Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA 3rd) said Wednesday that his sixth term in Congress will be his last, the Associated Press reported.[1] -- While he said he was "quite confident I would win re-election," Baird said he found it "'increasingly difficult to spend the time I need with my family and at the same time do the job that needs to be done,' Baird, the father of 4-year-old twin boys, told The Associated Press late Wednesday." -- "This is right time for my family, and I will find a new way to serve the country in the future," he said. -- "Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the House Republicans' campaign group, said Baird's retirement sends an alarming message to Democrats," Matthew Daly wrote. -- "Baird is the third swing-district Democrat to retire in as many weeks." -- In an editorial, the Seattle Times noted that Washington's Third Congressional District is "a bona fide swing district" and said Baird's announcement had "startled Washington's political establishment."[2] -- Politico called Baird "one of the more moderate members in the Democratic conference" and noted that he "broke with most of his colleagues to vote against the House health care legislation that passed last month" and "took criticism from leaders in his own party when he returned from a trip to Iraq in 2007 and became one of the few Democrats to embrace Bush’s surge strategy there."[3] -- Political guru Michael Barone called Baird's district a "national-average district" and said it "must now be considered very much up for grabs."[4] -- Deb Wallace, a Vancouver Democrat serving in the Washington State legistlature, said Thursday that she would run for the seat, AP reported.[5] -- Wallace is currenlty chairwoman of Washington State's House Higher Education Committee. "Several other Democratic lawmakers have expressed interest in the race," AP said. -- COMMENT: In 2009 Baird visited Gaza and had become increasingly critical of Israel. -- No mainstream news article reporting on Baird's announcement mentioned this. -- But on Nov. 22 a Republican lawyer from San Diego attacked Baird for his support of the Goldstone Report in the Jerusalem Post.[6] -- And on Nov. 24 the Islamophobic ITN News tried to tar Baird for "earning praise from Hamas."[7] ...
1.
WASH. REP. BAIRD SAYS HE WILL NOT SEEK RE-ELECTION
By Matthew Daly
Associated Press
December 9, 2009
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010467492_apwabairdretires2ndldwritethru.html
Democratic Rep. Brian Baird said Wednesday he will not seek re-election next year so he can spend more time with his family and pursue other ways to serve.
The six-term congressman who represents southwest Washington said the job has been the highest honor and greatest responsibility of his life.
Baird, 53, of Vancouver, serves on the House science and transportation committees. While his 3rd District seat is considered competitive, he easily won re-election in 2008 and was not considered in jeopardy this cycle.
"I find it is increasingly difficult to spend the time I need with my family and at the same time do the job that needs to be done," Baird, the father of 4-year-old twin boys, told The Associated Press late Wednesday.
He scoffed at the idea that politics played a role.
"I am quite confident I would win re-election," Baird said.
"Look, I've been at this 14 years," he said, noting that he began his first, unsuccessful run for Congress in late 1995. Baird narrowly lost the 1996 election to Republican Linda Smith but won the seat two years later. He was re-elected last year with 64 percent of the vote.
Baird said he is proud of his record but added, "This is right time for my family, and I will find a new way to serve the country in the future."
Before his surprise announcement, Baird had three Republican challengers, all political unknowns: David B. Castillo, David William Hedrick and Jon David Russell. Castillo, a former chief of staff to the state House GOP caucus who also worked in the Bush administration, has raised the most money, nearly $54,000.
Since Baird's announcement, also being mentioned as a possible candidate was state Rep. Jaime Herrera, R-Ridgefield, a former aide to GOP Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
State GOP Chairman Luke Esser said Baird "saw the writing on the wall: 2010 is going to be a very rough year for Democrats." Esser accused Baird of helping House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama "run the economy into the ground."
Baird is known in Congress as a strong advocate for a state sales tax deduction on federal tax returns. The move benefits Washington state residents, who pay no state income tax.
Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the House Republicans' campaign group, said Baird's retirement sends an alarming message to Democrats. Baird is the third swing-district Democrat to retire in as many weeks.
