Courtesy, of course, of our "allies" the Saudis.

Jeddah, Jun. 26, 2006 (CNA) - Two Ethiopian and two Eritrean Christians have been arrested and incarcerated in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for conducting prayers in their home.

The Compass Direct news agency reported that the religious police, called Muttawa, armed with wooden clubs, broke into a private residence in Jeddah two weeks ago and arrested the four Christians - the four remain in prison.

More than 100 Eritrean, Ethiopian and Filipino Christians were gathered in the house when the Muttawa arrested the four group leaders: Mekbeb Telahun, Fekre Gebremedhin, Dawit Uqbay and Masai Wendewesen. The few Christians in Saudi Arabia are mostly migrant workers.

The government of Saudi Arabia forbids the practice of any religion other than the fundamentalist Wahhabite version of Islam. It prohibits building places of worship, churches, or chapels. Any public expressions of faith, such as carrying a Bible, a crucifix, or rosary beads, and praying in public are forbidden.

Given the history of Islamic terror in this country and elsewhere, I think we have more to fear from granting Muslims rights in our country than the Saudis do granting Christians such freedom. Yet somehow our Muslims never get around to demanding that their brothers in faith give Christians the same sort of respect that they get here in the Christian West.

Their silence is deafening.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve seen a lot of dumb editorials in a lot of newspapers over the years – but this one in today’s Houston Chronicle has to be among the worst.

JOLTING the leadership of their own party, Texas Republicans in the U.S. House helped block a vote on renewing a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Though the White House, leaders of both parties and a Republican-led committee all supported the bill, the Texans claimed it wrongly singled out this state and was, in any case, unneeded.

The Texans were half right.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, much of which is permanent, choked off the Jim Crow laws that kept minorities from voting.

So to clarify, the refusal to renew this “key section” of the Voting Rights Act does not eliminate the law itself, simply one section that its authors intended to end in 1970 – and which did not, in its original form, even include Texas as a state requiring preclearance. Only with the addition of non-English ballots in 1975 did the measure include Texas among the states with a preclearance requirement. Indeed, calling this a "key provision" is nonsense, given the sunset provision.

Section 5, which is up for renewal, made states with histories of voter discrimination get federal "preclearance" for any changes in their voting law. Texas is one of those states.

There was good reason to subject Texas to federal review. Civil rights lawyers would wrestle down one assault on rights — a poll tax, or a literacy rule, or a morals test — only to see Dixiecrats dream up a new one.

In other words, we are subject to this requirement because the Democrats were out to keep minorities from voting. Given that Texans have grown up politically and expelled the Democrats from most positions of governmental authority, it seems like we have made good progress to eliminating the source of the discrimination. Texas has, dare I say it, decisively moved away from its history of racial intolerance by rejecting the party of slavery segregation, and vote suppression and embraced the party of emancipation, enfranchisement, and equality.

Section 5 switched the burden of defending voter rights from civil rights workers to the federal government. Today, the rule is especially useful at the local level, where council members and others might not be sensitive to a law or procedure that would have an adverse impact on racial minorities.

Would you care to offer some examples?

When the Voting Rights Act was passed, it was easy to spot attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. Most took place in the South. In recent years, though, attacks on voter rights and access to polling places have erupted all over the map. In the last presidential election, some of the most egregious violations occurred in Florida and Ohio — states largely exempt from Section 5.

Actually, nobody had documented even a single attempt to disenfranchise minority voters in Florida, for all the heated rhetoric to the contrary. And in Ohio, black voters voted at a higher rate than white voters during the 2004 presidential election.

In an ideal world, the proposal of some Texas Republicans would indeed be law. The preclearance rule would apply to everyone. In reality, as the Texas delegation well knows, any such amendment to the Voting Rights Act would be a poison pill and prevent renewal.

States now exempt from Section 5 would furiously resist any attempt to rope them in, and administering universal application would be nearly impossible.

