Whose Islam is it anyway?

I've noticed more articles like this lately, about Muslims who live in Western countries, complaining about being asked to apologize for terrorist acts that have nothing the do with them:

This British teen hilariously captures why Muslims are tired of being told to condemn ISIS

Within hours of the attacks in Paris, the familiar ritual began: the calls for Muslims to denounce ISIS rolled in, as they inevitably do after a terrorist attack by a group claiming to act in the name of Islam.

This is a common occurrence, and Muslims — myself included — are tired of it. We're tired of being held responsible for the atrocities committed by individuals whose actions and beliefs are abhorrent to us and completely at odds with our values and our understanding of our religion. We're also tired of people acting as if we haven't already condemned ISIS, al-Qaeda, and terrorism over and over and over, loudly, publicly, "unreservedly," and in great detail.

It just starts to get old after a while.

[...]

It wasnt the views or opinions of politicians that made me respond but the views of the general public when fridays terror attacks happened which were extremely unfortunate there were only 2 opinions on my twitter time line the first was of people demanding an apology for what happened which was met by either muslims apologising for the acts that occured or the other view, which was my view of muslims asking why we should apologise as ISIS has nothing to do with Islam? [...]

The last part I put in bold. I get tired of hearing Muslims saying that. Why? Because ISIS and other terrorist groups commit their acts in the name of Islam. Looking at it quite objectively, the majority of terrorist actions in the world are being committed by Muslims, in the name of their religious beliefs. To keep saying that it has nothing to do with Islam, treats the rest of us like we are stupid, or not paying attention.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that ISIS has nothing to do with YOUR interpretation, YOUR understanding of Islam? In fact, the author of the article practically says as much later on:

[...] This isn't the first time Muslims have used social media to express irritation at being told to "do more" to counter extremist ideology and to apologize for the actions of strangers who have perverted our beliefs and who actually kill way more Muslims than they do any other group. [...]

Yes, very true. As is true the fact that many Muslims and Muslim groups often denounce the acts of terrorists, which is good news. Which is ironically, why you don't hear about it much. The Media tends to focus primarily on bad news. Muslims denouncing terrorism, not so much. If you follow the above link to the article, there are embedded links to many such denunciations. Much like many I've seen elsewhere. But it's not typically front-page, headline news.

I essentially don't disagree with the author. I would just balance it a bit by adding that the reasons people ask for denunciations by Muslims living in Western countries is, that we like to believe that our Muslim neighbors and coworkers really do denounce the violence, that YOUR interpretation of Islam genuinely is peaceful, and therefore you wont murder us at the next holiday office party.

It's human nature for you to complain about the unfairness you feel in your situation. It's also human nature for us to not want to be murdered, to wish for and welcome immigrants who want to join us and support our culture, not kill us and destroy it. We have already had too many refujihadis. If people are getting fed up with that, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Ideally, peace loving Muslims who wish to join Western cultures should be our allies against terrorism. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell who is who, or when a seemingly integrated immigrant may "convert" to more extremist views and act on them. It's doubly unfortunate, because the extremists want us to be distrustful and alienated from those Muslims who would be our natural allies.

And talking about "Whose Islam is it anyway", have a look at this really, uh, "different" perspective:

How a Blonde Tattooed Texas Girl Became an ISIS Twitter Star

Last Monday, I had 60 followers on Twitter. Today, I have more than 4,300. Not to brag or anything, but that's more than Benjamin Wittes; more than Bobby Chesney; more than Jack Goldsmith; more than my boss, Daniel Byman. But here's the problem: A healthy number of them are Islamic extremists, including no small number of supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). A lot of them live in Saudi Arabia.

And some of them want to marry me.

The reason is a single tweet.

Early last week, the hashtag “#MuslimApologies” began trending on Twitter. The hashtag was a tongue-in-cheek response to those—such as right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham—who, in the wake of the beheadings of Westerners by ISIS, have questioned why Muslims have not been more vocal about denouncing terrorism carried out in the name of Islam (except that many have). Tired of constantly being asked to apologize for the acts of a few vile individuals who twist Islam to justify their barbarism, Muslims on Twitter decided to take a humorous stand—by apologizing for everything: the Twilight saga, World Wars I and II, that Pluto is no longer a planet, and, my personal favorite, that Mufasa had to die in The Lion King. Some also used the hashtag to sarcastically apologize for the important contributions Islamic culture has made to the world, from algebra to coffee to the camera obscura.