"It is clear that members of the majority are feeling the ground shaking beneath them. Facing an angry and frustrated electorate, Democrats are quickly realizing that it's time to throw in the towel," Sessions said.
As chairman of the House Science panel's Energy and Environment subcommittee, Baird is an expert on oceans and climate change. He lashed out at the news media last summer after what he called sensationalized coverage of taxpayer-funded trips to the Galapagos Islands and the South Pole.
Baird said coverage of the trips that cast them as junkets could jeopardize the ability of Congress to learn firsthand about issues such as climate change and ocean acidification.
He also drew attention in 2007, when he changed his previous opposition to a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Instead, Baird said the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure stability to the war-torn country. It was a major turnaround for Baird, who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and previously supported a Democratic plan requiring then-President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq in 2008.
Baird was openly criticized at a town hall meeting in the district, and national anti-war activists sponsored TV and newspaper ads critical of his changed position. Even so, Baird easily won re-election last year.
Dwight Pelz, head of the state Democratic Party, said he was surprised by Baird's announcement.
"Brian's been a great congressman for the 3rd District," he said. "He's very intelligent and hardworking and he'll missed."
Several Democratic state lawmakers have already expressed interest in the seat. Sen. Craig Pridemore of Vancouver, and Reps. Brendan Williams of Olympia, Deb Wallace of Vancouver and Jim Moeller of Vancouver all said Wednesday that they were considering jumping into the race.
--Associated Press Writer Rachel La Corte contributed to this report from Olympia, Wash.
2.
Editorials/Opinion
Editorial
REP. BRIAN BAIRD'S DECISION TO STEP DOWN SETS UP HEATED 3RD DISTRICT RACE
Seattle Times
December 10, 2009
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2010477119_edit11baird.html
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird of Vancouver startled Washington's political establishment this week by announcing he will not seek a seventh term next year in the 3rd Congressional District of Southwest Washington.
Baird has been an independent voice in an independent-minded place -- the 3rd is a bona fide swing district. The district voted for President Obama in 2008 but earlier supported President George W. Bush. Republicans and Democrats held the seat during the past century since the district was created following the 1900 census, flipping back and forth between Republicans and Democrats.
Baird's nonconformist streak has caused trouble with his party, most pointedly and most recently with his "no" vote on health-care reform. Baird drew the ire of local party members and House leadership when he became the only Washington Democrat to oppose the health-care overhaul approved by a vote of 220-215. In other words, his vote was needed.
House leadership also bristled in 2007 when Baird not only supported but was a cheerleader for the surge in Iraq.
His decision creates an open seat in the House with opportunities aplenty for both Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans have more reason to be excited because they have had fewer victories in state campaigns in recent years. They lack a name candidate for U.S. Senate against popular incumbent Patty Murray in 2010, and there is some movement among voters toward Republicans.
Several Republicans and Democrats are planning to run for Baird's seat, which becomes hot property.
Our state delegation has been fairly stable. The last time there was an opening was in 2004 when George Nethercutt left the 5th District of Eastern Washington and Jennifer Dunn vacated the 8th District seat of eastern King and Pierce counties.
Baird served his district well. Unconventionally? Yes, but he is a reasonable match for the political inclinations of his constituents. An individualist, he will be missed.
3.
The Scorecard
BAIRD ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT
By Josh Kraushaar
Politico
December 9, 2009
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1209/Baird_to_announce_retirement.html
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) announced Wednesday evening that he will not be running for re-election, becoming the third Democrat in a competitive district to announce retirement plans in the last month.
“The time has now come to pursue other options, other ways of serving. Hence, I am announcing today that I do not intend to seek reelection to Congress in 2010,” Baird said in a statement. “This is not an easy decision to be sure, but I believe it is the right decision at the right time.”
Baird has faced little trouble winning re-election, but his Olympia-area district is one of the most competitive in the country. It gave President Obama 53 percent of the vote last year, while supporting former President Bush with 50 percent in 2004.
Baird’s retirement plans follow similar announcements from Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), and all three openings have created strong pickup opportunities for Republicans.
