One would have thought, one would have hoped, that those running the Obama campaign and the candidate himself would understand the need, now and especially after the election if he is successful, to reassure the many Americans, and others in Europe, who are unsure of him. They worry about whether he has some kind of sentimental family attachment to Islam -- one that would prevent him from recognizing Islamic realities for other reasons than George Bush's naive belief in the essential goodness of anything called, for want of a better word, a "religion." Islam is far more than a religious faith in the ordinary sense; it is a politics, it is a geopolitics. It presumes to Command or Prohibit in every area of life, and thus constitutes a Complete Regulation of Life. That is what is so dear to the hearts and minds of those who are confused and thrown into mental disarray by modern life, and these, the psychically marginal, can find Islam to be The Solution, or at least Their Solution.
Obama has to demonstrate not merely that he is "a Christian" but that he grasps, as his predecessor did not grasp, what the ideology of Islam inculcates. He must understand, and cleverly share that understanding with those whom he presumes to instruct and protect, that Jihad, properly defined, is the duty -- not tangential but central -- of Muslims to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles, of every kind (the American Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, constitute such an obstacle), to the spread, and then to the certain dominance, of Islam.
Obama is quite capable, if he so chooses, of finding out what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. And he ought to be capable of not taking tuition from the espositos and armstrongs, or even from the noah-feldmans, but by reading and learning from those who have read the informative and highly articulate "defectors" from Islam such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq. He has to do this. He has to do it if he does not want to leave so many -- including some who will vote for him despite all kinds of misgivings on this score -- permanently nervous, or soon outraged and disappointed that he turned out to be what they had worried about and had hoped would not be the case.
Even if elected, he has a great deal of reassuring to do as to his knowledge of, understanding of, the ideology of Islam. This knowledge should be one based not on dreamy or sentimental visions of his biological but absentee father or his four childhood years in Indonesia. For in both the case of Kenya and Indonesia, especially decades ago, the easy-going, often syncretistic, and relaxed practices he would have encountered are merely misleading. What counts is not the Islam that Obama may have encountered as a child in places or connected to places (Kenya, Indonesia) that are far from the Middle East, in countries where there are still many non-Muslims, and where non-Islamic or pre-Islamic traditions are still much in evidence, not having yet been eradicated (although the situation in Indonesia, too, has changed, as the Muslims purs et durs are ever more insistent and aggressive). Obama may be elected, but he does not thereby become exempt from the responsibility, the duty, to reassure all of us that he is not a stalking-horse, does not harbor secret sympathies, and will be as resolute in his defense of the West and of America, this country that he keeps telling us he "loves so much."
He, and Axelrod, and the rest of the juggernautish crew, should clearly understand that aside from the youthful tribe of sometimes hysterical enthusiasts, his support is not wild, but very measured, and mostly the result of the awfulness of the past administration and McCain's failure to articulate sufficiently his differences with Bush, and not because people have ceased to be wary, and worried, about Barack Obama.
A meeting with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others of that ilk would be a good thing. Attention to the Arab supremacism within Islam, exemplified in the genocidal campaign against black African Muslims in Darfur (and the renewed campaign against black African Christians and animists in the southern Sudan), would also be good. And Obama should stop talking about Afghanistan being the "central front" in the "war on terror" and instead take a much more effective approach, identifying the instruments of Jihad. He should not, for god's sake not, repeat the Bush notion that we must transfer further Infidel wealth to Muslims in order to curb their aggression, which threatens to turn us, at a time when the tiniest OPEC Muslim Arab states have hundreds of billions in their "sovereign wealth funds," even as needy as our own government and people have become, into the permanent supporters of any Muslim state or people who happen not to have oil, but who have been led to believe what the Qur'an teaches -- that the Infidels owe them a living, or at least the Jizyah. They will have been led to believe this, alas, by the attitudes and behavior of Infidel governments themselves.