Of course, I wanted to get in on the fun.

[...]

If you were to pass me on the street, you would never suspect I’m a Muslim: I don’t wear hijab. I have platinum blonde hair and blue eyes. And I am heavily tattooed. I grew up in Texas and was raised Southern Baptist. I use the word “y’all” a lot—and not ironically. But I am Muslim. I also speak Arabic and hold a Master’s degree in International Security with a focus on terrorism and the Middle East. Several years ago, I realized that although I had long studied, analyzed, and written about Islamic political theory and how jihadist ideologues like Osama bin Laden use the Qur’an to justify their heinous acts of violence, I had never actually read the Qur’an. So I read it—and what I found in its pages changed my life. I found answers to questions about faith and belief and morality that had been plaguing me since my youth. I found the connection to God I thought I had lost. And three years ago, I converted to Islam.

Just to be clear: I detest the twisted interpretations of Islam espoused by the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS just as much today as I did before I converted—in fact, probably more so, since now I see it not only as a sick bastardization of a beautiful religion, but a sick bastardization of my beautiful religion. When I read the Qur’an, I find a God who is beneficent, who is merciful, and who cherishes mankind. I find a religion that encourages independent thought, compassion for humanity, and social justice. The jihadis claim to love these same things about Islam, but have somehow decided that the best way to share God’s message of mercy and compassion with the world is to blow up mosques and behead humanitarian aid workers. Great plan, guys.

After sending my tweet, I went to bed. When I awoke the next morning, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my humble little tweet had been retweeted numerous times and I had picked up dozens of new followers. Several people—almost all Muslims—had responded expressing their happiness for me and welcoming me to Islam. So that was nice. I also got a few trolls, of course: people telling me I was brainwashed, trying to convince me that the CIA created ISIS, or asking me if I had engaged in female genital mutilation yet. That was less nice, but to be expected; it is Twitter, after all. Then things took an unexpected turn. My tweet went viral—at last check, it had been retweeted more than 11,300 times—and I soon began to notice a disturbing trend: of the thousands of people who were retweeting and following me, many of them had the black flag of ISIS as their Twitter profile photos. Others had pictures of themselves holding swords, standing in front of the black ISIS flag. Uh-oh.

[...]

You know all those articles (some better than others) that have sprung up lately about how ISIS is this social media juggernaut that is remarkably adept at spreading their propaganda online? Well it turns out that you don’t become a propaganda juggernaut by conscientiously vetting your sources or fact-checking. Who knew?

So it doesn’t matter that I also happen to tweet things in support of LGBT rights, post YouTube videos of The Clash, or actively try to get the “#No2ISIS” hashtag trending. All that matters are the tweet about becoming Muslim and the tweet with the picture of pro-ISIS graffiti.

Here’s the thing: it’s clear that my tweet about becoming Muslim struck a nerve with a lot of Muslims, both here in America and in the broader Muslim world. Non-Muslims sometimes don’t realize how much hatred and negativity gets thrown at Muslims and how utterly soul crushing it can be to have to defend yourself and your beliefs on a daily basis, and it’s really nice to see someone saying something positive about Islam.

At the same time, though, it’s precisely the actions of ISIS and their followers and the words of intolerance emanating from the Salafi camp that provoke this reaction against Muslims. And I, for one, do not appreciate having my conversion story used to attract more people to a repugnant ideology that spawns suicide bombings and beheadings. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links, her twitter posts, responses to those posts, and more. Not to mention her photo; she definitely IS a platinum blond without a hijab. Her story is fascinating. Just when you think you have it figured out, it takes another twist or turn. Two things I gained from reading this are:

One: There certainly is more than one way to interpret Islam. Your mileage may vary. And...

Two: Be careful of what you say on social media, and who you say it to. Your words can easily be taken out of context and used by other people for purposes you never intended.

At first it confirmed what I've always thought about social media like Twitter; that it is inherently shallow, and because you can't use it to speak about anything in depth, it's way too easy to be misunderstood. But, on the other hand, any one who follows up her story (actually bothers to find out more about it and her) might have their minds blown.

Islam isn't going away, and if it finds more ways to peacefully coexist with the rest of the world, so much the better. Many of it's adherents keep insisting it's a religion of peace. Well, let's see more of it, folks. Seeing is believing. Actions speak louder than words. Although I'm sure many would argue that the majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful, are not terrorists, and in fact are often victims of terrorists. So, what do we do?

