Our Muslim Congressman: Where Does He Stand?

We have written many times about Keith Ellison (formerly known as Keith Hakim and Keith X Ellison), who represents the city of Minneapolis in Congress and is the nation’s first Muslim Congressman. As such, one might expect that he could do some good: he could support moderate Muslims, many of whom are threatened with death; denounce jihad; and distance himself from radical groups like the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR. But Ellison has not chosen to do any of these things. Instead, he has aligned himself with, and run interference for, radical Muslims, starting with Farrakhan and continuing on with CAIR and others.
Currently, Ellison is embroiled in a controversy with Rep. Peter King of New York, who proposes to conduct Congressional hearings on radical Islam. Ellison went on the wacko-left-wing Ed Schultz show to denounce King’s proposal:

Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, has been crossing swords with New York Republican Peter King, who has suggested that it’s time for an investigation of radicalization in the American Muslim community.
King, a Long Islander, told Fox News “We’ve seen what happened in England, and we know that Al Qaeda is trying to recruit people over here.” …
“It’s scary,” Ellison said Monday night in an appearance on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz show. “I got so concerned that when I heard about it I actually approached Congressman King on the House floor and told him that, you know, look, we all need to be concerned about violent radicalization, but not just against Muslims, against anybody. What about the guy who flew the plane into the IRS, or what about the guy who killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum?” …
Ellison said King’s plans have “McCarthyistic implications.”

Apparently Ellison hasn’t noticed that radical Islam poses the principal threat to civilization in the 21st century. Lone left-wing nuts with ideologies like Ellison’s, like the guy who flew an airplane into a building, are certainly a concern, but they aren’t the reason why we have a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. Anyone who doesn’t understand that shouldn’t be a small-town sheriff, let alone a member of Congress.
“McCarthyistic” [sic] is one of those words that liberals think have magical powers. But let’s parse it. What, exactly, was wrong with the Congressional hearings with which McCarthy is associated? Not that there was no legitimate target–on the contrary, Communism was an even more existential threat than radical Islam. McCarthy’s problem was that he was a dishonest drunk; he claimed to hold in his hand a fictitious list of Communists, and so on. But there is no reason to assume that next year’s hearings on radical Islam will misrepresent anything. It is not “McCarthyistic” to try to defend the United States against an obvious peril.
On the other hand, accusing those who try to defend the United States of “McCarthyism” is a longstanding, and long-discredited, left-wing trick. It is hard to imagine, knowing what we now know about Communism as well as radical Islam–a weirdly similar ideology–how shouts of “McCarthyism” could dissuade anyone from wanting to learn about the threat that radical Islam poses. Keith Ellison has gotten himself on the wrong side of this issue; but then, that is precisely why he got involved in politics in the first place.