If you read or listen to the news you might get the impression that the Democratic party nomination race is down to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, despite the likely presence of such heavyweights as John Kerry, John Edwards and possibly Al Gore. Candidates whom the average American, whatever the polls might say, would be far more likely to vote for than either of the two human grotesques now being touted by every major media outlet.
Let's take a closer look. Hillary is a new Senator midway through her second term. Obama was only elected to the Senate in 2004. Less than halfway through his first term he's already running for President. Absurd and insane fails to capture it. Hillary had never held elected office prior to wedging her way into the Senate on her husband's name. On the basis of sheer experience alone, Obama and Hillary are the least experience and least qualified candidates in the race. Compare them to John Kerry who has been in congress for over 35 years and over 20 years in the Senate.
Yet Hillary and Obama have been touted for the Presidential spot all along. Obama was given a keynote speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, before he was even elected to the Senate. Hillary supporters were promoting her for President using the Senate as a stepping stone, before she even won the Senate seat. What was going on was painfully clear along.
We have two candidates who are genuinely repulsive. We have Obama, a former cokehead and likely Muslim, who has gotten by on his warm smile and his ability to deliver speeches. Then we have Hillary, who's vastly disliked and has only gotten where she has because Rudy Guliani fell ill and the Republicans were unable to muster any real candidates to run against her. (Which is yet one more argument for horsewhipping most of the New York GOP party leadership) Neither candidate could get far on their own but they can get far by running against each other.
Hillary has aligned herself with the conservative wing of the Democratic party to appeal to the more middle of the road Democrats and the old party leadership. Obama will increasingly play to the progressive left wing. The result will find that Democrats will be voting against Hillary and against Obama, more than for them, but that amounts to the same thing. Once one of them makes it to the primary, they can bring the other one on board as V.P. likely resulting in a Hillary-Obama ticket.
The same political and financial interests that have pushed them this far aren't about to let go now. The resulting ticket will be meant to unify the Democratic party behind one banner. While it isn't likely to win and the people touting it are vastly out of touch with ordinary Americans, if the Republican candidacy is properly sabotaged, then it can. How likely is that? Consider how Hillary won both of her races. She did it by running against no one. That would be the trick for winning the White House too.
For both her terms Hillary Clinton has done her best to be inoffensive and unobjectionable completely departing from her own political positions and attitude. All she was waiting was the big chance at the White House. Now she's about to get it.
Comments
I can't think of two candidates as underqualified to run the US than these two characters. And the media thus far has given no real indication as to why either would be suitable--aside from the unstated--a woman and an African American.
ReplyDeleteOdd isn't it that the media doesn't discuss their qualifications, only their "chances" of winning.
If it ends up to be Hillary/Obama, president/vice presidential ticket, I wonder what theme song they'll pick? Bill had Fleetwood Mac "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow."
What song to make the public forget that Obama was a cokehead and Hillary was (adjective, adjective adjective etc)? They need did chose something before the democractic convention.
They need a catchy tune. It worked for Bill.
And that seems to be what the presidential election could be reduced to--a catchy tune and political correctness.
ReplyDeleteWould Obama win? I really don't see it happening. His surname is just too similar sounding to Osama.
Obama Osama is a closet Muslim, educated in a Madrass school of all things.
ReplyDeleteRemember folks.. his name anagram is KAABA RAMBO !
What a phoney baloney.
ah but see this is where Americans will be given the chance to "atone" for worrying whether that muslim on the plane is a terrorist, for the war in iraq and afghanistan and supporting israel and all the rest by voting obama osama
ReplyDelete" who has gotten by on his warm smile and his ability to deliver speeches. "
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that wart thing on his nose and those humungous ears of doom!
Running Obama who attended a Muslim Madrass school that educates terrorists is akin to someone running Adolph Hitler Bergermeister for President during World War 2.. or perhaps Frank "Hirohito" Miyagi.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Kim Il Jones during the Korean war?
Or maybe Ho Chi Min Washington for pres during Vietnam?
It'll be interesting to see how much Obama Osama's Muslim ties are put under the media microscope. While reporters dig as they did to discover Sen. George Allen's Jewish heritage?
