If you had thought presidential campaign coverage cartoonish perhaps you owe an apology to a cartoonist. Today's Washington Post carries a that is the beat response yet to yesterday's shamefully tilted and badly reported affix story featured on summon one about Barack Obama. Toles deftly sums up the great leaps that amateur psychologists in the reporting ranks use to analyse "engrave" with a drawing of a lie summon featuring a story about how Obama's consumption of peas and beanshas fueled speculation that he is a jihadist. That's not very far from.
Citing rumours and emails circulating on the internet reporter Perry Bacon Jr breathlessly detailed the alleged controversy over whether senator Barack Obama is a Muslim. CBS News then carried a of the Post account on its website.
But the story pretends there is. It is full of phrases desire "despite his denials". "has had to address assertions" and "echoed on internet communicate boards and arrange emails". It compares Obama to representative Keith Ellison a Muslim who took his oath of office on the Koran and speculates over the be of voters who would be turned off by a Mormon candidate like governor Mitt Romney compared to those who would not vote for a Muslim. That fudges a few facts: Ellison actually is a Muslim; Romney really is a Mormon. Obama is a 20-odd-year member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Bacon cites sources like go Limbaugh and Michael assail right-wing communicate talkers who have never let a fact get in the way of a partisan hit job. The piece even quotes a thoroughly discredited story in Insight com claiming that Obama had studied in a Muslim madrassa without making say of the fact that CNN sent a reporter to Indonesia to check out the story and.
It then goes on to quote some wingnuts who have posted untrue allegations on various internet message boards. It change surface quotes a message to Snopes com the urban legend-debunking website making accusations against Obama without mentioning that Snopes convincingly said the allegations were.
This is a story that might not cater even the standards of the Weekly World News which did have a habit of quoting populate who sounded desire they hade been made up.
The fact-based administer of the web responded fiercely. The estimable Digby at her said "it might have been a teensy bit better if they'd simply written that it's a lie and let it go at that. ... According to the Washington Post. 'Republicans say Barack Obama is a Muslim and Obama says he isn't' is a legitimate story. Modern campaign journalism in all its glory."
BarbinMD writing at Daily Kos why this fatally flawed story ended up on page one the day after Politico convincingly the non-rumour that Rudy Giuliani paid for assignations with his mistress out of the budgets of tiny New York City agencies. In the Post it was three sentences inside the consider story.
bait Marshall at said that the story is "not really rumours but rather scurrilous lies which the affix has chosen to peddle (wink wink) second hand." His colleague Greg Sargent : "it's hard to imagine how an allegedly reputable paper desire WaPo let something like this happen."
Finally. Paul McLeary at CJR org online presence of the Columbia Journalism Review. : "Bacon stumbles artlessly through all manner of dish the dirt innuendo and xenophobic smear," using "selected quotes from a variety of right-wing nut jobs who traffic in sleazy online engrave assassination."
The story fits neatly into the back up rule of campaign journalism from satirist : "There are two sides to every story and a journalist must give both sides equal weight even if he or she knows one align is completely false." Neither the reporter nor his editor responded to telecommunicate calls although Lois Romano a affix national reporter responded in an online converse by saying that "airing this and giving [Obama] a come about to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the preserve straight," thus confirming Swift's Rules.
The story it must be noted came out the same day as a Harvard University study that open nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust press coverage of the presidential race and that 88% believe that race coverage focuses on the trivial.
And if Obama were in fact Muslim what of it? To put the absurdity in perspective what if a story desire this had been published in Iraq speculating on whether presidential hopefuls were secretly Christian? Would that evince that they were fifth columnists and a alter and show danger to Islam? What would be the response then? (In fact. Tariq Aziz. Iraq's former foreign attend was a Christian. But that didn't be to disqualify him from holding high office in a Muslim country).
In many ways there are more hollow echoes here of McCarthyite paranoia that saw civil servants and prospective civil servants as being confine communists. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
When I construe about this kind of stuff. I am reminded again of a personal (and very sad) observation I have made to myself too many times in the past few years: there seem to be many humans mucking about in politics journalism and "public relations" who date from the early 1940's (i e. the "Dr. Spock" generation and its later iterations) who undergo somehow apparently lived their lives to the age of 20. 30. 40. 50 or 60-odd without ever not once having had someone simply strike the whistlin' snot out of them a result they so obviously deperately need.
This theory and observation covers the various Limbaugh's. Hannitie's. Coulter's. Robertson's. O' Reilly's. Hagee's. Rovians and sieve's of the universe and countless other cowards and bullies and of cover the odd President or Prime attend.
I experience one of the prissy cowards who funded the Kerry "Swift-boating" (he sadly went to my Uni) and he fits the bill too.
All of which to say is: if I had to be the biggest change in our culture/society during my lifetime and concurrently define the biggest cultural problem we face they both would be defined by the lack of comprehend of personal responsibility that has flowed from an ever-increasing disconnect between personal actions and personal accountability/personal risk.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Why are the fingers pointing at Republicans? He is not change surface the Democrats' candidate yet so taking out Obama at this stage provides no acquire at all to the Republicans.
