[NYTr] Entertaining Deception: Town Hall Meeting with Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

An Entertaining Deception: Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison
Appears at August 8 "Peace & the Iraq War" Forum in Minneapolis

By Joan Malerich
August 13, 2007

Congressman Keith Ellison entertained the audience with an evening of
deception. He was long on praise for himself: his kindness in meeting
with the public, saying he was not concerned about losing people's
votes, his pretended readiness to respond to questions.  

Ellison billed himself as a Democrat when it served his purpose, but,
when the Democrats do something really bad, all of the sudden, he was
not accountable for them--only himself, as if he is some kind of
independent.  If he is not accountable to and for the Democratic Party,
then why not run on another party ticket?  Well, we know the answer.
He is not going to get the financial support on an independent ticket.  

I was partially prepared for this "no contest" town-hall meeting, as
the announcement I received stated: "They (the Anti-War Committee) have
been angry that Keith has voted for war funding. Nevertheless they want
to maintain a relationship with Keith in order to influence his
policies where they can...he will be an ally on some issues."  That was
a strong clue that no one was really going to confront Keith, the
"lesser evil."

I ask:  What candidate won't be an ally on some issues?  Even arch
conservative Ron Paul, who believes all health care should be
privatized and was a strong Ronald Reagan advocate, is an "ally on some
important issues," such as:  NOT signing the US Patriot Act (which
former, deceased MN Senator Paul Wellstone did sign), stopping NAFTA
and other related trade agreements that were put on steroids during the
Clinton administration, not voting to go to war against Iraq and
demanding bringing the troops home from Iraq, etc.  Just about any
candidate can be "an ally on some issues."  But, it seems, few to none
are an ally for an ideology of justice and peace. This "issue"
argument is a real cope out, in my opinion.  

Yet, I felt somewhat hopeful, as the announcement regarding the meeting
also mentioned that:

1.  His trip to Israel which is being sponsored by AIPAC.  He had
promised to go only with an independent group.

2.  His recent co-sponsoring of a successful resolution in the House
which condemned Iran and called on the UN to charge Ahmadinejad with
genocide -- based on misrepresentation of his (Ahmadinejad)  comments.
(See links below for what Ahmadinejad really said.)  

And, it was noted that:  "This was a real opportunity for REAL
anti-war activists to engage with our Democratic Party representative
who has broken his promises and disappointed those who want to end the
war NOW" (capitalized emphasis in the original). 

The question about Ahmadinejad/Iran was well articulated by Dave
Bicking, a member of the Green Party.  Though Ellison often commented
after a person gave his his/her question or made comments, Ellison did
not respond to Dave's question when asked during this portion of the
event. 

The Big Lie has been repeated so often that the truth bears some
repeating, too. What Ahmadinejad really said was NOT that Israel should
be "wiped off the face of the map." He referred to getting rid of
Zionist terrorist government.  Three of several sources that document
this, which Ellison should know, are:

1. "WIPED OFF THE MAP - The Rumor of the Century." by Arash Norouzi,
Jan. 18, 2007 http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/ and
reposted at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
among other sites.

2. "Lost in Translation" by Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 14, 2006
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html 

3. "Ahmadinejad: Lost in Translation," PeacePalestine, May 2, 2006 via
Today's Little Red Email
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/05/ahmadinejad-lost-in-translation.html


Ellison's planned trip to Israel under AIPAC  sponsorship was never
questioned during the questioning section of the event. 

Each person who wanted to ask a question was given two minutes.   The
event was packed with mostly those liberals (the word several used to
describe themselves) willing to concede to anything that was just not
Bush.   

My questions were: 

1. All the Dems had to do to stop the war was nothing.  If they
did not submit a bill, then Bush had no bill to consider; and, more
important, it stopped the funding of the war against Iraq and other wars
against  "terrorism." The Democrats had the majority, they could have
done this.  If the Republicans put forth a bill, then the Democrats
could filibuster it.  I also noted that I am very tired of the
Democrats saying they don't have enough Democrats in their majority.  I
said that the neo-cons and neo-liberals keep saying what "free" trade
needs to make it work is more free trade.  The Dems do the same
thing--saying we should vote for them as more Dems would make a
difference, would give them strength (and THEN they could do their
jobs). 