ReplyDeleteI will vote for one of the following tickets:
ReplyDelete1) Hillary - Friedman. Suha hugger Hillary and minuscule Amalekinejad embracer Moshe Aryeh Friedman (Freaky Freedy) make a great ticket! Rumors about Friedman's impending divorce cannot be confirmed at present, but he could always have an affair with his running mate while in office.
2) Obama - Osama. Barack Hussein Obama and Osama bin Laden. Just like the sound of it and it would get Osama ymach shmo out of hiding!
All in all, Giuliani better run for President and win in 2008 or I'm on the first plane out the day after Election Day.
What do you base your "likely Muslim" comment on? And why should that disqualify him?
ReplyDeleteAnd your picture could just as easily have said, "Methodist Cokehead" with Bush's face. Not that I'm a fan of cokeheads, but at least Obama put his crap out there, as opposed to Dubya's, "I don't talk about that decade" mantra.
While reporters dig as they did to discover Sen. George Allen's Jewish heritage?
Clearly you know something I don't- I thought Obama has/had been fairly straight about his Muslim connections. What further digging is there to do?
Why should Nazi party members be disqualified during WW2. Same question. Same answer.
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world hand over the leadership of the country to one of its enemies.
"And your picture could just as easily have said, "Methodist Cokehead" with Bush's face"
Bush has never been proven to have been a cokehead and in any case since liberals gleefully made that an issue, why should Obama now be immune from that?
"Clearly you know something I don't- I thought Obama has/had been fairly straight about his Muslim connections. What further digging is there to do?"
Apparently even Hillary's people think there is
Why should Nazi party members be disqualified during WW2. Same question. Same answer.
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world hand over the leadership of the country to one of its enemies.
Comparing American citizens who practice Islam to Nazis is pretty low even for you. And last I checked Obama was a practicing Christian. Again, is there something you know that I don't? AFAIK, Obama spent ages 6-10 in Muslims schools in Jakarta. Unless folks like lemon can actually indicate that Obama has any real ties to terrorist Muslims, I can't imagine this strategy of making Obama out to be the next Sheik Yassin is going to be very effective.
"And your picture could just as easily have said, "Methodist Cokehead" with Bush's face"
Bush has never been proven to have been a cokehead and in any case since liberals gleefully made that an issue, why should Obama now be immune from that?
He shouldn't, I'm just wondering if the standard gets enforced equally across the board. Since so many Republicans (does that include you, Knish?) voted for a former cokehead and drunk, I would think they shouldn't mind if Dems do the same.
"Comparing American citizens who practice Islam to Nazis is pretty low even for you"
ReplyDeleteThere were American citizens who practiced Nazism too. No one in their right mind would have voted them into office.
But yes it's very 'low' of me to compare one murderous totalitarian ideology that practices ethnic cleansing and seeks world domination to another one murderous totalitarian ideology that practices ethnic cleansing and seeks world domination.
It's like apples and slightly different apples.
"And last I checked Obama was a practicing Christian."
And last I checked Charles Lindbergh was a patriotic American... mainly because that was the best way to go about supporting Nazi Germany.
Obama couldn't make it to the Presidency as a Muslim. He can as a Christian.
AFAIK, Obama spent ages 6-10 in Muslims schools in Jakarta. Unless folks like lemon can actually indicate that Obama has any real ties to terrorist Muslims, I can't imagine this strategy of making Obama out to be the next Sheik Yassin is going to be very effective.
Not very effective except to your average American. Even not your average American, Ted Kennedy couldn't seem to tell the difference between Obama and Osama either.
The Democratic base is quite different than the smug liberal public face.
"Since so many Republicans (does that include you, Knish?) voted for a former cokehead and drunk, I would think they shouldn't mind if Dems do the same."
Didn't the Democrats already?
It's like apples and slightly different apples.