His decision came as a surprise to House Democrats, and will surely heat up the speculation that other vulnerable House Democrats are looking towards the exits.
“With this being the third retirement by a swing-district Democrat in as many weeks, it is clear that members of the Majority are feeling the ground shaking beneath them," said National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions, in a statement released less than a hour after news of Baird's retirement broke.
Baird drew fire from Tea Party activists over the summer recess after he said town hall protesters were using “brownshirt tactics” to disrupt events. He later compounded his problems when he said the protesters’ demonstrations were reminiscent of the anger that led Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to perpetrate domestic terrorism.
Baird, however, is one of the more moderate members in the Democratic conference. He broke with most of his colleagues to vote against the House health care legislation that passed last month. That vote prompted one of Washington state's leading labor officials to declare that Baird placed himself "on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side against your constituents,”
And he took criticism from leaders in his own party when he returned from a trip to Iraq in 2007 and became one of the few Democrats to embrace Bush’s surge strategy there.
Republicans already were busy recruiting candidates before his announcement, believing he was highly vulnerable heading into the 2010 election. State Rep. Jaime Herrera was strongly considering the race, and given Baird’s retirement, now looks likely to run. But other candidates will now likely give newfound consideration to running.
4.
Opinion
Beltway Confidential
ARE DEMOCRATS EXITING THE SINKING SHIP? PART 3
By Michael Barone
Examiner (Washington, D.C.)
December 9, 2009
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Democrats-exiting-the-sinking-ship-III-78929237.html
Here’s a surprise: Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of the 3rd district of Washington has announced he is going to retire and not run for reelection in 2010.
Baird has been something of a free spirit among congressional Democrats. Although he voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2003, he returned from a trip to Iraq in 2007 and announced he supported George W. Bush’s surge strategy. He was the lead Democrat in supporting changes in the law and Constitution to provide for continuity in government in the event large numbers of House members were killed in a terrorist attack (the problem is that House vacancies under the Constitution can be filled only by special elections, which take time, and in the absence of a quorum of half its members the House cannot act). Recently he voted against the House Democrats’ health care bill.
Baird first ran for the seat in southwestern Washington in 1996, when he lost 50.2%-49.8% to populist Republican Linda Smith. In 1998 Smith ran for the Senate (and lost) and Baird won the seat 55%-45%. His margins in subsequent elections: 56%-41%, 62%-38%, 62%-38%, 64%-36%, 62%-38%. Those numbers, plus his independent stand on some issues, suggest he would have had no trouble winning reelection in 2010 -- although he has had some flak from left-wingers on the Iraq surge and from labor union apparatchiks on his health care vote.
But perhaps he sensed trouble ahead. His district has few of the urbanite left-wingers who dominate politics in Seattle or of the culturally liberal techies thick on the ground in the eastern and northern Seattle suburbs. It does include the government-loving state capital of Olympia, but it also includes heavily forested counties on the Pacific and the lower Columbia River and Republican-leaning Lewis County. Its biggest county is Clark County, across the Columbia River from Portland, the second fastest-growing county in Washington state this decade.
One of the attractions of Clark County is that you can live there in Washington State this which has no income tax and then cross over the bridge and shop in Oregon which has no sales tax: historically blue collar country that is now taxophobic. Over half the 3rd district’s residents live in Clark County, and this seems likely to be tea party country -- and Baird denounced the tea parties in vitriolic terms (“brownshirt tactics,” reminiscent of the anger that led to Timothy McVeigh) earlier this year.
George W. Bush carried the current 3rd district 48%-46% in 2000 and 50%-48% in 2004; Barack Obama carried it 53%-45% in 2008. In other words, it voted pretty much like the nation as a whole. Baird would certainly have been the favorite to hold the district in 2010, but might have faced a tougher contest than he has since 1998 and 2000. He turns 54 in 2010, not old enough (one would think) to contemplate retirement but young enough to cash in on 12 years of incumbency. In any case, this national-average district must now be considered very much up for grabs.
5.