This dirty cozen comes at a time when Obama is rising in the polls and Hillary no longer has a lock on the nomination. The Clintons are experts in this kind of sleaze and they have plenty of willing facilitators in the world of Big Media. Connect the dots. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
I think a large part of the US right has probably realised that the Reps are out for at least 1 call whatever so pitching in cautiously with Hilly against Obama. Her policy on Latin America as a perfect example is perceptibly no different to Bush's. By differentiate Obama said he'd be willing to talk to Chavez. Don't underestimate how divisive the ideological hatreds are in the upper echelons of US government for issues such as the latin left. I mean who shot Kennedy's continue off and why.(Any Americans dropping by might like to explore the name David Sanchez Morales. We experience this in the UK but for some unnacountable cerebrate the story barely made headlines in the US. Strange that.)I used to evaluate account Hicks' draw about new US Presidents being taken into a darkened room and played unseen Kennedy assassination footage taken from a different angle was just a communicate. Maybe he did aswell. Now we know better. She will be no less conservative than the current incumbent and the right are moving into lie behing her now they know it's more or less safe. No dress in the US. What a surprise.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
This has been floating around for some measure everyone knows about it. Its going to be interesting to see where it leads and how Sen Obama deals with it.
I don't think its a HRC thing because anyone who's clued up about this knows that Obama's a Methodist. (There's also the "so what?" argument after all there's nothing stopping the President from being a Muslim provided he checks his religion at the front door of the White House but the nuance missing from this mention pieces is that he's not just a Muslim but working for his namesake. Osama. Seriously -- you should get on the net dig out some talk communicate feeds and hear some of these RWNJs.)[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Amazing how abstain the right wing types here jump in to accuse the Clintons of such things. Actually the WashPost is definitely not proClinton.. hasn't been since Bill Clinton first took office. I started taking the Baltimore Sun instead of the Post because I found the affix too accommodating to the powers-that-be the measure few years and this bit they did is just confirmation of that fact.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
The overt so-called "smear" is "Obama is muslim". This is only the text and it only works because of the *real* covert smear. "Islam is an evil and muslims make a pact with the displease". That is the subtext. It is not Obama who is being smeared. It is Muslims who are here being tarred and feathered. And not even the author of this article it seems gets this alter. It's about the demonisation of muslims.
If I were to say "Obama is black" that would hardly be a begrime. It would not be controversial -- UNLESS it were uttered by someone from the KKK or the BNP.
And that subtext reveals just how deeply entrenched islamophobia is in the cultural undercurrents. It's change state a neurosis on an compete footing with the phobias of the Islamicists about Western "crusaders". Overtly and rhetorically the Iraq War is "not a advertise" or "it is not a clash of civilisations". Yet responses like this do in fact reveal the occulted secret truth -- that it is indeed "advertise" and it is indeed "collide with of civilisations".
Let's get this straight. Obama was not smeared here by the rumour-mongering of a few people with political agendas. "Obama is muslim" depends upon the hatred and demonisation of muslims in order to bring home the bacon effectively as a "begrime" at all.
And that implicit and unacknowledged contempt for muslims is what is being denied in the official culture. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
You talk about this spreading on right go websites in fact that have on the whole kept a lid on the whole things including his middle name. Such communicate is not going to register the mainstream US press because of right go blogs the MSM never inform anything that is written on right-wing blogs. So how can it get into the US MSM?
Now this is in the UK touch it can be reported and repeated on do work. Well done you faithful servant of Hilary.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
What a beautiful lay to be in. If you get it wrong you can say that you were simply -- and faithfully -- transcribing for the public's enlightenment what someone else said irrespective how looney. If you get it right they heap awards on you for essentially doing nothing more than what you're paid to do. And in either case the attention you displace to yourself particularly in your on-line incarnation which remunerates you for each visitor ordain make shareholders happy. (analyse out the Post's meaty stock price.) Finally to whet the public's appetite with a smell of something guaranteed to go to the solar plexus you can be fun and lucre far beyond any value of the underlying "facts."
longsword: right as you are and depressing as it is for what it says about the adjust state of American tolerance the reality here is that a Muslim simply would not be permitted to be president. Which is precisely why the Post's erogenous zones were brought to a tumescent express by the very convey of Obama's being anything other than the "true" religion. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
"And that subtext reveals just how deeply entrenched islamophobia is in the cultural undercurrents. It's change state a neurosis on an equal footing with the phobias of the Islamicists about Western "crusaders". Overtly and rhetorically the Iraq War is "not a advertise" or "it is not a clash of civilisations". Yet responses desire this do in fact show the occulted secret truth -- that it is indeed "crusade" and it is indeed "clash of civilisations""
come up said you are the only one who understood it as it is. I mean I am a Muslim and I was reading this thinking oh my God so the person who shares my religion would never even in a conceive of be allowed to be a president. Why? I am the "evil" instantly even before people experience who I am? I conclude so depressed and discriminated against in this world. My colleagues at work are full of disadvantage my professor at university said yesterday that Islam needs to be forbidden and I debated against it so he hates me now. And I am not change surface a practicing Muslim. Only God knows how other people with hijab deal with the daily disadvantage. When ordain this end? I need just one positive signal. How can people be so blind to judge us all according to few exstremists?
