Who is Barack
Obama? My Debate with T-----
This page presents an email
debate between myself and a pro-McCain correspondent. I, the Obama supporter, am in my mid-forties. My correspondent is a senior citizen. The letters were exchanged during the
last week of the 2008 presidential campaigns. Their interest is mainly as a record of how different
Americans perceived Obama on the eve of his election. My correspondent, a lifelong Republican, had mentioned six
weeks earlier that she was thinking of voting for Obama, which surprised me at
the time. As the election got
closer, however, her take on Obama shifted radically. I start with one of her letters to me. --E.M.
Dear Eric:
Let me explain my feelings..... What I meant is that had Hillary
won the nomination, I would have felt far more confident having her in the
presidency. I do not like Obama at all. Obama makes Hillary look like a saint.
I think he is dishonest; I'm suspicious of his connections and feel he is a
Marxist and a Muslim. Even Rev. Wright is connected to the Muslim world. I
think Americans are being hoodwinked by this charismatic Obama. I do not feel
he has been vetted, as you said. I believe to be vetted also means that you
accurately answer all troubling questions posed to you and willingly clear your
name. If he has nothing to hide why doesn't he release his college records? Why
hasn't he presented a valid birth certificate proving he is a natural born
American? And..Why...on and on ! He has covered up far too much. Also, his
refusal to wear the flag lapel pin is a strong indicator of his true
allegiances. I know there is something mighty fishy about him; I just feel it
deep within myself. I also can't understand how Americans can vote for a man who
has so much to explain. It's absolutely insane! We have never had a
presidential candidate with so many questionable things in his past as this
guy.
I am going to get the book written by the strong arm in Black
Liberation Theology. This is a very frightening program of beliefs. The authors
name begins with a C. Obama is a Black Liberation Theologist. He is not a lover
of white people. This is also why he wants to redistribute the wealth. Don't
you think it's time for the black people to go out and work to earn a living?
Slavery was over long ago! The excuse is getting ridiculous. Obama's way is to
take money from hardworking people who have earned their money and give it to
people who constantly gripe about their lot in life but don't care to earn their
way by working. All they are is moaners.
I know there is a very slim chance that John McCain will win. This
is a very dangerous time in America! I've prayed about this a lot and frankly
it scares me.
What's more, I like Sarah Palin and I am not dumb and bigoted, so
don't say something like that. The people of Alaska love her so she can't be
the great loser you think she is. It seems today's world can't handle her
long-standing American values. They resent that she opted to allow her baby to
live. They resent all these old stand by values that she exudes. They also
couldn't dredge up enough dirt about her so they have to attack the cost of her
wardrobe paid for by the Republican Party. What about Obama's suits? I'm sure
Michelle Obama doesn't shop for clothes at J. Crew like she said. What a joke!
The video I sent is actually a sermon by a black minister who
finds Obama to be a frightening liar. It is not a racist white person
delivering this sermon. This man sees Obama just as I do. I sent it because it
shows another view point from a black American.
Off to my garden where, maybe, I can manage to escape the crooked
nastiness of this world. At least there are still some of us who see the light.
By the way...Christians don't refuse to give aid to aborted babies who weren't
KILLED DURING THE ABORTION! What a sick bastard. He's definitely not a
Christian...how dare he say he is!
T-----
Dear T-----:
I read your trenchant letter
against Obama. What I sincerely
think? You're not exercising your
ability to find the truth: for whatever reason, you've turned off your ability
to verify things, to detect B.S.
You've been duped by pre-election propaganda, and to judge by your
letter you've swallowed nearly the whole banquet table of smears. Perhaps some of the things you write
about Obama are true, but most of them are obviously just that: groundless
smears.
Now maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm
wrong. But give the question as to
who is right or wrong here a chance.
Go through the following list of your accusations against Obama and at
least reconsider whether they are likely true or not.
My letter is long, so give
yourself some time to read it.
I will quote from your letter and
address the accusations one by one.
I ask you to think about my answers, as I've taken the time to write
them. I believe that on some of
these issues, if you look into them, you will see you were wrong. On others you'll doubtless hold that I
am wrong. Since you've mentioned
it several times, I'll start with your last, ALL-CAPS accusation:
1) "Christians don't refuse
to give aid to aborted babies who weren't KILLED DURING THE ABORTION! What a
sick bastard. He's definitely not a Christian...how dare he say he is!"
This accusation refers to the
Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) and Obama's voting record in
relation to it. The issues around
this are very complicated, and it's hard to find a balanced argument that
either defends Obama or condemns him on this. There is a lot of reasoning on each side regarding BAIPA,
some of it good, some of it shrill.
