Is Barack Obama Muslim?

A black nationalist?

No, he's a gold nationalist!  Now will you vote for him?@!

Barack Obama is no Muslim! He has read Philip Roth, and as a result, now understands Jews better than Jews do! If he ever so much as noshes on a kugel, he'll be the actual ZOMFGWTFBBQ moshiach!

 So, he isn't a Muslim....only morons weren't going to vote for him based on alleged religious beliefs.  There are many other reasons not to vote for him, both from a strictly Jewish perspective and from a strictly American perspective.  We don't have to be anti-Muslim to have the desire to vote for someone else.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

"Strictly American perspective"? 

Explain, please. 

Whether he was or wasn't a Muslim isn't important, but I would note that the Forward claimed he once was a Muslim.

Is Barack Obama a Muslim? Almost certainly not. Was he ever a Muslim? Almost certainly yes.

The Forward brings the following as proof:

He later transferred to a Catholic school, where he was registered as a Muslim and apparently took required classes in Islam.

The Forward then offered a "clarification" explaining that they were in no way intending to smear Obama. But they did not retract their claim that he once was a Muslim.

How do you reconcile the Forward's claim?

Let's bring up the rumors of present drug use.  That Muslim stuff is low-impact.  But present drug use...that's some powerful smearing.

Or we can leave it alone and focus on the issues....like.....present drug use.

Kidding.  Just kidding. 

 
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.
You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home,
and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they
took our embassy and our people hostage. You 're the
runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the
terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them
in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses
to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our
Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to
respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied
about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like
your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military
of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the
wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to
describe Vietnam . You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and
abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese.
Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before
you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't
win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of
cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to
Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their
military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain
injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a
sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a
Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real
Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our soldiers at Guantanamo of being
Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of
Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your
party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to
abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good
teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from
Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al
Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open
under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic
Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly
supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures
of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your
legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a
communist victory there......

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane
Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack
Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Holly wood Leftist morons, et al, ad
nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and
broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our
President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are
torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic
butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American
Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they
have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we,
the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better
to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have
gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time
you publish stories about national defense secrets and our
intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the
sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the
bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to
publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country.
Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think
about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity
will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting
news scoops are more important to you than our national security
or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you
that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of
politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood
on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't
ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war
as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you
claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead
of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with
self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent
Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection n
of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this
war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will
to see it through and the country to people who are willing to
defend it.

No, Mr. President, you don't get off the hook, either. Our
country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the
outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are
dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support
them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS.

America must hear it from you that these self-centered people are
harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our
safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the
appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national
security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those e in the
media who knowingly publish those secrets.

Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.
They need you to do it now. 

 
I meant that there are reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with being a Jew or an analysis of his perspectives and how they affect Israel.  I'm speaking mostly about social, domestic policies in the States his and his take on them.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

 
Why is him being Muslim relevant?  Attack his policies (there is much to be attacked) and avoid the racist label. It only hurts our cause, and he has given us so much more material to work with.  

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

Cori C,

 I am just addressing the point of the post. So if you don't like the subject matter, talk to Jewcy, not me. I'm just following the thread. I didn't bring it up.

How is he viewed under Muslim religious law? Is this similar to Madeline Albright's status under Jewish law?

I respectfully disagree. YOU are the problem.

Cori if you are correct then both Hillary's and McSame's campaign managers must be idiots, because both have neglected these policy arguments around which you tap-dance and both have done nothing but focus on flag lapels and whether or not Obama is a muslim.  So asume we're all uninformed idiots and tell us exactly what substantive Obama policies are bad for America relative to McSame or Hillary policies.

You've got her there. It's hard to disagree with his policies since he hasn't actually stated any.

Aren't you bothered by what is now some daily astoundingly glaring mistake that comes from his golden tongue? I understand one or two, but this is getting to be ridiculous. Yesterday's, we've come to honor America's fallen, and I see some of them in the audience today--and today's my uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, which could generously be called a gaffe, but has the aura of a flat out lie, not to mention his constantly evolving position on dealing negotiations, which starts out as naivety and is evolving into becoming reckless, or his seeming blank space where there should be a basic knowledge of history--which I do believe should be a prerequisite for the job.

At least he should have someone coaching him--but it seems none of his brilliant advisers knows either American or World History. Isn't he starting to seem like Chauncey Gardner, except that he's starting to get caught, tangled in his own fortune cookie speech? This isn't the least bit bothersome?

