Da Nile
There often things you hear that, while you’d love to think that they’re true, you don’t allow yourself the luxury of believing. Sometimes they’re plain silly, and sometimes it’s uphill in a politically correct sense. But sometimes events follow such an interesting and distinct course that those apparent frivolities return to your mind and coalesce. And when they do, they’re not so silly any longer.
Let’s begin here (where we will return later)
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them
and this is key:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
OK, now on to the list:
1/21/2009
The president, a Christian whose father was a Muslim, deflected an urban legend during the campaign that he too was a Muslim.
1/18/2009
Obama will be sworn in as president with his full Muslim-sounding name of Barack Hussein Obama, in keeping with White House tradition.
1/27/2009
Obama reaches out to Muslim world on TV
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gave his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network, saying that when it comes to Middle East matters “all too often the United States starts by dictating.”
June 2, 2009
Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said.
June 4, 2009
Obama in Egypt reaches out to Muslim world…
At Egypt’s Cairo University, Obama quoted from the Quran as he expounded on Islam’s glories and rights, the legitimate rights of Israel and the Palestinians, Iranian nuclear aspirations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, women’s rights, economic development, and religious rights and democracy in the Muslim world.
Obama seeks ‘new beginning’ in Muslim world
CAIRO — Invoking the Quran and his rarely used middle name, Barack Hussein Obama declared Thursday that America has a common cause with Islam
August 4, 2009
Obama Administration Reaches Out to Muslims Worldwide
Washington — President Obama has said he seeks a new beginning with Muslims worldwide “based upon mutual interest and mutual respect” and also “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”
Novermber 17, 2009
Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts
U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.
Aril 15, 2010
Obama administration reaches out to Muslims
* The Obama administration is revising national security guidelines that strip references to “Islamic radicalism” and other terms deemed inflammatory to Muslims.
* Officials reversed three-month-old guidelines that singled out passengers on flights arriving from 13 Muslim countries, and Cuba, for mandatory screening.
* Controversial scholar Tariq Ramadan entered the U.S. for the first time in six years after being barred by the Bush administration.
* The Obama administration has dispatched American Nobel Prize winners to advise Muslim scientists, economists and other professionals on how to improve their research and better manage their institutions.
* At the end of this month, the U.S. government will host some 500 mainly Muslim business people for intensive seminars on entrepreneurship.
April 18, 2010
White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.
Then finally, this- July 2, 2010
Obama tasks NASA with new mission- making Muslim nations feel good
When I became the NASA Administrator – before I became the NASA Administrator – he charged me with three things: One was that he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, that he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
During the Presidential campaign both the White House and the press promptly attacked anyone who even hinted of Barack Obama’s Muslim background.
Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
Anyone daring to question The One got it:
One year ago in June 2008, Floyd produced a television ad which asked the simple question, “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?” The Obama campaign came unglued. It earned Floyd prominent placement on a special Obama Web site called “Fight the Smears.”
The news media jumped on the bandwagon. Newsweek reported: “Barack Obama has never been Muslim and never practiced Islam. But rumors about his religion intended to frighten some voters persist, and they mostly return to one point of fact: his name.” The Boston Globe wrote: “Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. His Kenyan paternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim, but he attended secular and Catholic schools and was never a practicing Muslim.”
The attacks on Floyd grew personal; Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, all but called Floyd a racist, saying, “This guy hides under a rock every couple generations, shows up again with another ad against a black candidate.” (There never was a black nominee to do ads against before Obama, but facts are not important to Matthews.) Obama even blamed Floyd for breaking his pledge to use public financing for his campaign saying, “527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we’ve seen them — there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown I think where it took a speech that I had made extolling faith and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation.”
But once Obama was elected, his Muslim background took the stage:
In Cairo, Egypt in his highly anticipated speech to the Muslim world Barack Obama quoted the Quran as commanding, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” He then said he shared that conviction, as “rooted in my own experience.”
So now we return to where we started:
After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.
The Presidential election of 2008 would likely have had a very different result had Obama extolled his Muslim background. It would have been interesting had Obama promised he would bend over backwards for Muslim countries. You want to dismiss the “stealth” aspect of all of this except for the most recent event. That was the clincher. The retasking of a Federal agency for the purpose of massaging the self-esteem of Muslim nations is dramatic. Krauthammer called it “childish” but it’s worse than that. It’s as though all of the worst fears are coming to pass.
The masthead of the agency says:
NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
But not any longer. Now the NASA mission is to “reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
Would Obama have been elected had he been honest and told Americans that he planned to shut down the manned space program and use its budget to make Muslim countries feel good? Would he have been elected had he told America that it could be considered to be a “Muslim” nation? Would he have been elected had he promised that he planned to install “devout Muslims” in high level national security positions ?
I think not. I think this country elected the most dishonest man ever to sit in the White House. Of course they will be those who dismiss this opinion. But who among them would have told you that Obama would turn NASA into a Muslim nation nurture center? What’s next? Will Obama order the Department of Education to focus only on the importance of Muslim nations? Really-how far away is that possibility?
Cloward-Piven isn’t looking so far-fetched either.
Da Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
*badda dump*
Judging by the growing Islamophobia that seems to be gripping a good number of Americans, that may well be true. However, he’s behaving as politicians do, exploiting whatever in his background will serve him to score political brownie points. It’s what John Kerry did in regards to his military service, highlighting virtues that will gain him votes, moving the spotlight away from that which will lose him votes.
In, and of itself, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying a person’s full name. In the manner in which right-wingers wished to highlight, underline, embolden, emphasize the “HUSSEIN” in Barack HUSSEIN Obama, it was a smear, suggesting that Obama is a Muslim, as though there were something inherently wrong with that.