2.  I pointed out that Durbin and Edwards, both Democrats, were on
the Intelligence Committee, and they both knew that the WMD argument
was a lie; but they did not tell the public this.  I quoted Durbin:  "I
just sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated
debate about invading Iraq and thinking the American people are being
misled. They are not being told the truth."  Then, I made the point
that Durbin's, as well as Edwards', first responsibility is NOT to the
President of the US, is NOT to the Democratic Party but to the
Constitution of the US. See also Kevin Zeese's about Durbin and
Edwards here:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/durbin-gives-edwards-more-to-apologize-for/

3.  I made a very short comment about not understanding his support for
Nancy Pelosi. (Ellison, in a Pulse article dated April 18,
2007, titled "Keep Working with Me," said "...the Out of Iraq caucus
came together under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
successfully challenge Bush's war without end." The editor stated that
Ellison expressed confidence in her leadership.  (I think Ellison has a
different definition of success than I do and the Democrats pretend to
have.) The article also states that "Ellison countered that he had not
imagined that a funding bill would be tied to an anti-war vote."  Come
now, Ellison is an attorney who has served in the Minnesota
legislature.  One would think he would understand that funding is
attached to about every single thing the US Congress does. 

Ellison had no response to my question directly after I asked it, and
he seemed relieved for the next kinder, gentler person to take the
mike. 

I have concern for those questions that were not asked by the audience
or not answered by Ellison, especially regarding Palestine/Israel.
Palestine has been suffering for almost 50 years in the same way Iraq
has been suffering since our first invasion in 1991. Only differences
are: (1) It is the Zionists occupying and destroying Palestinian
life--made possible by the billions the US gives Israel each year.
(2)  There are not American soldiers dying in Palestine. (3)  The
mainstream media, owned by the corporations, has a definite bias in
favor of Israel and have not been forced to question the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, as they are now being forced to some extent to
question the US imperialist occupation of Iraq.  Questions that should
have been asked and that Ellison should have seen as important and
brought up himself regarding Palestine/Isreal are: 

1.  Does he support the six BILLION dollars the US gives Israel every
year?  Would he give Hamas even half of that amount?  Does he see
how the six billion gives the Zionists the power to destroy the
Palestinians? Why wouldn't he talk about the billions to Israel during
his campaign?  

2.  What about AIPAC sponsoring his next trip to Israel, when he
promised during his campaign that he would go only with an independent
trip? NOTE: When Ellison was asked about the AIPAC trip outside after
the meeting, his response was replete with double speak.  

3.  What does Ellison think of the Israeli Paper by Walt and
Mearsheimer and the AIPAC threats to stop funding at the universities
they represent, which forced Walt and Mearsheimer to having to turn to
another country to publish their findings?  I tried to ask Ellison this
question outside after the meeting, but he avoided it and turned his
attention to those who did not want to be seen as confrontational. 

OTHER QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED BY ELLISON OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUED AFTER ELLISON
SIDESWIPED THE TRUTH AND REALITY:

1. Ellison's co-sponsoring a successful resolution in the House which
condemned Iran and called on the UN to charge Ahmadinejad with
genocide--based on a misinterpretation of Ahmadinejad's comments.
Keith, from one side of his mouth, says he is against a war with Iran;
then, from the other side of his mouth, he supports a resolution to the
UN grounded in the emotionally laden word 'genocide.'  He is setting up
justification for going into Iran, while saying he is against it. This
illustrates his manipulative skills.  He is an artist of deception.
Ellison, I believe, is quite aware that the US owns the UN and seldom
fails in getting the UN to do exactly what it wants. 

2.  Regarding Democrats Durbin and Edwards who both knew the WMD claim
was a lie due to their being members of the Intelligence Committee. (see
above):  Because they did not inform the public and other Democrats of
the truth, the Democrats voted to go to war against Iraq.  Because
Durbin and Edwards did not speak out, the US public allowed fear to
take over their thinking and believed the US was justified  in
attacking Iraq.  This illegal and immoral war has resulted in the
killing of a million innocents, including children, the death of
thousands of US soldiers and the total destruction of a whole country.
Why didn't Ellison condemn Durbin and Edwards?  Why didn't he respond
when I asked the question? 

3.  Why was the billion-dollar military base (for propaganda purpose,
called an "embassy") in Iraq never discussed?  Does Ellison really
believe that the US is going to leave a billion-dollar war complex to
the Iraqis?  That would be naive, and I don't think Ellison is naive.
He is cunning and deceptive, not naive or stupid.  Stopping
military bases and/or closing them was mentioned, but nothing was said
about the billion-dollar monstrous imperialist base posing as an
embassy in Iraq was mentioned.  For more information on this military
base, aka "embassy," see
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/ 

Though the official cost is claimed as $592 million, the cost of
running it is over $1.2 billion a year. "Construction of the U.S.
embassy in Iraq, set to open in September, is projected to cost $592
million, with a staff of 1,000 people and operating costs totaling $1.2
billion a year. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301344_pf.html
It will be a 104-acre complex, which is the size of approximately 80
football fields."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm.