I would like to see a follow up to this story, to see what happens next. Will Jennifer regain control of the Twitter message SHE wants to communicate? I'll be watching.


Also see:

Bombing Syria Won’t Make Paris Safer

The CAIR Effect: See something, do nothing
     

"It's in Oregon, and in Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about it,"

Somali's bomb plot foiled at Oregon holiday event

A Somali-born teenager attempting to detonate what he believed was a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Ore., was arrested by the authorities Friday night. They had spent nearly six months tracking him and setting up a sting operation, officials in Oregon said.

The bomb, which was in a van parked off Pioneer Courthouse Square, was a fake — planted by FBI agents as part of the elaborate sting — but "the threat was very real," said Arthur Balizan, the FBI's special agent in charge in Oregon. An estimated 10,000 people were at the ceremony Friday night, the Portland police said.

The suspect was identified as Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Corvallis, Ore. He was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

"Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale," Balizan said in a statement released by the Department of Justice.

The New York Times said it was told by a federal law enforcement official that the FBI, tipped off by a Portland Muslim concerned about Mohamud's increasing radicalism, started monitoring his e-mail activity.

[...]

The FBI said that during the operation, Mohamud repeatedly expressed his desire to kill Americans. Reminded by FBI agents posing as accomplices that many children and families would be at the Christmas ceremony, Mohamed said that he was looking for "a huge mass" that could "be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays."

Federal agents also said that Mohamud thought Portland would be a good target because Americans "don't see it as a place where anything will happen."

"It's in Oregon, and in Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about it," the affidavit quotes him as saying.

Well thank goodness for the concerned Muslim citizen in Portland who reported this guy.

Now I only wonder how long it will be before some of the Leftists in Portland start protesting that this would-be bomber is, like, you know, a victim of the FBI?


Also see:

Oregon bomb plot teen sought ‘spectacular’ site

This second link gives a lot more details. The bomber's Imam sounds like he's got an attitude. And if you look at the comments at the bottom of the article, you'll see my prediction come true: Leftists claiming that the FBI creates terrorists. I'd say that distinction belongs to certain Imams, and their teachings.

And anyone wondering why this would happen in Portland Oregon, should consider this:

Just another bomb-plotting jihadist yelling “Allahu akbar!”

[...] You may recall that loony Portland officials several years ago threatened to pull out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force under the Bush administration and refused to cooperate with federal efforts to conduct voluntary interviews of of local Muslims in order to uncover terrorist plots.

You may also recall the Portland 7, black Muslim converts convicted in a conspiracy to wage war against the United States, provide material support and resources to Al Qaeda and contribute services to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. [...]

But the Leftists in Portland blame the FBI. The suicidal Lunatic Left is always ready to cut off the branch we are all sitting on.
     

Iranian Gun Smuggler? Where is the MSM?

Media ignore Iranian caught smuggling arsenal of sniper rifles across border

An illegal immigrant from Iran named Hamid Malekpour was discovered last month smuggling a huge load of sniper rifles and high-powered weaponry across the Canadian border into Washington State. He has since been arrested and charged with entering the country illegally with firearms and ammunition, as well as filing a false report with a federal agency.

It has been covered locally and by some bloggers, but that's pretty much it.

From the Yamhill Valley News Register: [...]

Read the details. It's chilling. Is it not newsworthy? More so than make-believe stories about potentially violent tea party protesters?
     

The Lockerbie bomber - Guilty or Innocent?

At home with the Lockerbie bomber

Is he the evil perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in British history, or a sick old man, a loving father and grandfather, who has suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice? Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi put on a virtuoso performance when The Times came calling yesterday.

[...]

Asked who, then, was responsible for the deaths of 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing, al-Megriah smiled. “It’s a very good question but I’m not the right person to ask.” He insisted that it was not Libya and would not be drawn on suggestions that it was Syria, Iran or the Palestinians.

He said that he understood why many of the victims’ relatives were angry at his release. “They have hatred for me. It’s natural to behave like this,” he said, although he pointedly added that others had written to him in prison to say that they forgave him whether he was guilty or innocent. He appealed for the families’ understanding. “They believe I’m guilty which in reality I’m not. One day the truth won’t be hiding as it is now. We have an Arab saying: ‘The truth never dies’.” [...]

I can't say a lot about it, as I did not follow his trial closely when it happened. He claims to have evidence to prove his innocence. Let's hear it then.


UPDATE 09-02-09:
Did al-Megriah even have life-threatening cancer? Seems highly questionable now. Plenty of lies are being exposed.

