I could scarcely believe it when I read of President Obama's support for a mosque to be erected at the site of Ground Zero. Tasteless? It doesn't do it justice. Insulting? It doesn't do it justice. Justice? Obama just doesn't do it. He strikes me as a President at war with his own country and his own people, if, indeed, they are his own people...Loyal to Liberty is the blog of the excellent Dr Alan Keyes, and I post his anaylsis of the decision below.
'I always find it repugnant when Barack Obama pretends to articulate and apply America’s moral values. As products of Saul Alinsky’s finishing school for Marxist protégés, Obama and his crew have no respect for the self-evident truths in which those values originate. It’s not that they have no use for them. On the contrary, they refer to them only when they are useful for ideological warfare.
Obama’s reference yesterday to religious tolerance, and America’s respect for religious freedom, is a case in point. According to an AP report, he “is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it….While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.”
By taking this stance Obama chooses to show no regard for the view that the proposed mosque is intended as a monument to Islamic terrorism’s greatest victory. He chooses simply to brush aside the possibility that it is being erected in the same spirit that led Palestinians, and many other admirers of the 9-11 terrorists to dance in the streets with jubilation at their devastating assault on the United States. He therefore seeks to invoke America’s values in order to embarrass and silence those who seek to defend America’s security against what surely could be an insidious symbol, used to rally and mesmerize new recruits for future attacks against us.
Obama cannot plead ignorance of Muslim history and tradition. He knows that it was the practice of Muslim conquerors to erect places of Islamic worship on or near the sites of their decisive victories (preferably transforming or replacing something held in reverence by the conquered people.) He knows the message of exultant pride the ground zero mosque will constantly convey. He knows; just as he knew the message of American submission conveyed by his deep bow to the Saudi King, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques; just as he knows of the suspected connections between the progenitors of the ground zero mosque and the infrastructure of Islamic terrorism.
The most effective war strategies target the enemy’s morale. They seek to mobilize his deepest moral fears and convictions against actions he might take to thwart the assault against him. Terrorism is especially aimed at achieving this strategic goal.
In his words, his actions and his very person Obama is the moral equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. He has consistently implemented this form of warfare against the morale and spirit of the American people. Now he does so in order to target America’s righteous commitment to uphold the memory of 9-11′s victims against the spiteful pride of those who, still at war with our nation, seek to make perpetual war upon the tragic memory of their deaths, and the principle of justice that condemns their murderers.
Though he thus slyly seeks to abuse our founding principles against us, Obama’s deployment of this tactic suffers from the fact that, on account of his Islamic/Marxist formation, he has never taken them seriously as statements of self-evident truth. The first such truth is that in human affairs justice arises from implementing an understanding of right informed by the will of the Creator. This involves, first of all, understanding that it is right to fulfill the obligation to preserve and perpetuate God’s original gift to humanity, the gift of life. No valid claim of right can be made on behalf of actions inconsistent with this obligation. Practitioners of a religious cult that sacrifices innocent people cannot cloak their practice of murder as the free exercise of religion. Neither can practitioners of Islamic terrorism who assault innocent people as part of their implacable jihad against infidels. In America, the exercise of religious freedom must respect the indispensable understanding of right from which all people derive their claim to any rights at all.
It is and has always been clear that Obama rejects this logic. He is the staunchest proponent of “abortion rights” in American politics. He has construed “abortion rights” to include the “right” to withhold care, and thus to murder, fully born children, if they are born alive despite the procedure intended to kill them. He thus sought to place the murderous practice of infanticide behind the protective veil of right. It is therefore no wonder that he is willing to abuse the principle of religious rights in order to protect a project likely to enhance the morale of murderous terrorists.
9-11 will always evoke righteous grief and anger in true American hearts. Aside from showing off his alien contempt for such feelings, Obama’s strategic perversion of America’s heritage of religious freedom aims to deepen the confusion of liberty with licentiousness that the Obama Democrats everywhere promote. The right use of freedom can never include actions that aim to murder, enslave and terrorize innocent people. What is wrong can never be done by right, except the people that authorize it overthrow the premise of justice that is the bedrock principle of America’s way of life.