It's always a revelation when a world-renowned intellectual attacks religion as silly and juvenile to discover that his or her own personal life might have greatly benefited from a commitment to the "infantile" biblical values they so casually dismiss.

Such was the case recently when the news broke that Albert Einstein's letter on God, in which he described the Bible as "pretty childish," sold for more than $400,000.

If history has taught us one thing about intelligent people, it is that even the most brilliant need help when it comes to formulating and living with proper values. Paul Johnson's 1990 book, Intellectuals, demonstrates just how warped the values of some intellectuals - such as Rousseau, Marx, and Tolstoy - could be.

The principal purposes of the Bible are to impart values of right and wrong, to teach us of the infinite sanctity of human life, and to lend human existence spiritual purpose. This is something counterintuitive and often lost on intellectuals, who can sometimes be such know-it-alls that they reject time-honored wisdom in favor of their own machinations.

Such, unfortunately, was the case with Einstein, whose criticism of the Bible presupposes that he had such wonderful personal values that he did not need to receive them from a childish book. Sadly, although he may have been the smartest man of the 20th century, his values were severely lacking. Walter Isaacson's masterful biography Einstein recounts dirty laundry from the scientist's personal life. While his unfaithfulness to his wife Mileva - and how he essentially left her to marry his cousin, Elsa - have long been public knowledge, readers will be shocked to discover that Einstein was a man whose personal failings were often justified by very questionable values.

When, in 1917, his son Eduard got sick with lung inflammation, Einstein wrote to his best friend Michelle Besso, "My little boy's condition depresses me greatly. It is impossible that he will become a fully developed person. Who knows if it wouldn't be better for him if he could depart before coming to know life properly." As if this statement weren't shocking enough, he ruminated to another friend about employing on Eduard "the Spartan method," - leaving sickly children out on a mountain to die. One cowers in disbelief to witness a once-in-a-millennium intellect deliberating whether to discard his own child and allow him to be slowly devoured by the elements.

If Einstein had instead looked to the values of the Bible, he would have discovered that every human life, whether healthy or diseased, beautiful or disfigured, is of infinite value and sanctity. Indeed, the Bible attacks the ancient pagan practice of child sacrifice, in which children were seen as naught but the means by which to appease the angry gods, as an "abomination to the Eternal, which He hateth." [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Of course, Einstein, for long periods of his life, was essentially a dead-beat dad. His son Hans Albert felt so neglected by Einstein, who when teaching in Berlin during WWI visited only every few months, that in November, 1917, the boy took to writing his father nasty letters telling him not to visit. Einstein, seemingly insensitive to the wounds harbored by a neglected eleven-year old, followed the advice and stayed away. "The unkind tone of your letter dismays me very much. I see that my visit would bring you little joy. Therefore, I think it is wrong to sit in a train for two hours and 20 minutes," the duration of the train ride between Berlin and Zurich, where the boy lived with his mother.

After getting his future wife Mileva pregnant, it seems Einstein had the baby, Lieserl, given up for adoption without ever having met her, a fact that did not come to light until approximately 30 years after his death.

PERSONAL LIFE aside, an even greater indictment of Einstein is the misguided ethic inherent in his famous pacifism, which he championed through most of his life - until Hitler rose to power. It then became clear to him that something had to be done to combat the beast. At that point Einstein not only dismissed his previous pacifism but actually wrote the famous letter to President Roosevelt of August 1939, encouraging him to beat the Germans in the race to build an atomic weapon.

Of course, the Bible, that silly book which Einstein dismissed as childish, makes it mandatory upon all to fight evil and protect the innocent and oppressed, even if that means going to war on their behalf. To be a pacifist when victims are slaughtered is to become passively complicit with evil.

Now none of this means, of course, that Einstein wasn't a good person. On the contrary, the world Jewish community is tremendously in debt to Einstein for his life-long support of the Zionist cause. What it does mean is that even Einstein would have to concede that his morals were in need of serious realignment. You can be the smartest man alive but that does not mean that you will not do incredibly silly things based on seriously misguided ideas. Which is why the Jews, however smart or learned, have always turned to the Bible as the source of their morality. Even Albert Einstein would have been wise to remember the words of King David: "Never rely solely on your own understanding."