In other words, equal protection of the law for every citizen of every state is an unrealistic goal, and therefore it is wrong for Republicans to demand it. It is even wrong to suggest that data from the 2004 election be used to determine which states need special scrutiny – we need to continue using data almost as old as I am from the 1964 presidential election, because other states will object to changes that might subject their practices to scrutiny. Rather than attacking courageous Texas Republicans for standing on solid principle, you should be chiding those who refuse to embrace the proposed change out or political self-interest. But that would mean venturing away from the "Democrat good, Republican bad" meme that often colors the Chronicle's editorial (and nesw) pages.

The Texas lawmakers' second argument, unlike the first, is indefensible:

"I don't think we have racial bias in Texas anymore," asserts the optimistic U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock. Really? The controversial redistricting of Texas congressional districts (deemed objectionable by the Justice Department's career lawyers) and recent attempts by the Legislature to require voter IDs suggest otherwise.

Yes, the careerists found the plan objectionable – but the courts did not. Furthermore, the major criticism of the plan has always been that its goal was partisan advantage, not racial discrimination. In fact, it created more majority-minority districts that existed under the previous plan imposed by a federal court -- so it is the Democrats that are seeking the sort of retrogression that the Voting Rights Act is meant to prevent.

If Carter and his like-minded colleagues think Texas has outgrown the need for voter protection, there's a good way to get out of Section 5 coverage. Embedded in the Voting Rights Act is a measure that lets states prove they no longer deserve preclearance. Texas has never tried to make that case.

Unfortunately, the provision asks that states prove a negative. That is, of course, impossible – rather like asking you to prove that you do not still beat your wife or abuse your children. The use of newer data (say from 2000 and 2004) rather than the 42-year–old data from the 1964 Johnson/Goldwater presidential contest would indicate where real problems with racial disparities exist today, rather than the current system which continually seeks to exorcise the ghosts of elections past. The newer data would decisively prove whether or not a problem exists.

House Republicans say they want to maximize justice in Texas. If they dropped their attack on the Voting Rights Act and worked to show Texas no longer discriminates, they would achieve their goal. Minority voters would continue to be protected by federal oversight — until the state provides the welcome proof that federal oversight is unneeded.

Dead wrong – let’s instead allow the wisdom of the law's authors to prevail and permit Section 5 to expire as they intended. Either that, or re-write it so that it covers every state, or at least the states with demonstrable current disparities. To do otherwise is foolish symbolism which fails to adequately protect the rights of any American.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1107 words, total size 7 kb.

Bravo for those who are delaying the renewal of parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which were originally intended to expire in 1970. Why do I say this? Because they discriminate against a few states and localities.

House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight, according to their joint statement.

"We have time to address their concerns," Republican leaders said in a joint statement. "Therefore, the House Republican Leadership will offer members the time needed to evaluate the legislation."

It was unclear whether the legislation would come up this year. The temporary provisions don't expire until 2007, but leaders of both parties had hoped to pass the act and use it to further their prospects in the fall's midterm elections.
The statement said the GOP leaders are committed to renewing the law "as soon as possible."

There are two special areas of concern among those who question the blind renewal of the four-decade old provisions -- pre-clearance requirements for election changes in nine states, and non-English ballots.

The most important element appears to be the pre-clearance question.

Several Republicans, led by [Rep. Lynn] Westmoreland, had worked to allow an amendment that would ease a requirement that nine states win permission from the Justice Department or a federal judge to change their voting rules.

The amendment's backers say the requirement unfairly singles out and holds accountable nine states that practiced racist voting policies decades ago, based on 1964 voter turnout data: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Westmoreland says the formula for deciding which states are subject to such "pre-clearance" should be updated every four years and be based on voter turnout in the most recent three elections.

"The pre-clearance portions of the Voting Rights Act should apply to all states, or no states," Westmoreland said. "Singling out certain states for special scrutiny no longer makes sense."