Is it part of his background? Yes. But he is not a practicing (closet) Muslim, in the religious sense. Today, as president, when he places emphasis on his Muslim roots, he is over-emphasizing and exaggerating the claim in order to connect with the audience he is speaking to.
Much about Obama isn’t that he’s some stealth Muslim out to “Islamisize” America. He’s typical of the liberal progressive who value multiculturalism and equality over American exceptionalism and assimilation. He’s no different than many in the Democratic Party who wish to “reach out” an olive branch to the Muslim world and appease anti-Americanism abroad, apologizing for America’s past actions of “aggression and imperialism” and “unilateralism”- especially during the previous 8 years.
Radical Islamists, btw, hate his guts. Especially the jihadis. You know the ones who we are actually at war with? I’ve had one jihadi-wannabe send me personal messages about our “House Negro president”. And if they accept the idea that Obama was once a Muslim, then they see him as a Muslim apostate and traitor.
And as someone who perpetuates the wars abroad, who’s increased Predator drone attacks in Pakistan, Obama’s popularity amongst Muslims is down, not up.
By Dita Alangkara, AP
REUTERS/Gurcan Ozturk
So did George W. Bush.
THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSON on the PLANET
Bush did not transform Federal agencies for the purpose of nurturing Muslim nations.
No, but right in the aftermath of 9/11, he was there praying and visiting mosques, reassuring Muslims that anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred will not be tolerated. And he stressed this point, over and over again, throughout his presidency, that this was not a war against Islam; that Islam is a “religion of peace” (much to the consternation of many a conservative and anti-PC card-carrier); that this was a war against Islamic terrorism, which threatens us all, not to be confused with a war against Islam.
And what I was responding to was the emboldened part of the blockquote: Quoting directly from the Koran.
Bush did the same in speeches reaching out to the Muslim world.
YOU know, SARAH PALIN had mentioned something about it, and when she did, I remember looking on a clooseup at JOHN MCAIN, and he was looking straight at the audience in a silent stare
possibly would have meant something like this” it’s true beleive it”.
TOO many did not and the MEDIA did not, or did’nt want to beleive it
but we know now, that SARAH PALIN told everyone and she told the truth, and SHE would again tell the truth if she is given the podium again, BUT now we would beleive her words.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Not sure what you are referring to. Would you happen to be able to find a link to a video that expresses your point?
This incident stood out to me:
Obama remains popular amongst many voters, while his job performance has been tanking. Politically, I think attacking his character, for the most part (and I’m as guilty of it as many of you here- and it’s not to say things in his character don’t deserve honest criticism), is not as effective as attacking his policies. I think more energy should be devoted to the latter if you want to influence voters other than the conservative amen chorus who are already “in the bag” against all things Obama.
WORDSMITH: where did I attack JOHN? and you have all the links you can get yourself. BUT I dont get any links, it was in my memory, and he was sitting beside, letting SARAH PALIN make her speech, and when she mentioned about it ,I happen to focus on him looking staight at audience, and the words he did not say but i said it could have meant . ON the contrary OF attack, and you should appologyse.
bees, I did not accuse you of attacking McCain. I was merely asking for clarification of your point and a reference so I can know exactly what situation you are referring to.
DrJ, I’m not sure I get your entire post. The “islamification” of America because he wants NASA to “reach out” to Muslims? Look, I think his use of NASA as a diplomatic ambassador is as much marlarky and ill-thought gunk as the next guy. But it’s rather a leap to assume that’s “islamification” of the nation. He didn’t say NASA would cater *only* to Muslims.
But since he’s left that agency unfunded to most traditional space exploration tasks, even shuttle maintenance runs, we now have to depend upon other nations to do what we easily could do ourselves… with the right POTUS and Congress.
Nor has he “transformed” NASA *solely* for the purpose of nurturing Muslims. They are worthless as a space agency at this time, save for their tasks of robotics, aeronautical design for lower atmosphere vehicles, and what space and solar exploration they can do with feet on Mother Earth. Can’t exactly close them, right? So he’s decided he’s going to use them for inspiring kids (that’s okay, they always have), improving int’l relations (again, he’s made it so we can’t do anything alone anymore), and “reaching out to Muslims”. Not *only* to Muslims.
So most of what you cite is simply political pandering… not “islamification”. Probably looking to the ME money for funding, who knows. Doesn’t matter how much he panders. He’s been doing that since the POTUS campaign started, and even the Muslims he’s trying to cater to can’t stand him. It’s a losing, and embarrassing proposition.
Can’t stand the man’s policies myself, but even I won’t suggest that he’s trying to implement Shariah as part of our laws, which is what true “islamification” of this nation would be.
MATA: hi, I was thinking, COULD it be that the government and the leader, are showing more and more, that by cutting here and there all in major big expanses, MILITARY NASA, and
CARRIER SHIP orders, and other. are taking thoses moneys for their own agenda who is aim at countrys of OBAMA’s choice ,passing the AMERICANS prioritys, like taking here to spend it overthere, be it BRAZIL and others like muslims countrys also. it seems to become so obvious
for the eye to notice. bye
Bees, I do agree that Obama’s increase of domestic welfare spending – offset by cuts in our national independence for security, energy and space – are indeed making us more dependent upon other nations. But it’s not just Muslim nations, nor intended to throw our dependence solely upon those nations. We’ve always had a certain degree of that Muslim dependence with our ME oil dependence, and our fragile alliances with Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Pakistan, Jordan etal. Using the school of thought presented here, in context of your argument, every POTUS has been engaging in “islamification” of America for decades. In fact, you can go way back to the 70s when steel mills started closing, making us more dependent upon anyone who could sell us steel cheaper than we could manufacture it ourselves…. followed by textiles, followed by….