With Friends Like Gaddafi Who Needs Enemies?

Read it, and weep.
     

The motives behind the terrorism in Mumbai

From Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog:

India and Pakistan: To War?

Why was Mumbai attacked? Here's a theory:

Since the 9/11 attacks, America has bribed and pressured Pakistan to take further control over its lawless border with Afghanistan, which has effectively given militants a safe haven. This has been a delicate situation, but there seems to have been progress in recent months. We've lately heard news stories about American attacks inside Pakistan, and more aggressive moves by Pakistan's army. Such things only happen after behind-the-scenes diplomatic agreements have been reached.

The attack on Mumbai leaves the Indian people demanding revenge, and Pakistan is the obvious target. Does Pakistan deserve the Indian reprisal? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, if hostilities break out, Pakistan's army will have better things to worry about than the Afghan border. So a conflict between Pakistan and India serves al-Qaida's interest, in that it gives the terrorists additional breathing room. This may be why the Mumbai attack was launched. [...]

It makes a lot of sense. Condi Rice is no doubt very busy right now. As Maynard suggests, let's hope cool heads prevail.
     

Obama, ACORN, Wright & Ayers all tie together

There are various arguments as to why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are not important and shouldn't be held against Obama. He is also trying to distance himself from ACORN, which he has strong ties with. But what if these are not all isolated associations, but in fact, all related to each other, forming a much larger picture of the Obama Agenda?

Stanly Kurtz at NRO shows us how the pieces fit together:

Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign. [...]

Is it any wonder the Obama campaign has tried so hard to block Kurtz's digging, or that Obama's thugs have tried to shut him up?

The rest of the Kurtz article goes into great detail about Obama's associations, and what they mean. The MSM could have reported on this at any time, but chose not to.

John McCain has a lot of material here to use in the debate tonight. But will he?
     

Bill Ayers; has Obama's terrorist chicken come home to roost at last?

I hope so. It's long overdue. From Nealz Nuze:

FINALLY ... SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMA-AYERS

And it is the Republican vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. On Saturday, Palin said that Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She was referencing Obama's association with Weatherman Bill Ayers. Here's the quote, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country ... This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America." View the video.

Finally, someone from the McCain campaign comes out and says what has been on the mind of many. On the same day that Palin made this comment, The New York Times published a piece, which tries to explain the ties between Obama and Ayers: "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Seems that the Times hasn't been keeping up with the research of Stanley Kurtz, who has been endlessly shuffling through files at the library of the University of Illinois at Chicago to find the truth.

The Obama campaign has chalked Palin comment to a "smear campaign." Obama says that the Republicans are using "smears" in order to distract the voters from real problems. A presidential candidate who befriends or is befriended by an unrepentant terrorist is a real problem in my eye ... though perhaps not in the eyes of those who hate America.

But Sarah Palin is standing behind her comments. She says that this issue is fair to talk about. She said, "The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about, and I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room." Man, sure glad the McCain campaign finally let her out of her cage.

Before we get to the most asinine part of this story ... let it be noted that in 2001, Bill Ayers took the infamous photograph of him standing on the American flag. That was also when he told The New York Times that he had "no regrets" about his actions in the Weather Underground. In fact, he wishes he could do more. Now during this same time, Barack Obama was serving on the board of the Woods Foundation with none other than Bill Ayers. [...]

I've blogged about this, plenty of people have. It's seldom mentioned in the campaign, because predictably, any criticism of Obama is met with charges of racism.

The McCain campaign needs to:

a.) Realize that discussing facts is never racist. What is, is.

b.) Realize the Obama campaign is going to try to label them as racists anyway, no matter what they do.

That doesn't mean the McCain campaign has to start flinging mud, but it does mean they ought to stop acting as if they are walking on egg shells that they have to worry about breaking. Let the Obama campaign worry about his thin-as-eggshell excuses. Let him explain himself and his associations. That's his job.

I appreciate that John McCain doesn't want to run a dirty campaign. I admire his wanting to keep standards high. But certain things have to be talked about, things that ought to have been addressed long ago, that weren't.


Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog has a thoughtful post on this topic:

Obama: The Final Word

With the political arguments swirling fast and furious, here's what I see as the bottom line on Obama.