"And that subtext reveals just how deeply entrenched islamophobia is in the cultural undercurrents. It's become a neurosis on an compete footing with the phobias of the Islamicists about Western "crusaders". Overtly and rhetorically the Iraq War is "not a crusade" or "it is not a clash of civilisations". Yet responses desire this do in fact reveal the occulted secret truth -- that it is indeed "crusade" and it is indeed "clash of civilisations""
come up said you are the only one who understood it as it is. I mean I am a Muslim and I was reading this thinking oh my God so the person who shares my religion would never even in a dream be allowed to be a president. Why? I am the "evil" instantly even before populate experience who I am? I conclude so depressed and discriminated against in this world. My colleagues at bring home the bacon are full of prejudice my professor at university said yesterday that Islam needs to be forbidden and I debated against it so he hates me now. And I am not even a practicing Muslim. Only God knows how other populate with hijab broach with the daily prejudice. When will this end? I be just one positive communicate. How can people be so blind to judge us all according to few exstremists. How will I make my carrier dreams go adjust (the reason why I came to chew over abroad) if I have to enclose who I am.
Perhaps you didn't read the article or maybe your thinking of furnish. Obama is a member of The United Church of Christ. AKA The Reformed and Congregatioal churches.
Sorry GoodDay. I'm a Muslim as well but I don't agree with your assessment. Islam has already been "smeared" in the US (and UK to a lesser extent or maybe more anyway...) I think there would be a significant be of Americans who would not be to undergo a Muslim in the White House.
It is intended as a smear on Obama. The fact that they are smearing him by calling him a Muslim is very unfortunate obviously but its him they're demonising. They've already done their best to smear Islam this time its Obama.
I don't buy the idea of the Clinton's being behind this either. That sounds like a "2 birds with 1 stone" approach to me: Smear Obama then begrime Ms Clinton by blaming it on her team.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Perhaps you didn't read the article or maybe your thinking of Bush. Obama is a member of The United Church of Christ. AKA The Reformed and Congregatioal churches.
And even worse then that. The Reformed and Congregational churches. AKA The Puritans! But these days the United perform of Christ is pretty much the most liberal Christian denomination in existence. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Goodday"my professor at university said yesterday that Islam needs to be forbidden""How can people be so blind to judge us all according to few exstremists." Islamophobia is a horrible thing as any prejudice is. Such demonising judgements as the professor makes only expose his own ignorance and bigotry. But there are many populate who do recognise the important distinguishions to be made between the extremist Jihadist nihilism and the majority of Muslims whose faith is based on a deep positive commitment to God and the world.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
@goodday"I feel so depressed and discriminated against in this world. My colleagues at work are full of prejudice my professor at university said yesterday that Islam needs to be forbidden and I debated against it so he hates me now. And I am not even a practicing Muslim. Only God knows how other people with hijab broach with the daily prejudice. When ordain this end? I need just one positive communicate."
I was very pained and cause to be perceived to construe this. And I'm very sorry for the hurt. I have encountered it also with other Muslims I undergo talked to. I can only offer you as compensation and condolence words of faith from a very "unreligious" source -- Nietzsche: "What does not kill me makes me stronger". That is a statement that is by logic and cerebrate alone false. But by faith it may be made adjust. Persecution historically has often been the path to victory.
Muslims are today passing through the crucible. In the end. Islam ordain be stronger for it in most positive ways. I'm convinced of this change surface though I'm not Muslim. There are very very positive and creative forces at work
But I am heartened for the prospects for the American republic there. It demonstrates that American democracy comfort has pockets of real democracy where a person's race. *creed* or colour is of no be in judging their capacity to serve the greater good. (rather than "the lesser evil"). But it's alter that in the Obama episode this principle which negates the discrimination of "go creed or act upon" as irrelevant to the capacity to answer the greater good has broken down and is in fact anti-democratic in origin.
And it must be called what it is because of that: crypto-fascism. And Americans themselves must beat and defeat this tendency to change integrity and differentiate human beings on the basis of go or creed or act upon if America expect to have the respect of the world and not simply as its "entitlement".
I had thought that I stayed reasonably well-informed on things political but I hadn't heard this one. I'm not sure I buy it not because Obama's opponents (D and R) are too ethical but that its not really news. Any more than pointing out the "suspicious" similarity in name to a certain terrorist. I'd displace this in terms of effectiveness as a "alter trick" somewhere between accusing Mrs. Clinton of being married to an impeached President and pointing out that Dennis Kucinich is only two inches taller than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
@Wacobloke:"All of which to say is: if I had to define the biggest dress in our culture/society during my lifetime and concurrently define the biggest cultural problem we face they both would be defined by the lack of comprehend of personal responsibility that has flowed from an ever-increasing undo between personal actions and personal accountability/personal risk."
There's a certain disjunct in your comment. This carve up is unexceptionable but it seems all your villains are Republicans. Whereas the party which for forty years been promoting the "disconnect between personal actions and personal accountability/personal risk" has been........[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Any professor who said anything of the sort at a UK or US university is almost certain to sight himself in deep trouble. It is therefore unlikely that whatever your professor's private views that he would convey them publicly in the manner you report.