ReplyDeleteIt's bullshit is what it is. Categorically stating that a Muslim (or psuedo-Muslim, or half-Muslim, or whatever the hell you're trying to argue Obama is) shouldn't be elected President because he's a possible terrorist is bigoted and prejudiced. It's like saying you can't elect a Catholic because he'll take marching orders from the Pope, or a religious Protestant because they'll try to forcibly convert everyone. Where's your evidence that Obama has any link to Muslim terrorists?
mainly because that was the best way to go about supporting Nazi Germany.
You still haven't proved Obama supports Muslim terrorists,or even that he's a Muslim in the first place.
If "average Americans" actually fall for the "Obama=Osama" BS, then I'll pity them, and happily call myself an elitist. It's Muslim-bashing and fearmongering, and damn disgusting. Vote against him because of his record or lack thereof, not because of what is name is or the religion he *doesn't* practice. What a joke.
If the Vatican was conducting a holy war against America around the world by any means necessary, electing a Catholic for President would be sheer lunacy.
ReplyDeleteSame goes if we were at war with Buddhists, the Elks or Radio Shack. Trying to wave that away by shouting it's bigoted is a non-argument. We're not the bigots. We're coping with a situation in which we're being attacked. Electing one of those attacking us to lead our country would be suicidal stupidity.
"If "average Americans" actually fall for the "Obama=Osama" BS, then I'll pity them, and happily call myself an elitist. It's Muslim-bashing and fearmongering, and damn disgusting. Vote against him because of his record or lack thereof"
You mean you don't already?
Sadly average Americans are too distracted by things like people trying to kill them, to realize that the enlightened progressive approach is to pretend really hard that no one is trying to and then blame themselves and mumble something about 'knee jerk patriotism'
Vote for him on his record? He was just elected to the Senate and he's running for President. He has no bloody record to speak of.
We're coping with a situation in which we're being attacked. Electing one of those attacking us to lead our country would be suicidal stupidity.
ReplyDeleteBut it's fallacious to claim that every Muslim is "one of those attacking us", just as it was fallacious to claim that every German or Japanese American was a threat to America and therefore was fair game for political persecution. THAT'S the issue. And I think you know this, which is what makes the whole political campaign element of this so obscene. It would be one thing if Obama was on record supporting Hamas. He's not. You're using fearmongering to demonize him and anyone else with a vague connection to Muslims for... I'm not even sure what end. And I think that's harmful to the political process and conversation, as well as insulting to the "average Americans".
Sadly average Americans are too distracted by things like people trying to kill them, to realize that the enlightened progressive approach is to pretend really hard that no one is trying to and then blame themselves and mumble something about 'knee jerk patriotism'
Take your strawman out of my mouth before it gets caught in my teeth. If anyone's pretending, it's you and your cronies who are trying to turn Obama's grammar school days into mujehadeen camp.
Regardless of how you'd like to spin it, Bin Laden isn't running on the Democratic ticket, nor has any Dem recommended him for the job. The real question is why you're so eager to claim that any person with a Muslim parent (forget actually practicing the religion) is equivalent to a Muslim terrorist, or should automatically be presumed to be. What's the basis for that?
I think you (and a fair amount of other Reps) are smarter than that, and am at a loss for why you're advancing this argument, other than pure political opportunism. I also don't understand why smarter GOPers would be willing to dumb down the argument for "average Americans" to such a pathetic low as "his name is like Osama, you connect the dots". Unless, again, this is about political opportunism and keeping Dems out of power at any cost, even willfully misinforming Republican voters.
Vote for him on his record? He was just elected to the Senate and he's running for President. He has no bloody record to speak of.
So rip him apart for that! Hell, go after him for that absurd "cokehead" thing. At least he actually DID that. Don't insinuate he's a terrorist and bash Muslims by saying they aren't trustworthy enough to run for office.
"No Muslim for Prez"" avoids the issue of Obama's qualifications entirely and goes straight back to ethnic politics, xenophobia and fearmongering. It's dishonest, it's a red herring and yes, it's bigoted. That's not a non-argument, that's calling it what it is.
You mean you don't already?
Depends on the situation. If I'm comparing myself to someone stupid enough to believe that you should pick your candidate based on their last name, then hell yes.
