Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

[Ed Hudgins]

Where to start?

First, this guy is a Muslim convert. Most individuals stick with the religions in which their families indoctrinated them so you can cut such individuals some slack. But this convert to the especially irrational mess that is Islam is already known to be weak-minded if not profound irrationality.

Second, since so many Muslims actually liked Hitler and since Hilter influenced the Baath movement among others, perhaps Ellison should be tipping his hat to Bush for his choice of political role models!

Third, just as an historical point, most scholarship now suggests that the Nazis did not start the Reichstag fire though they certainly exploited it to the hilt with the Enabling Acts. I'm no fan of aspects of the Patriot Act nor the Bush administration's phone call monitoring without some sort of judicial oversight. But Ellison pushes such concerns too far on this one.

Fourth, atheists are going to acquire an even worse reputation than they already have by inviting a guy like this to speak. I haven't looked at their website closely but I suspect this is a left-leaning atheist group.

Ed

--------

Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

By Toby Harnden in Washington

Last Updated: 3:32pm BST 16/07/2007

(Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November)

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."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

------------

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright[[/A>

[Kevin Haggerty]

Ed,

Is it at all relevent that Ellison was comparing the uses to which Hilter put the Reichstag burning, to the uses our present administration put 9/11? Surely, the comparison to Hitler is inflamatory, but the headline "Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress" is every bit as inflamatory if you try to bury the specific context of the comparison. Is there another Leader in recent history who used a terrorist attack to justify a war of aggression to whom Bush could more sensibly be compared? It seems to me that the Bush administration's own questionable actions have invited such unsavory comparisons, whether or not history proves such comparisons justified in the end.

And complaining that because Ellison is Muslim he should be applauding a Hitler-like President, facetious as you may be, nonetheless supports the stereotype that all Muslims, at all times in history, think exactly alike and get their marching orders from "Muslim High Command." Yeah, and JFK got his orders from the Pope. Seems to me, from what you've posted, Ellison's loyalties are ethnic rather than religious and that what he's saying wouldn't even show up on your radar if he weren't a Muslim. All kinds of non-Muslims have compared Bush to Hitler, with far less context than Ellison here supplies.

-Kevin

[Wolf DeVoon]

Well put Mr. Haggerty. Thank you.

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This article seems to be tailor cut to conservative fundamentalist Christians. I see the following buzz-words all thrown together in a very small space:

atheist

Nation of Islam

Muslim

Hitler

Nazi

Reichstag

Communist

Democrat

anti-war supporters

immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

Osama bin Laden

September 11 attacks

9/11

moral outrage

And just to make sure that the readers understood that both Muslims and atheists are two sides to the same Godless coin, there is the following quote:

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

I ain't against facts, especially anti-Islamist facts, but this article is a good example of needlessly biased reporting. Whatever happened to "Who What When Where Why and How" as the basic standard of journalism? For example:

Who: 1. "America's first Muslim congressman," "Keith Ellison," "a convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam" and "an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq"

2. an "audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights"

What: A presumed lecture at "a gathering of atheists"

When: Not given, but presumably yesterday or today

Where: [somewhere in] Minnesota

Why: The reason or topic of the lecture is not given.

How: Presumably live in an auditorium or meeting hall or outdoors or in a night club or at a school basketball game or in a mosque or whatever.

Ed, I love you, but this is not good journalism.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; I normally agree with you but Ed is correct on this issue. Ellison makes my skin crawl.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I am not defending Ellison. I am criticizing the quality of Toby Harnden's work. Isn't there something else out there more competently written? That piece would be enough to get any rookie reporter fired.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anybody wants the link to the original article, I caught it on Drudge:

Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

By Toby Harnden in Washington

July 16, 2007

Telegraph

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

How I wish people would stop pussyfooting about the so-called "moderate" Muslims! In my view, the people who elected this man were nuts -- or worse. And he has done a great disservice to actual moderate Muslims.

What on earth does it matter if loaded words were used in exposing him? He said this:

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. 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."

What more do we need to know?

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

In principle, I am against using yellow journalism for serious causes. It is the same thing as handing a loaded gun to the enemy and say, "Go on and shoot."