4.  Nothing was said about the corporate mercenaries, such as 
Blackwater, in Iraq. Even if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, will
this mean the withdrawal of the mercenaries? 

5.  Nothing was said about not sending the US troops to one of the
other imperialist wars if and when they are withdrawn from Iraq.  There
was no real focus on the imperialist war against "terrorism."  What
would Ellison do if returning US soldiers were deployed to a war
against Iran?  North Korea? Syria? Cuba or one of the multitude of
other US-defined "terrorist" countries?

What exactly will come out of "dialog" with Ellison or any other 
Democrat?  It is impossible to reason with deceivers.  What is more 
important -- stopping wars and saving innocent lives or "getting along 
with the enemy?"  Isn't it vital to ending wars that we stop allowing 
the public to be deceived by Democrats, especially the soft-left like 
Ellison?

The "progressives" seem to think that they can educate and change the 
"lesser evil."  I remember one of Ellison's lead campaigners saying to 
me that they would educate Ellison about Palestine AFTER he was 
elected.  This is as silly as those women who think they can change a 
man AFTER they marry him (or vice versa a man who thinks he can change
a woman after he marries her.) That seldom works.  Divorce is usually
the result.  And, divorce from Keith should be strongly considered.

Remember Paul Wellstone, the "progressive" Minnesota senator who 
strongly supported the six billion dollars a year to Israel to kill 
Palestinian children?  The Wellstone who voted for the USA Patriot Act? 
The one who was first against the Defense of Marriage Act and then 
changed his mind?  The Democrats, the "progressives" and most of the 
Greens could not stop supporting and voting for this "lesser evil" 
deceiver.  They even made this deceiver into a hero.  This is like 
giving the "lesser evil" a free pass to commit terrorism.  Over the 
decades it has been proven that not confronting the "lesser" evil is 
what has allowed the Democrats to continue wars and so easily to
deceive the public. The reality is that when one votes for a Democrat,
one is simply voting for the moneyed interests.  

When people say that Wellstone was one of the most progressive senators
this country had, my response is:  Yes, that is true.  And, that IS the
problem. When someone like Wellstone and Ellison are THE most
progressive, that certainly does not leave much hope but it certainly
does show what patsies the US progressive pubic is.  And, then, these
same people wonder why we are NOT out of Iraq?

Ellison stated at one point, "Trust me."  If someone is doing the right
thing and keeping his/her promises, then one does not have to ask to be
trusted.  His actions show he/she can be trusted.  Ellison's actions
have not shown he can be trusted.

I strongly suggest the "progressive" "anti-war" public read two books.  

(1)  Mumia Abu Jamal's "We Want Freedom:  A Life in the Black Panther 
Party."  Mumia very aptly points out how compromise does not work and 
how Martin Luther King, Jr. fell into the compromise trap.  Mumia
clearly shows what it takes to make a revolutionary anti-imperialist
movement and what it takes for a such a movement to be taken down
(Note:  The Black Panthers were number 1 on the COINTELPRO list)  

(2) Armando Hart's "Aldabonazo: Inside the Cuban Revolutionary
Underground: 1952-58." 

I think it would be wise to read these books, rather than going to 
meeting after meeting, as these books teach strategy.  And, that 
strategy does NOT include searching high and low to find something
about which to praise the enemy that IS responsible for murdering
little children and their parents, for destroying their homes and their
country, for stealing their natural resources.  

Over and over I hear elaborate explanations of why Cuba won
its revolution. The truth -- that Fidel refused to compromise with the
enemy (including the lesser-evil opposition to Batista) and
that he was a great strategist -- are usually overlooked. It seems that
the US Americans just cannot accept the fact that their country failed
while this little third-world island nation succeeded and continues to
deepen their revolution in motion, even when the murderous blockade was
strengthened to economically strangle Cuba.  

In William Blum's excellent book, "Killing Hope:  US Military and CIA
Interventions Since WW II," he discusses about 50 countries, devoting a
chapter to each. Of the 50 countries, the only one that survived US
imperialism was Cuba.  The chapter on Cuba is called: "The Unforgivable
Revolution." For those interested in seeing how Cuba fought the
revolution of the "special period" (after the Soviet Union fell), they
should check out the extraordinary documentary, "The Power of
Community:  How Cuba Survived Peak Oil." 

This town-hall event with Ellison clarified for me that the reason we 
will never get out of war is because the Democrats, the "progressives" 
and too many of the Greens are too willing to support the lesser evil 
and do not want to be seen as "unreasonable" nor "confrontational."
One of the reasons, I assume, is because those who want to run for
local offices do not want to lose the vote of the Democrats and third
parties do not want to lose the membership of those Democrats who
infiltrated their parties. Thus, "compromise," no matter how awful and
humiliating, becomes the operative tactic.