Rep. Keith Ellison has a habit of branding his opponents as fascists. This past weekend, Rep. Ellison was at it again, this time calling the Arizona law “a fascist, racist law“:

The Minneapolis congressman said Congress urgently needs to pass immigration reform in light of Arizona’s new law giving police more rights to detain people whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Borrowing a word normally reserved for Tea Party protests these days, Ellison called the law “fascist.”

“The fact is that we have to fight against these repressive laws in Arizona,” Ellison said. “They want to say that everybody is a criminal. They will stop anybody. We’ve got to stop these fascist, racist laws [inaudibule].”

I expected this from Rep. Ellison because he’s a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats’ spin even if what he’s saying is utter nonsense and not based in the truth. First things first: Rep. Ellison should invest in a good dictionary and use it daily. Here’s’s definition of fascist:

A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That definition exposes Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of Arizona’s law. I’m fairly certain that Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization was intentional because a lawyer who’s read the law would know that Arizona’s law prohibits racial profiling.

Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization might also be to deflect attention from the real problem, which is that the federal government’s border enforcement efforts have been pathetic at best.

Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain how passing new laws will eliminate or even marginally reduce the violence currently happening in Arizona. Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why the laws currently on the books aren’t sufficient to stop the rampant violence in Arizona.

Most importantly, let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why Democrats take campaign contributions, and marching orders, from NCLR, an organization committed to open borders policies.

Is Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of the Arizona law intentional? Let’s consider what Pinal County, AZ, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Greta van Susteren about the dramatic uptick in violence in Arizona:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, what happened?

BABEU: Well, he was out there, found some actual backpacks of marijuana and some other suspicious activity. And now, this is a known corridor for smuggling not only of drugs but of illegals. And so he radioed back to dispatch to call for support, and he continued to track the direction because he’s highly skilled in this as a search-and-rescue deputy.

As he was pursuing these five; he didn’t have them in sight yet; they had realized that somebody was tracking them. And so they left the rear guard behind and took cover and concealment as our deputy approached. This last suspect, who was armed with an AK-47, popped up and started shooting at our deputy, who was in uniform. They clearly knew he was an officer of the law.

And our deputy engaged. He had not only his handgun that he emptied the magazine, he also had his AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that we often carry. And he returned fire, and that’s when he was shot. And he believed that he hit one of the five suspects. There was two AK-47s and they had handguns, as well.

If that’s got your attention, it gets worse:

VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, was he alone? I mean, because — I mean, he was — was he out there by himself? You don’t mention anybody else.

BABEU: Yes, he was alone at that time, and this is often…

VAN SUSTEREN: Why? I mean, that’s — I mean…

BABEU: Well…

VAN SUSTEREN: I — you know, in the streets of D.C., where it’s a little different than the desert of Arizona…


VAN SUSTEREN: … the officers work in tandem because of the great danger. And I’m surprised to hear an officer would be or a deputy sheriff would be alone.

BABEU: We haven’t seen this type of aggressive posture against law enforcement before in our county, and this is where it’s reached a level that it is truly concerning, not only to be outgunned, the fact that they would ambush a deputy. This hasn’t happened before.

So now I’ve given direction to all of my deputies that if they’re out in remote areas and they’re doing tracking such as this that there’s at least two deputies. And they’re always to be highly armed with their AR-15, as well as their sidearm, and for us to have other deputies in the area.

So this was something that was highly unusual. We’re not a border county. We’re several counties away, and we’re the last county before, which 80 percent of all the illegals who come into Arizona have to cross through our county. So this is what is most concerning in that we in law enforcement now, we have been calling for Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, for their plan to deploy 3,000 soldiers immediately to secure our border with Mexico.

That there are paramilitary units operating within the United States should shock every American’s senses and infuriate them, too.

Rep. Ellison surely knows that we don’t need additional laws on the books to act against paramilitary units operating within the United States. Rep. Ellison surely knows that we’ve got sufficient laws to prosecute paramilitary units operating within the United States who are committing acts of violence.

Then again, Rep. Ellison has a habit of coddling violent criminals, criminals like Kathleen Soliah and others:

In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website,, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.

Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.” At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was “Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.” Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She’s now serving a long prison sentence.

But Ellison’s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. “We need to come together and free…all the Saras,” he proclaimed.

It’s common knowledge in Minnesota that Rep. Ellison didn’t hesitate in defending Kathleen Soliah’s murder of Myrna Opsahl and the planting of pipe bombs in L.A. Forgive me if I discount Rep. Ellison’s use of the term fascism. It isn’t the first time he’s intentionally used incendiary language.

The nation is reaching a consensus that goes against the Progressive Democrats’ doctrine: that we must secure the border and eliminate the drug cartel-related violence that’s being perpetrated in Arizona. We don’t need new laws for that, just a president who’s willing to get serious about enforcing existing laws.

Unfortunately, thanks to enablers like Rep. Keith Ellison, we don’t have one of those right now.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

2 Responses to “Rep. Ellison Defends the Indefensible”

  • eric z says:

    I would not rely on that simplistic definition of “fascist.”

    Things are a little more intricate and sophisticated than that.

    However, I do not see much of my admittedly limited understanding of what is or is not properly included within the notion of “fascist” fitting with characterizing the Arizona situation.

    Xenophobic is the better term. Fearful, perhaps.

    And “racist” is an unclear word to me also.

    The Arizona dislike of Mexicans seems centered upon language, culture, and national origin – with economic dimensions at play.

    Imposing severe sentencing and removing judicial discretion for those knowingly employing illegal residents is the answer. It would deter, if some roofing contractor got a mandatory 20 years, without chance of early release.

    A message would resonate, at least by the fifth or sixth imprisonment of those who exploit illegal immigrant labor.

Leave a Reply