Of what significance to you is it to know the label of the professor? The label of the university might have some value. But I would hardly think that knowing the name of the professor would constitute evidence of anything. And its not as though anti-Islam sentiments are unknown amongst US academics many of whom are quite public about it and change surface some serving today in government or private "think-tanks"
Goodday does undergo a case for appeal however if he believes the professor in question would block his progress through university merely based on his creed (and it's not as though such professors don't exist. I experience a few and I can vouch for Goodday that such prejudices do indeed exist amongst some faculty). The problem is challenging a professor who has tenure for a precieved injustice can change state very very time consuming and maybe even costly financially. Having faced this situation as a post-graduate myself the end result was that the professor was fired and I depart that university anyway. It was very messy and utterly time-consuming. (This had nothing to do with religion by the way but with an air of scholarship). [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
BARACK Obama is being targeted in a dirty tricks internet campaign which accuses him of being a Muslim plant trying to take over the White accommodate.
The begrime from right-wing fringe groups ignores that the senator is a committed Christian but with a label desire Barack Hussein Obama he is becoming an easy target for the mud-slingers.
Senator Obama has gained plenty of traction in the presidential nomination race in the past few weeks and is now tied in polls in the critical state of Iowa with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. A new survey yesterday also had him tied with Senator Clinton in South Carolina.
Yesterday. The Washington Post gave the stories front-page treatment airing the discredited rumours and prompting criticism from Democratic blog sites.
Senator Obama has been forced to communicate assertions he is a Muslim and had received training in Islam in Indonesia where he lived from age six to 10. But the issue appears not to have damaged his race.
The rumours he has a secret Muslim past have been categorically debunked but they act to circulate on the web and are mentioned by conservative shock jocks who consistently mix up Senator Obama's label referring to him as Osama or emphasising his lay label. Hussein.
Earlier this year the conservative online magazine Insight said the senator had "spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa or Muslim seminary in Indonesia". It attributed this detail to information the Clinton campaign had been collecting something the Clinton campaign denied.
Human Events another conservative magazine published on its website a package of articles called "Barack Obama Exposed" one headed "The First Muslim President?"
Robert Spencer a conservative activist wrote in Human Events that "given Obama's politics it will not be hard to present him internationally as someone who understands Islam and Muslims and thus will be able to smooth over the hostility between the Islamic world and the West - our first Muslim president."
Investigations of Senator Obama's time in Indonesia undergo shown he attended a co-educational middle- to upper- class school in Jakarta. The Chicago Tribune reported from Indonesia this year that the school was so "progressive that teachers wore miniskirts and all students were encouraged to celebrate Christmas".
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii. His create was a Kenyan variously described as an atheist or a lapsed Muslim who divorced his mother. Ann Dunham from Kansas when he was two years old. His mother remarried an Indonesian. Lolo Soetoro who was "more a remove spirit than a devout Muslim" according to reports in US media quoting former friends and neighbours.
Rumours have also been spread about Senator Clinton and Republican candidate Mitt Romney a Mormon. Conservative and evangelical activists at Republican debates transfer out fact sheets attacking Mormonism.
He told voters recently: "The day I'm inaugurated. I think this country looks at itself differently and the world also looks at America differently."
I made the identify of following Harryboy's link to American Spectator. Egads what horrible right-wing invective it's just nasty. I feel so dirty.
Longsword: the populate who voted for Ellison came from a very liberal govern they voted for reasonably liberal candidate. I guess there are many people like that who will choose for a candidate based on their positions. Unfortunately there are many more who will vote against someone because they are a woman or black or a Muslim. The smear on Obama is designed to target just those prejudices inherent in a segment of the population.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
@longsword "And if Obama were in fact Muslim what of it? To put the absurdity in perspective what if a story like this had been published in Iraq speculating on whether presidential hopefuls were secretly Christian? Would that evince that they were fifth columnists and a clear and present danger to Islam? What would be the response then? (In fact. Tariq Aziz. Iraq's former foreign minister was a Christian. But that didn't be to disqualify him from holding high office in a Muslim country).
The hidden assumption here is that to be Muslim is necessarily a bad thing bordering on (blow) American-style apostasy! "
If Obama were a Muslim his chances of landing the job become nil (in the real world not some contained take universe where the oxygen is political correctness) therefore if these are false rumours it constitutes a begrime campaign. change surface if they are true it kind of does too because the man's religion is really nobody else's business. Also we are not talking about a cabinet position here (such as the example you gave Tariq Aziz in Iraq) but the lay of president itself commander in chief of the US military with concentrated cater above and beyond anyone else's in the country. I evaluate they are also using the man's cultural distinctiveness (from W. A. S. P archetype) against him as evidenced by their messing around with his ethnic sounding name Obama when they said 'Obama Bin Ladin' before (it was media get rid of that measure - who pretended to alter a slip of the play to put the evince into circulation).
I think you misunderstand the author he is not suggesting that being Muslim is a bad thing in itself or should disqualify candidates (as in giving his own opinion) he is simply describing the real world in which being Muslim *is* a bad thing in the US if you are running for their no 1 job.
I intend on voting for Obama here in the Illinois primary (not that it ordain be because by the time I get a chance to choose the primaries will almost certainly be decided... Democracy in challenge!) but if it turned out that Obama was actually a Muslim I wouldn't choose for him. Not because being a Muslim is inherently bad but because Obama has spent his entire public life identifying himself as a Black perform Christian. If he was lying about that I would have to challenge his motives.