Therefore, our respect for the free exercise of religion does not require that we permit the erection of what may reasonably be construed as a monument to Islamic terror. On the contrary, since terrorism chiefly aims to destroy the moral courage of our people, a true concern for our national security requires that we respect the nation’s united reverence for the place that evokes the justice of our fight against it. The ground zero mosque project targets our unity. It targets our morale. Those who support it do what gives aid and comfort to the enemies of both.'
Update: I've attracted the ire of one, perhaps two people (making up a different name doesn't mean you've convinced me loads of people are now suddenly commenting on this very, very peripheral blog) and have been called a racist bigot. I won't do another whole post on this because I've said all I wanted to say. Rather, Dr Alan Keyes has said it for me. Dr Keyes elucidates on the whole citizenship issue in the video above.
It does strike me that Obama is un-American in as much as he doesn't appear to understand the American psyche, US patriotism and love for the country. He comes across as someone who actually despises American tradition. The previous incumbent, also disasterous, understood it only too well but abused that popular feeling while presiding over the highest office in the land. My criticism of Obama has nothing at all to do with the colour of his skin, for, as you can see, another black man (a practising Catholic in good standing, by the way) is calling Obama up on his lack of patriotism and the remaining suspicions surrounding his eligibility to be US President. Dr Keyes is right about Obama's apparent love of 'old time socialism', with all the despotism and tyranny that trails in its wake. Dr Keyes is especially on the mark concerning Obama's desire to alter the fabric of American society to embrace a culture of death rather than preserving and defending a culture that preserves and defends human life. I believe Dr Keyes is a true libertarian and defender of human rights.
41 comments:
Have you gone quite insane? So now Catholicism is just WASP Conservativism? You appear to be supporting the same formula reactionary bile used to defend the ruling elite (you sound like a Sarah Palin fan).
"I could scarcely believe it when I read of President Obama's support for a mosque to be erected at the site of Ground Zero." You misread - the mosque is to be built in a business part 4 blocks (around 200 meters) away. The lease had already been purchased and there is precious little Obama can do. Do you seriously expect the President of America to get involved in town planning issues? Why? Just to spite muslims?
"He strikes me as a President at war with his own country and his own people, if, indeed, they are his own people..." You really have lost what ever it was that brought you to the Church. Firstly, what do you mean that Americans are not 'his own people'?? Is this a racial slur? Do you mean to say he is a muslim? If so then so waht? Why does this make him un-American? Surely his precise point is that America is founded on freedom of movement and religion - you are assuming that a muslim could not be an American (he is not muslim anyway, as you well know).
You then quote from a marginal lunatic who advises scrapping most social welfare programmes (which would bugger you if you lived there) who says:
Obama chooses to show no regard for the view that the proposed mosque is intended as a monument to Islamic terrorism’s greatest victory"
Of course he shows no regard for that view - again, would you expect the President of America to come on TV and say 'mosques are temples to terrorism'? Would you want ANYONE to say this? It is false, insulting, and deeply, deeply stupid. It's like saying Catholic Churches are temples to child abuse.
You appear to have no Christian charity and are happy to see a scapegoated religious group blamed for society's problems by an opportunist fringe politician. You have jumped the shark for good
Another truly disgraceful and distorting post Lawrence, well done.
The proposed mosque is not on the site of ground zero, it is 3 blocks away.
It's never beeen suggested that it is some kind of triumphant monument for the 9/11 attack by muslims. It's only the far right christians who are twisting the truth as propaganda who are pushing this view.
Religious liberty and the freedom to worship is guaranteed by the American constitution so on what legal basis do you suggest that it be prevented? If they were trying to prevent a christian place of worship opening you would go ape shit so how can you justify stopping a mosque opening? Religious tolerance is a two way street. Christians, muslims, jews and people of other faiths and none died in the 9/11 attacks.
He didn't produce an authentic birth certificate.
I know the mosque isn't directly 'on' the site.
Still, it is terribly insensitive to build in the vicinity.
Dr Keyes is right about the Muslim tradition of building sites of worship in places of military victory.
I believe Dr Keyes is correct in his analysis.
Yep, religious tolerance is a two way street.
May I suggest you go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and try and build a big Church?
Good luck.
