| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It would be silly for Barack Obama and his advisers not to recognize that there are many people in this country who are anxious about his Muslim background, his Muslim name, and his Muslim supporters getting out the vote for someone whom, they, at least, in this country, and abroad, are convinced is deeply sympathetic to Islam and to its aims. This does not go away by declaring oneself a Christian. And it does not go away after the election, whether Obama wins -- in which case the anxiety only increases -- or if he loses, and plans to run four years from now.
It is humanly understandable. How strange it is to think of a President Barack Obama after Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others of that ilk. The fact that Obama is mentally superior to Bush and morally superior to Clinton cuts little ice among those who, like the King in "Now We Are Six" who did "want a little butter for his bread," would in these disturbing (or "great" kraussian times) want just a little cultural continuity, even in the names of our presidents. Many don't like such sudden shifting, even nymic shifting, under their feet.
His views on Islam we do not clearly know, but we have a right to suspect they are not clear to him either. He has not done enough studying or thinking or consulting except with the usual esposito-armstrong-rashidi apologists (that is, the venal, the stupid, and the islamochristian Arab propagandist). He has no idea about the scandal of MESA Nostra (which google, and consult for detail Martin Kramer's analysis of the teaching about Islam and the Middle East in this country). He should begin with, say, The Dhimmi and Islam and Dhimmitude and then for textual analysis of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, the books of Robert Spencer -- pay no attention to the "conservative" publishing house and stick unswervingly to the contents. And it would be wonderful if Obama could start looking at websites conducted by former Muslims, who are so knowledgeable, helpful and impassioned in a way that inspires.
His remarks, or almost asides, about Islam, are clouded by sentimentality and childhood memories: sentimentality in particular about an absent father (and the search for "roots" and for "identity," by now a banal theme, but one that was all Barack Obama had to work with when, at a little over thirty, he decided My Life So Far is worth a book). He learned a little more, or thinks he did, in that most unrepresentative of Muslim countries, more easygoing and not-entirely-Muslim Indonesia -- compare Indonesia to Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Indonesia, with its Hindus in Bali, its Christians in the Moluccas, still enjoys the afterglow of the post-Dutch nationalist leaders who really were secular, such as Suharto and Sukarno, or were sui generis, as is the truly Muslim "moderate" Wahid. Wahid had been greatly affected by his time as a student in Baghdad, when he befriended, and was befriended by, an Iraqi Jew working in the same office, who was one of the very last Jews in Iraq, and someone who apparently made a deep impression on Wahid for the better.
Until Obama has spent a few days on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and applied his mind to them -- he has a good mind, but the wrong instincts about the world -- and until he has at least consulted, in person or on paper, the most piercing commentators on Islam (both non-Muslims and defectors from the Army of Islam now living in this country, such as Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), he should remain silent.
For so far those who read the tea-leaves have good reason to worry about his understanding. Yes, he is against the war in Iraq, and claims, not quite accurately I’m afraid, that he has been so steadily. In fact, once the war began he wavered, and after he was against it he was for it and then he was against it again. But that is not enough. We need to know why he was against it. Was it because we merely anger Muslims, and we must do nothing to do that, but must instead come to some conceivable accommodation with them, one largely based on throwing others -- i.e., Israel and possibly the Christians of the Middle East -- to the wolves by forcing them to give up their legal, moral, historic rights, whatever those rights might be? (We hardly hear about those rights. All we hear about is strangely-neutral “processing” as in “peace-processing,” as if the “process” itself will lead with certainty to a “solution” -- which again implies that there is a discrete “problem” to which there is a “solution,” a most naïve, and some might cruelly suggest naively American, notion).
He thinks that every enemy can be “talked to” and “without preconditions,” and that the mere fact of this talk is a Good Thing. No. Sometimes such talk legitimizes a regime on its uppers. Sometimes such talk allows a regime to engage in tactics of delay, delay, delay -- see the regime in Khartoum, hoping always to get in another good month or six of mass-murder, before it happens to call it a day; see the regime in Teheran, that hopes to buy time to finish the “project” about which we all know. If it is engaged in “talks,” the American government is unlikely -- so those who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran correctly conclude -- to do what it must and should have done six months or a year ago. Now it seems to be both waiting to see if permanently imperiled and brave little Israel will take on the difficult task -- one that would be so much easier for the Americans to do, with their vast airpower and spy satellites and other resources. They seem to want the Israelis to do this for the Infidels of this world, as it has before. And at the same time, they’re trying to pressure Israel not to do so, for supposed fear of the “headache” this would cause American military planners, who already have their “hands full” in the Middle East. So Israel has to risk being decapitated, because Admiral Mullen and others, having been bogged down in Tarbaby Iraq through the sole folly of the American government, might suffer a “headache.”
But Obama doesn’t talk about any of that, as he might, and score all kinds of unanswerable points. No, instead he talks about “talks.”
At least Obama should understand why people are made nervous, and why he has to say, and then do, very dramatic things to show not only that he is not a Muslim, but that he truly -- unlike Bush, and unlike McCain up to now -- studied, and grasps, the meaning and menace of Islam.
For if he doesn’t, and if he does nonetheless manage to become President, those who do know all about Islam will make mincemeat of him. And all kinds of things that should be done will not be done. Above all, those who are most interested in reducing the use of fossil fuels because of their desire to deprive those conducting Jihad of the Money Weapon, will continue not to have sufficient influence, at the very moment when, if their "concerns were addressed," they could constitute a powerful ally of alarmed environmentalists, in a Grand Alliance to cut back the use of fossil fuels. And that alliance might be just what the doctor ordered, in order to efface or diminish left-right attitudinizing and hostility, as both sides work, with different emphases and promptings, toward exactly the same goal: a reduction in the world-wide use of fossil fuels. It would help if Obama, anointed champion of that left, would articulate why the "war on terrorism" is actually a Jihad and that among the instruments of that Jihad is not only terrorism but also Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and -- undergirding all three of the others -- the Money Weapon.