Naftali, you must be talking about McCain since his gaffes are now becoming legendary.  If not, and you're seriously talking about Obama, then you and I must be living in different worlds.  I'm pretty sure I'm living on Earth, and you're living in the same world as Saddam Hussein's information minister who assured the world that the Iraqis were soundly ousting the Americans even as we were taking down Saddam's statue.

standards when it comes to Presidential candidates.  Gosh, it would be nice to be able to pick a perfect one, but after so long, I'd be happy just to get one who takes the job and its responsibilities seriously.  Mr. McCain's history in politics makes it clear that he has few, if any, scruples and ethics left.  I'm also not impressed with his thinking, but he does know how to schmooze - I have to give him that.  Mrs. Clinton is (and has long been) so blatantly hungry for power that I'm reflexively uneasy about letting her near it.  That's not unique in politics, of course, but people with that sort of starving wolf approach, like Dick Cheney for example, are the people I feel should least be trusted with it.  Barack Obama is young, certainly inexperienced and untested and possibly a bit naive about the sharks he would be swimming with.  Still, he seems to me to be the least disturbing choice, and the most likely to be willing and able to learn on the job.  I'm willing to take the gamble; I suppose he could be worse than the fools and crooks presently running the place, but it's hard to see how.

Naftali, open your eyes and ears and stop ignoring what our candidates are saying and proposing.  Obama has made plenty of policy propositions for those paying attention.  One example, see the excellent article by Ali Eteraz regarding Obama's anti-trust policy on media companies.  Another example, and one that is near and dear to my heart, is that Obama is the only candidate who has taken a position on patent reform legislation.  Any candidate paying enough attention to our economy to be actually looking and thinking about patent reform legislation is a candidate that is heads and shoulders above any candidate we've seen in the last 20 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/obama-islam-smear-changes_b_101337.html

Okay, you and I have spoken enough to get down to issues right away, so that first post, not necessary. I just gave you two examples of Obama's tongue twisting, and I asked you a question.

Okay, here's a policy. This idea of sending agricultural consultants to Afghanistan to teach the farmers how to grow a crop other than poppies. And remember, Obama is selling judgment. This is so convoluted and will take so many words to untangle that I might as well email Tahl and ask for some payment.

First, I guarantee you that the Afghan farmers know quite a bit more about how to grow things in Afghanistan than our 'experts'. Second, the reason our farmers can grow so much, that Kroger's and Safeway's and megagrocery stores exist is because of highways, cargo planes, refrigeration trucks, and electrical grid, and so on. If Obama thinks the money for Iraq is too damn much, how much does he think building an entire infrastructure in Afghanistan is going to cost? And how does he think the Wahabists and Iran are going to think about this?

If he thought Iraq was bad judgment, what about it was bad? Was it removing a genocidal supporter of terror, was it trying to install a democracy, or was it the stupidity of underestimating the intelligence of the Arab world by thinking the war would be over in two months tops, that Iraqis would welcome us with flowers, that the Sunnis wouldn't freak and think they are next in the genocide line, that Bin Laden and the Iranians wouldn't send everyone and the kitchen sink in there to cause trouble, that the US, in other words, could tap dance through Iraq in a few weeks? For me, the bad judgment was the latter. What does Obama think will happen in Afghanistan? The roads, and electricity, which lead to prosperity defined by the West, to a consumer mentality, to western emotional problems, drinking, promiscuity (focusing here on a smart Wahabist thought process) wearing western clothes, and so on. Why, people will study from Western books and see Western magazines, and want Western products. Will the Iranians, the Wahabist, and Zawrihiri receive all of this with open arms? Arms yes, open, not so much.

So, where is this great judgment?

You and I are in complete agreement regarding patents and innovation. But if you want politicians to talk about it in the way you want--you know the drill. Form a group, raise money, talk to politicians, and lobby for it. That's how stuff gets done, like it or not.

Naftali, we can all go down the McCain train and view the world through pessimistic eyes and use our military and war as a solution to every problem.  On the other hand, we can try to solve problems in peaceful and more creative ways.  You obviously have no clue what you're talking about if you really believe that our farmers have nothing to teach the Afghani people about farming.  Are you friggin serious? 