Obama did produce a valid birth certificate that was accepted as such by the american constitutional authorities otherwise his nomination for president wouldn't have been allowed to proceed. However this wasn't accepted by some far right fringe lunatics who wanted him to produce even more evidence than is required by the american constitution - and claim that his birth cert was forged etc. If Obama's skin wasn't brown, these groups wouldn't be casting doubts on his american nationality.
You state that the mosque is to be built on the 9/11 site aka ground zero which is factually untrue. The mosque therefore isn't being built on a place of miliary victory.
Churches in the past have also been built on the site of military victories (usually on top of another religion's religious site). So what?
Muslims have the right to freedom of worship in america. That's not offensive even if you choose to take offense.
You can't really morally complain about the lack of religious freedom for christians in other non-christian countries if you don't support it yourself in word and deed. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Obama is a christian (not a muslim) as you unjustly and incorrectly imply - not that it matters. America is not a christian country as the constitution makes clear.
Furthermore, they're not suggesting building a big mosque in downtown new york. It's a conversion of an existing building as a mosque which is relatively small and will hardly be identifiable as a mosque. It won't have any minarets or anything like that at all.
The criticism is that his birth certificate was more photoshopped than a copy of Cosmo.
Oh yes, all of Obama's critics are racists...even, er, the black critics, like Dr Keyes!
I have just read the actual text of the President’s remarks and these headlines are not quite right. And, this is a distinction with a difference.
Here is the key paragraph: “But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”
The President is not backing a mosque or objecting to a mosque. The President is expressing the complete indifference of the government to the religious expression of the citizenry. The President is backing the First Amendment, the President is standing up for the principle of religious freedom, a principle that the day before yesterday, conservatives like Charles Krauthammer et al., were at pains to defend. Not so much today.
Can we see a copy of his Baptism Certificate too, please?
I think the american constitutional authorities might have noticed if his birth certificate was photoshopped.
Your remarks are grounded in racism because you wouldn't be questioning his nationality if his skin wasn't brown. Stop fooling yourself.
What relevance does his baptism certificate have. You don't have to be christian to be an american or president. Obama worships reguarly in a christian church.
When John Carroll was selected to be the first bishop in the United States, the Vatican approached the U.S. government to solicit the consent of the authorities. Thomas Jefferson, then in Paris, expressed to the Vatican emissary the U.S. government’s complete indifference in the matter. Catholics then, like Muslims today, were the object of great prejudice and bigotry. The First Amendment was designed to protect all, but especially those in the minority, to eliminate the category of “dissenter” by eliminating state religion, to keep the Church free of government interference and the government free of ecclesiastical interference.
The fact that learned, smart people like Krauthammer have jumped on this bandwagon is distressing. His stance is that while the Muslim community has a right to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, it is in bad taste. Taste is not the issue. The key issue is that this really is not the government’s call. Krauthammer is smart enough to know that the protections of the First Amendment are not there to protect the majority, to protect speech or worship that is not controversial. I suppose no one would object to the building of a Congregational Church in lower Manhattan. Krauthammer also lobs the accusation that the imam who intends to build the mosque has said some foolish things about Hamas, but foolish things are said about Hamas in Catholic and Protestant pulpits too.
Catholics have a special obligation to join this fight. Anti-Catholic prejudice is one of the enduring aspects of American history. There were times when we were prevented from building our churches where and when we wanted: Check out the Shrine of the Sacred Heart in Washington, which was prevented from being on 16th Street because prominent WASP property owners who lived on the fashionable street did not want their address besmirched. President Kennedy had to overcome latent, and not so latent, prejudice to win the White House, assuring a group of ministers, who presumably supported the idea of religious influence on public leadership, that he would never let his religion influence his public leadership. We do not have to support the mosque. We do have to support the First Amendment.
As for President Obama, yesterday’s comments are among his finest hours.
These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents who filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from standing or being confirmed as President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. Three were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1][2] None of the cases have prevailed in lower courts.[3] Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009,[4] and sworn in as President on January 20,[5] litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers"[6] for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[7]
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[8] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[9] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[10] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12]
Nevertheless, some Republican elected officials have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or have displayed a lack of willingness to acknowledge it,[13] while Republican members of the U.S. Congress and state assemblies have proposed and voted for legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation of their qualifications to be president, including natural-born citizenship.