No one disputes that there were voting problems in these states in 1964. The historical record is clear. But the very Congress that passed this law in 1965 did so with a sunset provision for pre-clearance that eliminated it in 1970. The provision was allowed to lapse by Jimmy Carter and a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1980, only to be revived under the GOP two years later. But the time has come to do one of two things -- either expand the scope of the pre-clearance provision to include all 50 states or eliminate it completely as the law's authors intended. Rep. Westmoreland's proposal is, if anything, a weak fall-back position -- though it would at least end the use of data which, when the provision is next up for renewal, will be 68 years old. After all, as matters no stand, a change in election law that would be beyond question in Massachusetts could be treated as a violation of the Voting Rights Act in Texas.

As for the language requirements, those who fail to become proficient in English have chosen to exclude themselves from the civic life of this country. Surveys have shown that most Americans do not support providing ballots in languages other than English. The renewal bill, on the other hand, would continue the mandate.

The other big issue centered on requirements that certain jurisdictions offer bilingual ballots and language assistance to citizens whose English lags. But Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King and other lawmakers who oppose the bilingual rules were not going to have a chance to offer amendments.

King said in a statement it was irresponsible to "institutionalize multilingual voting for the next 25 years." He said bilingual voting, which was not part of the original voting rights bill but was added a decade later, drives "a wedge between cultures."

In other words, the House Leadership was out to silence those who would dissent on this provision that also helps illegal aliens vote illegally. While I do not find this provision to be nearly so odious as the pre-clearance provision, I would prefer to see it eliminated after having experienced the wasted time, money and manpower that goes into providing assistance to a mere handful of voters in most polling places during my years as an election judge (I must have Vietnamese material in my precinct, but have only had one person need it in the last five years -- an have had fewer than 10 voters need my Spanish-language clerk in that time).

Oh, and by the way -- the major case currently underway regarding language issues regards practices in Boston.

Now please realize that the failure to renew these provisions does not repeal anyone's right to vote. it does not even result in the elimination of the Voting Rights Act -- it simply allows the end of a couple of provisions that the law's authors never intended to be in force this long.

Previously:
Do Not Renew Voting Rights Act Provisions
Voting Rights Don't Expire In 2007 -- Or Ever

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, Dumb Ox, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 872 words, total size 7 kb.

Some folks want to find racism in everything.

It's right there, under "Extreme Hairstyles," in the 2006 seasonal handbook for Six Flags America employees: no dreadlocks, tails, partially shaved heads "or any hairstyle that detracts or takes away from Six Flags theming."

Braids "must be in neat, even rows and without beads or other ornaments," the amusement park handbook advises.

That prompted Tim Bivins, 18, who has worked at Six Flags America in Largo for two years, to cut several inches off his hair this spring and pay $50 to have it braided into cornrows. Not good enough, he was told. Cut the braids shorter or go home.

* * *

Femi Manners and her 16-year-old son, Shakir, agreed that he would not change his hair: short cornrows with a small design braided in. Instead, she contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which is investigating complaints from more than a dozen black employees of Six Flags America.

The complaint is the latest in recent years alleging that private companies or government agencies are violating civil rights with restrictions on ethnic and Africa-inspired hairstyles and beards.

"This is culturally very, very insensitive and possibly discrimination," said King Downing, coordinator of the ACLU's national campaign against racial profiling. "The question is, how long do we have to keep going around and around with this when it comes to people of African descent and the natural style of the hair that they wear?"

This code was in place when I worked for Six Flags Great America -- over 20 years ago. It is not about race, it is not about ethnicity -- it is about fitting with the THEME of the THEME park. In the park where I worked, there was a New Orleans themed area, a Yukon Gold Rush themed area, an early 1900s town square themed area. We had to be prepared to fit with any one of those areas -- and had I done my hair like the lead singer of "Flock of Seagulls I would have been out of place in every single one of them. As it was, I had to cut my hair, worn a bit onthe ong side with sideburns to the jaw, in order to meet the grooming standards.

So to the folks complaining, I say "Get a haircut, kid."

Or get a new job where your employer doesn't give a damn that you look like a freak.

Posted by: Greg at 08:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 2 kb.

A police report has been filed by Jennifer Gratz, Executive Director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, alleging she was threatened by a leader of By Any Means Necessary, a pro-racial discrimination organization opposing the MCRI.