Yes, Obama can point out -- unless McCain beats him to the punch -- that the Money Weapon is so much more effective, at this point, than terrorism in promoting the goal of removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. And he can grandly reach out, he with his "improbable" life story and his race-and-nation-bestriding impulse, to create that Grand Alliance that will "harness the energies" of "both left and right." But Obama can't do it if he doesn't recognize Arab and Muslim oil revenues as a Money Weapon, and is unable to connect that instrument of Jihad, the Money Weapon, to support for other instruments of Jihad, including Da'wa, and demographic conquest and, yes, that terrorism to which such dangerously exclusive, even monomaniacal, attention has been given by the benighted Bush Administration.
Everything connects. Or, to put it in a way that the Obama campaign might like, and as a way of proving that I once was forced to study the rudiments of another, "foreign," language, just as candidate Obama says more Americans should: Tout se tient.
Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2008 7:39 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
another drawback represented by Obama is that his advisors are Washington old timers, like Zbig Brzezinski, Kurtzer, etc., whose policies have been harmful in fact, whatever the intenetions may have been.
Brzezinski is especially threatening, given his role in bringing Khomeini to power in Iran, of helping breed Muslim fanatic terrorists in Afghanistan, like osama bin laden, helping Sadat against Israel, etc.
Posted by: Eliyahu![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 15, 2008 8:16 AM
"Islam Watch" is an excellent site to visit. The testimony of ex-Muslims would do much to educate anyone about the upcoming struggle between civilization and Islamofacism.
Posted by: tanstaafl at July 15, 2008 8:21 AM
BHO is objectionable for many reasons besides his ignorance of the Islamic threat. He has the leftmost voting record of any senator. This means he stands for more of the same policies that have wrecked this country in the last 50 years: more privileges for certain favored minorities; more expansion of the welfare-state; the opening of the borders to anyone who wants to come to take advantage of that welfare; the further weakening of our military strength; the refusal to take any steps to reduce our dependence on imported energy -- whether by developing domestic oil or gas fields, or building refineries or pipelines or nuclear plants; the willingness to accept the Kyoto air-pollution rules, which would further burden our industries while exempting 3/4 of the world's countries from any restrictions; etc.
In general, BHO stands for expansion of the state, and more state control; over the economy, over education, over everything in our lives.
America became the greatest country in the world by following a policy of minimum state authority. As the state has grown, our lives and our society and our security have diminished.
at July 15, 2008 8:42 AM
LOL... This morning, on my homepage, there was a news story about Obama--you're not going to believe this--saying that US policy in Iraq is unsound, because it is "open-ended"!
Open ended! This from the man who is going to pull out the troops, but isn't going to leave the field, but isn't going to maintain bases...
Posted by: Abscedere at July 15, 2008 8:55 AM
BHO's willingness to talk to monsters like Ahmedinajad itself betrays a horrid lack of understanding of Islam. As Robert Spencer and others have pointed out, muslims are allowed to negotiate with non-muslims for two reasons, and ONLY two reasons - to facilitate the conversion of non-muslims to Islam, or to establish a temporary truce (called hudna in Arabic) while muslims are weak, to enable them to regather their strength, at which time the muslims abolish the truce. Thus, even if the talks that Obama imagines were to take place, Ahmedinajad would have no intention of sticking to anything that the would agree to in such talks. He would go along with whatever he promises for a while, and then violate his promise when he feels that he could get away with doing so. Obama (and McCain, for that matter) would be well advised to learn the concept of hudna.
Obama also appears to have ignored the lessons of recent history. Saddam Hussein agreed to a cease-fire in 1991, but never lived up to its terms. Israel has tried numerous times to talk with neighboring Arab countries and representatives of the Palestinians, but while Egypt and Jordan have accepted peace treaties, these talks have been fruitless in stopping terrorism. If peace could be made merely by talking, Israel/Palestine would be the most peaceful place in the world.
Posted by: Bigfoot at July 15, 2008 9:10 AM
Could the latest edition of " The New Yorker " be a visable commetary of people's fears about BHO?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 15, 2008 9:11 AM
Last night CNN was doing a story on people's "misperceptions" about Barrack Obama and said it did some back ground checks based on what people believe...such as that he used to be a Muslim or attended a religious Islamic school in Indonesia as a kid. The CNN fact finders found that his family was never religious, and he never attended an Islamic school in Indonesia.
He's too elitest to be a Muslim anyways, but it was pretty amusing listening to a 70 year old granny saying to the CNN reporter that she didn't like Obama "because he's a Muslim".
I still think Obama is going to win the election but he's got some work to do.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at July 15, 2008 9:29 AM
"In general, BHO stands for expansion of the state, and more state control; over the economy, over education, over everything in our lives."
ebonystone has it exactly right. John McCain was recently heard to say his opponent was running for Jimmy Carter's second term, but that isn't quite on the mark. Barack Obama is running for Lyndon Johnson's second term. When one recalls what LBJ was able to do with his army of congressional lickspittles -- the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the Gun Control Act of 1968, etc., etc. ad nauseam -- this is a decidely grim prospect.
at July 15, 2008 10:19 AM
From article: The fact that Obama is mentally superior to Bush...
Also-- he (Obama) has a good mind,
Maybe, but how is that measured? How is it made into a 'fact'?