I don't place much faith in what a candidate says and does after declaring his or her candidacy. Once he steps into the spotlight, he's playing to the crowd. He's on good behavior, and he'll tell us whatever we want to hear. This is a demonstration of his acting ability...and a politician is indeed part actor, but there's more to the job than that. The true measure of the man is what he did with his life when he didn't think he was being watched. That's what you're going to get when the candidate is in power, and never mind the speeches.

As we do with celebrities, we tend to project our fantasies onto politicians. The less we know about a person, the easier this is. With Obama's charisma and short history, and with the sympathies of the mainstream media behind him, he's been allowed to remain too much of a blank slate. This is slowly changing, as the reality becomes known and eats away at his mystique. Note that Obama's greatest string of victories in the Democratic primaries came when he was a new thing. As information trickled out, he lost steam. If more facts had been on the table earlier, Hillary certainly would have been the Democratic nominee.

Our job as voters isn't to nitpick and debate every nuance and gaffe. In a world of trivia and spin, we must seek the most essential truths and make them known. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Maynard goes on to look at the essential truths about Obama, the man and what he did prior to being in the national spotlight. He addresses many of the concerns I and others have had all along. He looks at the eggshell-thin excuses that have been offered for those concerns, and finds them desperately wanting for credibility.

Read the whole thing. This is the vetting the Democrats should have done. This is the vetting process the MSM should have done, but didn't. Why? Because it's not a pretty picture, folks. I'm amazed that he's gotten as far as he has. I try to imagine a Republican equivalent, who could escape such scrutiny, but I can't.

It seems the Obama campaign's biggest defense is accusing any of his critics of racism: "Don't step on our egg shells, or we will call you a racist". It's not good enough, we need real debate and intelligent discussion. America deserves better.


Related Links:

Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers

Obama, Ayers and Dohrn - birds of a feather

Barack Obama; the larger, complete picture

     

"World Opinion" about Obama, and 9-11

Many claim that World Opinion wants us to elect Obama for president.

World wants Obama as president: poll

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.

All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.

More than 22,000 people were questioned by pollster GlobeScan in countries ranging from Australia to India and across Africa, Europe and South America.

The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view. [...]

It's a BBC poll. In other words, a bunch of commie-socialists want to see a weaker America. No surprise there. And the worlds tin-pot dictators, authoritarians and fascists also want us to have the weakest president possible, for obvious reasons. Duly noted.

It's also worth noting what another poll on world opinion says about 9-11:

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.

The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.

On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks. [...]

It goes on to give a break-down for individual countries. Much of it is predictable, but there are some surprises. More of the French and the Germans believe al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11, than do the British. A whopping 30 percent of Mexicans believe we did 9-11 to ourselves! Conspiracy theory is alive and well south of the border, apparently.

I take all polls with a grain of salt. Polls often reflect the views of the people paying for them, and are used to shape public opinion as much as report on it.

While I can't be certain how accurate polls are, I am certain there are many people in the world that I would rather be hated by, then loved by. Their endorsement for a president is a sign, to me, of who we should NOT pick.


Related Links:

Obama: Community Organizer-in-Chief

"Citizen of the World" needs history lessons

The world should be given the right to vote in American Elections to make "correct" choices
     

Does Obama have fleas?

Not literally, of course. I'm thinking of the saying, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". Both the Obamas have had associations with some pretty flea-infested dogs. And now the fleas are coming back to bite them. Consider this ad Obama is fighting to have suppressed:


URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

It's carefully worded, and I don't see that it says anything that isn't true. He claims it does. Yet his campaign's official response to it doesn't specifically refute anything it says. Is that because it can't?

This reminds me of John Kerry and the Swiftboaters. Kerry's campaign refused to talk about what the Swiftboaters said, and the MSM went along with that. I was appalled at how the Media simply refused to discuss the matter. If the accusations were not true, they could have easily explained to us how and why, but they didn't even try. Why? Because they couldn't.

Now Obama is supposedly taking a more aggressive stance than Kerry did, but it seems he also can't refute what is undeniably true. Is the best he can do is to silence his opponents by whatever means possible? That's what fascist thugs do when they know they can't win arguments because the facts don't support them; they try to forcibly silence the critics.

Unfortunately it's a tactic that's being increasingly used by the Democrats in this country whenever they are confronted with facts, and it is one of the reasons I have lost all respect for the Democrat party generally. Sadly, it seems to be the best they are capable of.