I will look for that quote from a more responsible source later. I don't trust this reporter to get it right.

I like yellow journalism to read about gossip. I think that is what the public impression of it is.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a much better link (and it is still conservative) from someone who actually talked to Ellison:

Keith Ellison Goes Overboard

By Katherine Kersten

July 12, 2007

Real Clear Politics

I do think Ellisons's statement insinuating that 9/11 was like the Reichstag fire was an exercise in idiocy. Kersten's reporting is much more profession to my kind of mind. Here is what she said (from the article):

On Tuesday, Ellison told me that he invoked the Reichstag fire to make the point that "in the aftermath of a tragedy, space is opened up for governments to take action that they could not have achieved before that." Which of the Bush administration's post-9/11 actions did he place in that category? The Iraq war, Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence and certain provisions of the Patriot Act, he said.

Those seem a tad short of unleashing storm troopers, torturing political opponents and demolishing the rule of law.

During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the atheists that "I'm not saying [sept. 11] was a [u.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Granted, such statements might get you dismissed as a nutball. But are they true?

Ellison now says they are not. When we spoke, he agreed that Osama bin Laden -- not the Bush administration -- was responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

But why didn't he do the responsible thing and say that when asked about it at the atheists' meeting?

Why indeed? That's a fair question. Congressman Ellison should answer it.

I'll try to find more later. (The blogs are certainly humming.)

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

It’s legitimate to ask whether the American invasion of Iraq was in our security interest. And it’s right to criticize the Bush administration for an incompetent job after the initial victory over the Iraqi military. And as I said, there are legitimate concerns with the Patriot Act and other such measures. See my “Policing Phone Calls.” http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-16...hone_Calls.aspx

But Saddam’s government, whose Baath Party can trace its ideological origins to Nazi Germany, was cruel, brutal and with no moral legitimacy; any party would be morally just to overthrow the regime and try to replace it with something closer to a free society.

Comparing the Bush administration to Hitler's or Saddam’s regimes is the same sort of moral equivalence as comparing the United States to the Communist Soviet Union during the Cold War, that is, a rejection of moral standards and measurements.

Islamo-fascists are the greatest international danger to peace and prosperity. They're faith-based fanatics perhaps even more dangerous ideologically than the communists, who at least claimed to seek economic prosperity. See my piece on “The Means and Ends of Islamists.” http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-13...mmentaries.aspx

There are all too few Muslims—fortunately, I know some—who emphasize the need for their co-religionists to reject such radicalism or, better still, embrace the Enlightenment and become secular. This should be Job One for decent Muslims. See my piece on “Allah Bless America.” http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...amp;printer=Tru

Also see “The Pope vs. Islam.” http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1767...for_Reason.aspx

Ellison chose his religion. If he spent all his time denouncing Muslims worldwide who put out fatwas on Danish cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, innocent comments by the Pope, who rally and riot in the streets of Europe by the tens of thousands and generally act like savages, calling for the deaths of those who offend their offensive bigotry, I’d be impressed. But when I see this sort of speech, despite my problems with Bush, I know Ellison is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Robert Campbell]

Ed,

As far as I'm concerned, Congressman Ellison wouldn't have to spend all of his time publicly blasting Islamic imperialists and zealots who aim to spread their religion through force of arms.

But some of his time would be nice. His statements would carry a little weight with the Islamic public.

I'm curious whether Ellison has ever stated his reasons for leaving the Nation of Islam. Louis Farrakhan split off from Warith Deen Muhammad's sect because he wanted to restore the "good old" racist theology once preached by Warith Deen's father Elijah Muhammad.

However the rest of this may be, the Reichstag fire analogy is preposterous. USA PATRIOT is a collection of bad (in some cases, extremely bad) laws passed by a Congress whose members voted on it without reading it. And the whole apparatus of detention dreamed up by the Dubya administration is nasty nasty stuff. Still, Dubya responded to 9/11 with USA PATRIOT and Gitmo. What did Franklin Delano Roosevelt respond to Pearl Harbor with? Among other things, the incarceration of every person of Japanese extraction who happened to be residing in the Continental United States. I guess the roundup of nearly every inhabitant of Dearborn, Michigan, has taken place without any notice on paper, over the airwaves, or out in the blogosphere .