I don't see Obama as being anything special in terms of mental ability, or agility. So I was wondering Hugh, just how did you come to those conclusions...
Just curious...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 15, 2008 10:54 AM
BHO is objectionable for many reasons besides his ignorance of the Islamic threat.
Posted by: ebonystone at July 15, 2008 8:42 AM
With all due respect, arn't presidential candidates expected to be informed, if not well-informed? If they are not, is their ignorance acceptable, specially on critical matters like national security? Finally, without any evidence, how can one assume ignorance, and not collaboration? For example, is the present president/commander-in-chief, having been so close to the wahhabbis in Riyadh, ignorant to conclude that Saudi Arabia, and for that matter, Pakistan, are "allies" rather than terrorists themselves, specially when there is overwhelming evidance to the former? What are the chances Bush is collaborating with terrorists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, while feigning ignorance about these terrorist countries?
With American lives, treasury and civilization at stake, however well-meant, is there room for allowances?
at July 15, 2008 11:11 AM
First the attributes...
The following is an article written by Obama within days after 9/11 in the Hyde Park Herald (apparently local Chicago publication.) that is referenced in an article at the New Yorker magazine, that I read while perusing posts at LGF...whew... did I leave anyone out?
"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. "
What has Obama actually done, which he admits is a difficult task, towards "understanding the sources of such madness"? He has written abook (or 2) since then, but what has he read? Not a thing I bet
According to BO the essence of the tragedy (9/11) is a failure of empathy of the attackers. History tells us it is not unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity...
BO has learned nothing from history because he has not studied it, at least not any Islamic history.
at July 15, 2008 11:14 AM
"The fact that Obama is mentally superior to Bush and morally superior to Clinton cuts little ice..." from Hugh's posting
I agree with duh_swami. Obama's selection to head the HLR may have been more about his race than his intellectual acumen. He is the first HLR editor to NOT be offered a high-level Federal clerkship, and is work on the HRL was not distinguished.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythical.html
More intelligent than Bush. Yes, but hey, who isn't? Possessing superior morals to Clinton. Again, yes, but who doesn't? Clinton was the first (and hopefully, the last) representative of the "white trash" demographic to assume the office of President. Obama will be an unmitigated disaster as President, to be sure, but honestly, I really don't see him debauching interns in the Oval Office, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, or stealing the White House silverware. But it should be also pointed out that Obama is every bit as narcisstic and thin-skinned as Clinton. If his media sychophants ever turn on him, we'll witness the red-faced bug-eyed fingerpointing rage once again.
at July 15, 2008 11:18 AM
From above: More intelligent than Bush. Yes, but hey, who isn't?
Lot's of people are less intelligent than Bush.
I am not a Bushman, far from it, but I don't think he is stupid.
That's sort of like an urban myth.
It's a strange comparison, Bush intelligence against Obama intelligence. Will the real, intelligent, politician please stand up...Nobody stands.
Just as important as good intelligence is good judgment, they don't always go together.
It looks to me like intelligence is not really in question, it's good judgment that is in question.
From the actions of Bush, and the ramblings ot Obama, I don't think either one has an abundance of 'good judgment'.
I don't have a problem with Hughs opinions on that, I just wondered what kind of measuring device he was using...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 15, 2008 12:18 PM
The woefully under qualified Obama is a candidate for president of the U.S. BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR.
And to put it crudely, he is what is known in the Gay world as an enthusiastic and perpetual 'bottom'. The 'change' in store for America is indeed Jimmy Carter II. And if you remember, Dhimmi-Jimmy made America the world's 'bottom'.
For all the rhetoric and fake 'get tough' talk (undivided Jerusalem speech which he stood by all of 24 hours) - if he's president, America will bend over and 'assume the position'. Oh-so-civilized Europe will show us how.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 15, 2008 12:20 PM
Obama is either a Muslim or sympathizes with Muslims. The Jihadists will play him like a fiddle if he is elected.
Posted by: Spot on at July 15, 2008 12:30 PM
So how come WE know more about islam that HUSSEIN Obama?
Could it be that he is concealing what he knows?
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 15, 2008 12:41 PM
There has been no substantiated evidence that shows Obama attended a madrassa, or any form of Islamic school. His father was born a Muslim in Kenya but he separated and was divorced from Barack's mother when he was 2 years old.
The real concern should be the church he immersed himself in and belonged to for 20 years in Chicago. The religious practice of what is called "Black Liberation Theology".which was so clearly demonstrated by his pastor that he threw under the bus Jeremiah Wright.
One of the definers of this theology was James Cone who wrote the book Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. Cone has said that the Jeremiah Wright Church (Trinity United Church of Christ) best defines this Black theology teaching.
One of the criticisms of this black theology is that it turns religion into sociology, and Jesus into a black Marxist rebel. While making statements against whites and Asians, it promotes a poor self-image among blacks, and describes the black man as a helpless victim of forces and people beyond his control. Black theology calls for political liberation instead of spiritual salvation.
By embracing such thinking, this liberation theology also ends up interacting and being sympathetic to the teachings of the Nation of Islam.
Posted by: Mackie at July 15, 2008 1:11 PM
Will Obama ever change his mind?
The Speech Obama Never Gave
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12629.htm
at July 15, 2008 1:16 PM
Obama more intelligent than Bush? Sorry, I don't buy this. I think Bush has reservoirs of shrewdness, common sense and knowledge that Obama just doesn't have. I know this will put me in the minority here at JW, but that's what I think. Bush is a good ole' boy from Texas and invites underestimation, which many people oblige him in. He's snookered the Democratic Congress again and again since January 2007, the latest example of which is getting what he wanted on immunity for telecommunication companies cooperating with the government to ferret out Islamic terrorists.