WASH. REP. WALLACE SEEKS CONGRESSMAN BAIRD'S SEAT
Associated Press
December 10, 2009
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_congress_3rd_district.html
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- State Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver, says she's running to replace Democratic Congressman Brian Baird.
Wallace's announcement Thursday comes a day after Baird said he would not seek re-election in southwestern Washington's 3rd Congressional District.
Wallace currently represents a portion of Clark County, including Vancouver. She's chairwoman of the House Higher Education Committee. Several other Democratic lawmakers have expressed interest in the race.
Being mentioned as a possible Republican candidate is state Rep. Jaime Herrera, R-Ridgefield, a former aide to GOP Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Three other Republican challengers already have launched campaigns.
6.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE 35 YEARS MAKE
By Michael M. Rosen
Jerusalem Post
November 22, 2009
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705164291&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In an October 1974 cable to Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, following passage of his legislation helping Soviet Jews emigrate, Israel's Foreign Minister Yigal Allon wrote that "your efforts in this matter manifest once again your deep understanding of our needs and your constant support of the cause of Israel." What a difference 35 years make.
Nowadays, liberal members of Jackson's party routinely cast votes against Israel, while the leftist commentators supporting them relish vilifying the Jewish state. Whether it's blasting the settlements, criticizing Israel's Lebanon or Gaza conflicts, or deferring sanctions on Iran, the American Left is more unified than ever in its opposition to Israel and its policies.
Nowhere has this disturbing trend emerged more clearly than in the recent debate in the U.S. House of Representatives over a resolution calling on the president to "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora."
The resolution chastises the U.N. Human Rights Council for "one-sidedly mandating the 'fact-finding mission'" by Justice Richard Goldstone to focus only on supposed Israeli wrongdoing while "mak[ing] no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks . . . by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel." It recites in painstaking detail the myriad factual, inferential, and legal errors that readers of this page well know render Goldstone's report fatally flawed.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, earned an overwhelming 344 votes. But 36 members of Congress, all but three of them Democrats, voted against the resolution, while another 20 members voted "present," or abstained; thus, more than 20% of Democrats refused to support the bill.
So what's motivating these Democrats, almost all of them from the party's liberal wing, to stand up for the Goldstone Report?
During the debate over the resolution, most of the naysayers spoke of the need to bring the parties together at the negotiating table, asserting that condemning the report signals to the world a lack of seriousness by the U.S. about resolving the conflict. How the deeply problematic Goldstone Report could possibly facilitate peace was left unsaid, but this argument at least seems to have been presented in good faith.
More disconcerting was the praise for Goldstone, dutifully parroted by almost all those contesting the resolution.
Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who spearheaded the opposition, inquired "what is there to fear about Judge Goldstone? [He] has a stellar reputation."
The first Muslim member of the U.S. Congress, Ellison took care to highlight Goldstone's Jewish bona fides: "He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina and for serving as a chief prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals. He is a self-described Zionist. He serves as a trustee at Hebrew University in Jerusalem."
Other congressmen forthrightly hurled blame at Israel. Ohio's Dennis Kucinich noted that "today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist." "How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East," Kucinich went on, "if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights . . . by white-washing a legitimate investigation?"
Rep. Brian Baird of Washington mentioned his "twin 4-year-old boys at home. When I kiss them goodnight, they look for all the world like these three little Palestinian children. I don't know that father, but I can imagine his grief."
Meanwhile, Minnesota's Betty McCollum, said that "American-made white phosphorus shells were used by Israel in civilian areas causing horrible burns to Palestinian children, yet this resolution refuses to seek the truth?"
Yet others indulged in outright fantasy. Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts said the report "makes an important recommendation: that it is incumbent upon both Israel and the Palestinians, in particular Hamas, to carry out credible investigations into actions by their forces that led to the harm and loss of civilians." And California's Sam Farr quoted a "Jewish constituent" who told him that "Israel will not have peace and security until Palestinians have hope."
Fortunately for Israel -- and the U.S. -- centrist Democrats from heavily Jewish districts and virtually all Republicans stood tall for the Jewish state during the debate.