Let me give you a concrete example from my own experience and knowledge and my own background on this exact issue.  America's fruitbasket happens to be the San Joaquin Valley in California, but that was not the case in the early 1900s.  At that time, the San Joaquin Valley was still developing as a potentially prosperous agricultural region, but it had not developed into its full potential.  In the early 1900s Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire settled there and brought what basic farming skills they had with them.  Along with all of the other ethnic minorities as well as other Americans who had settled there, these people innovated and created new farming techniques and machinery to transform the San Joaquin Valley into the most prosperous farming region in the entire world.  When Armenia became independent in 1991, some Armenian-American farmers from the San Joaquin Valley went to Armenia to see if they could exchange information and know-how, and what they learned is that the Armenians of Armenia were decades, perhaps even a century, behind them in agricultural know-how.  You, Naftali, might argue, what do Americans know about cultivating Armenian soil.  But they can, and they have, and the contribution that Armenian-American farmers from Fresno and other parts of the San Joaquin Valley have made to the farms in Armenia just in the past 10 years have boosted the agricultural output of Armenia by more than 100%.  So what do Americans know about cultivating land in Armenia, or Afghanistan?  Plenty, that's what!  You think we're the breadbasket of the world because we have good roads?  If that were true, Germany would be the breadbasket of the world, not America.

So to continue with my point, isn't it better that we export knowledge and hope to impoverished countries rather than soldiers, tanks and bombs?  You reap what you sew Naftali, you know that.  The Taliban and other extremists in Afghanistan are a result partially of hopelessnes and poverty.  If we help the Afghani people by giving them hope and helping them toward prosperity, we will be rewarded.  I believe that.  If I don't believe that, then what am I if not a hopelessly islamophobic racist?  And I think that is basically what you are advocating; that no good can possibly come from Muslims, so we shouldn't help them, we should destroy them, in Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else.  I can't subscribe to that world view, and I don't want a leader who would do so either.  So you can go ahead and vote for endless armament, endless war, and endless short-changing and cheating of our valiant veterans, and I'll vote for whatever the alternative is.

At some level, even those who are by now simply disgusted by the tactics of the RNC can't help but admire their ruthless and relentless zeal.  This zeal was demonstrated most recently, as noted by Naftali, when the RNC pounced on Obama for misnaming the Nazi concentration camp that his uncle helped liberate during WWII (he apparently named Auschwitz when it was in fact Buchenwald).  Apparently, for the RNC, nothing is sacred or off limits, not even the Holocaust. 

Well, no, that's not what I was saying--regarding your first point. And second, did Obama say Auschwitz or not? The video is there. I just asked if all of these mistakes, and they are coming one after another, are starting to bother you. That's all.

Regarding your first post about the Armenian farmers. Sorry, but know-how alone is not what made the San Joaquin Valley more than a seasonal provider of food. Infrastructure did that--and I will bet you that the knowledge brought back to Armenia had to do as much with refrigeration as it did irrigation. Obama has used the argument--which means I'm not arguing with you, but I'm arguing with Obama's positions--that funding Iraq has taken money away from the US economy, money which could have been used to help the US infrastructure. That's his argument. So he's going to spend more in Afghanistan? And this is showing good judgment to you?

Well, yes, the Marshall plan worked very well. I have no problem with that. It took a lot of money, a lot of time, and quite a bit of human resources to work. So let's take our entrance into WWII and combine that with the years it took for the Marshall plan to be successful, and compare it to Iraq. What I see is a similar length of time by time it's all over, millions of fewer casualties. But it's going to go at the speed of human change. Or you can compare it to European colonization, which began with a war, followed by a period re acculturation, followed by the colony adapting to a capitalist/democratic model. That just seems to be the way things work. And in all of these endeavors there was an organized opposition. If you think that Obama can increase our presence in Afghanistan, build their infrastructure without Iran and the Wahabis and Bin Laden Inc. getting a teensy bit upset and organizing a 'resistance movement'--you can't believe that.

What is ironic is this quote from you:

The Taliban and other extremists in Afghanistan are a result partially
of hopelessnes and poverty. If we help the Afghani people by giving
them hope and helping them toward prosperity, we will be rewarded.

This is what Bush has been saying about Iraq. So, more questions, what part of the Iraq plan does Obama see as an exercise in bad judgment? Unless he is a dolt, it's got to be the speed with which Bush and Co. saw the transformation happening, all without resistance. There isn't anything else to object to--that also wouldn't be objectionable in Afghanistan.

So this is an answer to your above post, about the policy proposals of Obama. This is one of those policies that don't make any sense--given the parameters that Obama himself has laid out.

If you yourself want to argue different ways of bringing the Third World out of poverty, that's a completely different argument, and you might find, as usual, that we agree more than we disagree.

Obama is not Muslim and nobody from "Jewcy" is really Jewish.  Obama is a victim of radical right-wing propaganda and "Jewcy" is a fraudulent website.