An official with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which is pushing for an end to race-based affirmative action policies, has accused a member of an opposition group of threatening her with a knife.

MCRI Executive Director Jennifer Gratz on Tuesday filed a report with the Detroit Police accusing Luke Massie, national chairman of the activist group By Any Means Necessary, of displaying the knife during a confrontation. She said the incident happened Monday morning outside of a Michigan Civil Rights Commission meeting in the State building on West Grand Boulevard.

Massie contends it didn't happen at all.

"I won't be intimidated," Gratz said today. "It was a clear attempt to threaten and intimidate."

The initial police report, which has been assigned to an investigator, says Gratz told officers Massie had a knife in his right pants pocket and toyed with it, said Detroit Police Sgt. Omar Feliciano.

Gratz said Massie pulled the knife halfway out of his pants but did not draw its blade.

In light of the history of violence by BAMN in an attempt to prevent the people of Michigan from grafting elements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act into the Michigan Constitution, it strikes me that the charge is probably well-founded.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

This column certainly should open some eyes about the “low Negro tolerance” of the Democrat Party in Michigan.

Some Democrats in Michigan have a distorted view of affirmative action. It's one thing to advocate giving minorities an opportunity. It's another thing to actually practice it.

Just recently some hard-core members of the party told me that any opposition to Gov. Jennifer Granholm in November is also a vote for the anti-affirmative action ballot measure known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

In other words, Democrats are the only people who support equal rights for people of color in Michigan. I don't think so.

I mean, let’s look at the Michigan Democrats, aside from a few black officials from safe districts.

The Democratic Party is probably the biggest hypocrite when it comes to giving African-Americans opportunities to develop politically.

Let's look at its track record in Michigan. When Granholm came into office, she tried to appoint Melvin Butch Hollowell as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Michigan. Guess what? Mark Brewer, backed by the United Auto Workers, refused to step aside. Hollowell was given a title of co-chair with no power. Brewer controlled the finances and all of the hirings.

How many African-Americans and other people of color hold positions of power in the Michigan Democratic Party? How many black consultant firms has Brewer hired? I am not talking about subcontracting jobs. When was the last time we've seen a black campaign manager managing a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Michigan? Never.

What's makes Granholm campaign manager Howard Edelson qualified for the job? I know at least five African-American political strategists who have more experience and are more battle-tested. They weren't even consulted or asked to apply. What job do blacks occupy every election for the Democratic Party? Let me see. Hmmmm, field coordinator.

A few months ago, a well-known African-American Democrat asked the governor about the attorney general position. She told him to run for secretary of state. Is that the only statewide position that blacks can run for as a Democrat? Until African-American voters break the cycle of dependency, we will continue to be an afterthought.

It is the Democrats who gladly let blacks onto the lowest rung of the ladder – and then keep them there. But when well-qualified black conservatives are raised tohigh office by Republicans, we ehar about tokenism and how such folks are not “really” black – and the term “Uncle Tom” gets trotted out soon afterward.

Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans were responsible for the passage of most civil rights legislation in this country’s history. And Republicans continue to seek to put forward well-qualified African –American candidates for office, while Democrats play Jim Crow games.

So would someone explain to me why the party that has always promoted slavery, segregation, and racial division is seen as the friend of African Americans?

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

This column certainly should open some eyes about the “low Negro tolerance” of the Democrat Party in Michigan.

Some Democrats in Michigan have a distorted view of affirmative action. It's one thing to advocate giving minorities an opportunity. It's another thing to actually practice it.

Just recently some hard-core members of the party told me that any opposition to Gov. Jennifer Granholm in November is also a vote for the anti-affirmative action ballot measure known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

In other words, Democrats are the only people who support equal rights for people of color in Michigan. I don't think so.

I mean, letÂ’s look at the Michigan Democrats, aside from a few black officials from safe districts.

The Democratic Party is probably the biggest hypocrite when it comes to giving African-Americans opportunities to develop politically.