The hard left associations of the Obama's are well established, no matter how much they would like to white-wash it now. This stuff ought to have been vetted much earlier on by the press, but it wasn't. Maynard at the Tammy Bruce blog has this post this morning regarding Michelle Obama's speech last night:

Michelle Obama

[...] The problem with the Obamas is, in a word, their long history of close association with hatemongers. These are not casual connections; they go to the core of what they've done with their lives so far. And now, on the very eve of the election, this offensive history is to be erased and replaced with a manufactured image that will appeal to mainstream (that is, the sane and decent portion of) America. And they expect you to buy into this nonsense.

Who are you going to believe? The pretty speeches, or your eyes and your brain?

Exactly. The problem isn't false accusations, it's the fact that people have eyes, and brains too. Michelle's speech was an emotional appeal, which in itself isn't wrong, but facts need to ALSO be considered, because emotions can deceive if they are not grounded in understanding of the facts. Speaking of facts, see the rest of the post for some of Michelle's interesting connections.

Pretty speeches don't change the facts. The whole of Obama's campaign seems to depend on pretty speeches. Something more ought to be required.

The Obamas can explain away their hard core leftist/terrorist connections any way they'd like to. They have every right to explain and counter criticism aimed at them. They have even had some good explanations for some of their controversies, thus far. But to try to silence people for pointing out facts that they can't deny, is contemptible.


Related links:

Obama Responds On Ayers

Fighting back against Obama’s thugs

Obama, Ayers and Dohrn - birds of a feather

Obama Needs to Explain His Ties to William Ayers
     

A death toll greater than 9-11...

The plot was foiled. But if it hadn't been, it could have been worse than 9-11. See the details as to how and why:

Liquid terror plot jury shown controlled explosion of Oasis bottle bomb destined for Transatlantic airliners

Footage of the devastating impact of home-made liquid bombs eight British Muslims allegedly plotted to set off on transatlantic airliners was shown at their trial today.

Protective 12mm thick laminated glass shattered and polyethylene panels surrounding the test were left strewn on the floor following the filmed controlled explosion.

Explosives expert Keith Ritchie told Woolwich Crown Court a series of explosives tests were carried out in January this year at the Ministry of Defence's Kent base Fort Halstead.

The replica bombs were made using the same materials as those found dumped in woodland and at the flat in Forest Road, Walthamstow, east London used by the alleged terrorist cell.

The prosecution claims the gang planned to disguise their deadly devices in soft drinks bottles such as Oasis before smuggling them on board passenger jets in August 2006. [...]

Read the whole thing for more details about the probable consequences of the plot had succeeded. And for photos of the Islamic goons who were going to carry out the attack. May they rot.
     

"God Damn America" taken out of context?

This is the ad that's created such a fuss? Why? It just reminds everyone of what kind of Church Obama has attended for 20 years. What part of it isn't true? It makes perfect sense to preach "God Damn America" if you hate this country and think it's bad and evil. It also makes perfect sense to attend a church that teaches that if you agree with it. Duh.

I see Bill Moyer's (who has a long history of activism with the American Communist Party and related groups), did a softball interview with Rev. Wright, who insisted his comments were taken out of context. It begs the question, "What context makes 'God Damn America' a good thing to say?"

I fear I know too well. I lived in San Francisco for 23 years, and many people there agree with Wright. Many of them also happen to be communists and hard core socialists (or their overly emotional, easily manipulated "useful idiots"). They believe that America is evil because it is capitalist, and cannot be redeemed, until it CHANGES by renouncing capitalism.

Rev. Wright preaches Liberation Theology, which is Marxism dressed in religious clothing. Obama's church teaches that "middle classness" is wrong. Can you imagine what kind of "change" it is that Obama wants to bring about?




God Damn America? How about God Damn the main stream media, for refusing to talk openly and honestly about what Wright and Obama really believe?

The comments made by Wright are nothing compared to Obama's actual ties to terrorists and terrorist groups:

Muslims for Obama

Barack's other terrorist buddy

Obama's radical Marxist friend

Obama's Kenyan Muslim Friends burn churches

Barack and Michelle and Bill and Bernardine: The Obama/Weather Underground compendium

And lets not forget his leftist foreign policy advisers, who're themselves foreigners:

Obama and his leftist foreign policy advisers

A thorough examination of these would do a lot to put "change you can believe in" into context. But don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to tell you.


UPDATE 04-28-08

Rev. Wright maintains that "God Damn America" was taken out of context. It's that's true, then seeing the whole sermon should remedy that. And now you can see the whole sermon, on-line:

Videos of Wright's “God Damn America” sermon

Does the context change the meaning? See it and judge for yourself.