We need to take control of the government out of liberals’ hands this Nov. Yes, it sucks that NASA would become yet another liberal fallacy factory, but clearly Obama isn’t going to use it, or anything else, in our nation’s interest. Point out the tragedy, and when the anger or sadness has registered on the public, get right back to stabbing liberalism in the heart.
Conservatives, especially Republicans, need to push issues of Islam, race, and gender off our plates as quickly as possible, and continually focus on the political and financial destruction of our nation. As a shrewd man once said, “it’s the economy, stupid”. It’s the economy and all the horrendous policies that hamper it and the joblessness that accompanies it.
It’s bad enough we have to deal with the immigration issue, which provides liberals with opportunities to characterize us as racist xenophobes. That’s a national security issue as well as an economic issue, and they are on the wrong side of it. But Muslim outreach, at least until radicals get reached out to, is not a security issue, and hostility to it can easily be used against us. We can’t afford to lose any votes because some mushy moderates get offended over nonessential matters. The liberal media still sways the electorate to some degree and we have to deprive them of their lifeblood. Instead of worrying the bone of Muslim outreach, let’s go right back to what the health care bill or the financial legislation is going to do, and what threats accompany cap and trade and comprehensive immigration reform. Liberals aren’t good at defending their own man-made disasters, so let’s keep dragging them back to it and rubbing their noses in it.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Nellie.
@Nellie:
And it’s the economy that the Administration just would not prefer to talk about.
I’m no longer open to buying the argument that Obama is only pandering for votes.
“First and foremost” is pretty close.
This is not what he promised during the campaign. And it’s not simply NASA, but rather the whole of his fiber.
How can you argue this while telling me that Bush did what Obama is doing? And what policy is really different from Bush other than the Obama mouth moving?
Then apologia is not going to be a successful policy.
I’ve been a forever NASA fan. I think reordering of priorities would have been proper. Not too long ago the Big Dumb Rocket plan was proposed and it should have been pursued. We should have a re-usable space taxi along the lines of the Dyna Soar project.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/dynasoar.html
Notice the shape.
This could be placed on the Atlas V and returned to Cape Kennedy and landed and serviced as was the shuttle but far, far easier. Now that moron has made us entirely dependent on the Russians.
Like I said…
We’re going to disagree here. I feel you are seeing elements and not the big picture. As I noted in my post, I debated this internally for a long time but this transformation of NASA is obscene and in my mind it’s the final straw.
Barack Obama is a liar. He is deceitful. But he’s not stupid.
I think you might ask yourselves why someone would engage in policies which you yourselves say won’t work.
Stealth? What stealth?
There has been no stealth.
The program began when he was immaculated. Excuse my fingers, I mean at his inauguration.
He has proceeded to falsify our view of Islam from the beginning of his royal reign.
There is no stealth. It has been, instead, the boiling of the frog by turning the heat up slowly.
The Qu’ran, for instance, is explicit on the role assigned by Allah, the Great, the Merciful, to females. But do we hear any protest from the feminists? Of course not. They are not to be educated. They are not allowed out of their homes without being placed in a burial shroud, accompanied by a male relative. The value of their testimony is half that of a man.
The Qu’ran is explicit on the treatment to be accorded to those who do not follow Islam. They are to be killed or subjugated. Do we hear any protest about the denial of fundamental freedom of worship in Islamic nations? The World Council of Churches is silent.
The followers of Wahab have re-defined martyr to mean anyone who acts foolishly by committing ritual suicide while taking the lives of others (especially other worshipers of Allah). How’s that again? Islam goes to war against Islam? The Sunni and Shi’ite factions have still not resolved an early quarrel about the role of Mohammed’s grandson.
Let there be no doubt. We are on course to become a Sharia nation, under an Imam named Obama, who will establish and maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat, with liberty and freedom for none.
You thought Zimbabwe was bad. Just wait.
MATHMAN: thank you for bringning what many think but wont tell. bye
I’d say that’s obvious, DrJohn. However when you are no longer “open”, then what you tout as your ability to see the “big picture” is distorted. So while you suggest I am only seeing elements, I suggest it is you who is distorting what is real.
Let’s use, for example, the birther site who picked up on your post. They added their own little introduction. However it’s not clear to someone who hasn’t seen the version here whether or not that is part of you post. Frankly, it blends right in with the rest of your rhetoric of “islamification”, indistinguishable from the content you provide.
Here’s how it reads
Then, example #2… i.e. @mathman:
So let me ask you this. Is this post of yours attempting to state, in a more kindly way, that Obama wants to bring “Islamic Law” to the US? Is that your “big picture” view? Is that how you wished it to be perceived by the reading public at large?
As far as the rest of your comments above, you seem to be running on the assumption that if anyone doesn’t agree with you, they agree with Obama. There’s that “no longer open” attitude again.
Obama is pandering. Kiss-azz policies, which is what he’s done since becoming a politician (his henchmen do the dirty work…), is how he works. It doesn’t matter we can see his pandering doesn’t work, he’s still going to do it because that’s who he is. I say have at it… the more he panders, the more he isolates our allies, and his enemies laugh in his face. This is all good for a one term Obama.
Oh yes, his agenda has never been stealth… well, maybe it was “stealth” to you, but I’d say most of us knew what Obama’s plans were from the time he declared in Jan 2007. He is doing all which he promised as quickly as possible…. health care, government expansion, a DOJ with “social justice” modeled on affirmative action. Affirmative action foreign policy. This is a surprise to you? You think it’s “stealth”?