These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents who filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from standing or being confirmed as President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. Three were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1][2] None of the cases have prevailed in lower courts.[3] Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009,[4] and sworn in as President on January 20,[5] litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers"[6] for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[7]
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[8] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[9] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[10] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12]
Nevertheless, some Republican elected officials have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or have displayed a lack of willingness to acknowledge it,[13] while Republican members of the U.S. Congress and state assemblies have proposed and voted for legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation of their qualifications to be president, including natural-born citizenship.
These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents who filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from standing or being confirmed as President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. Three were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1][2] None of the cases have prevailed in lower courts.[3] Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009,[4] and sworn in as President on January 20,[5] litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers"[6] for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[7]
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[8] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[9] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[10] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12]
Nevertheless, some Republican elected officials have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or have displayed a lack of willingness to acknowledge it,[13] while Republican members of the U.S. Congress and state assemblies have proposed and voted for legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation of their qualifications to be president, including natural-born citizenship.
These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents who filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from standing or being confirmed as President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. Three were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1][2] None of the cases have prevailed in lower courts.[3] Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009,[4] and sworn in as President on January 20,[5] litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers"[6] for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[7]
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[8] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[9] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[10] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12]
Nevertheless, some Republican elected officials have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or have displayed a lack of willingness to acknowledge it,[13] while Republican members of the U.S. Congress and state assemblies have proposed and voted for legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation of their qualifications to be president, including natural-born citizenship.
These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents who filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from standing or being confirmed as President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. Three were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States.[1][2] None of the cases have prevailed in lower courts.[3] Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009,[4] and sworn in as President on January 20,[5] litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers"[6] for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[7]
The Obama campaign released a 2007 certified copy of his birth certificate (in this instance referred to as a "Certification of Live Birth") that states Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" birth certificate, and that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations,[8] every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.[9] Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate".[10] Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12]
Nevertheless, some Republican elected officials have expressed skepticism about Obama's citizenship or have displayed a lack of willingness to acknowledge it,[13] while Republican members of the U.S. Congress and state assemblies have proposed and voted for legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation of their qualifications to be president, including natural-born citizenship.
The director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[11][12] Noting "there have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate", Fukino explained that the department was prohibited by state law from releasing it to "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." She stated: "No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."[
According to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, "the birther movement has gained a large following on the radical right... it has been adopted by the most noxious elements out there." Some of those "noxious elements" include a number of avowed white-supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.[78] [79] James von Brunn, an avowed white supremacist charged as the gunman in the June 10, 2009 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, had previously posted messages to the Internet accusing Obama and the media of hiding documents about his life.[80] [81] Ben Smith of The Politico commented: "The penetration of the birther mythology into the violent fringe has to be a worry for the Secret Service, because at its heart, it's about denying Obama's legitimacy to hold the office of president."[80]