Rep. Howard Berman, a California Democrat, quoted an article by Hebrew University's Moshe Halbertal arguing that the report's "objective is to prepare a general indictment of Israel as a predatory state that is geared toward violating human rights all the time." Democrat Gary Ackerman of New York labeled the findings a "pompous, tendentious, one-sided political diatribe."
Across the aisle, Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, a Republican, noted that the report "ignores the extraordinary steps taken by Israel to minimize civilian casualties, often putting its own soldiers at greater risk to do so." Likewise, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican of Washington, recalled her recent visit to Israel and stated that, "when surrounded by enemies and people who think nothing of suicide bombing innocent civilians and launching hundreds of rockets across the borders, self-defense becomes paramount."
Still, the American Left exerts an increasingly powerful grip on the Democratic Party when it comes to Israel, and liberal members of Congress have grown ever more unapologetic about their views.
Perhaps fittingly, when I reached out to Rep. Bob Filner, a Jewish liberal Democrat in the San Diego area, to get his explanation for why he opposed the resolution, my calls and emails went unanswered. Scoop Jackson's gazing down from heaven, slowly shaking his head.
--The writer is an attorney in San Diego and a Republican activist.
7.
REP. KEITH ELLISON, THE ISLAMISTS' MAN ON CAPITOL HILL
Right Side News/IPT News
November 24, 2009 (updated Nov. 25)
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911257478/politics-and-economics/rep-keith-ellison-the-islamists-man-on-capitol-hill.html
As a U.S. representative, Keith Ellison's primary responsibility is to represent his constituents in Minnesota's 5th congressional district.
The first Muslim elected to Congress, Ellison, a Democrat, also seems to feel an obligation to be the voice of Muslim Americans in Washington. That alone would not be an issue. But in his two terms, he has established a disturbing record of promoting and defending radical Islamists who hide beneath a veneer of moderation.
When those organizations are criticized, Ellison often jumps to their defense. He also travels the country to raise money on their behalf.
In 2009, Ellison spoke at three fundraising dinners for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and provided videotaped remarks at others, including the CAIR-Sacramento Valley dinner last weekend. He also appeared with CAIR officials at events on health care reform and celebrating the Muslim Eid holiday.
Last month, Ellison took to the House floor to rebuke four colleagues who called for an investigation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and whether it was targeting offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security, and intelligence to place interns. According to the book *Muslim Mafia*, internal CAIR records show the group sought to infiltrate those congressional offices.
"These charges smack of an America 60 years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified," Ellison said in his floor remarks. "The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our Founding Fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to take part in the U.S. political process."
The four Republican officials never asked that Muslim interns be investigated. Their concern focused solely on CAIR and cited internal CAIR documents published in the book.
CAIR deserves special scrutiny because of documented proof that it was founded by members of a U.S.-based Hamas support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood is an Egyptian religious/political movement which aims to spread Islamic law throughout the world. The Hamas support by CAIR founders documented in the terror-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development prompted the FBI to cut off communications with CAIR in 2008. CAIR's access reportedly could be restored if it pledged not to support Hamas. CAIR officials have rejected that pledge.
DEBATING MUSLIM MODERATES
Two weeks before defending CAIR on the House floor, Ellison engaged in a brief debate with M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser, a former Navy physician, challenges the insidious threat from political Islam and is a staunch advocate of separating "mosque and state."
Ellison responded to this message with a tirade in which he all but called Jasser an Islamic "Uncle Tom." Blacks, he said, are "familiar with people who would seek to ingratiate themselves with powerful people in the white community and would there turn them on the rest of us and give license to attack us all. Arguing 'African-Americans are criminally inclined, they're all in gangs, they're all on welfare.' Black people who say stuff like this. But what they're really trying to do is win themselves individual benefit at the expense of everyone else."
"I don't know you well enough to know that's what you're doing," Ellison told Jasser. "But I must admit that when I heard you speaking, that's what I thought of."
Muslims must "stand against" extremist members of their faith, Ellison said. But he seemed more threatened by Jasser. "Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter's hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that," he added.