Except Islam isn't a race or a nationality, it's an ideology. German or Japanese Americans might be loyal to America, but a Muslim will primarily be loyal to Islam.
ReplyDeleteIslam is equivalent to Communism or Nazism and it was not possible to be a Communist or Nazi loyal to America and it would have been the height of lunacy to make a Nazi or Communist President while we were at war with them... or at any other time really
Regardless of how you'd like to spin it, Bin Laden isn't running on the Democratic ticket, nor has any Dem recommended him for the job.
You should probably check with Senator Patty Murray on that, she seemed somewhat enthusiastic about him.
I think you (and a fair amount of other Reps) are smarter than that, and am at a loss for why you're advancing this argument, other than pure political opportunism.
No it's about national survival, which is what you don't get. I'm not a Republican. And on Islam George Bush has come off as weak and liberal as any Democrat. His whole policy has been to improve the way of life for Muslims, believing if that happens they'll become friendly.. unable to grasp that he's trying to produce the cause using the effect
The reason this argument is being advanced is because we are at war with Islam, whether you want to accept that or not. There's hardly a Muslim country in the world that isn't kicking in help to the terrorists whether it's Al Queda or Hamas.
Your political opportunism argument smacks of Lindbergh and the other anti-war agitators who seemed unable or pretended to be unable to grasp the simple fact that we were facing a global conflict.
We're facing a bigger one now because the enemy is no longer rooted in any particular country but is integrated into our own nations and thanks to liberal political correctness, we're bending over backward so as not to offend them.
The war isn't over Iraq. It isn't over 9/11. It's a clash of civilizations and either theirs wins or ours does. Having one of theirs lead us is a shortcut to annihilation.
and again Obama has no qualifications, he's a junior Senator who was just elected and is already running for President
ReplyDeleteHe was groomed for this from the very beginning being given a keynote speech at the convention... even before he was a Senator
Talking about his qualifications is like talking about James Blunts musical abilities
If Osama/Obama attended a Muslim day school when he was a child it's a reasonable assumption that parents sent him there. Did his parents convert to christianity?? When?? Or did Obama convert as an adult? What denomination? Why did he convert? How long has he been a practicing Christian?
ReplyDeleteWas his conversion to Christianity a strategic ploy? Gee, would Muslims "convert" to other religions to infiltrate and gain benefits of doing so that have nothing to do with religious convictions?
Absolutely.
Should religion matter? Yes, when your culture and nation are at war with it!
Is it fair? Yes. JFK was under great scrutiny when he ran for president because he was a Roman Catholic, and people feared his ties with the Vatican would influence his judgement.
Does Obama/Osama support any Muslim organizations financially or ideaologically? What about his relatives? What is his position on Iraq? On Palestine? Will his Muslim background influence his international policies towards Muslim Arab nations? Toward Israel?
Why has a junior senator been fast-tracked by the democratic party in the first place? Why not another candidate? Someone who has paid their dues so to speak? Doesn't the good ole boys network and paying dues still count in Washington?
Something is very very off about this enthusiastic support of a candidate that doesn't have experience to lead a country.
I want more indepth reporting; something more than sugary stories about the first real minority candidate with a chance to win. I want more than smiles and good looks. I want more than a catchy theme song at the national convention.
And his being a cokehead should disqualify him. Drug use has a horrible resitivism rate. Again, will the media whitewash this? Wasn't another candidate years ago disqualified and dragged through the mud because he had been treated for depression?
Except Islam isn't a race or a nationality, it's an ideology. German or Japanese Americans might be loyal to America, but a Muslim will primarily be loyal to Islam.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the particular Muslim's religiosity and view of Islam vis-a-vis nationalism. And since we don't know Obama's a Muslim to begin with, this connection is tenuous.
Islam is equivalent to Communism or Nazism and it was not possible to be a Communist or Nazi loyal to America
Not always. During WWII many people would have argued it was quite possible to be loyal (or support) the USSR and America simultaneously. And again, it's the issue of what the adherent actually believes.
and it would have been the height of lunacy to make a Nazi or Communist President while we were at war with them... or at any other time really
Perhaps, but it would have been equally insane to blacklist any person with any connection to Germany, Russia or Socialism from running for office because of implications about their loyalty, which is essentially what you are attempting to do with Obama and Islam.