Let's look at its track record in Michigan. When Granholm came into office, she tried to appoint Melvin Butch Hollowell as the chairman of the Democratic Party of Michigan. Guess what? Mark Brewer, backed by the United Auto Workers, refused to step aside. Hollowell was given a title of co-chair with no power. Brewer controlled the finances and all of the hirings.

How many African-Americans and other people of color hold positions of power in the Michigan Democratic Party? How many black consultant firms has Brewer hired? I am not talking about subcontracting jobs. When was the last time we've seen a black campaign manager managing a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Michigan? Never.

What's makes Granholm campaign manager Howard Edelson qualified for the job? I know at least five African-American political strategists who have more experience and are more battle-tested. They weren't even consulted or asked to apply. What job do blacks occupy every election for the Democratic Party? Let me see. Hmmmm, field coordinator.

A few months ago, a well-known African-American Democrat asked the governor about the attorney general position. She told him to run for secretary of state. Is that the only statewide position that blacks can run for as a Democrat? Until African-American voters break the cycle of dependency, we will continue to be an afterthought.

It is the Democrats who gladly let blacks onto the lowest rung of the ladder – and then keep them there. But when well-qualified black conservatives are raised tohigh office by Republicans, we ehar about tokenism and how such folks are not “really” black – and the term “Uncle Tom” gets trotted out soon afterward.

Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans were responsible for the passage of most civil rights legislation in this country’s history. And Republicans continue to seek to put forward well-qualified African –American candidates for office, while Democrats play Jim Crow games.

So would someone explain to me why the party that has always promoted slavery, segregation, and racial division is seen as the friend of African Americans?

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

A contested race for president and an upset victory by a relative outsider. What will it signify?

The Southern Baptist Convention elected Frank Page its new president Tuesday, choosing a pastor who had said that it would take a "miracle" for him to win and heralding a new direction for the denomination.

Page's surprising win over two higher-profile candidates follows years of tightly scripted politics and intolerance for internal dissent. He called his victory evidence that Southern Baptists believe "we could do together a lot more and a lot better than what we can do separately."

"I'm a little taken aback by this," Page said. "Because I have not been known across the nation, ... I truly believe (the election) is God's people saying we want to see broadened involvement."

Winning just over 50 percent of the vote on the first ballot, Page bested Ronnie Floyd, a megachurch pastor from Springdale, Ark., and Jerry Sutton, pastor at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., and currently the SBC's first vice president.

The 53-year-old Page is pastor at First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., a small, upstate community north of Greenville. During his campaign, he emphasized the importance of giving to the Southern Baptists' cooperative program, in which autonomous congregations pool money to fund overseas and domestic missions. That seemed to strike a chord with delegates to the SBC's annual meeting.

In the years since moderates stopped participating in SBC politics, candidates for the SBC presidency have typically run unopposed or faced only token opposition. But this year, concerns about stagnating memberships, declining baptism rates and the future of the cooperative program led to the first contested presidential race in recent memory.

Johnny Hunt, a pastor from Woodstock, Ga., was the leadership's choice for president but unexpectedly dropped out of the race in late April. He was replaced by Floyd, head of the First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark., and the nearby Church at Pinnacle Hills.

Then Page entered the race, leading a group that criticized the low levels of cooperative program giving at Floyd's churches. Page's church, by contrast, gives 12 percent of its undesignated offerings to the program.

Many smaller Southern Baptist congregations see the cooperative program as a crucial collective effort for the denomination and the best way for them to carry out influential missionary and evangelistic work.

Rallying around Page were a group of younger pastors and others who have felt marginalized by an older generation that led the conservative takeover of the SBC in the 1970s and 1980s. Some have dissented on theological issues like whether strict Calvinists and charismatic Christians should be welcome in the denomination, while at least one has been reprimanded for airing concerns on his Internet blog.

The fundamentalist takeover that happened three decades ago revitalized the SBC, but created serious rifts within the denomination. Will this upset victory be the beginning of a new direction for the largest Protestant group in the United States, or will it merely be a brief interlude between traditionalist leaders?

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Decent Americans have to be disgusted when they read stories like this one -- and have to recognize which political party remains the seat of racism in America.