Yeah, I know Bush doesn't get Islam (though I have wondered what he thinks privately) but almost no American politician does. But, hey, it's OK with me if you want to keep thinking Bush in an idiot. Frankly, I think he kind of enjoys being thought of as such and only a very secure human being with heaps of moral intelligence could do so.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 1:23 PM
We know with some certainty that Obama was raised as a Muslim for some time as a child.
Photographs taken of him in Muslim garb at age 24 with his brother Malik, a Muslim, give us no indication that he left Islam.
The next step in his ideological life appears when his black separist wife introduces him to Wright and Black Liberation Theology, a "theology" that worships a god of blacks that demonizes white people and embraces Islam. He was most likely a Muslim at that time, albeit non observant.
It seems that he made this move to appear to be a Christian for political advantage although BLT is a non Christian faith - see 2 Corinthians chapter 11 about a false Jesus and the devil's influence.
I have heard several pundits over the last few days say that he is is intellectually smart, qualified etc.
Other than being an Al Sharton with smooth veneer, tell how he is smart, an intellectual? This man is out of the water on every subject imaginable, economics, American history, Western history etc., etc.
What qualifications?
His wife is stil the unabashed racist that she was in her college days. She's an angry black supremacist that espouses anti-white, anti-American, Marxist views.
Barack is just more contained in his composure and appearance when compared to Michelle.
I don't care how he refines and conceals his
despicable views.
HE MUST BE STOPPED!
Posted by: cybo at July 15, 2008 1:50 PM
Mackie: In agreement with you that the real concern respecting Obama's religious connections should be that racist, anti-American church he belonged to for two decades. You mentioned James Cone and his book, Black Theology and Black Power, so praised by Jeremiah Wright. One of the most telling lines from this despicable work is the following: "Whiteness is a symbol of man's depravity." Now, Obama knew or should have known what was really going on in Wright's stupid church and I can only hope that millions of Americans don't forget about this come election day in November.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 2:00 PM
People should be worried about Obama, he didn't leave Islam until he joined TUCC in his twenties.
And TUCC isn't a Christian denomination period. Its Black Liberation Theology puts its in the non-Christian camp.
In his books he clearly sides sides with Africa and has nothing good to say about the west or whites in general. In fact he comes out in his first book and makes it clear that he doesn't like whites or blacks who act like them.
He's a racist.
The fact that he's gotten endorsements from some of the most vile groups and individuals in the world ought to disqualify him from office. Look when you get endorsements from Hamas, Hizbollah, North Korea and most of the Islamic world in general, its not a good sign.
at July 15, 2008 2:09 PM
One thing that Hugh wrote leapt off the page at me: "This does not go away by declaring oneself a Christian."
I immediately thought about Constantine who wrought so much damage to Christianity when he took it over in the early 300s AD, and ran "the Church" like a normal managed organisation. That happened after he said he had become a Christian.
Based on the beliefs of his Black Liberation church, and the previous Nation of Islam beliefs of this pastor, I wonder if the declared to be Christian BHO will play a significant part in forming the One World Religion that is to come. All in the name of world peace, you understand. "Peace, peace" when there is no peace.
Posted by: Jeff at July 15, 2008 4:06 PM
I would say BHO's moral superiority over Clinton is a perceived superiority. Accusations against him that were never even heard of in the 50 states were freely disgussed in Puerto Rico during the primary. Every Puerto Rican heard the interview of BHO's accusser. Its what we don't know about him that has made people nervous, but its not at all comforting either if we discover, and this is where I'm leaning, that he's an empty suit.
Posted by: PraiaFlamego at July 15, 2008 4:33 PM
Jeff: Not to get off track, but I've never come across any serious church historian who looked upon Constantine's conversion (not until his death bed though) to Christianity as a negative. Almost overnight after the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) was issued, Christians went from being an occasionally persecuted sect to a protected one and the percentage of the Empire that became Christian from this point onwards shot up dramatically through the course of the fourth century A.D. Also, Constantine is ordinarily given additional credit for calling the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), which effectively made Arianism a heresy, to the great relief of all Trinitarians. Yes, Constantine began a caesaropapism in the Eastern Church which continued throughout Byzantine history, but even this wasn't a complete negative and actually had some postive aspects to it such as relieving the Patriarchs in Constantinople of many burdensome administrative aspects that the Popes did not have the luxury of ignoring.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 4:46 PM
There's a youtube video of a speech he gave about defunding the military. And a speech about giving 3/4 trillion to fight world poverty.
He wants to give billions to Pakistan. And many billions to fight poverty in Africa.
What will be left for the U.S. taxpayer? Who already must work often 50 hours per week to survive and most falling deeper into debt and the nation also falling deeper into debt. With no social security funded and no medical funded.
How can this be sustained? The rich can only have their taxes raised so much and then they leave the country.
When did the U.S. presidents decide the American people must support the world? Give up their life clock minutes, so that others can relax and spend time with their families and praying.
Posted by: Borg at July 15, 2008 5:12 PM
You are right. Americans work much harder, and have in many ways more difficult lives, than most people in the advanced world. It is American taxpayers who shelled out trillions for the Marshall Plan, NATO, CENTO, and all kinds of other fantastic expenses associated with the Cold War, while European countries have contributed less and less, and two World War II enemies, Japan and West Germany, flourished, and now, again, it is the Americans who have -- idiotically -- taken on the hopeless, and wrong task, of turning the sow's ear of Iraq into a pseudo-silk purse, already spending or committing two trillion dollars to the effort, and having spent another hundred billion on Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the "Palestinians."