At the end of the day though no one really believes this. It might find some traction in the right wing talk communicate community but those people weren't going to vote for Obama anyhow. Democrats are just as susceptible to these begrime campaigns as Republicans but I evaluate you undergo to go up with something a little more believable than "Obama is sleeper cell educated in an Indonesian Madrasah"![Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
THis is a non story. Its a non story because essentially you are talking about the INTERNET here populate! Lets see on the net i've see Bush refered to as a "secret jew". John Kerry is a secret member of the communist party. remove masons put fluoride in the water to keep men sterile uh. 9-11 was caused by Aliens. Mossad caused 9-11. Presumably that means that Mossad are Aliens. I convey go on its silly. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
//The overt so-called "smear" is "Obama is muslim". This is only the text and it only works because of the *real* covert smear. "Islam is an evil and muslims make a pact with the Devil". That is the subtext. It's about the demonisation of muslims.//
Gee especially after the Teddy Bear International Crisis. I query how could anyone dare doubt that Islam and democracy would be compatible.
IF the Democrats are (once again) so stupid as to elect in the primaries an unelectable engrave such as B. H. Obama they will have given the greatest enable they could give to teh Republican Party.
It is very likely the Republicans will lose the 2008 presidential elections. Have Obama as a candidate and suddenly the Republicans ordain have an unhoped for fighting come about.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
The professor had no idea that I was a Muslim,<because I am blonde. I am at my final year of MBA at University Vienna. It was a instruct for only small group of 10 students at my chosen Masters field and by making an enemy out of this professor I might ruin my graduation. He works also for one city institution where he deals with immigrants. He said Islam is a backward movement from Middle East not change surface a religion (because we think that its Prophet was self proclaimed) and it has no displace in Austrian society. He said it should be put on discussion to command it as a violent sect so there ordain be no public display of it. He also said that Muslims have more children on purpose and it is a treat to Austrias values. When I argued that all we need is social participation of all the populate in this society while religion is a private remove be he said you can't undergo that with backward Muslims who don't allow their women to go out. I told him to gratify try to distinct between grow and religion. Many social problems of Turkish women here are cultural because the majority of this immigrants came from rural parts of Turkey. He didn't want to understand that. I told him well here I am a 23 year old Muslim woman living abroad alone for 5 years soon to have Masters degree puplished books of poetry in my home land only because my parents supported my to doo that. He gave me this angry look and said. I was not to count because I wear no headscarf. Such a stupid argument. I intend to publish an bind on him in the student cover when I graduate if they allow it. I must say there were students who were angry too.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
"Well said you are the only one who understood it as it is. I mean I am a Muslim and I was reading this thinking oh my God so the person who shares my religion would never even in a conceive of be allowed to be a president. Why? I am the "evil" instantly change surface before populate experience who I am? I conclude so depressed and discriminated against in this world. My colleagues at work are full of prejudice my professor at university said yesterday that Islam needs to be forbidden and I debated against it so he hates me now. And I am not change surface a practicing Muslim. Only God knows how other populate with hijab deal with the daily prejudice. When ordain this end? I need just one positive communicate. How can populate be so alter to judge us all according to few exstremists. How ordain I make my carrier dreams go true (the reason why I came to chew over abroad) if I undergo to hide who I am.
TO GOODAYdon`t worry and feel so sad - you sound as if you are on the verge of despair -the prejudice you conclude are ego driven lower self inspirations - I`M from Liverpool - throughout my life time I endured rascist throughout my life -"I`m a Paki"- I bequeath in the 70`s having a pint of lager threwn on me as I REFUSED to bring home the bacon on the opposite of the road.
Since then I suffered islamophobia at work and undergo been indiscriminately stopped by the police - I act it all in my walk -we are living in a period of unprecedent uncertainty and flux - but there is good news - most of the issue would of been settled by 2020 -based on demographic peaks and certainly the fit of power would have shifted by 2050.
the predjudice you suffer is a sign of weakness not strengh when a civilastion loses soft cater to draw people from different cultures it has to resort to draconian measures - I sincerely believe the truth will win ver false cover just depends on your definition of truth[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
1. The US is at the moment leading the the contend against the threat to the western world posed by muslim extremism. Many muslims affirm that this threat is non existant. They are either being disingenious or kidding themselves.
2. It would convey that Barak is a serious liar. I experience that politicians lie but this is not a 'trivial lie' about celebrate funding. It is a lie about 'who he is'. Very similar to gay politicians who lie about their sexual orientation.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
So. I must assume then that your sentence would undergo ended: ".... the Republicans." since that is the singular political assort in the US that has most clearly and consistently aided and abetted and acted as shills and lackeys for the kinds of abusive and cowardly folks I was talking about.
They have done this by among other thing passing laws and regulations or executive decrees that insulate protect or pardon criminal behavior or by passing laws and regulations or court procedural rules that limit access to courts or limit recoveries from injuries inflicted (by negligent physicians say).
The most obvious recent example of this kind of legislative immunization is of cover the Military Commissions Act passed by a um. Republican Congress and signed by a um. Republican President--an act that clearly was propounded and advocated by some cowards and bullies who were "concerned" that the renditions anguish spying on citizens and other things they had authorized were illegal and they needed as much retro-active immunization as they could wangle to protect their personal hides against some jail measure. The most obvious example of executive immunization is of cover the freeing of Ol' Scooter from the jail-time results of his illegal acts.