If Obama plays this wrong, four years of woe await him, as former enthusiasts, and others who always resisted falling into that category, see all their pre-election suspicions and worries confirmed. If he does what he should, what makes political and moral sense, and manages to do what Bush was incapable of, by openly and accurately identifying the ideology of Jihad (he can keep the word "Islam" out for now, and Kirsopp Lake's son can explain to everyone on the campaign what the word "synecdoche" means) then many in this country and in India, and in southern Nigeria, and in southern Sudan, and in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and of course among the peoples of Western Europe who feel themselves and their freedoms and customs and laws everywhere under aggressive Muslim attack and siege, will be much relieved, and a first term not of woe but of weal may conceivably be the result.
It requires knowledge. It requires study. It requires an intelligent and deliberate choice. By Obama, and by those who advise Obama.
We'll see.
Sentimental family attachment to Islam- what a great way to describe my frustration with Jorge Ibn Saud al-Bush, Vice President of Mexico. Thanks for the "Laugh-Cry-Laugh" Mr. Fitzgerald.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synecdoche
"One would have thought, one would have hoped, that those running the Obama campaign and the candidate himself would understand the need, now and especially after the election if he is successful, to reassure the many Americans, and others in Europe, who are unsure of him."
No, actually I think Obama's more comfortable shouting out a big "F.U." to the majority of Americans who have a brain. He doesn't need to reassure the Kool-Aid drinkers, just throw that carrot out and watch them pledge to die for him. 'Hope they don't have to.
Not trying to be critical or overly partisan, but by the tone of this article and other comments he's made, I get the impression that Hugh still thinks of Obama as a viable choice in this election. I believe firmly that for anyone who believes in the efficacy of the anti-Jihad, the choice has to be for the candidate who has at least had the courage to use the phrase "radical Islam" in discussions of the so-called 'war on terror'; who has demonstrated he's not reluctant to commit US armed forces against the terrorists; and who has no delusions about dialogue with terrorist enablers like Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
I am of course referring to the Senator from Arizona, John McCain.
If -- if -- he wins, the bloom will be off the rose almost immediately. And the gift of the gab can only take you so far. The share of the vote that is protest, fed-up, anyone-but-another-Republican, is very large, and if this is misunderstood by the Obama camp as an endorsement of him, and all of his wiles and guiles -- which people are only willing, temporarily, to make light of because some are so disturbed about economic disarray and free-market fundamentalism, there will be a quick comedown after the euphoria of After-Bush. And once SNL starts doing Obama --he's very mockable (though I notice that ever since I put up a piece on his repeated use of the word "improbable" it seems to have dropped out of his idiolect, thank god)-- all kinds of people will see their worldly savior in a new light. I hope those who are about to inherit the earth, if we are to believe the opinion polls, know that, and take it to heart. And no more of Yesterday's Men, please, who keep prating about a "solution" to the Jihad against Israel, or who think that the ideology of Islam, what it inculcates, is irrelevant or at least minor, when it is exactly what explains Muslim attitudes and behavior, and is based on texts deemed to be immutable and not subject to re-interpretation.
Of course, given the predictions of a landslide by Obama, it is everyone's duty to vote to make that Obama landslide as teeny-tiny, as squeakerish, as possible. And that is true even if you find McCain's performance uncompelling, and disappointing.
Due to electoral circumstances beyond my control, I am in the business of damage-control. I am trying to persuade, through appeals to knowledge, logic, common sense, and of course to larger political calculations, the Obama people to recognize their responsibility not to follow in Bush's line, with sentimental messianism about bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads," but more than that, recognizing that the ideology of Jihad is real, not made-up, is permanent, not transient, and countering the main instruments of Jihad means, in the first place, recognizing that they include far more than qitaal or the variant favored by many Muslims today when they sense their weakness in conventional armed combat, terrorism. To wit: the Money Weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest.