If this is done to safeguard oil, two questions:
1) Why do we, and not the producers of that oil, need to safeguard it? Shouldn't they protect that oil, if they wish to sell it? Shouldn't they at least pay for our protecting it -- and shouldn't we long ago have demanded such payment?
2) If all this expense is done to safeguard the oil of the Middle East, how is that other oil-consuming nations, such as China, and India, do nothing to "safeguard" that oil, not a soldier, not a penny -- and yet if we "safeguard" the oil they will be in exactly the same boat as we will be, or we will be in exactly the same boat as they, in the price we pay for oil. Not one whit better. So why do we continue to shell out money?
Finally, Obama wants a transfer of American taxpayers' wealth to Africa. On what basis? Why do we owe it to them? What is the evidence that the 400 billion dollars that sub-Saharan Africa has received has done any good, and what is the evidence that it has actually done harm? See the work of the economist Peter Bauer; see the work of the developmental economist, who spent decades in the very field of such aid, William Easterly, who convincingly presents a book-length study of why such foreign aid not only does not work, but is harmful to the recipient countries.
In foreign policy, the naif Obama has all kinds of plans. All of them spell much greater expense for this country, a country already reeling from having to pay perhaps a half-trillion dollars more for oil, at the very time it is incurring expenses associated with the "war on terror" of an additional half-trillion dollars per year.
Obama seems to be unaware of this. Unaware, or perhaps he doesn't care. Perhaps he hasn't read William Easterly. Perhaps he lacks sympathy for American long-suffering taxpayers. Perhaps he prefers to dwell on other lands, like that lady Dickens makes fun of, who was always sending money to distant "natives" but failed to see the poor all around her in her native London.
Perhaps.
Many are at the end of their tether. They see how people live in Western Europe. They see the Arab states in which no one lifts a finger, the rich Arab states that have contributed nothing to protecting their own oil supplies, and have inveigled us to pay for practically everything.
Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2008 5:26 PM
Obama is not a Muslim. But it is not unreasonable to believe that he is a "fellow traveler". This belief or suspicion will not be allayed by harsh denunciations from the Obama campaign. Obama himself will have to convince the American people that it is not true. So far, he has not made any real attempt to do so.
Posted by: dubrovnov at July 15, 2008 5:45 PM
People SHOULD be concerned about Barack Obama, particularly if they are concerned about Islamic jihadism. Obama emerged from, and is supported by, the lunatic Leftist fringe in this country, which is entirely dismissive and ignorant of the goals, nature, history and theological basis of Islamic jihadism. Not surprisingly, the Islamists in this country, in concert with their jihadist co-travelers abroad, are also rallying behind Mr. Obama, who is the epitome of the naive and ignorant Western multiculturalist - the most convenient and useful of idiots. People need to remember, that when they elect a president, they are also empowering the people around him.
What we are looking at here is the political bloc that David Horowitz described as the "Unholy Alliance" taking control of the executive branch of the United States government, and that IS a very disturbing prospect, indeed.
Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2008 7:35 PM
Mike: Agreed. Western multiculturalism (what other kind is there?) is a gigantic idiocy and entirely an invention of the modern Left. Most disturbing about an Obama presidency are all the liberal judges he will appoint with life tenure, who will sit on their judicial benches long after a failed Obama presidency is history.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 8:27 PM
Regarding the job of President of the United States, it is not a question of how smart Bush is, but is he smart enough? I believe he is. As for Obama, that remains to be seen.
An important aspect of intelligience is to understand one's own capabilities and limitations. I believe that Bush understands that and passes the test.
As for Obama, I fear that he has a total lack of insight into his own limitations. When that is combined with hordes of adoring fans, including media elites, it would be unsurprising if he thought he was one with the gods, as many of the Roman emperors did.
Hopefully American voters will realize by election day that Obama is an emperor without any clothes
at July 15, 2008 9:20 PM
Regarding the job of President of the United States, it is not a question of how smart Bush is, but is he smart enough? I believe he is. As for Obama, that remains to be seen.
An important aspect of intelligience is to understand one's own capabilities and limitations. I believe that Bush understands that and passes the test.
As for Obama, I fear that he has a total lack of insight into his own limitations. When that is combined with hordes of adoring fans, including media elites, it would be unsurprising if he thought he was one with the gods, as many of the Roman emperors did.
Hopefully American voters will realize by election day that Obama is an emperor without any clothes
at July 15, 2008 9:20 PM
Obama does not pass the smell test, plain and simple. if he makes people uneasy, those with survival instincts know that BO is so far left, he makes McGovern look like a Rush fan. Obama is so much an elitest much like Cdn former PM Trudeau, will go so far left that Americans will not recognize their country within a very short time. Obama is dangerous to anyone who loves Freedom that is so ingrained in the Amer.way of life, you can forgive some really stupid things McCain might do or say. Liberalism as practiced presently is a form of a brain disorder. I can only think positive that the AMer. electorate will make the wise decision.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 15, 2008 10:27 PM
CNN,The Pro-Obama network now has its "Factcheckers" REVISING HISTORY.
OBAMA is the first Presidential candidate whose basic Biographical/Personal History changes like the weather, ACCORDING to NEED.
at July 16, 2008 12:38 AM
Infidels, do not soil the name of our new Marxist-Muslim Prophet, Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW) by allowing it to touch your apostate, crusader lips!
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at July 16, 2008 12:52 AM
CNN,The Pro-Obama network now has its "Factcheckers" REVISING HISTORY.
OBAMA is the first Presidential candidate whose basic Biographical/Personal History changes like the weather, ACCORDING to NEED.
at July 16, 2008 1:04 AM
Jeff:
"I immediately thought about Constantine who wrought so much damage to Christianity when he took it over in the early 300s AD, and ran "the Church" like a normal managed organisation."