Which then answers your final question: “I think you might ask yourselves why someone would engage in policies which you yourselves say won’t work.” I would think it would be obvious to you by now. Obama’s quest is to transform America into a more “socially just” Euro welfare state. And he, with the help of Pelosi and Reid, is well on his way to doing that. Perhaps irrereversibly so.
Obama, much like Bush, doesn’t pay attention to negative polls if he believes he’s right. So he first engages in attempts to disarm the dissent with charm and speeches, then he turns to the more thuggish Alinsky methods when that doesn’t work. But he never pulls back from his stated course of “remaking” America into a social welfare state.
This, however, is a gargantuan leap from your purported headline of “islamification”, based on your examples of his pandering.
So how about you answer the above question INRE exactly what you are trying to say. Do you, or do you not believe that Obama is trying to put the US under Shariah law?
All I have to say is that people need to look at the recent European history regarding Muslims and their ‘assimilation’ into European societies. England makes for a great example of what you get when you ‘pander’ to the Islamic religion, in the effort to “just get along”, you allow them to change your basic societal laws. Sharia law is commonplace in England in the Muslim communities, and in many cases, supplants the accepted English law in certain neighborhoods. The same is true of some French quarters, particularly in Paris itself, where there are some areas that the Paris police will not go to for fear of retaliation, even in instances of simply upholding the existing law. In those areas, Sharia law is in effect, and anyone not of the Muslim faith is considered an ‘outsider’ and at the very least, verbally harassed, and in some cases, physically assaulted, all for making the mistake of entering Muslim ‘territory’.
I have stronger feelings than most on the current situation of Muslims and their ‘religion’, much of it stemming from reading historical pieces on Islam, it’s founding, and the historical events in it’s history. Suffice it to say, I cringe when I hear someone describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’.
Does it even matter whether 0 is Islamifying this nation through pandering or stealth? The destructive end result is the same. Frankly, in light of the rapidly emboldened and chaotic pace of the Islamification of Europe, it is safe to assume that “stealth” is the operative word. We are at a point where we simply do not have the luxury of naivete or extending “the benefit of the doubt”. What we know about Islamification is that it relies on incrementalization—the “boiling frog” approach mentioned in an earlier post—and an astute and calculated use of our legal system and misappropriation of “civil rights” in order to prop up Islamic encroachment. Whether Obama is Muslim in the strictly religious sense is entirely moot when we realize that Islam is an entirely self-contained social/religio-political system…one branch does not exist without any of the others.
Tory, I think it matters as to whether Obama is actually “islamifying” this nation, as suggested. That entails actually implementing some sort of recognition of Shariah as law of the land. Other than that, it’s just diplomatic rhetoric that has been over espoused by previous admins as well, this “outreach” bit. None of the instances cited by Drjohn have come even close to suggesting the US will adopt Shariah law as any part of our legal system. Nor would most of America stand for that, should the attempt be made. That’s an event we cross when it rises to the surface.
Until then, suggesting that’s what is on the POTUS platter just portrays conservatives as something a little less crazy and conspiratorial as the birthers. This kind of stuff will impale any conservative comeback into power. As Nellie sagely points out, it’s great fodder for the lib/progs to represent conservatives as anti-Muslim, racist and conspiratorial during a very important midterm election.
Second, it can only be “stealth” to those who have not listened to this man and his past/current statements. Most of us have been well aware of his pandering to the jihad government enemies over the years. All of his cow towing has resulted in nothing but half hearted support for our allies (which they recognize and are critical of), and the disdain by our enemies for this POTUS. I hope he continues to pander, because it will accomplish nothing but make him look the naive fool he is.
A journey of a thosand miles begins with a single step.
When’s the last time you were in England, Mata? My friends over there have told me repeatedly over the last decade and a half that sharia law could never take hold there.
But it is.
It makes no sense for Obama to “pander” if it’s not getting him any votes or any good will. Therefore there has to be another reason for him doing these things. He’s come out of the Muslim closet following the election. There is a reason he wants Islam to assert itself in government and for our tax money to be used to massage the egos of Muslim nations.
So I respectfully disagree.
Drjohn, we are not England, nor are Americans as easy to roll over as the English. As I said, we’re pretty much a nation that wouldn’t have tolerance for Shariah as part of our legal system. Altho Shariah already exists in the lending world with Shariah compliant loans available. “islamification” in your book? Well, that’s not the doing of Obama.
I agree it makes no sense for Obama to pander. You assume he does for the purpose, I glean from your responses, of implementing Shariah as part of this nation. Yet you offer no citations that back that up, save a bunch of lip services making nice with Islamic nations.
I assume he does this azz kissing because he always wants to be portrayed as the diplomat, ergo opposite of perceived unilateral Bush, no matter how much it makes him look like an idiot. He did state that he would sit down with our enemies… sometimes with preconditions, other times without – throughout his campaign and continued thru his Presidency. How can you be surprised, or how can this be “stealth” when it was quite openly a campaign promise?
You can respectfully disagree, as well as I. My observation is you’re dancing on the edge of conspiracy theories that paints us as lunatics. I’d say that the birther added commentary, as he/she interpreted your reader post, combined with mathmans pronouncement that we were marching towards a Shariah nation, pretty much confirms that is how your post is interpreted. Since I’ve asked my very direct question – do you believe Obama is trying to implement Shariah law in the US – I’ve only gotten nuanced responses. But they all point to a “yes”. And this prediction, based on nothing more than what you’ve provided, is not going to be helpful to the conservative movement as a whole.