The main question one has to ask
here is the following: At the time BAIPA was being put forward, Illinois law already had a statute protecting babies who survived
abortion. In other words, there
was already a law on the books that took care of this issue. So why was BAIPA even put forward?
If there's already a state law
saying the speed limit on highways is 65 mph, and legislators come forward with
a new bill that mandates a 65 mph highway speed limit, it would obviously be
redundant. So the question one has
to ask is: What else is in the bill?
I will say that although I've read
into this debate over BAIPA, I am convinced by neither side. I need more study of the issues, of how
the bill was worded and what legal precedent it opened up. I do know, however, that there were
Republicans who voted against it, and so the question is: What was the real
story of this bill and how did it relate to the law already on the books?
I'll look into it more, but say at
this point that I don't think there's a simple answer in either case--namely as
to whether Obama could have supported this particular bill while still
protecting Roe vs. Wade. Of course
if one is against that Supreme Court decision, then one won't share the desire
to protect it. But pointing out
that someone protects Roe vs. Wade and accusing them of not defending the
rights of babies who survived an attempted abortion are two quite different
things.
I myself have a very mixed take on
the issue of abortion. Though I'm
generally pro-life, I'm disgusted with the degree to which the issue of
abortion dominates the politics of American Christians. These are Christians who don't seem to
hear even a quarter of what Jesus himself says, but who obsessively return to
two issues he never even addressed: abortion and homosexuality. There's not a
word on these questions in the Gospels, and yet there are many many words, from
Jesus himself, condemning materialism and the pursuit of wealth.
2) "I'm suspicious of his
connections and feel he is a Marxist and a Muslim. Even Rev. Wright is connected to the Muslim world."
If Obama were a Marxist, he
wouldn't have chosen the path of running for senate. If you think a Marxist would run for the U.S. senate, hoping
to reform the capitalist system in that way, it shows you don't know what a
Marxist is. Marxists are strict
about arguing that this kind of path--namely reform from within--is ineffectual,
always already defeated. In any
case Marxism is a mostly defunct movement even among the left.
As for the connection of American
blacks to Islam, that's obvious and can be studied by looking into black
politics starting in the 1960s.
So, yes, there's a connection between many of the more radical black
activists and Islam. But that long
predates the Al Qaeda kind of Islam: it is more a matter of blacks trying to
reunite with a literate African religious tradition. I find the whole attempt understandable, but unfortunate and
usually misguided.
Obama has certainly brushed
against some of these people, but I don't think he's one of them. Again: long ago he would have come out
of the closet in this direction.
3) "I do not feel he has been
vetted, as you said. I believe to be vetted also means that you accurately
answer all troubling questions posed to you and willingly clear your name. If
he has nothing to hide why doesn't he release his college records?"
Obama has not presented his
college records and his college-period papers: his thesis, etc. I think he is wise not to. Why?
Let me give you an example: In
Madison I took courses in which I studied Marxism, post-colonial critics--many
of whom vigorously criticize the U.S.--all kinds of "radical"
things. Most people who do serious
studies in humanities study these subjects. But do you think most Americans understand this? Many do not. They think to study Marxism, to read and write about Karl
Marx, means you're a Marxist.
Obama perhaps has some such things on his transcripts. I can only
imagine what a pie-face like Sean Hannity (who never graduated from university)
would do with Obama's or indeed my own university transcript: Marx, Freud,
feminism, all manner of radical subjects.
Merely based on his name and family background they're having an easy
enough time of it making Obama look un-American. With his transcripts and papers they'd have a field day.
Now you know I'm a Christian, but,
again, with my transcripts in hand, Fox News could easily convince you I'm
not. They could convince you I'm a
closet Marxist, that my Christian belief was just a cover.
Regarding his thesis: I remember
reading that Obama wrote his thesis on the politics of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear
standoff. I might be wrong about
this. But if indeed he did, as a
20-something-year-old university student, write on this subject, can you
imagine how that paper would be picked over during a presidential
election? Every paragraph would be
cited as a likely pointer as to how he'd deal with international conflicts. And let's say he no longer agrees with
his stance at that time, that his position has matured and changed. His opponents would claim he's lying,
that the paper represents his real thinking and that he's just modified it to
get elected.
And so it is very likely simply a
matter of strategy to keep all his college writings under wraps. Had Obama
studied business or biology or something else, there'd be no problem. But as a humanities student, there's
too much at stake throwing all this old stuff, which he most likely considers
immature, to the press.
4) "Why hasn't he presented a
valid birth certificate proving he is a natural born American?"