A group of black and Hispanic elected officials from Brooklyn are scheduled to meet this morning to devise strategies to keep a white candidate from winning a Congressional seat of historical significance in black politics.

It is not the first such meeting of these officials, nor is it likely to be the last. That there are talks so steeped in ethnicity indicates that race is not just one of the issues in determining who will succeed Representative Major R. Owens. It seems to be the dominant one.

Mr. Owens, a veteran of more than two decades in Congress who turns 70 this month, is not running for re-election. The black and Hispanic officials gathering today are discussing how to prevent David Yassky, a white city councilman from Brooklyn Heights, from winning a seat that once belonged to Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress.

Mr. Yassky, a former law professor, has collected as much in campaign contributions as his rivals combined, more than $800,000 at the time of the last campaign finance filing.

And his three black opponents in the Democratic primary — as well as many black and Hispanic officials throughout the borough — have become increasingly agitated by the possibility that blacks would split their vote, allowing him to win.

Today's meeting, which was called by City Councilman Albert Vann, a Brooklyn Democrat, will focus in part on whether one or two of the three black candidates might be willing to drop out of the campaign.

Two weeks ago, a fourth black candidate, Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, announced that he was withdrawing from the Congressional campaign and running instead for re-election. He said one reason was to reduce the number of black candidates and make it harder for Mr. Yassky to succeed.

In other words, they want the winner of this election to be judged by the color of his skin, not the content of his character.

Now why this racist strategy to keep the seat in black hands? Well, it goes back to the history of the district.

As a result of a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several predominantly black neighborhoods of Brooklyn were consolidated into the 12th Congressional District. In 1968 it elected Ms. Chisholm, who in 1972 sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Owens succeeded her in 1983.

The district lines were later shifted, and much of the 12th District was incorporated into what is now the 11th.

"We want to see if there is a way that we might unite behind one black candidate in the race, as opposed to several black candidates running along with Yassky," said Assemblywoman Annette Robinson, an organizer of the meeting. "We're going to try to work this out, reminding the candidates that people have fought for this district to be a Voting Rights district."

Uh. . . excuse me? Do you really mean to imply, madam Assemblywoman, that someone's voting rights would have been violated if a white candidate wins in this congressional district? I thought that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act was to end racial discrimination in voting, and to make sure that blacks could have meaningful participation in the electoral process. Nothing I have ever read has indicated that it was supposed to Jim Crow the election process, posting "No Whites Allowed" on certain electoral districts.

I want to know where the public outcry is -- you know, the howls of outrage that would follow if a group of white political leaders were to conspire to prevent a popular black candidate from winning an election.

And I hope the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is taking careful note of this meeting so as to prepare to prosecute every public official and community leader who participates.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

About 15 years ago, David Duke got the idea that he could be accepted as a Republican. Republican elected officials from around the country went to Louisiana to campaign against him and urge votes for his corrupt Democrat opponent, bearing a simple message -- "Vote for the crook -- It's important."

On the other hand, in Minnesota, Democrats embrace those with a long history of racist and anti-Semitic affiliations -- and nominate them for Congressional seats in safe districts.

Imagine that a Republican seeks his party's endorsement for the U.S. House of Representatives, despite having been allied with a white supremacist organization just a decade earlier. Imagine that this candidate had once sarcastically proposed setting aside certain states for white citizens and had shared a stage with a speaker known for excoriating Jews as "bloodsuckers."

You're right. That man wouldn't get his party's endorsement. He would probably want to go into hiding after the howl of negative media coverage.

So how did we get Keith Ellison?

State Rep. Keith Ellison of Minneapolis is the DFL-endorsed candidate for the Fifth District congressional seat. In this DFL bastion, that means that -- barring a primary loss -- Ellison will succeed Martin Sabo when Congress reconvenes next year.

Ellison's background is, shall we say, unorthodox. He is a former outspoken supporter of Louis Farrakhan's notorious Nation of Islam, a virulently anti-white, anti-Semitic organization once led by Black Muslim leader Elijah Muhammad.

Ellison claims he has changed, that he never really held those views, and that he wasn't affiliated with the groups all that long. He says he should be forgiven and his past ignored.