But hang, it’s your 1st Amendment right to state your predictions, just as it’s the birthers’ right to keep talking up their theories.
Wow. Keeping two rovers operating for more than five years on Mars is quite some “save for.” So is a spacecraft flying 39,000 miles per hour just leaving the known solar system after departing this world 30 years ago and still talking to us. So is a glimpse of a moon that looks more like our world than we imagined if you could forget that the atmosphere is methane.
They’re not worthless because of their own faults. They’re astonishingly talented people. Forking over control of manned space flight to the Russians and the Chinese is stupid. It was time to make the taxi. And it is easily within our reach.
Drjohn, you are leaping to bizarre assumptions yet again. I happen to be a huge fan of NASA, and often wander thru their site and photo galleries for pure pleasure. Modern NASA tasks are easily found on their website, and include:
Let me parse my statement for you, so you don’t misunderstand. NASA is now useless for space exploration as a single national entity because it’s funding for the next generation Orion shuttle replacement is questionable. Under the Bush NASA plan, current shuttles were to be retired this year (which Obama is still doing) and replaced with the Orion/Constellation craft. NASA actually received ARRA/stimulus funds to advance the development. But then, April of this year, Obama announced cancellation of the Constellation program and a new directive for the Orion project. But funding and specifics were vague. This results in potential NASA job loss of 11,500 people. So far Obama’s killing more jobs than “creating or saving” them. A legitimate attack front for the election.
Now we have the NASA director, echoing Obama’s assertation that the US can no longer explore above the earth’s low atmosphere without int’l assistance. Perhaps what he has done is rendered anything but NASA’s other tasks as impotent with funding cancellations.
As I said, can’t exactly close them down since they do perform other satellite monitoring tasks, as well as robotic exploration. However I also said that their space exploration (manned, I should have specified), as it exists right now, is virtually useless without, as Obama/Bolden aver, int’l help.
So for you to portray my comment as some sort of slam at NASA in general is an utter misinterpretation. Whether that’s you filling in the blanks, or me not making it more abundantly clear, I don’t know. But I certainly hope this clears it up.
Sorry, Mata. I am at 33,000 feet over Georgia. I guess it’s the altitude keeping me from reading your mind and making me leap to “bizarre assumptions.”
My bad. 😉
Not a problem. Flying is no pleasure these days. But the view ought to be great…
MataH, I don’t necessarily think that Islamification, stealth or otherwise, is contingent upon some element of overt Shariah being readily identified and institutionalized into our code of law. We are, I think, still at the stage where the frog is not boiled but is sweating profusely. If you will, the Ground Zero (Cordoba House) mosque, whose Imam is an explicit advocate of shariah in America, can be looked at as the deliberate second step following the comparatively tentative yet successful first step of demanding foot baths, separate gym and pool facilities or hours for men and women, refusal to handle pork products, taxi-drivers refusing transport to customers assisted by seeing-eye dogs, ID photos for hijab-wearing women,Halal menus in schools, etc.,—all small scale and to the feckless, seemingly innocuous when cloaked under the the guise of “religious expression”. Now, we have Cordoba House, a looming taunt by Islam to American and Western values, which will likely be permitted by virtue of “law fare”—jihad through exploitation of our laws. Is Obama directly and profoundly responsible for this encroachment? No…but from all appearances, he is a complicit enabler at best, or an advocate of taqqiya, at worst. His serial deference to Islam clearly marks him as a master of either malignant ineptitude or of something smoothly and cooly deliberate; either way, his actions are insidious.
Like you I am hopeful—yet not confident—that America would soundly and vocally reject any overt imposition of sharia. But then, I remember who voted for Obama while ignoring his tutelage under Jeremiah Wright, his jarring comments about the need to “fundamentally transform” this country, his utter lack of experience in administering anything except his own campaign, etc. Hence the lack of confidence.
Because of that, I have to agree with your assessment that the most effective, expedient way to hobble Obama and his enablers in Congress is to focus on the more politically safe issues of policies and using the irrefetutable data to prove his policy failures. I also agree that his fawning deference to Muslim entities makes him a laughingstock to those he most seeks to impress and patronize…but damned if I’m not worried that someone exploits that weakness before we can rein him in.
Perhaps you can tell us what constitutes “islamification” in the scope of your ideas, Tory.
INRE the Ground Zero mosque… interesting you bring that up since that caused quite the uproar in FA familia spirited debate not too long ago. However everyone that casually says “just build it elsewhere” hasn’t figured out that the trend to ban, or severely harass mosque and their included cultural centers, has been increasing post 911. TN is battling mosques in their state… any location. Boston is royally PO’d about the mosque being built there. In 2008, a senior Church of England member wanted an outright ban on mosques in Britain in fears of becoming “…an Islamic state”. In 2007, Austria’s governor of Carinthia was attempting to ban them in his province. And as of May 2008, a more than hefty amount of Euro nations i.e. Italy, France, Britan and Switzerland, were all raising a ruckus for mosque building.
And oh, BTW, the cultural centers only have a prayer room for worship and prayer, and the rest is community amentities for all local residents.
All this begs the question when you say build it elsewhere. Just where would that be?
So it’s far from just being about Ground Zero? You haven’t been looking around, Tory. The “fear” and hyperbole of “becoming an Islamic state” is an emotional virus sweeping the globe. As for us, the day the US prohibits the building of mosques is the same day the US will also be able to prohibit the building of any religious house of worship. Our freedom and Constitution is a one size fits all brand, when it comes to freedom of religion.