No it's about national survival, which is what you don't get.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you actually think Obama is a closet terrorist.
The reason this argument is being advanced is because we are at war with Islam, whether you want to accept that or not. There's hardly a Muslim country in the world that isn't kicking in help to the terrorists whether it's Al Queda or Hamas.
But that doesn't disqualify every practioner of the faith from being a loyal American!
We're facing a bigger one now because the enemy is no longer rooted in any particular country but is integrated into our own nations and thanks to liberal political correctness, we're bending over backward so as not to offend them.
This isn't about offending or not offending. It's about the fact that I think the argument that "no Muslim can be trusted because some Muslims want to kill us all" is bullshit.
It's a clash of civilizations and either theirs wins or ours does. Having one of theirs lead us is a shortcut to annihilation.
But you're assuming that every Muslim is AUTOMATICALLY one of "theirs", and that's the issue of contention.
You're right, Obama has no experience. That's why I think his candidacy is deeply flawed and why I won't be voting for him. Not because his name sounds like a certain terrorist's.
There is no shortage of evidence that a significant majority of Muslims have some sympathy with the terrorists, some active, some passive... some may 'disagree' with their methods while supporting some element of their politics
ReplyDeletethat makes all muslims untrustworthy for the duration of the conflict
nearly every country with a sizeable muslim minority is seeing terrorist activity, terrorist cells or outright attempts at overthrow running in its midst
there are various possible responses to this ranging from apathy to fighting back... but electing a Muslim to public office would be sheer lunacy and it's something the American people won't go for no matter how much they're worked on by the liberal elites
Not always. During WWII many people would have argued it was quite possible to be loyal (or support) the USSR and America simultaneously.
And anyone arguing that was by definition loyal to the USSR, which quite a few proved themselves to be when they smeared anyone criticizing Stalin's monstrous regime and went after Troskyist unions on orders from Moscow.
These same people agitated against the war when Hitler and Stalin were diving up Eastern Europe, but turned into great pro-war activists when Adolf stabbed Joe in the back
They were supporters of mass murder, traitors and utter filth and deserved exactly what the victims of their Soviet colleagues were on the receiving end of
Perhaps, but it would have been equally insane to blacklist any person with any connection to Germany, Russia or Socialism from running for office because of implications about their loyalty, which is essentially what you are attempting to do with Obama and Islam.
Again the issue is not a connection to Germany or Russian but a connection to Communism or Nazism and no one in their right mind would have said that such a person should be able to hold the Presidency... let alone in a time of war.
Friar, do you believe most Americans would have voted a Japanese American into office during WW II, while we were at war with them??
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Call me a racist, bigot, uniformed but I have no intention of electing a man with Muslims ties into office while the US and most of the world is at war with Islam.
Obama's parents didn't send him to public school or catholic school or hebrew school. They sent him to a Muslim day school. Think hard about that. Obviously an islamic education was important to them. That's the reason most parents send their kids to a religous school.
that makes all muslims untrustworthy for the duration of the conflict
ReplyDeleteI don't accept that. That's too large a swath of people to indiscriminately put in social and political cherem for me. Sami al Arian, fine. But every Muslim (or alleged Muslim)? That's too far, and particularly dangerous given the fact that there's no indication this conflict will end anytime soon.
there are various possible responses to this ranging from apathy to fighting back... but electing a Muslim to public office would be sheer lunacy
I disagree, again, it depends on the Muslim. What he believes and does is what's important, not what box you can put him into.
And news flash- America already elected a Muslim to public office.
and it's something the American people won't go for no matter how much they're worked on by the liberal elites
I'd settle for them not being brainwashed that Obama and Osama are the same person.
And anyone arguing that was by definition loyal to the USSR, which quite a few proved themselves to be when they smeared anyone criticizing Stalin's monstrous regime and went after Troskyist unions on orders from Moscow.