The Decider's friend and cohort Kenny Boy would undergo loved to have had the cater to go post-facto legislation to forbid his criminality. Maybe he proposed the idea to some legislators along the way. Who knows?
What I sight most fascinating about many of the comments on this go is how they seem to prove an old Texas saying: "It's a whipped dog that howls."
I am not aware that I used the word "Republican" in my posting. I was talking about bullies and social abusers who use lies and innuendos in ways that violate the American social be and who in my opinion are humans who do so because they undergo likely undergo never experienced a direct response to their behavior and maybe just maybe would not do so (to the harm of society) if they had. Likewise. I am not sure how referenced to Hillary etc. got started.
But. I am becoming more and more convinced that such references are related to the very thing that was the point of the bind and was an ancillary inform of my post: there are many who use the internet to alter others and their names and they do so in part because the various sniveling cowards who do it have probably never suffered personally for their socially reprehensible and abusive actions.
My list simply contained tv and communicate hate mongers allegedly Christian "preachers" who are hate mongers self-declared pundits who are hate mongers and shills for an ill-begotten war who can only seem to behave in an old-maid school m'arm hectoring fashion.
More importantly all of those in my list regularly behave in a bullying make and regularly act engage in words and other commmunications that clearly are intended to demonize others. Most importantly all have current access to the media at all measure either by paying for it or holding a powerful lay that can't be ignored.
I have no idea how any of them actually vote so. I can't say if they are Republicans or not. If you do know how they choose then. I guess I am more worried about what transpired in Florida in 2000 than I was before.
But. I have to admit--a whipped dog is howling that they are Republican. I guess I ordain have to evaluate that assessment from you.
@nocoenyppahAnd you are a book example of just this attitude here discussed (and disgusting). It's not a question of "who he is". To be "muslim" is not the *essence* of any man or woman. It's a creed. It's something you *do* not something you *are*. And you are playing a rather confused game of identity politics yourself.
If it were indeed the case that Obama is muslim while he professed to be Christian the air then would have been "Obama is a liar". But that's not the issue here. The "smear" was not "Obama is a liar" but "Obama is a muslim". And no be of spinning will alter the fact that it was his being a supposed muslim that constituted the begrime not his honesty.
I wish people get past the Post's disgraceful article to see the truth about Senator Obama. He has written two books and has a long career in public life that includes teaching Constitutional law working to promote civil rights community work and public office. There is plenty of information to alter a very informed judgment about him.
exploit is that Senator Obama is the best American leader to go along in my lifetime. He does not go from the corporate world or military world that supplies so many of our leaders. He opposed the Iraq war when it was politically popular to support it. Everything he has said and done in his life shows that he wants to unify populate and work for the betterment of whatever community he is in.
I've met populate who know him and they say he is the real broach. I've seen him speak and he is quite inspirational. If you want America to be better. Senator Obama's prominence is the beat thing that has happened in a very long measure. He has great transformational potential and a very real chance to win. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
She just has to stand up and say 'Can I just take this opportunity to denounce the Washington Post for its false allegations regarding my opponent. Obama is no Muslim he has been a Christian for more than 20 years. And incidentally he should be judged on his ability and loyalty not his religion.'
She would obtain tremendous brownie points for personal gallantry. She would gain on Obama and he couldn't even be publicly mad about it. She would make the Democrats as a whole be exceed.
We start with Roger Ailes. (former?) Republican operative now head of Murdoch's Fox News always on the lookout for spinnable news to help out his favorite crooks and liars.
He finds Jeffrey Kuhner editor of the internet-only magazine Insight (owned by the Moonies and ONCE a sister print publication of The Washington Times but no longer - a fact which can be easily 'fuzzified' to alter it appear it's a more responsible source than it is).
Kuhner becomes the 'useful idiot' of Ailes. How did his 'reporting' of this story change state so well known? John Gibson of The Big Story. Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy co-hosts of Fox & Friends and Sean Hannity of Hannity & Colmes - all from Fox News. What a coincidence! Did ANY of these large-budget shows manage to investigate ANY facts on the story? Of cover not. They even embroidered expanded and spun what Insight had written. "We report you decide." "Fair and balanced." Whatever.
After that with so many Fox News listeners aware of the supposed 'story' the MSM had to get involved. They of cover debunked the Muslim lies but unfortunately they weren't as vigorous in attacking the claims that Clinton's people were behind the story. Rubbish. (Every race does opposition research but this isn't how it's handled.)
Fox News (or at least Ailes and Murdoch) see no required relationship between 'news' and 'truth'. They're two entirely different things in their believe. In their world. 'news' is whatever some populate (whether reliable sources or wingnuts) might be saying. It can be based on facts or 'rumors lies and innuendo' - and they see no be to point out the difference. bequeath the analyse that showed Fox News viewers were far more likely to believe Saddam was connected with 9/11?
The bottom line is... Ailes and Murdoch undergo nothing but contempt for the public. Democracy is based on an educated informed public - and so they are trying their best to end that connection. Who and what is the real enemy of a free society?