So unlike you and a few others, who believe Obama’s “islamifying” the US, I suggest that too many of you have now succumbed to Islamaphobia, and are willing to yield serious unalienable rights in order to pacify that fear. The global jihad movement will be happy to take that discrimination to the bank of support.
We aren’t?
Did we or did we not just elect a lying charlatan for President?
LOL! Well, we (but not me, Kemosabi) did elect a lying charlatan. But then, the English don’t have a President. And they are far more wussy at bucking the system than this nation. Witness the Minutemen, AZ and other states, 20 states suing Obama over healthcare, and the tea party. When’s the last time you saw such a grassroots movement in the UK?
TORY: I agree but is’n it more cautious if there is an advance backup plan in case some decide not to wait because of emergency to important. and who would be the one to trigger that plan also is questionable. bye 🙄
When they started accepting sharia.
Drj, the anti-Muslim protests in England don’t even come close in numbers to the tea party movement here. Nor have they continued on to battle it. In fact, from most of the protests I had read about in that time, the pro groups were about as large as the anti groups. And once it went into place, they all sauntered back into the local pub. Not so here. States filing lawsuits against health care, tea parties still going strong.
Nope….England can’t come close to touching the wrath of Americans who feel wronged by government. And that’s a good thing.
BTW, saw a report on famous oyster places in NO. They are still serving them, getting them from the Texas waters. Toss a few oyster shots back for me, please.
And now I’m on my way to New Orleans. Hope there are some fried oysters still cookin’ at Drago’s….
DR.JOHN: hi, AM I to beleive that on 31 you are answering yourself?. BECAUSE I thought I was the only one doing that. bye 🙄 IT could be the ALTTITUDE
@bees
It was sort of rhetorical…. 😛
I’m with Dr. John. I’m also one of the “birther” nuts. Although I’m not sure the place of birth is necessarily a factor… consider that the Constitution specifically mentions that “dual citizenship” is a factor that obfuscates “natural born”, and in fact Obama is a dual citizen by virtue of his father who was an English citizen, and in all probability, by virtue of his Indonesian father who adopted him. In fact, he would not have been permitted to attend the Indonesian schools, had he not been a citizen of Indonesia. Additionally, at the time he was with his mother and step-father in Indonesia, neither the USA nor Indonesia tolerated a dual citizenship status, so his parents would have been required to relinquish his USA citizenship. Now…if he did nothing to exercise his Indonesian citizenship after reaching his majority, that would be moot, but two questions arise: his possible use of an Indonesian passport to go to Pakistan in ’81, and a question about the fact that he returned to Indonesia to work on his auto-biography. That wouldn’t be of any interest, except that apparently visas are limited to a certain period of time – three months, I think – and he stayed there much longer. Maybe he had his visa extended – but no mention of it is made. Imo, it’s possible that no mention was made because he didn’t have a visa – he was a citizen. Don’t know how to prove that though.
I really hope that if the GOP wins the House, someone will actually research the issue and put the entire thing to rest – one way or the other.
OH yeah…and really – consider taquiyah. It’s a terribly insidious concept.
There you go again, Mata, leaping to bizarre assumptions! 😛
What I said was that Islamism was the grass roots movement I saw in the UK.
And will do!
Well now, you didn’t make that any more plain than I made my NASA comment, apparently. I asked you when you saw Brits in an uproar over proposed government policy with grass roots. And you simply said “when they started accepting Shariah”. Now you say that means the grass roots movements were in favor of it, instead of against it? WTF? LOL
Like I said, no one does the 1st amendment better than US citizens. And I like that about us.
Did you know that Connecticut is home to a boatload of oyster farms? They grow Bluepoints here.
Actually, right now it’s there, not here.
DR>JOHN: give them our best wishes and concerned, bye 🙄 RHETORIC? that’s what I tell myself when I talk to me.
@bees
LOL! And I will!
I was trying to talk like you and you’re my idol.
Come on, no brown nosing, guy. LOL I see what we have here is “a failure to communicate”….
DR.JOHN: WHILE I’m on your back, I could not resist this one: IS IT HERE or THERE?. 🙄
@bees
Yes!
MATA: IT’S strange that the subject always bring some burning responses it almost make you think of
as hot as hell. bye 🙄
@MataHarley:
Let’s throw in there the push by Sarkozy to follow Belgium’s example and ban face veils. He calls them “oppressive” to women. But that should be up to Muslim women to decide. Those who willingly wear hijabs (i.e., “modest” dress) and burqas (not the ones forced to do so by males) might tell you that when a woman is covered, men are forced to judge by personality and character rather than by appearance. It is by choice that they cover up to hide their physical traits from non-family members who might have indecent thoughts. These women will insist that they feel more liberated. Not less.
Burqas are worn by a minority of Muslim women, btw. And the hijab could be anything from a head dress and facial covering to a simple head scarf. Use of makeup varies. A Muslim woman in Indonesia might don a hijab when she is about to pray, then take it back off right after. Islamic practices are VARIED. Even fundamentalists and jihadi whackos don’t agree on Sharia, hadiths, and what the Koran allows and does not allow. Even Islamic scholars debate and disagree. Sunnis regard Shiites with disgust and vice versa. Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri allowed their children to listen to music and play video games…how does that go over with the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia?
Us right-wingers have this cartoon impression of Muslim tradition and Islamic practice as some monolithic religious culture, arrogantly telling Muslims we know their faith better than they know their faith.