And there should be no more squandering of men, money, and materiel, in the belief that Afghanistan is the "central front" -- there is no central front, for god's sake -- in the "war" of self-defense against the Jihad. And there must be recognition that America is merely the most powerful, and therefore most dangerous, because least inclined to yield, of Infidel lands. But neither America, nor members of NATO, are the only objects of Muslim attack, aggression, hostility -- Muslims both far away, and Muslims within these countries, determined to weaken the auto-immune system of the Western world, by constantly assaulting the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, of those advanced Western countries. Black Africa -- see the Christian Ibo, from whose lands most American blacks can trace their ancestry, see the nearly 2 million non-Muslim, black African victims of mass murder by Arab Muslims in the southern Sudan, see what happens to Christians in West Africa or East Africa when local Muslims lose their easy-going and syncretistic ways and become more faithful, and orthodox, in their Islam thanks to the Saudi takeover of so many imams and so many mosques. See India, under constant threat of Muslim terrorism. See what happens to Buddhists in southern Thailand, to Christian peasants in the southern Philippines, at the hands of local Muslims bent on Jihad. See, especially, what non-Muslims -- Copts in Egypt, Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq "liberated" from Saddam Hussein, Bahai and Christians and Jews in Iran, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Christians and Hindus in Indonesia, the handful of Christians in Algeria, and so on -- must endure in Muslim-ruled lands, either from the government or from Muslims meting out their local -- unpunished and unpunishable -- form of "justice" to non-Muslims.
Obama is not likely to feel any need to reassure anyone who questions him, if Michelle Obama is any guide. Both of them have labeled the slightest hint that they are not God's gift to America as racist. Michelle Obama is putting pressure on a foreign news agency, African Press International, to report only favorable stories, if they want to be invited to the inaugural.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78041
"Mrs. Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the inauguration ceremony when, as she put it, her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year," the report said.
She reportedly told AFI that it was unfortunate that the highly controversial Farrakhan made his support known before the election.
She's not upset at Farrakhan's support, just at the fact that it was made public. Far from reassuring shaky supporters, I find it more likely that the two of them will give an emphatic "up yours!" to any American who questions their motives on anything. Their persecution complex (Michelle's anyway) will allow for nothing less.
There would be a perverse schadenfreude at work in seeing liberals in their buyer's remorse. How many contortions will Chris Matthews and the rest of the liberal media be able to display as they watch President Obama at work?
Maybe Obama really is the consummate politician and he understands what his job will be but there has been little evidence of that, judging by how he has conducted his campaign.
How will the Dow react to an Obama win?
Obama's understanding of Islam should also derive from his trips to Pakistan ('81 Obama stayed with his college friend, whose father was the interim prime minister) - not to mention his mom resided in Pakistan (85-86) as “a consultant” “on a development project” for a Pakistani bank.
Perhaps we who tend to view Obama as strange and alien, might take heart in the following article from the Washington Post, "Barack Thy Name Is Biblical." The author argues, using biblical, linguisitic, historical, and archeological scholarship, that not only does "Barack" mean Baruch" ("blessed" in Hebrew), Obama shares that name with inspirational biblical and historical figures. It's a beginning step to reinterpreting Obama. I'm hoping in time that those with a hardline attitude about all branches of Islam can dialogue with those who find elements within that religion that they can respect.
Here's the article:
http://tinyurl.com/5q2zm5
“Islam is far more than a religious faith in the ordinary sense; it is a politics, it is a geopolitics.” --Hugh
Obama (or McCain, if he's elected) needs to look into Islamic law with regards to international politics--i.e., "foreign policy" from the perspective of Muslim nations. As a major World Public Opinion poll showed, an average of 70.5% of Muslims across some of the largest Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco) want "a strict application of sharia in every Muslim country." Because of this widespread support for sharia, Muslim scholars have popular support when they argue for the establishment of Islamic legal principles in their dealings with non-Muslim nations (e.g., see below).
------------------
Quoting from
Islamic Law and its Implications for Modern World
By Sayed Hassan Amin (1989)
Royston Ltd Scotland, U.K.
Excerpts
p. 396 “Nowadays the Islamic movements in their endeavours to reconstruct the Islamic State have put Islam to the very top of every Muslim state’s agenda. In fact, it is intended that the Islamic State should ultimately embrace the whole world, because its purpose is the application of Sharia, i.e., making every person and every territory follow the sharia.”