INCONSISTENT STANDS
Ellison also wants to be regarded as a statesman and an advocate of inter-religious cooperation and peace. When he addressed the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on October 15, he denounced Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, whom he described as one of a number of "theorists" who "are responsible for what we would regard today as violent extremism with what I call a Muslim veneer."
In the same speech, however, Ellison praised one very questionable Islamist role model: Hamza Yusuf, president and chairman of the Zaytuna Institute in California. Ellison described Yusuf as one of several "respected religious authorities who converted to Islam." But Yusuf has a long record of anti-Jewish rabble-rousing and other extremist statements. In a 1995 videotape, Yusuf called Judaism a "most racist religion."
On September 9, 2001, Yusuf spoke at a fundraiser at the University of California-Irvine for Jamal Al-Amin, then-accused of murdering a Fulton County, Ga. sheriff's deputy and wounding his partner. Al-Amin would be convicted in 2002. Speaking just two days before the September 11 attacks, Yusuf warned: "We saw the destruction of Russia after its invasion of Afghanistan. This country [America] unfortunately has a great . . . tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall."
Ellison went on to describe himself as a "supporter" of Israel, which he described as "an important country, our ally."
But Ellison has also received plaudits from the virulently anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which publishes hateful stories like this conspiracy theory of an international Jewish organ theft program. Ellison was one of only 33 House members who earned a spot in the Washington Report's "Hall of Fame," supporting the magazine's position on all eight issues polled during the 110th Congress. The issues ranged from opposing sanctions against Iran to calling on the U.S. government to press Israel and Hamas for a Gaza ceasefire.
In his USIP speech, Ellison designated himself pro-Israel to make a segue to a larger point -- to urge support for a questionable report from a United Nations "fact-finding" mission on the war this past winter between Israel and Hamas. As careful analysts have pointed out, the mission, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, was skewed from the start against Israel and in favor of Hamas.
The United Nations Human Rights Council resolution which established the Goldstone mission prejudged Israel's guilt and denounced its behavior while omitting criticism of Hamas. The resolution asserted that Israel's military operation in Gaza "resulted in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people." The resolution called on the Goldstone mission to investigate Israel's conduct in Gaza but not that of Hamas.
Earlier this month, Ellison backed up his words by joining the losing side of a 344-36 House vote in favor of a resolution calling on the President and Secretary of State to oppose any endorsement of the report.
Jonathan Halevi, a research fellow with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others have documented in great detail how Goldstone and Company misrepresented the facts in attacking Israel's conduct of the war while ignoring the fact that Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups engaged in war crimes by using civilians as human shields.
But Ellison said it was "unfortunate" to hear reports that the Obama Administration had tried to persuade the Palestinian Authority not to press for a United Nations Security Council debate on the Goldstone report. Israel, Ellison suggested at one point, needn't fear Goldstone because he calls himself "a Zionist Jew." In fact, Israel would benefit if it were to admit its wrongdoing, according to Ellison.
"I also know that the United States has seen Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Jim Crow, all types of problems," Ellison told USIP. "Don't be afraid of a report that might reflect something unflattering about our ally. It won't hurt them. It may strengthen them."
It would be difficult to imagine a more false, disingenuous formulation.
First, it is slanderous to liken Israel's efforts to defend its civilian population from terrorist attack to a genuine moral evil like segregation in the South. Second, the Goldstone mission and the one-sided report it produced weren't authorized by the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to further Israel's moral betterment as Ellison suggests. The resolution, which passed 33-1 (with supporters that included Russia, Cuba, China, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan), was aimed at undercutting the ability of a democratic nation to defend itself against terrorists who attacked it by operating out of densely populated civilian areas.
HINTS OF HAMAS SUPPORT
In the wake of the Gaza conflict, Ellison voted "present" rather than take a stand on a January 9, 2009 nonbinding House resolution "recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The resolution passed 390-5, with 22 lawmakers who voted "present." Ellison explained his vote by saying he was "torn" on the issue. The congressman said he supported Israel's right to defend itself but complained that the resolution "barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza."