Fine -- except for the fact that even in this Ellison wants to apply a racial (dare I sa racist) double-standard.

There's a strange irony here. In April 2004, Minnesota's public safety commissioner at the time, Rich Stanek, resigned after acknowledging making racist comments in 1992. At a news conference, Keith Ellison and other black leaders condemned Stanek's remarks and vowed to fight his confirmation.

Stanek repudiated the comments and said he had changed. Nevertheless, Ellison didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. "He's definitely one to hold other people accountable, so I held him accountable," Ellison told the Star Tribune.

So we are looking at the same sort of behavior -- if not more severe. Ellison claims his associations and misdeeds are long in the past -- but they are from the same time period as the inappropruate comments that led to his demnds that a white man withdraw from consideration for public office. So shouldn't Ellison be held to account in the same way he held another man?

Or does he believe that the color of one's skin should determine the standard to which one is held -- proving that he remains a racist, unfit for office.

A much more detailed piece is found at Powerline.

UPDATE -- 6/11/2006: Well, here is some candor.

"I wasn't proud of my work with the Nation of Islam," Ellison said Sunday, "but I was hoping it wouldn't come up." He said now that he's in the spotlight, "I have come face to face with my past."

Yeah, I bet he didn't want it to come up -- but it is there, on the public record, and must not be ignored. Ellison's failure to address these issues earlier speaks volumes about his honesty and trustworthiness.

So off he goes to meet with the men's group at a synagogue. And it seems that at least some of them have forgotten the lessons of the 1930s and 1940s.

Bill Prohofsky, who attended the breakfast, liked what he heard from Ellison. "I think he convinced me," he said.

"Until today, I was very much against him," said Dick Hoffman. "I think a lot of his thoughts co-exist with mine. ... I could support him."

Said Richard Hunegs, "I was favorably impressed by him. I was refreshed by his honesty."

Elliot Miller said, "I think he's a good candidate, but he needs further seasoning in the Legislature."

Perhaps if you are lucky, you will get a leading role in "Ellison Goves The Jews A City".

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Stuck on Stupid, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Passionate America, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, 7 Deadly Sins, Free Constitution, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop The ACLU, Wizbang, Cao's Blog, Euphoric Reality

Posted by: Greg at 08:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 6 kb.

It appears that at least one newspaper columnist from the area near Duke University believes that if you don't meet his moral standards, you deserve to be falsely accused of sexual assault. That means if you drink or look at strippers, you bring libelous accusations upon yourself.

Thing is, we might expect those guys on the lacrosse team to have some bags under their eyes.

I mean, here's David Evans, who was the captain on the lacrosse team: He graduated on Mother's Day and in less than 24 hours was at the county jail turning himself in on a rape charge.

But that's what can happen when you don't keep your nose clean. Whether or not he's shaved his would-be incriminating mustache in the days since a stripper claimed he attacked her during a party where he was living at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the biggest news in Durham would have been Jackie Wagstaff's school board loss had Evans and his homeboys not decided to get their kicks one night in March.

No drunken orgy, no allegations of rape.

* * *

Butch Williams, representing a lacrosse player who hasn't been indicted, said his client and the other 44 who haven't been charged are free to resume a normal life.

Which I take as meaning deciding in the coming weeks of spring about returning to Duke for classes in the fall. And if they want to play lacrosse, maybe they go elsewhere, since Duke President Richard Brodhead and the rest of the big dogs haven't said yea or nay about fielding a team for the upcoming season. But there's also the notion of whether it'll do any good for the players to transfer if the curious stares will follow them wherever they go.

Nothing's normal about that.

The lacrosse boys brought it on themselves, though -- even if the accuser's lying.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if John McCann would also agree with this premise regarding the accuser. No going into houses full of strange men to take your clothes off for money, no rape -- she brought it on herself.

Nope, I didn't think so. Any person with even an ounce or decency would reject such an argument. As they should reject Mr. McCann's disgusting column.

(H/T Blogs for Bush, Real Clear Politics)

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.