First, during the period when the US and USSR were allies, one could conveivably have supported both nations against the Nazis. But fine, what about anti-Stalinist Socialists? Where would they fit under your rubric? I'm just concerned that you're applying too large a net here.
Again the issue is not a connection to Germany or Russian but a connection to Communism or Nazism
Not in a case like Obama's, because you're using ethnic identity and family ties to prove connection to an ideology. It's just as fallacious as putting German or Russian Americans under suspicions because they MIGHT be Nazis or Communists.
and no one in their right mind would have said that such a person should be able to hold the Presidency... let alone in a time of war.
But the issue is whether they actually hold those beliefs, or whether they are being TARRED with that brush to create fear and mistrust of that candidate. One approach is honest, and I have no objection with it. I find the other rather disturbing, on a political as well as moral level.
hi Keliata,
ReplyDeleteIf Osama/Obama attended a Muslim day school when he was a child it's a reasonable assumption that parents sent him there. Did his parents convert to christianity?? When?? Or did Obama convert as an adult? What denomination? Why did he convert? How long has he been a practicing Christian?
Do a freaking Google search.
Was his conversion to Christianity a strategic ploy? Gee, would Muslims "convert" to other religions to infiltrate and gain benefits of doing so that have nothing to do with religious convictions?
Absolutely.
Should religion matter? Yes, when your culture and nation are at war with it!
Is it fair? Yes. JFK was under great scrutiny when he ran for president because he was a Roman Catholic, and people feared his ties with the Vatican would influence his judgement.
Does Obama/Osama support any Muslim organizations financially or ideaologically? What about his relatives? What is his position on Iraq? On Palestine? Will his Muslim background influence his international policies towards Muslim Arab nations? Toward Israel?
Why has a junior senator been fast-tracked by the democratic party in the first place? Why not another candidate? Someone who has paid their dues so to speak? Doesn't the good ole boys network and paying dues still count in Washington?
Something is very very off about this enthusiastic support of a candidate that doesn't have experience to lead a country.
I want more indepth reporting; something more than sugary stories about the first real minority candidate with a chance to win. I want more than smiles and good looks. I want more than a catchy theme song at the national convention.
And his being a cokehead should disqualify him. Drug use has a horrible resitivism rate. Again, will the media whitewash this? Wasn't another candidate years ago disqualified and dragged through the mud because he had been treated for depression?
Keliata,
ReplyDeleteIf Osama/Obama attended a Muslim day school when he was a child it's a reasonable assumption that parents sent him there. Did his parents convert to christianity?? When?? Or did Obama convert as an adult? What denomination? Why did he convert? How long has he been a practicing Christian?
Do a Google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Personal_life
It says Obama converted to the United Church of Christ as an adult.
Was his conversion to Christianity a strategic ploy? Gee, would Muslims "convert" to other religions to infiltrate and gain benefits of doing so that have nothing to do with religious convictions?
That's a totally unfair standard. You could ask the same about any political candidate. You've also created a nice catch-22. Now the fact that he DOESN'T practice Islam is itself further evidence that he's a Muslim terrorist! Using that logic we might as well lock up the whole White House.
Absolutely.
State your evidence.
Should religion matter? Yes, when your culture and nation are at war with it!
Millar Fillmore would be so proud to hear you say that.
Is it fair? Yes. JFK was under great scrutiny when he ran for president because he was a Roman Catholic, and people feared his ties with the Vatican would influence his judgement.
The fact that people are often xenophobic, ignorant and mistrustful without appropriate cause does not make it "fair".
Does Obama/Osama support any Muslim organizations financially or ideaologically? What about his relatives? What is his position on Iraq? On Palestine? Will his Muslim background influence his international policies towards Muslim Arab nations? Toward Israel?
Why don't you try to find out?
Why has a junior senator been fast-tracked by the democratic party in the first place? Why not another candidate? Someone who has paid their dues so to speak? Doesn't the good ole boys network and paying dues still count in Washington?
So now you're mad that the good ole boys AREN'T doing their job? Interesting.
Something is very very off about this enthusiastic support of a candidate that doesn't have experience to lead a country.
A fair point, but it doesn't make him his own terrorist cell.