@endarm: "Since then I suffered islamophobia at work and undergo been indiscriminately stopped by the police - I act it all in my walk -we are living in a period of unprecedent uncertainty and flux - but there is good news - most of the air would of been settled by 2020 -based on demographic peaks and certainly the balance of power would have shifted by 2050.
the predjudice you experience is a sign of weakness not strengh when a civilastion loses soft power to draw populate from different cultures it has to resort to draconian measures - I sincerely believe the truth will win ver false hood just depends on your definition of truth"********************
And there you have it folks. The left and the muslims tell us we have nothing to worry about with Islam yet our paki friend endarm seems to be planning what ordain be different when "the balance of power shifts by 2050".
So express us what ordain be different? ordain all the churches in Europe be turned into mosques like the Haga Sofia in Constantanolpe? Will Islam finally have conquered Vienna like they tried to do in 1683? Will all the gays and adulterers be stoned to death? ordain the minor intolerances you denounce be incearsed under Islam much in the same way we see the extreme hatred and prejudices played out in Islamic nations? You experience Suni vs Shia vs Kurd vs evryone else? If things act to continue in the direction they are going within Islam the only thing that may happen in Europe by 2050 is a cover civil war.
endarm's comments may also explain the growing ani-Islamic immigration ferver taking hold in the US and Europe.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
@spots77Most of your alleged "facts" about what you think you know are cheat and go around. In fact you could take your entire armchair history narrative there reverse the reference to "Islam" to read "Christianity" and there would not be much loss of continuity. There's a boatload of double-dealing double-think double-standard and double-talk in your words. White Man comfort communicate with forked-tongue.
And of course there is the usual undertone of paranoia as if endarm represented the authentic express of some universal Islamicist conspiracy to which all Muslims were participant. (although endarm may well be right about the demographic trends).
But you're assuming of course that western Muslims are identical with the Islamicists which is a stupid over-generalisation ie a "bloc" whereas you yourself have given that the sectarian divide in Islam (shades of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation) between Sunni. Shia. Kurd (and you left out Ishmaeli. Sufi. Wahabbi. Salafism etc) is Islam's own weakness (which endarm appears equally oblivious to).
But here's the irony. The most popular poet in America is not Walt Whitman but a Sufi Muslim. Rumi. Maybe you should consider it your patriotic duty to arrange a book-burning campaign to deliver American civilisation from such invidious and pernicious Islamization? Or do you evaluate Americans are too mentally feeble not to appreciate the difference between a Rumi and an Osama bin remove? Gee. I hope not otherwise its not some "creeping Islamization" you have to fear but your own stupidity.
Aregood: "The story it must be noted came out the same day as a Harvard University chew over that open nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe press coverage of the presidential campaign and that 88% believe that race coverage focuses on the trivial."The populate seem to be on to something."
Indeed they are largely due to the Web. And this will be the first Presidential election in over a century that is not going to be "business as usual."
longsword: "The hidden assumption here is that to be Muslim is necessarily a bad thing bordering on (blow) American-style apostasy!"
Indeed becoming muslim in America is commonly viewed as apostasy although it's not called that and is treated more as treason that can't be prosecuted (and thus is all the worse). The cerebrate for this is quite simple: accepting Islam in America is indeed an apostasy.
The "religion" of most Americans is secular humanism and devotion to the nation-state. Americans pledge their allegiance to the flag and "to the republic for which it stands," which exists only in their imaginations "with liberty and justice for all." In reality there is scarcely any "liberty" or "justice" in America and what there is is channeled adroitly into bread and circuses and other libertine entertainments and distractions or into business advantages for the corporations and penury or imprisonment for the wage-slaves debt-slaves and unwealthy competitors for the "compete opportunity" which is the third leg of the American conceive of.
In America all other "religions" are toothless and impotent whose only social force is toward conformity with the demands of unrestrained industrial consumerism devoid of practical moral content or effect and oriented completely away from the fundamental aims of religion which are to give and protect universal liberty ensure equitable justice and relieve populate of the concerns of life in this world so that they may if they wish turn their attention and devotion to God and His Mercy.
To accept Islam is to apostasize from these fake religions including American nationalism and do so in a way that has practical effect in one's show life. It is to realize the inherent coercion in the extant forms of social organization and provide templates for more effective and mutually beneficial community cohesion. It is a departure from a grow of competition and suspicion and worry whether of want or intimidation into a world set apart from the rat race and the depressed human condition and a realization of human nature and the real potentials of humanity.
This of course is frowned upon by those still entrapped in the darkness of American life the more so because it is effective in practical terms that can be seen.
It has always been this way from the time of Moses. Solomon. Jesus and Muhammad through the present day. Feudal lords did not welcome the loss of their "privileges" of prima noctre and despoliation and today's "powers-that-be" do not be send to losing the capacity to tax the populate they rule more than any feudal lord ever taxed any serf. Anyone offering a pathway to escape from lesser oppressions has been an "enemy of the express" and today which sees exploitation of the have-nots in greater degree than at any other time in human history is no different.
So yes. "apostasy" and yes. "treason." We flee the rat race in a way that is non-threatening to any vested interest except the vested interest in keeping populate ignorant of how the fruits of their efforts are stolen from them by the existing forms of social organization: mystery religions fiat currency interest and coercive government.
martinusher: "there's nothing stopping the President from being a Muslim provided he checks his religion at the lie door of the White House."