In mid-February 2009, Ellison, accompanied by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), visited Gaza and Israel to observe the humanitarian situation after the Gaza War. Although the pair spent time on both sides of the border, most of their public statements emphasized the idea that Israel, and not Hamas, was victimizing Palestinians in Gaza.
In a subsequent BBC interview, Ellison was asked why he wasn't emulating European nations by talking to Hamas. It wasn't because Hamas is a terrorist group. Rather, the congressman said if he did "I'd have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve the goals that I have."
Ellison expressed hope that European parliamentarians could persuade Hamas "that if they soften their position it would be a lot easier for American politicians to talk to them."
CAIR'S GO-TO CONGRESSMAN
Among all these activities, Ellison's collaboration with CAIR has been the most persistent dating back to his taking office in 2007. He also appears at functions for the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both entities created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the U.S. In fact, when Ellison traveled to Saudi Arabia last year to make the hajj, a pilgrimage required of Muslims able to get there once in their lives, the MAS-Minnesota chapter paid his way.
Among other examples:
* In November 2007, Ellison spoke at CAIR-National's 13th Annual Banquet, where he thanked CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad for appearing there. This occurred after Awad was identified by the FBI as someone who participated in a 1993 summit of Hamas supporters in Philadelphia.
At the banquet, Ellison touted "Muslim finance" as a solution to the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis. He questioned whether the United States would be facing a subprime mortgage crisis if Muslims were to "truly promote" it. He suggested that many Jews and Christians would favor such financing schemes which could enable them to "actually hang on to their house" and "not be thrown out when the interest rate jumped up."
Ellison also said Americans should "thank God" for groups like CAIR who were working to safeguard their liberties against a reprise of the Salem witchcraft trials.
* In November 2008, Ellison, interviewed at CAIR-Tampa's 6th Annual Banquet by a local radio station, urged support for Sami Al-Arian, who pleaded guilty in April 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Evidence in Al-Arian's 2005 criminal trial showed he was a member of the PIJ's governing board and that he solicited donations by praising the group's terrorist attacks.
Al-Arian faces a criminal contempt charge for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in northern Virginia, despite a grant of immunity, but Ellison saw the PIJ member as a victim.
"I hope that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace" and "justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case. You don't declare democracy and the rule of law and then it's that way forever. You have to fight for it," he told WMNF Radio. "That's why we have an appeals process, habeas corpus, various legal instruments to try to get ourselves a just and proper result." Ellison added that "there are some things about his [Al-Arian's] case that I think raise legitimate questions."
In his speech at the banquet, Ellison urged CAIR members in the audience to get jobs in the Obama Administration in order to make "recommendations about how the United States can safely extricate itself from Iraq."
* Eight days after speaking to CAIR-Florida, Ellison spoke at a CAIR-National fundraiser in Washington, D.C, where he called for closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay; urged the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq; said Muslims should mobilize to make sure that U.S. forces are not sent to Iran; and repeated his call for CAIR supporters to apply for jobs in the incoming Obama Administration.
After Ellison and Rep. Baird visited Gaza last February, earning praise from Hamas (see above), MAS Freedom sent out a press release announcing that it "Commends Congressman Ellison and Baird on Call for Immediate Relief and Change in Policy in Gaza."
* Ellison boasted of his work on behalf of "the flying imams" during CAIR-Arizona's banquet in September 2009. US Airways removed the six imams from a 2006 after passengers and crew members expressed concern about their behavior. They sued the airline and tried to sue the passengers who reported them. The case ended October 20 when the airline agreed to pay an undisclosed amount.
Congress passed legislation over the objections of Ellison and many of his fellow Democratic lawmakers, protecting private citizens who report suspicious activity and law enforcement authorities who act in good faith based on reasonable suspicion.
Ellison's record is clear. Ellison has spoken on the behalf of radical Islamists, defended Hamas over Israel and has a dubious voting record. The Congressman either doesn't know about the nefarious connections of those he works to support, or he doesn't care. It might not be the issue Minneapolis voters hinge their votes on, but it is a part of his public record on which he can be judged.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