[The author goes on to comment that the formation of an economic bloc of Islamic states is a more realistic goal in the near future]
Chapter 5. International Law
pp. 169-170
“Basic principles. The basic principles of Islamic international law can be divided into the following rules:
First, the principle of invitation or enlightenment (da’awa) which means inviting non-Muslims to embrace Islam. This mission was first used by the Prophet of Islam who sent ambassadors to various kingdoms of the world inviting them to embrace Islam.
Secondly, the principle of the supremacy of Islam (i’atila) which means that Islam should prevail over all other religions and systems. The basic foundation of this doctrine is the doctrine of nafy-i sabil (negation of the authority of non-believers over Muslims) as indicated in the Qur’an and the tradition of i’atila as stated by the prophet.
Thirdly, the doctrine of jihad (struggle against non-Muslims) which means if the invitation to islam by peaceful means did not result in the non-believers’ accepting Islam, resort must be made to armed struggle.
Fourthly, attracting sympathy (ta’lif qulub) by appropriate means including negotiation, diplomacy, exchange of presents, and such likes...”
-------
End of excerpts
A Freudian slip?
Barack Obama has said he has visited 57 American States.
A bit of a factual error, no, for someone who is running for President?
There is some speculation on the internet that this was actually a Freudian slip.
Was he actually thinking of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which incidentally does not have 57 members, it has 56.
However, if Obama wins is it about to gain a new member?
I know some say the OIC has 57 members if you include the Palestinians but if you check the OIC website it clearly says there are 56 members.
Is the USA next to join?
elisabeth,
Of what relevance is the linguistic origin of Obama's name? It's his name. It was given to him by his mother when she had no idea what path his life would take. There have been saints and sinners with the same name. Esteemed presidents and notorious killers have shared the same first name. It means nothing.
Ah Hugh, there you go again, "if only our naive politicians educated themselves, and said and did the right thing". I am of a darker view, Hugh. I think Obama and his handlers know Islam's agenda. I think that just like Russia, or some European politicians, they think they can use that force for their own power grab. Time will tell.
Odysseus,
"the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which incidentally does not have 57 members, it has 56."
According to their official website, they have 57:
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/member_states.asp
Maybe they will soon be getting one, new member?
so let's say that obama wins the election and you all still despise him and what you think his intentions are or are not.
so just what is it that he should do as president regarding the jihad department of islam ?
how about some practical input because i am no expert on the islamic hate machine...or the republican one for that matter.
peace, love and the bill of rights.
What should Obama do, if elected?
He should do exactly what McCain should do, if elected. He should get American troops out of Iraq, leaving no equipment behind for the Arabs, Shi'a or Sunni, but possibly some behind for the Kurds, to whom a deal should be offered: diplomatic support, and military support, for an independent Kurdistan, but only if all claims on the territory inhabited by Kurds in present-day Turkey, are foresworn, while claims to parts of Syria and Iran where Kurds are in the majority can be made, and possibly even encouraged.
He, Obama, should not get further into Afhganistan in order to show that he's "tough" in the "war on terror," but should instead reframe the entire thing, and tell us the truth: that "terror" is only one tactic of Jihad, that other instruments -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest (he can phrase this as obliquely or delicately as he wishes, but convey this meaning he -- or a not impossible McCain -- simply must). He must harness the fury of Americans in order to get them to make sacrifices - that is, pay taxes -- to pay for nuclear plants (emulating France -- how amusing to see that McCain is in energy the European sophisticate, and Obama the naive California hippie, with a deep and unshakeable faith in the ability of "alternative" sources and a distinct instinctual lack of enthusiasm for nuclear plants, though the scientists most alarmed and informed about the consequences of anthropogenic climate change have been insisting on the indispensability of nuclear power plants). He must do nothing to make the world's Infidels believe that he is, after all, secretly somehow connected to Islam, or sympathetic to it. If he does, this will push the European leaders, or those who are soon to come, as conditions have made it no longer possible to hide a continent-wide alarm over the Muslim influx, and the Muslim inability -- unlike every other immigrant group, such as Chinese and Hindus --to integrate into any non-Muslim societies (the other immigrants also have the same, or even more severe, language problems, and may possess an alien creed too, but what the Chinese and Hindus and Bolivian Indians and non-Muslim blacks from Africa or elsewhere bring is not, as Islam is, both an alien and a hostile creed) -- to integrate into non-Muslim societies, except only a tiny bit, superficially, but deeply and permanently hostile because of what Islam inculcates, what the tenets derived from the immutable texts of Islam teach.