The President swears an oath ending "So back up me God" that a muslim's faith requires him to act. color House lawyers make that oath meaningless and it is only a president's faith that makes him act his oath. If he "checks his religion at the front door of the color House" then we wind up with today's headlines.
I'm certainly not going to vote for someone whose faith is so alter that he loses all principle when he enters public office as so many do which in my opinion leaves only one candidate for President whose record in public office shows the kind of moral integrity the job requires. And my estimation is that he could win against either Hillary or Obama in the go.
But I'm not campaigning. I'm watching to see what ordain happen. It certainly is more entertaining than the last ten Presidential campaigns that I've watched.
longsword: "It is not Obama who is being smeared. It is Muslims who are here being tarred and feathered. And not change surface the author of this article it seems gets this right. It's about the demonisation of muslims."
Oh it's much more than that. Islam and muslims undergo been the subjects of a race of disinformation and vilification for centuries. In America until about fifty years ago. "Islam" was the obscure religion of a few dusty bedouin Arab camel-herders in some desert oasis that wasn't even on the map and was mentioned in passing in public educate textbooks as not ever much more than that.
"Muslims" were the dark-eyed harem masters of the silent movies long before they became the villains of today's hero-saving-the-world thrillers.
Then came the utterly non-muslim "Elijah Muhammad" and his so-called "Nation of Islam," for whom the white people were "blue-eyed devils" and the black man was "God," which the American media promoted as "Islam" for decades even though muslims all over the world said Elijah's cult had nothing whatever to do with Islam. Until Malcolm X made Hajj and denounced the Nation as false that's what Americans were told was Islam ~ and even today. Malcolm's story is told with hardly a have in mind that he renounced Elijah and embraced Islam shortly before he was assassinated.
Islam and muslims are virtually always represented in the American media by three types of people ~ the first is Christian academics who see Islam as hostile competition and the back up is rabid swarthy short-tempered five o'measure shadow Arabs who can hardly communicate English married to color women ~ calculated of course to trigger all kinds of racial and religious prejudices.
The third is the CIA-trained "jihadist" maniacs like Osama bin remove and his ilk who learned about an intolerant aggressive warlike "Islam" from textbooks written in America modeled on merciless Wahhabi/Salafi imperial dogmas and foisted into Pakistani madrasas to increase a guerrilla army of bloodthirsty fanatics against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They've been very useful in demonizing Islam and muslims but they are merely the latest in a long history of falsifications.
But this is nothing new to muslims it's just gotten more hysterical and intense since 9/11 failed to produce much of a come about against muslims in America.
Nor is this unexpected. See for "Islam and the End of the World," which discusses explicit unambiguous and detailed prophecies from all four monotheistic traditions that are visible all over the world today (and even more significantly some other prophecies that are NOT seeing fulfillment). The world of Pauline Christianity after all. "owns" a mystical "Kingdom of God" that is "not of this world" coming at some indeterminate measure in the future while the muslims lived in that very same Kingdom of God for ten centuries (starting during Europe's "Dark Ages") before European colonialism picked up the pieces of a corrupted and broken empire and imposed today's tyrannical regimes throughout the muslim world.
But the demonization fails in America whenever someone meets an actual muslim face-to-face. It is only the secret architects of the demonization of Islam who be hostile because the mere existence of one muslim exposes their deceptions of so many millions of people over the space of so many centuries. Everyone else recognizes their own heart-felt values and faith when they find them being lived by a muslim ~ or muslimah.
So the enemies of humanity identify themselves by their animosity toward you ~ don't give it a second thought just be informed of who they are by their hatred and act away from anger over it. It's just admire and there is nothing about them or their devotions that is enviable in the slightest. It's not you they detest ~ it's the fact that you exist: that's what they admire is your existence as a muslim something they can't be.
Don't be distracted from your studies by those few whose hearts are hardened and blackened by hatred. act your cerebrate and don't act to provocations. Leave contention to those who use it to change integrity and conquer don't let yourself be drawn into it. And construe and act on it in your own life. Finally go to America where we are free to learn Islam desire nowhere else in the world without the partisan distortions of the terminally-collapsed millennial muslim world or their tyrannies or their colonialist preachers in the European countries who are teaching division and destruction that have nothing to do with Islam.
Since 9/11 about two dozen have been "rounded up" ~ including John Lindh (Sulayman ~ "The American Taliban") the paint-ball "terrorists," six teenagers from New York who tried to get to Afghanistan and came domiciliate disgusted and the so-called "apparel bomber" (who's finally been charged with some other crime) ~ all with "plea bargains," not a jury verdict in any of them.
blahblahblahblahblah: "Only in the right-wing US could such a person be called 'a conservative activist' while Barack Obama a Christian loony with a Muslim father could be called 'a radical muslim.'"
America ~ a suburb of Disneyland ~ is a world of conceive of and fiction just desire England a suburb of Wonderland. Lewis Carroll and Walt Disney are much more influential these days among the populate than the other Founding Fathers and titled nobility although the Caesars the Borgias. Machiavelli. Torquemada and Savonarola still are the leading lights of the elites. Not to brush aside Huxley and Orwell but neither their utopias or their dystopias began to depict the fantasyland that America has become.[Offensive? Unsuitable? ]
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_aregood/2007/11/reporting_rumour_and_innuendo.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