I have a French-American Muslim friend who tells me it’s mostly those who are recent converts to Islam who try to be more “traditional”/strict adherents than those born into it. Yet I believe she and those like her represent some of the more mainstream Muslims out there. Not the wahhabi loonies who epitomizes every right-winger’s boogieman Islamic
radicalnormal. She wears makeup, GAP clothing (modestly dressed), listens to American music and goes to the movies, dances, etc. like any other typical American youth. And she attends mosque and considers herself Islamic. She may not know her faith like we all know her faith (i.e., the Robert Spencerian politically incorrect “Islami is not a religion of peace” outlook), but who’s to stop her from practicing her faith as a religion of peace, if that’s indeed what she is practicing? It may not be Islam as you and I may think of it. But it is her Islam, as she knows and practices it.When we wail about “Where are the moderates?!”, when “moderates” like her are standing there before us, we then tell them, “No, you’re not a moderate; you don’t exist. There can be no moderates in Islam. You’re the radical; you’re the apostate for not wanting to live under universal sharia, kill or convert Christian infidels (she’s never tried to convert anyone in her life, to my knowledge), for not hating Jews as ‘pigs’, for not knowing what taqqiyah is (a shi’ite practice)….” and so on.
@DrJohn:
Stepping off a cliff and taking the whole conservative movement down with it can begin with just one.
@DrJohn:
I’m not quite understanding your question. Can you rephrase or clarify for me? Thanks.
Not at all. Not to the jihadis. Not to the Muslim world.
The president’s got a high IQ; but a lot of intellectuals lack smarts and wisdom.
No, Mata, I never said to build the mosque ( aka the warm, fuzzy, “cultural center”) elsewhere; I’d prefer it not be built, since in the dark, enlightened murk of my alleged “Islamophobia”, I recognize that Islam tends to use religion only as window dressing. I also described some examples of Islamification in my earlier reply. These do not quailfy as some nebulous phobia…it’s happening here. We do know that “stealth” in Islam relies on repackaging the obvious into something more palatable and yet poisonous. It may be politically incorrect but mosques/”cultural centers” can be accurately described as political teaching centers more so than respites for spiritual enlightenment…rebranding a mosque as a “cultural center” only highlights the need for doublespeak when discussing Islam. There’s no emotional virus of Islamophobia, Mata. “Islamophobia” is one of the cruder tools in the toolbox brought out when the facts aren’t sharp enough to do the job. And… the unfortunately and hopefully unintended gloating, “gotcha” tone of your acknowledgment of the failsafe protection calculatedly extracted by the ilk of Shariah-advocating imam of the Cordoba “Cultural Center” starkly highlights my point that our own laws are being used against us as part of the practice of “law-fare”—one of the non-violent tenets of jihad. Containing the concept of Sharia under the auspices of religion is vital to it gaining a foothold.
ilovebees…Sorry for the lack of clarity in my comments;while I agreed that the political candidates would probably find their campaigns more effective for the goal of getting elected to focus on the more pragmatic, easily remedied failures of policy, we, you,I…the ordinary but substantial meat and potatoes of America can and are finding that social networking sites are very effective in conveying previously unknown facts to our friends and peers, and they, in turn, to theirs. The “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…then it IS a duck” formula for getting the facts out resonates with most Americans, and you can bet that the upcoming elections are going to be subject to far more common-sense, gut reaction than an intellectually tortured scrutiny. So, to cop Obama’s ludicrous campaign slogan…”We are the back-up plan that we’ve been looking for”! Knowledge is power.
So, Tory… if you don’t want the mosque built elsewhere, which many in our past debates have suggested as the “solution”, do I assume you don’t want mosques built anywhere? And yet you deny any sliver of Islamaphobia? If you don’t see what’s going on around the world, with the attempts to bar mosques in places that are not “sacred” like 911’s site, then you are surely practicing tunnel vision. There’s no “islamification” going on in this nation. Only heightened Islamaphobia, which I’ve documented. What have you provided?
Have no idea of what “failsafe protection calculatedly extracted by the ilk of Shariah-advocating imam of the Cordob “Cultural Center” you are talking about. Are you discussing zoning laws and regulations? These are the only laws being used “against us”. Gasp…. kinda remarkable you believe that property owners who practice an unpopular religion should be subject to the punishment for violating our laws, but not enjoy the benefits when the law is on their side. Be careful where you tread.
The NY neighborhood has had their chance to protest, and in light of no legal argument, other than pure emotions, the planners had no choice but to honor our laws. Why do you think Geller and ilk are strively mightly to intervene by getting the building designated as a landmark? They need another of our laws to halt what they want built. If they succeed, then I would be just as ecstatic that rule of law prevailed for them, as it does for the Cordoba mosque. Nothing about this for me has anything to do with an opinion on the mosque itself. Every bit of it has to do with equal application of the law. Period.
*Snicker* Sounds like the Islamic boogeymen aren’t the only ones engaged in “lawfare”.
TORY: I can almost feel the emotion that it will produce all along the road to sucsess, it will escalate to a grand masterfull and inimaginable cry of releif from an AMERICA recovering her
SUPERPOWER which will resonate through all the world to see, and rejoice with: there will be non stop party all over and prayers which will be heard by all, with churchbells sounds for day long
to hear by everyone. and GOD will bless AMERICA
again. AND the braves will come back
“strively mightly???”
Someone’s getting a little overwrought!
@Tory: Your points are sound. Don’t let up!
MIKE AMERICA: I’LL do better next time: I dont understand your words, so I thought , I’LL
answer in case if it was address to me. bye 🙄
@ilovebeeswarzone: It’s not you Bees. It’s from Comment #53.