Neither Obama, nor McCain, should continue to waste valuable time trying to avoid the truth about the war being made on Israel: it is not a war about borders, and it is not a war that will be "solved" -- there is no "solution" to it, given the immutable texts of Islam, and the only way to stave off Israel's destruction is by making it so overwhelmingly strong that its enemies will not try an outright military assault, and then to hope, and keep hoping, that as the American and other governments work to diminish reliance on, and use of, oil, that will weaken the Money Weapon that, over the past four decades, has done so much to harm Israel and to strengthen the Arabs.
Obama should realize that he can save the country hundreds of billions, if he adopts a more clear-headed policy in weakening the Camp of Islam. He should end American aid to Muslim peoples and polities -- to Pakistan, to Egypt, to the soi-disant "Palestinian people" who were invented after the Six-Day War out of the local Arabs who have served as the shock troops of the without-end Jihad against Israel. Let them instead ask for the fabulously rich Arab oil states, now drowning in hundreds of billions of dollars, or in the Saudi case, more than a trillion dollars, all of it unmerited and, morally, undeserved, to share the oil wealth, the wealth that Allah surely meant to be shared by all the members of the Umma. And if they share with the other Muslims, fine -- that will be less extra money to spend on mosques and madrasas and campaigns of Da'wa and propaganda and small armies of Western hirelings in the West. And if they refuse to share, or don't share what the envious poorer Arabs -- those Egyptians, "Palestinians," Jordanians, or the envious non-Arab Muslims, as the maddened masses of Pakistan -- think should be their due, well that will only lead to discord, and to divisions, within the Camp of Islam.
And that is a Good Thing.
Finally, Obama should consider seizing Darfur and the southern Sudan so as to protect black Africans -- Muslims in Darfur, the victims of the Arab supremacism of which Islam has always been a vehicle -- and Christians and animists (the Dinka, the Nuer) in the southern Sudan, who have already suffered nearly 2 million deaths at the hands of the Muslim Arabs of the north. And let those parts of the Sudan be held, by the American troops who will with ease rescue them, and let the Christians of Africa, including those in Ethiopia, and Kenya, and Tanzania (the slave-coffles and dhows of the Arabs, by which they transferred the few black African boys who survived the castration when caught, and then the march to the sea, where they would be shipped to the slave markets of Islam) can still be seen on Zanzibar and Pemba), and even among the Christians in West Africa, there will be a sense that the Americans have come, the Arabs will be turned back, the Americans will rescue many from the creeping islamization and arabization that threatens the well-being of black Africa. Surely Obama knows enough about the treatment of women in Islam(he'll know more once he meets, if he does meet, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali), and also knows, or can quickly be made to know, enough about inshallah-fatalism, to understand how Islam encourages social and economic backwardness, and why, if he wants -- and he does want -- to help black Africa, there are two things that count above all else.
The first is is to encourage development of other, non-oil forms of energy, first in this country, with the knowhow to be exported everywhere, and that everywhere includes black Africa. For whatever economic progress and prosperity has been achieved in sub-Saharan Africa over the past four decades has been completely undone by Arab greed , and the rise in oil prices. Incidentally, how curious it is that the black African states have not thought to ask for reparations from the Arabs, whose slave trade in Africa began many centuries earlier, and ended nearly two centuries later, and even now continues in Mali, in the Sudan, and, along with other kinds of enslavements, in darkest Saudi Arabia.