I want more indepth reporting; something more than sugary stories about the first real minority candidate with a chance to win. I want more than smiles and good looks. I want more than a catchy theme song at the national convention.
Join the club. I'd like to see the same thing. And on all the candidates, to boot.
And his being a cokehead should disqualify him. Drug use has a horrible resitivism rate.
Again, this didn't seem to hurt Republicans voting for Bush. (to say nothing of drug use among other Presidents in history.) Double-standard?
Was his conversion to Christianity a strategic ploy? Gee, would Muslims "convert" to other religions to infiltrate and gain benefits of doing so that have nothing to do with religious convictions?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
So how do you propose to determine who's a terrorist, who's a legitimate convert, and who's just confused? What about, say, this guy?
http://www.shoebat.com/
"Former PLO terrorist who speaks out for Israel"? Nooo! It must be a trick to get Christians and Jews in a room with him so he can blow them up!
Maybe you should let all the GOPers who keep prancing this guy around that he's a sleeper.
"I don't accept that. That's too large a swath of people to indiscriminately put in social and political cherem for me. Sami al Arian, fine. But every Muslim (or alleged Muslim)? That's too far, and particularly dangerous given the fact that there's no indication this conflict will end anytime soon."
ReplyDeleteIt's a lot more dangerous not to do it and I don't mean just because of terrorism. A Muslim minority represents a domestic population that supports the enemy. Europe is extensive proof enough of that by now.
It means a population that provides material aid and shelter to terrorists, a population out of whose ranks Jihadists form and which maintains mosques that serve as recruiting bases for them and a population, even whose moderates oppose a War on Terror.
The reality is terrorists operate from a civilian base. That base is Muslim. If we don't deal with that reality, any attempt to fight terrorism becomes a Keystone cops routine which is exactly where we are now.
"I disagree, again, it depends on the Muslim. What he believes and does is what's important, not what box you can put him into."
Only God knows what he believes. We can't know what's in a man's heart. We can however know his affiliations. Muslims in the West have grown very adept at dissembling over issues of Jihad and the Religion of Peace bit...
I wouldn't for example include Sufis or Baha'i in this category, but there's ample evidence that Shiite and Sunni mosques and religious institutions in America are rotten to the core, particularly those with Saudi money coming in.
"First, during the period when the US and USSR were allies, one could conveivably have supported both nations against the Nazis. But fine, what about anti-Stalinist Socialists? Where would they fit under your rubric? I'm just concerned that you're applying too large a net here."
Communists put their support for the USSR before the US. The USSR was the fulfillment of their beliefs and the socialist motherland. America was the greedy capitalist entity whom they happened to be citizens of. Same problem as with Muslims today.
Anti-Stalinist socialists aren't an issue obviously since they weren't loyal to the USSR or Communism.
"Not in a case like Obama's, because you're using ethnic identity and family ties to prove connection to an ideology. It's just as fallacious as putting German or Russian Americans under suspicions because they MIGHT be Nazis or Communists."
Not his ethnicity, but his family religious connections, which included him attending a Madrassa.
I'm not about to vote Shoebat for President either.
ReplyDeleteOnly God knows what he believes. We can't know what's in a man's heart. We can however know his affiliations. Muslims in the West have grown very adept at dissembling over issues of Jihad and the Religion of Peace bit...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, and that's part of basic intelligence gathering. But having affiliation to a mosque or a family connection to Islam is not the same thing as funneling money or support to Hamas.
Not his ethnicity, but his family religious connections, which included him attending a Madrassa.
From age 6-10. How can you seriously believe that political fitness or national loyalty can be determined by one's elementary school?
Bottom line Friar--where there's smoke, there's fire. And Obama has too much smoke around him for my comfort.
ReplyDelete(BTW, I would never use something from Wikipedia as source material for an article).
Absolutely, and that's part of basic intelligence gathering. But having affiliation to a mosque or a family connection to Islam is not the same thing as funneling money or support to Hamas.