According to Salon, "almost all of the people who've been most prominent in pushing this story have a history of conspiracist thought."[9] In response to the notion that Obama's grandparents might have planted a birth announcement in newspapers just so their grandson could some day be president, FactCheck suggested that "those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat."[18] Brooks Jackson, the director of FactCheck, comments that "it all reflects a surge of paranoid distress among people who don't like Barack Obama" and who want the election results to go away.[108] Chip Berlet, a journalist who has studied the spread of conspiracy theories, notes "For some people, when their side loses an election, the only explanation that makes sense to them – that they can cope with – is that sinister, bad, evil people arranged some kind of fraud."[109] American political writer Dana Milbank, writing for the Washington Post, describes the Obama citizenship theories of Bob Schulz (chairman of the We the People Foundation, which in 2008 publicly challenged Obama's citizenship[110]) as "hysteria".[60] Colorado elector Camilla Auger, responding to lobbying of members of the state's electoral college, commented: "I was concerned that there are that many nutty people in the country making depressing, absurd allegations. There are so many problems in the country right now, we need to work together."[69]
Some commentators have asserted that racism is a factor motivating the promotion of Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.[111] [112] J. Richard Cohen, the President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors hate groups and extremism, wrote an e-mail to supporters in July 2009 declaring: "This conspiracy theory was concocted by an anti-Semite and circulated by racist extremists who cannot accept the fact that a black man has been elected president."[113]
Although claims about Obama's citizenship were evaluated in 2008 by the McCain Campaign and ultimately rejected,[201] they became a significant issue among sections of the political right. By mid-2009, the citizenship issue was one of the hottest and most lucrative sources of fundraising for organizations on the right that raise funds through direct mail and telemarketing. Online petition sites such as that of Alan Keyes, who has been collecting signatures on the birth certificate issue, are a major source for generating mailing lists of movement conservatives.[202] The web site WorldNetDaily published more than 200 articles on the subject by July 2009[203] and has sold billboards, bumper stickers and postcards asking "Where's the birth certificate?" and similar slogans in an effort which has "already raised tens of thousands of dollars."[204]
Moderate conservatives have found themselves "bombarded with birther stuff".[202] Protesters at the Tea Party protests in 2009 carried signs about the birth certificate issue,[205] some of which were recommended by protest organizers.[202] In an incident that attracted widespread media coverage, moderate Republican Representative Michael Castle was booed and heckled during a July 2009 town hall meeting in Georgetown, Delaware, when he told a woman protesting about Obama's birth certificate: "if you’re referring to the president there, he is a citizen of the United States."[206] NBC Nightly News reported that other members of Congress often hear the issue too; an anonymous congressman told the program that he was reluctant to advertise his own town hall meetings for fear of this issue drowning out everything else.[207]
Political analyst Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times, stated
The demographics tell the basic story: a black man is president and a large majority of white southerners cannot accept that, even in 2009. They grasp conspiracy theories to wish Obama — and the America he represents — away. Since white southerners comprise an increasing proportion of the 22% of Americans who still describe themselves as Republican, the GOP can neither dismiss the crankery nor move past it. The fringe defines what’s left of the Republican centre.[213]
In Utah, an August 2009 poll carried out for the Deseret News and KSL-TV found that 67% of Utahns accepted the evidence that Obama was born in the U.S. The poll found that those who do not believe that Obama was born in the United States, or do not know, are predominantly middle-aged, lower-income Republican-leaning individuals without a college education.[219]
Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories — that he secretly follows a non-Christian religion, or that he is the Antichrist — have been suggested ever since Barack Obama began his campaign to become President of the United States in 2007. Like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, these claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents. [1] [2]
Public opinion surveys carried out beginning in 2008 have shown that a number of Americans (predominately Republicans), believe that Obama is either a Muslim, is the Antichrist or both. In March 2008, a survey conducted by Pew Research Center found that 10% of respondents believed that he is a Muslim. Those who were more likely to believe he is a Muslim included conservative Republicans and Democrats, people who had not attended college, people who lived in the Midwest or the South, and people in rural areas.[13]
A University of Georgia study found that the percentage of Americans who believed that Obama is a Muslim remained constant at approximately 20% in September, October, and November 2008, despite frequent attempts by the media to correct this misperception. However, the study also showed that some people who had initially believed Obama to be a Christian, later believed the rumor that he is a Muslim. The survey found that respondents who had shifted to the misperception were generally younger, less politically involved, less educated, more conservative, and more likely to believe in Biblical literalism. According to Professor Barry Hollander, "These are groups of people who are generally distrustful of the mainstream media...So therefore journalists telling them that this is not true could actually have the opposite effect and make them more likely to believe the rumor."[14]
Crikey. The President's devoted disciples are working overtime! Ah, sorry, its probably the comments of just one, lonely 'extremist'. ;-)
'I believe that Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's decision to lay his career on the line in the effort to resolve doubts about Obama's constitutional eligibility for the Office of President is a morally courageous service to the whole American people. To show support on this blog, I have posted a Declaration of Support for him which is now open for email signature. Please help me show appreciation for Lt. Col. Lakin's conscientious and patriotic fulfillment of his sworn duty to the Constitution.'
Dr Alan Keyes
Just to nark you off, I'll post some more on Alan Keys in a mo'.
I wouldn't expect anything else of you Lozza, but you only show yourself up more by doing so.
The solider guy whose petition you are supporting had his case slapped down by the courts as moot.