The second is to prevent the spread of Islam, for Islam itself favors despotism, not democracy, and retards or paralyses economic, social, intellectual, and moral development. It also limits the possibliities for art and music, forms of expression that no other ideology dampens or discourages so effectively and completely. Western advanced democracies are based on certain notions, including that of the social contract, according to which it is claimed that the political legitimacy of a government reflects the fact that it expresses, or tries to express, the will of the people. In Islam it is quite different. Mere people, mere men, do not matter. What matters is that they remain completely submissive to Allah -- "slaves of Allah." In Islam political legitimacy is located not in the will expressed by the people, but in the will expressed by Allah, as found in the Qur'an, and glossed by the Sunnah). If one wishes black Afrcia well, one wishes to prevent the islamification of Black Africa.
And this can be done by such acts as seizing the black-African-popoulated parts of that artificial state, created by British colonialism (that favored the Arabs over the Africans), the Sudan (formerly the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), and holding it against the Arabs, who will only with difficulty, and with no success, attempt to raise outrage among non-Arabs and non-Muslims -- but who, seeing the smiling faces of the black Africans greeting their American liberators with obvious gratitude (gratitude that will not be, as it was in Muslim and largely Arab Iraq, either temporary or feigned, or both), will take the side of the furious, foiled members of the Arab League? Obama will be a hero, having checked Islam as Bush, with his absurd boots-on-the-ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not and can not.
There is one more thing that I overlooked. Save in the case of the Sudan, the main weapons of warfare are not those of military power or invasion, nor are they those of "explaining" ourselves better to Muslims, but rather of explaining the real nature of Islam better to ourselves. And if we do that, we will be better able to recognize the divisiions within the Camp of Islam -- of the Shia and Sunni split, whose fault-line runs through Iraq, and the deep resentment of many non-Arab Muslims (such as Kurds, Berbers, black Africans, some Indonesians) for the Arab supremacism that they rightly detect, but so far have been unable to dare to connect to Islam itself. And if we can recognize those divisions, we can encourage and exploit them.
But, aside from the case of Sudan -- where only a few thousand troops would be necessary-- there is the need to prevent nuclear weapons from being produced by Muslim states. So far, luckily, the bombs that Pakistan produced have not been allowed to fall out of government control, and so far that Pakistani government has been sane. But the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran is quite different. And that case has to be dealt with, at once. Either by the Americans, or if they will not do so, then at least by giving Israel every conceivable aid (it need not be bruited about, but it must be given) so that their raid -- not invasion, nota bene, but raid -- to set back for many years Iran's nuclear project, very close to coming to fruition, will be a smashing, in every sense, success. It has to be.
This does require military force, without further ado or -- after five years of it -- palaver.
There are still doubts in the minds of many people as to whether or not Obama is or is not Muslim. This is mostly based on rumor and innuendo. I have seen nothing to definitively indicate that Obama is an adherent of Islam or that he describes himself as a Muslim.
Moreover, the question itself does no good to opponents of Obama. Even if it were discovered that Obama is Muslim, the MSM would reject the import of such a revelation and cry RACISM (as if Islam is a "race") against anyone to whom Obama's Muslim-ness would matter. The fact that such worries are still only rumor and innuendo, and not based on irrefutable fact, only encourages liberal and Media cries of RACISM.
More important than whether Obama is a Muslim, and infinitely more important than whether or not he is a Christian (I myself am not), is, as Fitgerald points out, whether or not:
"he grasps, as his predecessor did not grasp, what the ideology of Islam inculcates. He must understand, and cleverly share that understanding with those whom he presumes to instruct and protect, that Jihad, properly defined, is the duty -- not tangential but central -- of Muslims to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles, of every kind (the American Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, constitute such an obstacle), to the spread, and then to the certain dominance, of Islam."
There can be little doubt that Obama does not grasp this. Or maybe that, in a form of cognitive dissonance, he does realize it in a realistic and rational sense, but chooses to pretend that such a reality does not exist -- as many leftists do.
