Keith Ellison: the Constitution is 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)

More here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Their” constitution, wow! All I can say is wow. And this guy is a member of the US House of Reps. Wow! Does anyone really think his views have changed since he wrote this, I don’t.

All I have to say, if he doesn’t like the Constitution then he can retire from being a Congressman and move out of the Nation. The issues of Race stemmed from various States refusing to give up Slavery in relation to the Bill of Rights which in origin had a paragraph abolishing Slavery but to prevent a division and early collapse of the Union had to gut that paragraph due to the Economic powerload the Slave Holder States had. Was it politically correct? No. But to claim the Constitution is the bedrock of the racist problem, this man shows his ignorance of what actual Document is at the core problem and the history of the constant struggles to Abolish Slavery since 1779 up to the breakout of the Civil War.

Well we can’t criticise him since he is black and a Democrat. Don’t they get invisible shields that ward off any sort of back lash or signs of reality.

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.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):
So, what is your version of an appropriate ”age of accountability?”
We sometimes try teenagers as adults when they murder people.
We allow 18-year olds to fight and die for the country.
We allow 18-year olds to vote.
He was 25 when he wrote those words.
What Hakim Mohammad X (or Keith Ellison) wrote was a defense of the Nation of Islam.

He had to distance himself from the NOI to run for office.
Put together his quotes above with his later statements like this:
I wrongly dismissed concerns that they [Farrakhan’s remarks] were anti-Semitic.
They were and are anti-Semitic
and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did.
He explained his previous views, saying that he, “did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed.”
“Candidate finds past ties a real bind”. Chicago Tribune. June 30, 2006. p. 7.,1,5656742.story?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed.

Sounds suspiciously similar to Obama’s 20 years sitting in the front pew while Wright spouted racism and anti-American hatred but claimed he never noticed any of it.

The 3/5 rule for the census means the opposite of what leftists usually claim it means. (Note that the wording says “slaves,” not blacks.) It was the result of Yankees pressing the slave holding states. The idea was, if you don’t give rights to slaves, then you can’t count them in the census. The census is the basis for assigning congressional seats and disbursement of Federal money. Yankee states pushed for slaves not being counted at all; 3/5 was a compromise. Still – the effect was, the more slaves in a state, the more Federal power and money it would cost the state. It was a penalty for slavery.

@Liberal1 (objectivity): The problem with that is the same as for Obama: they haven’t changed at all since their youths.