As for 9/11 giving Bush Jr. an excuse to commute Scooter Libby's sentence... Did Gerry Ford need the Vietnam War as an excuse to pardon Richard Nixon? And what state of war did Bill Clinton take advantage of when he pardoned Marc Rich?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I don't know all that much about Ellison, just a few things from the newspapers. That is why I was upset with the piss-poor journalism. It did not inform me. It tried to influence me with typical smear-type rhetoric. (Lord knows I have seen enough of that kind of crap in Brazil, so my antenna wiggled.)

From what little I have read, Ellison's record does not seem all that bad and he is mostly criticized for guilt by association, not for anything he has actually done. Usually it takes the form of something like "Ellison received support from CAIR and some of the directors of CAIR are [several flavors of Islamists or terrorist supporters] and he did not denounce them."

His statements that were just reported were horrible, though. I see room for several possibilities for this, and two in particular: (1) Ellison being just plain dumb or (2) starting to float ideas to see what takes. I don't know enough about him to judge correctly.

So I have a question, and it is not a leading question. I am truly curious. Do you believe or suspect that Ellison supports fundamentalist Islamism?

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, I don't see any yellow journalism in the report Ed posted about Ellison. Rather. it is the report you liked that is deficient, in that it failed to quote some of Ellison's most outrageous statements.

You listed what you termed "buzz words" in the article, as follows:

Nation of Islam

Muslim

Hitler

Nazi

Reichstag

Communist

Democrat

anti-war supporters

immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

Osama bin Laden

September 11 attacks

9/11

moral outrage

How can one responsibly report on a Muslim Democratic congressman likening Bush to Hitler and 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, without using such words? If these are buzz words, every discussion on Objectivist Living -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- of the war, of terrorism, of the administration, of 9/11. etc., is similarly filled with buzz words and is thus yellow journalism. If you'e discussing these issues, you use these words.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

It's the short space for so many of those words, the way the words are used and the lack of objective journalistic information. (I mentioned the first year journalism standard that this guy flunked in his propaganda piece.)

Or was this guy reporting only about one phrase floating about and nothing else? I thought he was reporting on a speech by a Congressman.

He uses a smear style, not journalism. I thought The Telegraph was a decent newspaper. Imagine Jerry Falwell reading that to his congregation and you might see what I mean. It was formatted for that kind of mentality. They wouldn't care about Who What When Where Why and How. They would get off on the hatred and fear.

I already linked to a more responsible journalist (Katherine Kersten) who managed to express her disapproval with some professional quality. I don't want to read anything else by that guy Toby Harnden. Going by this article, he's a hack of the worst kind. This kind of man will lose arguments one after another big time and then create some kind of scandal by being caught short with low professional standards. I would bet money that this is in his near future if he continues like that.

Is that the quality of reporter you want on your side? I don't. I would give him to the Islamists in a heartbeat because over there (reporting for them), he would do some good over here.

I strongly believe one does not combat injustice, lies, smears, etc. with more of the same. One fights them with the objective truth. The truth is horrible enough. Why smear on top of it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just looked up Toby Harnden to make sure of what I said. Calling him a hack was unfair and I wish to retract that. He seems to be a very good reporter, widely traveled, knowledgeable about the Middle East, and the things I skimmed were not wanting professionally.

I still think he wrote a piece of crap with this article, though. What a first impression!

(Actually, I probably already have read things by him, but not noticed his name.)

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I don't know much about Keith Ellison either; so this is just speculation.

Ellison could be a genuine hard Left type whose primary motive is to stick it to The Man. In the African American community converting to Islam has been seen as one way to do that. Obviously, actual converts have a wide variety of motives, and some adopt entirely non-militant versions of the religion--but Ellison hung out with the Nation of Islam for a time. His militancy could be more racial than religious.

It would be interesting to know, for instance, whether Ellison has ever endorsed the conspiratorial account of the origins of AIDS.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

What sect of Islam is Ellison currently associated with? What is his response to the critism of people from CAIR he associates with? Michael; Wasn't it Ellison who compared 9-11 to the Reichstag fire?

