America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
But that's not the clincher. In the Telegraph's article, you will note the caption under Rep. Ellison's photo reads:
Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November
I know of no moderate that claims 9/11 was an inside job, I know of no moderate that really and truly believes that Bush is comparable to Hitler. So, we can chalk this up to more skewed information at the hands of those that want America to be presented in the worst possible light. We can chalk up another biased piece of hyperbole to both Keith Ellison and the Leftist media that loves to hear this kind of misrepresentation.
I do not use the term here very often. But I will reiterate that whoever coined the term moonbat, deserves royalties.
UPDATE: Here is the video of Rep Ellison making these comments. As I have already stated, I hear nothing moderate about his comments.
15 comments:
Well, for all those who were suspicious of a Muslim congressman, here's their "proof" they were right. Actually, the worst part is that about half the country is so extreme that Ellison's statements make sense to them.
I just noticed what you said about the caption under Ellison. LOL. If you are a british journalist, it seems, you can't use the word "islam" or "muslim" without also using the word "moderate." Who isn't a moderate muslim to them?
And if they are talking about a terrorist, and they aren't calling "moderate", you can be sure they aren't calling him "muslim". That would be offensive! Instead, they call him a "militant".
The PC lexicon is even crazier in England than it is in the US. Hard to believe.
Hi LASunsett !
Umm ... with all due respect, the Daily Telegraph is not really held to be on the "left" in London, but rather on the "center right", if not the "right".
(smile)
Best,
L'Amerloque
Why do you care what these eurolosers have to say. Most of them write to conceal their own insecurities anyway.
They've never been able to fight their way out of a paperbag anyway.
Do you think that journalists hold the ultimate truth?
Ha!
Gotta live here to feel it.
Hi Amerloque,
Welcome back.
//the Daily Telegraph is not really held to be on the "left" in London, but rather on the "center right", if not the "right". //
Sure can't tell it from this article. But, I have to ask: Is that center right by European standards or by American standards? It seems, there is a big difference between the two.
Good to hear from you, sir.
Rocket,
//Why do you care what these eurolosers have to say.//
I don't.
Call it a slow Monday and I thought the caption referring to Ellison cultivating a moderate image, to be laughable. With moderates like that, who needs jihadists?
Greg,
//the worst part is that about half the country is so extreme that Ellison's statements make sense to them.//
But Greg, you know they wouldn't be that way if Blair hadn't sided with the "Hitler" in the White House. It's all their fault for starting this war. Don't you know that? ;)
But seriously, who would these people compare Bush to, had there been no Hitler?
But seriously, who would these people compare Bush to, had there been no Hitler?
Was it Kerry who compared him to Pol Pot?
//Was it Kerry who compared him to Pol Pot?//
Might have been. So many people have called him so many things, I can't keep up with who called him, what.
Not paying real close attention to this until you posted it, LA, but he seems to be not only using the fire as a parallel, but the starting of the fire as well. Is he a twoofer?
AC,
//Is he a twoofer?//
Sure sounds like it.
Hi LASunsett !
>>Welcome back.
Glad to be "back". Amerloque lurks quite a bit, never fear. (grin)
/*/ //the Daily Telegraph is not really held to be on the "left" in London, but rather on the "center right", if not the "right". //
Sure can't tell it from this article. But, I have to ask: Is that center right by European standards or by American standards? It seems, there is a big difference between the two./*/
A famous writer (allegedly George Bernard Shaw) once said that "England and the United States are two countries separated by the same language". As far as Amerloque is concerned, this is a perfect example. (smile)
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the British mind – and in Amerloque's – that this article is highly critical of Ellison and his formulation Bush/Hitler. The article is most assuredly not left wing or "moonbat", in the British view. (grin)
Let's start with the organ in which this appears, The Daily Telegraph:
A brief summary of current English newspapers and their views can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/376d6n
…/… The broadsheets are probably the most famous to readers overseas. The Times, the UK’s oldest national newspaper, is not the most popular - that accolade falls to the Daily Telegraph, known affectionately as the Daily Torygraph because of the staunch support to the Conservative Party. …/…
The Conservative Party referred to is, of course, the "Tories", the party of Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher. The miserable snake oil salesman Tony Bliar, is in the left-wing Labour Party, which he rechristened "New Labour" ten years ago so as to fake out the voters.
One won't find any approval of left-wingers such as Ellison in the Daily Telegraph, ever. (grin)
Without going into detailed lexical analysis, Amerloque can point to several elements that might help an American reader decrypt the writing so prevalent in English journalism.
So, let's start with the relatively clear:
//But that's not the clincher. In the Telegraph's article, you will note the caption under Rep. Ellison's photo reads:
Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November//
The caption to which LASunsett refers is under a photo of this fellow Ellison. The man is black, apparently: that is why the photo was published. The caption contains the word "cultivated". A phrase such as "Black congressman tries for moderate image" would not be keeping with the canons of British journalism. One doesn't "say" black, one "shows" black. When a minority individual is being criticized, the right-wing press publishes a photo, whether black, Arab, Sikh or Indian. "Cultivated" is a code word for "being fake or counterfeit, being deceitful". It appears twice on the same page !
In the text of the article itself, the phrase is a bit longer:
"A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education."
Nothing could be more condemnatory: "a convert to Islam", "previously linked", "extremists", "cultivated", "moderate image". It's the kiss of death, journalistically speaking, for Ellison. It is very, very negative.
There are other phrases in the text that showed disapproval: "apparently comparing", "To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights", "Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience", "his demagogic comments".
The article finishes with a typically British conservative journalistic close, ""Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany.""
There's no way on God's green earth that a "left-wing" British newspaper would present a "Republican" in such a dispassionate fashion. (grin)
As to the question whether the Conservative Party is "conservative" by American or by British standards … it's about like the Republican Party. Not the extremist, fundamentalist Republicans, though, but the mainstream ones.
Amerloque has been reading the British press almost daily since his youth, and has seen this type of misperception before. Americans not used to the British press are frequently thrown off the track since they are not aware of any screamingly obvious (to the British) codewords scattered throughout an article.
It's very much a case of "Americans call a spade a spade, but the British call it a bloody shovel", "bloody" in this case meaning "damned" and not "covered in red". (grin)
Best,
L'Amerloque
Amerloque, thanks for that expert explanation. That sheds a new light on the article for me.
Amerloque,
Well then, since you have not steered us wrong yet, I will accept your explanation. As I said earlier, the caption under his photo created the perception that the article was taking Mr. Ellison to be a moderate.
Thanks again for your input. Like Greg, this sheds more light on the article for me. This frees one up to concentrate on the choice of words that Ellison chose to make his point. Which in my view, are despicable.
Hi LASunsett !
/*/This frees one up to concentrate on the choice of words that Ellison chose to make his point. Which in my view, are despicable./*/
Ellison's words are certainly over the top.
While one mught have serious misgivings about GWB – and many people do, concerning quite a few of GWB's actions and inactions - he is far from being an Adolf Hitler.
One wonders if people who make such a comparison have ever read a history book.
Best,
L'Amerloque
Post a Comment