ReplyDeleteNo it's not the same thing, since the latter should lead to immediate arrest and prosecution. The latter raises questions. At the very least enough questions as a security risk to say prevent that individual from handling sensitive nuclear material, baggage handling at an international airport or becoming President of the United States.
In point of fact the CIA screens for family ties, though they usually bungle it badly
From age 6-10. How can you seriously believe that political fitness or national loyalty can be determined by one's elementary school?
6-10 is the one we currently know of. And he fudged the details which is already enough to raise some serious questions.
And wasn't it the Jesuits who said, give me the boy and I'll give you the man.
Bottom line Friar--where there's smoke, there's fire. And Obama has too much smoke around him for my comfort.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I said before, you're entitled to raise as many questions as you want- but raising questions and acting as if you have actual proof of answers are not the same thing. The bottom line is none of us has any way of knowing if Obama considers himself a Muslim or Christian, or identifies with violent jihad- including you. Suggesting otherwise is simply dishonest.
(BTW, I would never use something from Wikipedia as source material for an article).
Actually it's vice-versa. Wikipedia references the TIME article.
SK,
The latter raises questions. At the very least enough questions as a security risk to say prevent that individual from handling sensitive nuclear material, baggage handling at an international airport or becoming President of the United States.
Well then we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to acceptable scope. I agree that investigation may be appropriate, but certainly not blanket banning from government.
And the madrassa thing still sounds like grasping at straws. If there's any evidence he had any contact with Islam or Muslim education after coming to the U.S., then maybe you've got something (on the other hand, you could just as easily have nothing more than him exploring his Dad's heritage).
As it stands now, all you've got is him living abroad as a kid and being sent to a local school (which itself has yet to be demonstrated to be radical or a threat). Sorry, but precluding someone from political activity based on where they went to third grade sets off warning bells for me.
"And as I said before, you're entitled to raise as many questions as you want- but raising questions and acting as if you have actual proof of answers are not the same thing. The bottom line is none of us has any way of knowing if Obama considers himself a Muslim or Christian, or identifies with violent jihad- including you. Suggesting otherwise is simply dishonest."
ReplyDeleteAnd in the absence of having any way of knowing he becomes a security risk and as a security risk should not be in a sensitive position in the first place.
"Well then we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to acceptable scope. I agree that investigation may be appropriate, but certainly not blanket banning from government."
The Presidency is not just any post in the government... it is the highest post in the government.
"As it stands now, all you've got is him living abroad as a kid and being sent to a local school (which itself has yet to be demonstrated to be radical or a threat). Sorry, but precluding someone from political activity based on where they went to third grade sets off warning bells for me."
The local school being a madrassa in a country where Jihad was shoveled in, and a school Obama disingenuously distorted the facts about in the first place.
And we're not talking about banning someone from political activity, but from a wartime Presidency.
That's a long way from volunteering for a campaign in New Hampshire.
The Presidency is not just any post in the government... it is the highest post in the government.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you propose to limit this access short of a blanket ban? Either a citizen is trustworthy enough to run for office or they're not. As soon as you say someone should be prevented from running, you've started a slippery slope- particularly since I don't know of any way to deny them the ability to run for President and grant them the same for other elected positions.
The local school being a madrassa in a country where Jihad was shoveled in, and a school Obama disingenuously distorted the facts about in the first place.
If the school is as radical as you'd like to insinuate, you should be able to prove it. Until you do, it's just a question mark.
"And how do you propose to limit this access short of a blanket ban?"
ReplyDeleteSame way we kept Dennis Kucinich and Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader out of the White House... the blanket ban of the polling booth.
"Either a citizen is trustworthy enough to run for office or they're not. As soon as you say someone should be prevented from running, you've started a slippery slope- particularly since I don't know of any way to deny them the ability to run for President and grant them the same for other elected positions."
I'm a libertarian. The public's common sense usually resolves these problems much better. Though liberals do what they can in the way of brainwashing, it doesn't really succeed.
Meanwhile famous right winger Juan Williams meanwhile actually uses common sense too.
"He comes from a father who was a Muslim. I mean, I think that given we're at war with Muslim extremists, that presents a problem."
This is the only blanket ban we need.
Post a Comment