Jeff, Constantine did not "run 'the Church' like a normal managed organization." Constantine, from the time (around 306) that he was not named a Ceasar, left Asia Minor and joined his father Constantinius on the coast of France just as he was leaving for Britain. Constantinius had declared toleration of Christianity in Britain and Gaul. Upon Constantinius' death, Constantine was elected Ceasar by his troops, and he declared toleration in Spain and German territories. So, long before Milvian Bridge in 312, Constantine was openly tolerating Christianity in his area of influence.
A common Western misconception is that Constantine had any sway at all over the Christian Bishops who assembled for the first Ecumenical Council in 325. The Council was called by Constantine because the bishops were bombarding him with appeals. "Give me back my sleep-filled nights," the Emperor implored. Once convened the Council deliberated in the tradition of the apostles, a council of equals. Each bishop did not come to the Council with his own agenda, but to witness to that which his congregation had always believed. The three hundred or so bishops talked among themselves, learning if the geographically spread out Christians held the same beliefs. Those that they did prevailed. Further, the Eastern bishops did not automatically assume that their conclusions would be accepted by their congregations, but rather felt that if their deliberations were correct, the congregations would accept them -- which they did. To this day, the Eastern Church does not govern the congregations as the Pope, Curia and College of Cardinals does in the West. This is a big difference, and a significant one. The Eastern Church continues to be decentralized -- a model more like "The Spider and the Starfish" than like a corporation.
Please also remember that many of the delegates to that first Council were bearing on their bodies the mangled, disfigured, and maimed scars of torture rather than denying Christ. They were not afraid of the Emperor, or displeasing him. They had already proven that by confessing Christ under extreme torture.
Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at July 16, 2008 1:58 AM
For those of you casually dismissing the fact that Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW) was ever a Muslim, or is a Muslim; you should be readign what "cybo" and "waltc" said more closely.
You're all readers of Spencer for gosh's sake, do I have to spell it out to you:
T....A.....Q.....I......Y.....A.....H!
Have you ever seen a more blatant example than Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW), in your life?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts
http://www.newsletterarchive.org/2007/03/18/122791-Boyhood+Friend+&+Teacher+Say+Obama+Was+Muslim
Even the Chicago Tribune says Obama is a Liar:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-youth-story,0,5069625.story
Will you ever see stories like this about Obama, in the MSM:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-backs-taliban-supporter-in.html
How about the women in his life, who HATE America:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html
Read not only this article, but ALL the sources that he links too: Obama and his campaign, have Lied continually about his family's Muslim past; his own Muslim upbringing and ties, etc.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544
Read about what his father was REALLY like:
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html
In addition, there's a very good chance, despite people saying they've seen the "divorce" papers, that Obama's parents weren't even married, a fact his WIFE just admitted several days ago:
http://www.pr-inside.com/barack-obama-panics-andy-martin-s-book-r700482.htm
Heck, even the title of his book is an exercise in "Taqiyah"
http://make-informed-decisions.blogspot.com/2008/07/to-muslim-mind-in-indonesia-menerjang.html
Need more proof; read this article and the links to AP reports, for gosh's sake:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/broaching_that_other_offlimits.html
How about his ties to radical, Anti-American/Anti-Semitic Palestinians and Arabs:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2462
Do you need more proof:
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=579
His times to radical Shiites from Iran good enough for you:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/05/the_company_he.html
How about a closer examination of what was really going on, inside his "church"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRhNDQ4MGFlYjk0YzUwNDk0MzYyNTE1ZDkwYmNmNDc=
How about his affiliation with Anti-American/Anit-Semitic Palestinians:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=65108
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231
You've all talked about Cone, BLT, etc.; well here's some more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obama_black_liberation_theolog.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_black_liberation_theolog_1.html
Check out the blatant lies he tells about his background, already debunked by many articles above:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article
FACTS about OBAMA:
His connection and close friendship with a corrupt crook and convicted felon.
Obama supports sex education for Kindergarten!
Obama sought the endorsement of the Marxist Party in 1996!
Obama’s embracement of appeasement.
Obama has a huge anti-gun record.
Obama may not be a Muslim, but every association with religion he has made seems to be outrageously radical!
Obama has a very bad habit of re-writing history.
Obama refuses to cut his friendship with unrepentant anti-American terrorists!
A history of terrorist fundraisers for Obama.
Obama’s ties to Kenya and his cousin Odinga.
Obama has many, many radical friends!
Many Obama lies the media will ignore.
More on Obama's "BLT":
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_black_liberation_theolog_2.html
Pictures of the New "First Family", anyone?
http://conservative-and-proud.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-family-pictures-of-new-first.html
More myths about his background debunked:
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12917.htm
PROOF he practiced Islam, at a minimum:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354
Since he's a liar and a fraud, can you trust his judgement??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzQ4YTY4YjQyMzRjYjA5MGZlNDBiZTkwYmEyODg5NTc=
Icing on the cake:
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/351/15480
How about a teenaged Obama's Anti-American/Anit-Semitic/Anti-White Black Communist Mentor, Frank Marshall Davis:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html
How about his own Childhood friends saying he was "quite religious" in Islam:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
How about the FACTS that his Grandfather was a Communist Sympathizer, moved his family to Washington State so his daugher (Obama's mother) could study as a Communist High School; the family could join a Communist "Church", and then moved them to Hawaii again, so he could hang out with the local Communist party, headed by Frank Marshall Davis, and have him mentor a young Barack Obama:???
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0703270151mar27,0,14968,full.story
And this is Midwest/Kansas "family values"???
