood-funded hajj.
Yet I am pretty much the only one calling attention to Ellison's having taken money from the Brotherhood. And so he duly smears me here in the Washington Post, saying that I am "well known, even famous, for spewing anti-Muslim hate," and likening me to David Duke. Well, first off, let's remember that David Duke is pro-jihad, as anyone who knows how viciously antisemitic and hateful the jihad ideology is will understand immediately. But also remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is a pro-Sharia group -- i.e., it opposes the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights before the law of women with men and non-Muslims with Muslims. I, on the other hand, am fighting to defend those rights against Islamic supremacists who would chip away at them. So who is really fronting for "hate," Congressman -- you or I? I'd say you.
An aside: several people have written to me asking why I was so quiet during the ABC "This Week" panel hosted by nakedly biased pseudo-journalist Christiane Amanpour. In fact, I wasn't: they taped two hours and only broadcast one, cutting out much of what I said. I also learned later that my microphone was off, such that I could be heard commenting in the background, being picked up faintly on other people's mics, but what I said was consequently too faint to be heard on the show itself. Par for the course for the mainstream media.
Oddly enough, Ellison is unhappy about the ABC show, even though it was a patent whitewash of the jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Should we fear Islam?," by Congressman Keith Ellison in the Washington Post, October 7:
At a time when our nation is seeing a rise in intolerant behavior, crossing every cultural line, whether based on race, religion or sexual orientation, we seem simultaneously stuck with a national news media that is preoccupied with conflict and controversy when we desperately need one that weighs facts and reports fairly. A recent national news program reinforced these concerns. Let me explain what I mean.
Imagine a respected TV show or news magazine article with the title, "Should Americans Fear Black People?"...
A nice dodge, but what race is Islam again?
Now replace black with Muslim, and that's just about how ABC News treated Islam and Muslims this past weekend, on 20/20 and This Week with Christiane Amanpour.
There were the obligatory clips of terrorist training camps, the planes flying into the twin towers, the victims of so-called 'honor killings.' The Muslim experts - looking officially 'Islamic' in their long beards and hats - included one declaring that one day the flag of Islam would fly over the White House. The non-Muslim experts - Robert Spencer (leading anti-Muslim advocate in the Park51 Project controversy), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (prolific anti-Muslim writer), and Franklin Graham (said Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion") - are well known, even famous, for spewing anti-Muslim hate. Of course, these characters emphatically agreed with the caricatures with long beards and white hats, repeating the propaganda that Islam requires its adherents to dominate people. Among the 'normal' Muslims interviewed were a woman in niqab (fewer than 1% of Muslim women in America wear the full face veil and accompanying robes), and Muslims in the Muslim 'hood', cities, like Dearborn, MI, and Patterson, NJ.
Do some Americans fear black people? For sure. But we don't validate those fears by allowing them to be expressed with fake innocence on respected news shows. Why are fears of Muslims validated by television airings?
Are there criminals in America who are African-American? Yes, again. But they're not presented as representative figures of the community by reputable news programs. Why do such shows go out of their way to find the scariest, most cartoonish Muslims possible and present them as spokespeople for Muslims?
No serious journalist would ask a random black guy with a briefcase on the street to explain the pathology of an African American criminal because of the coincidence of shared skin color. But serious journalists called on ordinary Muslim Americans to explain the behavior of homicidal maniacs and extremists, thereby making the link between the crazies and the mainstream community.
Are there people willing to offer all sorts of racist theories about black crime, from problems in black genes to deficiencies in black culture? Plenty. But the only time they show up on mainstream news shows are as examples of racism, not as experts on race.
We are having a national conversation about belonging. The threatened Qur'an burning in Florida and the controversy over the proposed Islamic Center in lower Manhattan are examples of this national conversation about whether America can stretch her arms wide enough to embrace Muslims too. Irresponsible and sensational depictions of Muslims in the popular media are not the cause of Islamophobia, but they certainly can make it worse. Recent news shows and media reports do nothing to shed light or understanding on this national conversation, which is too bad....
Neither is Ellison shedding any light on this important topic when he sidesteps the real issues of the spread or prevalence of the Islamic jihad ideology among Muslims in America, and of the increase in jihad attacks in the U.S. in 2009 and 2010. Whining about the media and "Islamophobia" is a familiar and tired dodge -- it's just more of the usual finger-pointing and evasion of responsibility.