I was reading yesterday, on the side here,”conservative blog advertising” that in one of CAROLINES STATES[I forgot south or north the link is gone today] there was a minister that was denyed making a speech giving the name of JESUS in it; he challenge the person and was told that he will never be ask again to say a prayer, because the name of JESUS might offend some people
this is very offending for the CHRISTIANS of AMERICA.
Mata, I stated my preference that the mosque not be built. Period. Zoning laws and local building regulations are almost immaterial to this situation, in the larger sense, but bravo to Geller, at el., who have decided to play the game under the opponents’ rules. The laws the “cultural center” builders are misappropriating are the Federal laws regarding freedom to worship. and the morphing of the project’s purpose from house of worship to “cultural center” is a legal game to counter legitimate charges that the mosque is funded and supported by groups associated with terror groups,i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc. The imam’s open support for Shariah—a legal code that is incompatible morally and legally with our Constitution—somewhat mirrors his counterpart’s at the Roxbury mosque who openly calls for his subjects ( for lack of a better word) to ‘pick up the gun and the sword’ and who openly supports area terror suspects Aafia Siddiqui and Tarek Mehanna. The Islamic perception of separation of church and state is marvelously,er, fluid, isn’t it?
Now, Mata, I ask you…what pressing need is there for Muslims to build a “cultural center” a mere 600 feet from Ground Zero? Why would someone forcefully impose such a facility on a community that is overwhelmingly and rightfully repulsed by the conveyed symbolism—particularly to the global Islamic community— of dominance and conquest? What does the significance of the groundbreaking date of 9/11/2011 say to you? What significance does the name “Cordoba” convey? Let me guess…all purely random coincidences? Now, tell me who is most likely snickering at the ease with which one can misappropriate “freedom” to paradoxically subvert our freedom?
Now, you can throw out the tired old “Islamophobic” misnomer to anyone who challenges your notion of the glorious enlightened superiority you seem to revel in, up there in the stratosphere of an unadulterated, purified intellectual objectivity that is, in marvelous irony, so far above the clouds that the view is largely obscured and the air is too thin, and you can ignore the examples of Islamification—or in Newspeak, “Islamophobia”..but consider what a phobia is. “Irrational fear”, yes? One could as easily assert that a steadfast denial of history, patterns, facts is phobic, in its own right?There is no variant of Islam that operates outside of Shariah. None. Shariah is a legal/political/social system that is not optional for an adherent of Islam. Jihad, similarly, is a common denominator among every branch of Islam. It is, at its core, a monument to totalitarianism, as it places strictures on even the seeming banalities of washing and personal hygiene.
I will leave the pursuit of the pleasures of self-congratulatory back-patting to you, as well as the self-proclaimed ecstasy over the legal challenges of what you seem to hold as equally valid stances. My pursuits are far more base and dark…the protection of my family, now and in the future, and the continued existence of America as a strong republic and our stature as the “last great hope”.
Responses to Tory, Mike’sA’s hero…
Hate to break this to you, but our rule of law is everyone’s rules in this country. Nice that you consider them “immaterial”. I wish you whiny opponents on your next property development venture, and then you may get a clue. And oh, BTW, zoning and regulations are local government in this case, not federal. Can you spell clueless? The only thing federal is their tax exempt status, and possibly building codes applicable where state codes are not.
Secondly, how one wants to develop their property, within the scope of it’s zoning, is a choice that can either be approved, or not, according to local comprehensive planning regulations. And if you wish to accuse the mosque of getting funding by terror groups, I suggest you start putting your links and proof where your cyber mouth is. They have not tied the mosque funding to terror groups. You are parroting speculation by the Islamophobic bunch, sans proof.
nah… no Islamaphobia there. But rest content you are part of a herd. I don’t have to drag out a “misnomer” because you are aptly demonstrating your Islamaphobia all on your own. No mosques, anywhere, period. nah… no Islamphobia. Do you even listen to yourself? You don’t want any mosque built because you don’t believe Muslims have that right.
None of my business. It’s not my ‘hood, and it’s not my property. If they run thru the legal channels and it’s befitting the zoning code, who am I to deny them because “I’m offended”. And yes, I am, in case you want to know. But I’m not so offended that I’m willing to demand inequal application of our laws. When that happens, it will be done to me. How about I tell you that you can’t build a house on that great view lot of yours because you have lousy taste in architecture, and you’ll block my own view? If the prior owner of that lot recorded a view easement before you purchased it, you couldn’t. No view easement, you can do what you want. But then, maybe I can get the county or city to declare your lot pristine natural parkland, and strip you of all your rights. Why would I do that? Because I don’t like you. No other reasons needed, according to you.
“Islamification” is not defined by allowing mosques to be built. I guess your idea of the US Constitution is freedom of religion, but no houses of worship allowed if you are Muslim. Nor is “islamification” Obama’s pandering. Is it Native Americanization if I reach out to the native tribes? Or is that acceptable to you because they aren’t Muslims?
Islamification is when the US is changing our rule of law or judicial system in order to accommodate to any particular religion. We are not doing that. However you, Geller and the rest are advocating for just that…. in a negative way. One set of laws for Muslims, another for the rest of America. You got a weird perception of this nation, bubba.
And speaking of “glorious enlightened superiority”, it is you who happens to be dancing on the edge of childish droning simply because I don’t see things your way. I don’t “pat myself on the back” because I hold a particular opinion. I happen to argue rule of law. You argue emotions. You apparently take delight in your hypocritical self righteousness. So I guess you’d better be looking in the mirror when you decide to be hurdling accusations, Tory. I do, however get a real belly laugh at your unmitigated ignorance of the US tort system.
Bees…
Here you go…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/pastor-yanked-capitol-jesus-prayer/