Anyway, isn't adherence to a faith which HATES America, blames all white people for any and all real or perceived problems in the world, and is clearly sympathetic to Islamic terror, bad enough? -- That's Black Liberation Theology. It isn't Christianity, and it isn't Islam -- But, We KNOW, quite well, exactly what Mr. Obama's religious faith is.
now that was why i originaly started tuning into jihad watch...a clear opinion less the sarcasm and resentful spin i encounter all to often. how would you submit the above to the two candidates and have them read it ?
reference: hugh post 8:25pm
now that was why i originaly started tuning into jihad watch...a clear opinion less the sarcasm and resentful spin i encounter all to often. how would you submit the above to the two candidates and have them read it ?
"how would you submit the above to the two candidates and have them read it?"
-- from a poster above
How would I submit that 8:25 p.m. posting to the two candidates? No idea. Ideas, or high-placed contacts, welcome.
Then there's the second part of your question: "how would you...have them read it?" That's even tougher, and puts me inadvertently in mind of a bon mot, or two, by Dorothy Parker:
"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."
I suspect Islam will shatter Obamas dream of hope and change during his Honeymoon.
I anticipate flowerknife's scenario materializing
Obama is most certainly not a Christian. Trinity Church which he attended for over 20 years preaches Black Liberation Theology(supremacist) as taught by James Cone and carried out by his chief exponent Reverend Wright.
Cones theology posits not a universal savior but a black god looking out for black people only and where whites are the enemy.
The closet analog to Obama's faith can only be found in certain white supremacist groups.
Its pretty grotesque stuff worthy of David Duke.
Michelle Obama also imbibed Wright's teachings for decades and it shows in her hatred of white America.
And the fact that racist and anti-semitic piece of crap Farrakhan is in rapture over a possible Obama presidency. And that Obama has surround himself with the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - two well known anti-semites and racists should be cause for concern.
I suspect Islam will shatter Obamas dream of hope and change during his Honeymoon.
Posted by: flowerknife_us [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 16, 2008 11:07 PM
It damn sure shattered Bush's hopes, whatever they may have been. If, God forbid, Obama wins, we will see a new and changed Obama the day he takes the oath of office. I didn't like McCain before or after he won the nomination but I will vote for him because he is not a Marxist like Obama. There is nothing else about him that I remotely like or agree with except his vague and infrequent remarks about "radical" islam and jihad. I do not believe he understands islam, jihad, the islamic agenda, or the fundamental threat posed by islam and muslim immigration.
Obama is a cold, calculating, power-hungry, bi-racial politician who has a talent for oratory. Everything he says is scripted and written by his handlers. Unless Obama has completely changed since he wrote his books and that isn't likely, he is an angry, resentful man who is ashamed of his white heritage, dislikes white people, and loathes his own country despite his privileged life and status in America. His past (and present) associations are proof enough of his communist sympathies but irrespective of his associations, he has clearly expressed his communist sentiments in his speeches, comments, and voting record.
I grew up under the dark cloud of the cold war and the children of my generation were taught that communism is the ultimate evil and must be fought and resisted at all costs. I learned about Lenin and Stalin and the horrors of Soviet Russia; the millions who were butchered or sent to Siberia so the great, visionary social engineers could create their hideous dystopia called a "workers paradise". Everyone was equal and equally miserable except the ruling elite. I saw hungry, cold people standing in lines to get a loaf of bread, only to reach the counter and be turned away empty-handed. I have since learned that there is something worse than communism and that is islam, but that knowledge does not make communism any more appealing. And America is about to elect a communist for president so we can get "free" health care. Our communist candidate is also sympathetic to islam and muslims for obvious reasons, another ignored portent.
This year of campaigns, candidates, the biased, corrupt news media, the corrupt, incompetent congress, and the endless commentary about politics is unlike any other presidential election year I have ever seen. This time a year ago, who would have dreamed that Obama and McCAin would be the candidates? The whole thing has become surreal, like a terrifying nightmare about to culminate in unimaginable horror.