In fact he only signed up for the army after Obama was elected and in order to try and use his position to take a lawsuit against the president. The court ruling is interesting if you look it up, it really slags him off as a troublemaker... and from a republican judge too.
Send me the link.
Dr Keyes is an extremist and ultra-fringe, despised by most republican politicians. I'm not surprised you have a lot in common with him Lozza my old bum-chum.
It may be that Obama IS perfectly eligible to be President, but you know what they say...no smoke without fire.
As Dr Keyes has said, the Republicans had this which they could have gone on and they didn't - so it may have been a whitewash.
I find it hard to see how anyone could protest at the assertion that, at very least, this move is insensitive to ALL of those who lost their lives on 9/11.
A Peace Centre for Religious Dialogue or something? Sure. Great. A mosque? Come off it! That is taking the piss!
I very much suspect that Dr Keyes' honesty and integrity (a priceless commodity in politics as I am sure you are aware) embarrasses even his own party. He often says that Republicanism is dying, if not dead. He is vehemently PRO-LIFE and that upsets even Republicans nowadays.
Bishop Zavala from the US Bishops communication committee said:
"Only the Magisterium can speak for the Magisterium,"
“There was consistent agreement [among the bishops] that one aspect that is most alarming to us about media is when it becomes unchristian and hurtful to individuals. For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language.
"We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious.”
"Everyone! Be nice! Especially to the President, even though he's more dangerous than dropping a toaster in a bath."
Certainly the president deserves respect if only by virtue of his office. Spreading false rumours, disputed by the courts on numerous occasions, about his nationality in order to undermine his credability is just disgraceful. In older times it would be treason.
Sounds like the only reason you support Dr Keyes and his wacko beliefs is because he supposedly ever so so so so 'pro-life'. Actually I'm not convinced Keyes does believe that Obama isn't really Americsn, he's just playing politics.
What exactly the abortion issue has to do with Obama's legitimacy is beyond me.
I think this issue should be left in the hands of the victim s families. Those people alone should make the final decision.
Some gems from Dr. Alan Keyes's website (I find it amusing that both you and 'Dr.' Alan Keyes insist on applying the honorific each time he is mentioned - most graduates frown upon this as a) it implies that your title substitutes for arguments and b) it shows a lack of humility; a quality which is requisite for people of faith)
Keyes says:
"By abolishing the income tax, we give people back control of the money they make." Or let the rich keep what they make
He continues by noting "the dire warnings of impending economic doom [that are] being used to herd us toward the communist slaughter pens" comparing freedom to the good old American love of cars: "Like any other conveyance, freedom can't run on empty. The first order of business is to keep it fueled. . . abolition [of income tax] assures that freedom runs with a full tank of gas."
His basic idea appears to be that, instead of an income tax levied on all earners (and more so on high earners) which is then used to pay for unemployment benefits (like your own), health care, schools, roads, fire services and so on, there should be a 'tax choice' - which amounts to letting high earners 'opt-out' of paying for services for the less well off and enter into a 'pay as you go' scheme for their own services . Of course this entirely misses the point of wealth redistribution, but America is so viciously anti-economic re-distribution these days that even Obama - who has hardly shown himself to be an enemy of big business - is labelled a Communist by the good doctor.
You think I'm taking him out of context? Read the following (from his paean to the Constitution):
"What we often forget, however, is that guarantees for individual rights were not originally intended to protect the welfare of poor, vulnerable minorities. They were intended to prevent the personal and property rights of the wealthy few from being invaded and expropriated by the more numerous majority."
So, let's recap - tax is bad because it makes the rich pay for the poor. The constitution is good because it protects the rights of the rich to hold onto what they own. Add some waffle about gays ["the homosexual agenda represents above all the utter rejection of respect for God ordained natural right"] and abortion ["the cultish ritual of abortion", "child sacrifice", "U.S. funding of programs that promote abortion for population control and social engineering"] and you've basically got the template for many of your own arguments (sometimes you quote him verbatim). I must say I am a little confused as to why this man is now the darling of the modern young Catholic....
Alan Keyes: Loyal to billionaires (and a few people who only ever read the bits about gays or abortion when they voice their support of him)
Doesn't sound like Dr Keye's views are consistent with the social teachings of the catholic church, does it
Post a Comment