Ever wonder about the multitude of ties betwween Louis Farrakhan, "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, the Nation of Islam, the Trinity Chuch, Barack Obama, Black Liberation Theology, the trip by Farrakhan & Wright to Libya to meet Muamar Ghadhaffi, the why's and wherefores of all that tying into "Black Liberation Theology", the NOI/Farrakhan's fascination with Ghadhaffi, and how it all ties into Barack Obama???
I'm the First person, to make this analysis and this connection!
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
Then, read this Direct Quote from Ghadhaffi's "Little Green Book":
"BLACK PEOPLE WILL PREVAIL IN THE WORLD
The latest age of slavery has been the enslavement of Blacks by White people. The memory of this age will persist in the thinking of Black people until they have vindicated themselves.
This tragic and historic event, the resulting bitter feeling, and the yearning or the vindication of a whole race, constitute a psychological motivation of Black people to vengeance and triumph that cannot be disregarded. In addition, the inevitable cycle of social history, which includes the Yellow people's domination of the world when it marched from Asia, and the White people's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movement covering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergence of Black people.
Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot."
Does it all make sense now?
Does it all start to tie in together now?
I've been researching, following (as in career, not physically), watching, and studying this man, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, for 4 years now.
I am now 50 years old.
I have NEVER, in my entire life, seen such a fraud, liar, deceptive, empty-suited and most important DANGERIOUS "Politician" in my Lifetime!
This man, scares the living crap out of me!
If he is elected President of the United States; it will make Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton look like Chuchill and Ronald Reagen!
Let me say it again; and you all should know it, because Robert Spencer runs this Blog:
T....A......Q......I.......Y.......A........H!
Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW) is MOST accurate!
at July 16, 2008 2:06 AM
Wellington said:
"...it's OK with me if you want to keep thinking Bush is an idiot. Frankly, I think he kind of enjoys being thought of as such and only a very secure human being with heaps of moral intelligence could do so."
Agreed. History will be much kinder to Dubya than most people expect, IMO. He frustrates me on some levels but if I was drowning and he had a boat, I think he'd cheerfully rescue me, while Obama would not inconvenience himself unless I was someone politically useful to him.
But in that, Obama's not alone. Many politicians would do the same. My fear about Obama is both his close ties to Black Liberation Theology (which isn't so very distant from Muslim anti-American ideals) and his probable tolerance of all things Muslim which would come from his background and associations.
at July 16, 2008 2:47 AM
BHO smokes and drinks. Bush does neither (supposedly). Think about it.
Posted by: Bingo at July 16, 2008 5:17 AM
HUGH: "For if he doesn’t, and if he does nonetheless manage to become President, those who do know all about Islam will make mincemeat of him. And all kinds of things that should be done will not be done. Above all, those who are most interested in reducing the use of fossil fuels because of their desire to deprive those conducting Jihad of the Money Weapon, will continue not to have sufficient influence, at the very moment when, if their "concerns were addressed," they could constitute a powerful ally of alarmed environmentalists, in a Grand Alliance to cut back the use of fossil fuels. And that alliance might be just what the doctor ordered, in order to efface or diminish left-right attitudinizing and hostility, as both sides work, with different emphases and promptings, toward exactly the same goal: a reduction in the world-wide use of fossil fuels."
Hugh,
I have to say, your articles about Obama are quite puzzling to me. You seem to be saying "I don't like Obama, or his views on Islam, but I agree with his major policy prescriptions." In a previous piece of this type, you criticized Obama's "naivete" about what was possible in Iraq. I found this strange because Obama gave clear reasons for opposing the Iraq War--a dumb war, unrelated to the fight against Al-Queda--and McCain said Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and roses. If, regarding Iraq, you had followed YOUR OWN logic, you would be marching in your next local Walk for Change.
In the above quote, this bizarre phenomenon seems to reappear. You point out, correctly in my opinion, that ending worldwide reliance on fossil fuels would be a powerful "Money Weapon" against violent Jihadis. But then, incredibly, you go on to say that those most interested in reducing fossil fuels will "not have sufficient influence" under a President Obama. How does that follow, when McCain is pushing for more offshore drilling, while liberals have been more green on energy for decades now? Again--if you really believe what YOU JUST SAID, you should march in your next local Walk for Change.
Of course, there are reasons for "nervousness" about Obama, as you point out in your article: he spent time in a Muslim country, may not understand the Quran as you would like, and--here comes the most bizarre phraseology I have seen in my life--would disturb the "cultural continuity" in the "names of U.S. Presidents".
That's fine. I can respect your reasons for being "nervous" about these things. But aren't you also "nervous" that oil prices are skyrocketing, the economy is tanking, America's reputation is declining, and the Taliban are surging? Why don't you write a few articles about how McCain (according to YOU!) also does not grasp the Quran, and how his fabricated energy policies would be disastrous compared to Obama's? Why don't you write a few articles about how McCain's continued naivete regarding Iraq "makes you nervous"?
Despite your "nervousness" about Obama's background, you seem to support the main planks of Obama's platform as compared to McCain's. Clearly, Obama has managed to come up with policies YOU prefer to McCain's, in spite of his background. So why does his background matter, any more than the backgrounds of Ibn Warraq's, Wafa Sultan's, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's?