[Ed Hudgins]

Robert-- I don't know why Ellison left the Nation of Islam--certainly one of the worst of the worst groups in terms of ideology. It's certainly worth researching.

Michael -- Do I think Ellison supports fundamentalist Islam? I give him the benefit of the doubt and say "No." But it is legitimate to be suspicious of Muslims in general. In the U.S. what we have not seen is massive rallys of Muslims in support of tolerance. (David Kelley did speak at a smaller rally in DC of a Muslim group opposed to terrorism a few years ago.) But on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. there was a huge conference at the Finsbury Mosque in London in favor of and a celebration of the attacks.

One can ask whether Muslims, if they find themselves in the majority, would push for a religious tyranny? We know that Catholics and other Christians supported religious freedom only when they did not have power to inflict their views on others via political power and thus feared repression. Unfortunately, Muslims did not have a Renaissance or Enlightenment as in the West, which involved freer thought and such secular pursuits as knowledge and beauty. (It's been a millennium since the height of Islamic civilization.)

By the way, I am pleased that, if the reporting is correct, Ellison says he supports the right of atheists to be atheists. I have yet to hear such talk from most Republicans or see them speak before an audience of non-believers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

Thank you for your response. As I understand it, Ellison should be held accountable for making some pretty awful statements in public (which he is reported by Kersten as mellowing on in private), but not yet any concrete indication that he has wished for the overthrow of the US Government or supports a fundamentalist Islamist regime, i.e., treason. Given the nature of his statements, I believe this warrants keeping an eye on him, but not much else at this point. He is still an honorable and duly elected member of the USA Congress.

I want to make something clear on my position on all this. My concern is with being rational and actually solving the problems. I have observed in all my reading that when bigotry (which is a correct description of fundamentalist Islamism) is met with bigotry, no solution is ever achieved. Sometimes conquest is made, but the bigotry haunts the civilization of victors and never gives them peace.

I realize that I am seen as somewhat of a sympathizer of Muslims, but that is misleading. If I were on a leftist-type or pro-Islam-type site where antisemitism was constantly presented, I would be holding them to the same standard of objectivity—while looking for education on the Jewish culture—as I do here on OL with the Muslim culture, and I would probably be seen as a Zionist.

Am I pro-Jew or pro-Muslim? False dichotomy for an Objectivist. I am pro-reason.

I also have another personal issue that prohibits me from joining any anti-Muslim bandwagon that exceeds the facts (if I ever were of a bent to allow myself to be seduced by oversimplification). I am estranged from my two children, Roark and Ragnar, but they grew up in Brazil without me in a household that was part Muslim and part Catholic. If I had thought that they would be indoctrinated into an evil akin to Nazism, I would not have left them there. Everything I observed over 5 years living in that culture told me that this was not the case, that these were normal people just like everybody else. I had personal issues with specific individuals and some strong cultural differences, but they were not good/evil kinds of differences.

So I must be rigid in being fair to Muslims, attributing the bad things to the bad guys and not oversimplifying with undue collective judgments. Otherwise, I run the risk of possibly being bigoted against my own sons. We are estranged, but I cannot do that.

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael -- One of my talks at the Summer Seminar was on "The Anatomy of Belief." I didn't just denounce irrationality but tried to describe patterns that keep individuals from seeing the truth. These insights were not meant to exempt individuals from responsibiliy for their actions but to help us understand and thus more effectively deal with irrationality.

By the way, Robert Campbell is probably familiar with one of the books I cite: Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer.

[Robert Campbell]

Ed,

I certainly am familiar with Boyer's book. I assigned it in my undergraduate Moral Development course, the last time I taught it.

I have some theoretical disagreements with the type of "massively modular" evolutionary psychology that Boyer is into, but was quite pleased with the book as a whole and heartily recommend it.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I am sorry I missed your talk. I like your thinking.

Would you mind giving a small summary of the patterns? This interests me since my gut is telling me that this is in the direction of making a tool of persuasion instead of the standard religion-bashing (with some lip service to irrationality-bashing) I usually see on Objectivist sites.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ed's talk was excellent! I want to relisten to it again. I have found that being called mindless turns me off.