INDONESIA: Alleged brutal torture and sexual abuse by the Banda Raya police
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information regarding the case of Mr. Hartoyo who was tortured and sexually abused in January 2007 in Aceh. The Banda Aceh District
Court treated this case as a minor offence and let those responsible go free.
Earlier report: AHRC has received information regarding the alleged brutal torture and sexual abuse of Mr. Hartayo, an NGO worker, and his partner Bobby while in detention, by the Banda Raya police between 22-23 January 2007 in Banda Aceh. The alleged underlying motive behind the detention, torture and sexual abuse of the victims is because they are homosexuals. We were also informed that the police made the victims to sign a statement to the Village Head Chief not to indulge in "homosexual actions again". The AHRC is deeply concerned that such brutal violence against the victims was committed without hesitation not only by the civilian attackers but also by the police whose mandate is to protect the rights of people.
More..
http://www.newageislam.com/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=881
"Neither Obama, nor McCain, should continue to waste valuable time trying to avoid the truth about the war being made on Israel..."
Hugh
Agreed. A good litmus test of Obama's sentiments about Islam will be Israel, whether the U.S. will continue to support her according to what Israel deems to be necessary for her defense, or whether BHO will pull a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton and try to appease unappeasable Muslim sentiments. A good first step for a president Obama to take would be to visit Israel, with a speech to the Knesset clearly and unambiguously asserting continued solid support.
"A good litmus test of Obama's sentiments about Islam will be Israel"
But you won't get that without first electing Obama. He will not say before the election what he has in mind. You won't know until he is in the White House exactly where he stands. That people are accepting this is a disgrace.
He was upset by Farrakhan's endorsement but not by the fact that Farrakhan supported him. What bothered him was that Farrakhan made it known BEFORE the election.
That should be an indicator of where Obama stands on Israel. Obama's policy toward Israel might very well be one of malign neglect.
Malign neglect is what I wish the US would use toward a few Muslim states around the world.
"I suspect Islam will shatter Obamas dream of hope and change during his Honeymoon."
- flowerknife.us
I couldn't disagree more. Did islam shatter bush's dreams of hope & change with respect to peace in the middle east? No.
w/r/t our relations w/ our "eternal friends," the saudis? No.
w/r/t the ability of muslims to assimilate into America's melting pot? No.
w/r/t the true nature of the religion, the ideology, the total belief system, of islam? No.
w/r/t the desirability of allowing even more foreign-born muslims to immigrate to or study in the U.S. than before 9/11? No.
w/r/t his PR efforts (e.g., the white house dinners) to make muslims seem to the American people as American as John Wayne? No.
If bush's experiences during his entire presidency didn't shake his faith in the goodness of islam, why should the expected similarly bad experiences during an obama presidency shake obama's?
Hugh wrote:
...And once SNL starts doing Obama --he's very mockable (though I notice that ever since I put up a piece on his repeated use of the word "improbable" it seems to have dropped out of his idiolect, thank god)...
Hugh,
Could you please use your apparent clout to also make him stop using the phrase 'the notion that', usually followed by 'uh'?
Magari.
My little piece on Obama's "improbable":
http://newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/16136
Anch'io...sospiro.
Sentimental family attachment to Islam- what a great way to describe my frustration with Jorge Ibn Saud al-Bush, Vice President of Mexico.
Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at October 16, 2008 3:13 PM
No More Ham, Ed,
The days of 'frustration', 'disappointment', 'surpruse', 'doesn't get it'... have come and gone. POTUS and family get state salary, benefits and protestion. Tax-payers work hard for the taxes they pay and expect the POTUS/Commander-in-law to observe the otah they take to take office. With Jorge Ibn Saud al-Bush, Vice President of Mexico, you will observe that his emergence is from failed businesses, Saudi petro-dollars and daddy's wealth. It is clear that even if he wanted to, Bush does not have the ability to observe the oath-of-office. Americans should see this right through. Instead, what Americans have handed over the key to American power, office, military and treasury to an irresponsible, spoilt, liar, selling America to anyone with a peso or a petro-dollar, costing American blood and lives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I