Looking forward to an insightful response.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 16, 2008 7:38 AM
What worries me about Obama is the fact that he is related to more Muslims from his father side and he is closer to them than to his atheist relatives from his mother side that are about a dozen or two at the most. His relatives in Kenya are in hundreds and they are all 100% Muslims. He has been very close to his Muslim relatives. He has visited them many times and less than two years ago he went to Kenya and campaigned for his first cousin (Muslim) who was running against a Christian candidate. When the Christian candidate defeated his cousin, his Muslim supporters burned hundreds of those Christians alive while they took refuge in their churches – they burned the churches while people were trapped alive inside them. Assuming that this story has nothing to do with Obama he still has some loyalty to Islam by virtue of having relation to hundreds Muslims. I question his motive when he opposed the war on Iraq – he was listening to his leaders Luis Farrakhan and Rev, Wright. Both Farrakhan and Wright are very anti American, Anti Whites and anti Jews. I believe that Obama’s Christianity hinged on Rev. Wright who helped him convert to “Christianity”. And I doubt that he became Christian because he had a revelation or belief in Jesus Christ. I believe it was a calculated decision to become Christian to help his long term ambition to run for a high level office. I believe he would have converted to Judaism if it were to help his odds for candidacy. I have no doubt that if Obama were a US Senator in 2003 he would have voted like every democrat. All the democrats supported President Bush’s war on terror and Obama would have been wise enough not to vote against his fellow democrats whom he would need in due time.
Now let’s talk about our troops in Iraq. McCain refuses to specify when he will bring them as any poker player would tell you; you do not play poker with an open hand. Obama is cashing in on the fact that even the pets in the US are sick and tired of Iraq and they all want the US soldiers home. Obama says “Huh, if every one wants the troops home then if I promise to bring them home people will vote for me”. How stupid does he think we are? We are smart enough to know that once Obama is elected as the US President, he will come up with tens of excuses to keep the troops in Iraq to prevent an all out war between Muslims. He would be somewhat sympathetic to Muslims and his relative would not forgive him if he did not prevent an all out war between Muslims. Just because a president promises something to get elected does not mean that he will not back down on his promise. We all remember “No Tax increase, read my lips” when Bush Sr. had to back down on his promise because the situation required it. McCain is more likely to bring home the troops as he has no obligations but to American people and the troops. Obama will have a conflicting situation as he feel obligated to his own Muslim relatives, hundreds of them. When Obama explained the National Anthem Stance, “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message…” What sides was he afraid to take? American vs. Muslim? Only to Muslims the American flag is a symbol of oppression.
at July 16, 2008 3:14 PM
Why don't you write a few articles about how McCain (according to YOU!) also does not grasp the Quran, and how his fabricated energy policies would be disastrous compared to Obama's? Why don't you write a few articles about how McCain's continued naivete regarding Iraq "makes you nervous"?
-- from a posting above
But I have made many critical remarks about McCain in many postings, but none of them has yet been promoted to the status of article. That will come, and I think come soon. McCain does, in energy policy, agree that nuclear energy is the only conceivable supplier of electricity on the scale necessary, if one wishes clean energy, and Obama still holds back, still thinks that solar and wind energy and conservation could do the trick. He's wrong. McCain, however, does not grasp the magnitude or the speed of climate change (almost no one does). His heart, however, is in the right place -- he admires Theodore Roosevelt, the friend of John Muir and John Burroughs, and McCain's image of himself as a maverick is something to encourage.
He also admires Roosevelt for his denunciation of the "malefactors of great wealth" -- god knows we've got plenty of those -- and he is much less the candidate of privilege (despite his wife) than he is the representative of the "other" Republican party, the people of middle-class means who have a certain view of the world -- one I share -- and a certain sense of the country. They are the people whom we often entrust with our lives.
I like McCain. He's idiotic on Iran, and on Islam. Obama wants out of Iraq but into Afghanistan because, he says, that's "the central theatre in the 'war on terror'." Well, there is no "central theatre" in what should properly be called the war of self-defense -- none of us expected it, most of us still do not comprehend it -- against the Jihad. '
No one 'scapes whipping here.
at July 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Hugh: Not to pick a fight but man-made climate change is a huge fiction. We are either not affecting the climate at all or, in the alternative, to an insignificant degree. CO2 isn't even a pollutant and is food for plants. Besides, man emits something like 7-10 billion metric tons of CO2 every year while the oceans alone put out 210 billion metric tons of the stuff every twelve months. 99% of greenhouse gases are natural. Hell, clouds are greenhouse gases. Something else and that is that CO2 seems to be a coolant in higher levels of the atmosphere. There's also the stubborn fact that some 450 million years ago, in the midst of the Paleozoic Era, the earth went through a truly horrific ice age (much greater than the last one that ended with the Wisconsin glaciation retreating some 10,000-12,000 years ago) when CO2 levels were TEN TIMES what they are today. I think John Coleman, a certified meterologist and the founder of the Weather Channel, is correct when he assets that man-made global warming is the greatest fraud in history.
Posted by: Wellington at July 17, 2008 12:34 AM
Hugh: Not to pick a fight but man-made climate change is a huge fiction. We are either not affecting the climate at all or, in the alternative, to an insignificant degree. CO2 isn't even a pollutant and is food for plants. Besides, man emits something like 7-10 billion metric tons of CO2 every year while the oceans alone put out 210 billion metric tons of the stuff every twelve months. 99% of greenhouse gases are natural. Hell, clouds are greenhouse gases. Something else and that is that CO2 seems to be a coolant in higher levels of the atmosphere. There's also the stubborn fact that some 450 million years ago, in the midst of the Paleozoic Era, the earth went through a truly horrific ice age (much greater than the last one that ended with the Wisconsin glaciation retreating some 10,000-12,000 years ago) when CO2 levels were TEN TIMES what they are today. I think John Coleman, a certified meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel, is correct when he assets that man-made global warming is the greatest fraud in history.
Posted by: Wellington at July 17, 2008 12:34 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)