This is a non-issue, entirely a
red herring. People who think
Obama hasn't presented a birth certificate are about as convincing as people
who might argue that he's an alien from the planet Xunu. Consider the following two debunkings,
the first from Snopes, which is a non-partisan site, and the second from the
Obama page:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
5) "Also, his refusal to wear
the flag lapel pin is a strong indicator of his true allegiances."
Since when did it become mandatory
for good Americans to wear a flag pin?
And if some politicians started insisting they were better leaders
because they wore a flag cap, or a flag sticker on their forehead? Does that mean that everyone has to do
likewise or they're not patriotic?
I think all this is indicative of the shallow politics of recent years. Go through a photo gallery of our past
leaders and see how many have flag pins on their lapels. None? I guess they were all Marxists.
Obama connects the flag pin to a
false patriotism: "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,"
he said. "Shortly after 9/11,
particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, [the flag pin] became
a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that
are of importance to our national security."
It think this hits it right on the
head. The Iraq war was precisely not important to our national security: it was foisted on the
American people by liars with ulterior motives--liars with plans to remake the
region in the interests of big oil.
You still doubt this? Even
as prominent a Republican as Alan Greenspan said it loud and clear:
"Everyone knows . . . the Iraq war is largely about oil," is how he
put it.
Obama shows appropriate respect to
our national flag. One doesn't
have to follow the flag pin fashion.
My personal attitude? Anything introduced during the Bush
years, anything that became popular or supposedly more "patriotic"
during these years, I'd be more than content to reject. That's how much I think Bush and the
politcs of his fellow neocons have damaged America.
Another example that comes to mind
is "freedom fries." I'd
be more than happy to avoid eating at restaurants who changed their menus in
this way. (And who introduced the
"freedom fries" idea in America? A Republican member of the House from Ohio, Robert Ney. In 2006, Ney was forced to resign from
the House because of corruption.
This, to me, is all too characteristic. I think you'll find that it is the pushiest of these flag
wavers that are usually the first to be discovered robbing you.)
6) "I know there is something
mighty fishy about him; I just feel it deep within myself."
I think you are too easily put in
this state. It is a result of
being subjected to too many unfounded email rumors and too much carefully
crafted propaganda made by people who want you to feel exactly this way.
7) "I also can't understand
how Americans can vote for a man who has so much to explain. It's absolutely
insane!"
What hasn't he explained? Aside from providing his university
thesis, he has explained everything.
A week ago you were writing me about how his tuition funding and his
purchase of a Chicago home weren't explained. It had all been explained long ago, thoroughly documented,
but the email loonies keep repeating the same accusations that he "refuses
to explain." It's simply a baldfaced lie.
8) "I am going to get the
book written by the strong arm in Black Liberation Theology. This is a very
frightening program of beliefs. The authors name begins with a C."
In liberation theology, whether
black or otherwise, there is a wide spectrum of positions. Some of these positions are quite
extreme and even violent. One of
the founding figures of black liberation theology is James Cone, and this is
probably who you mean.
Obama does not echo the radical
side of the movement in any respect, although his former pastor Wright did at
times lean in that direction. If
Obama believed in the radical path, why isn't it reflected in his earlier
books?
But again, there's a wide spectrum
when one refers to liberation theology.
There are the nut cases who end up arguing things that Jesus would
certainly have rejected, and there are those who simply recognize (and I think
they are right) that Jesus sides with the outcasts, the downtrodden, etc., and
that Jesus is the path to dignity and liberation.
I think there is zero evidence
Obama hates white people. Zero. I think he was shaped through a
struggle with issues of race in American society, but that he worked through
them. In any case the man shows
far too much intelligence and learning to be a racist.
9) You echo the McCain charge the
Obama wants to "redistribute" wealth. You write: "Don't you think it's time for the black
people to go out and work to earn a living? Slavery was over long ago! The
excuse is getting ridiculous. Obama's way is to take money from hardworking
people who have earned their money and give it to people who constantly gripe
about their lot in life but don't care to earn their way by working. All they
are is moaners."
I don't even know where you get
this, because no one these days advocates the kind of large-scale, permanent
handouts characteristic of welfare projects of thirty years ago. The McCain charge doesn't even have to
do with welfare in any case and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with
race. I don't think average
working Americans, namely the (mainly white) middle class, gripe about their
lot and don't care to earn their way.
You should recognize by now that
the economic policies of the last eight years, which McCain basically wants to
continue, haven't helped America and haven't helped you either. In this sad game you are included in
the "middle class." In a
dumb but revealing moment, McCain himself defined middle-class as "someone
who makes less than $5,000,000 a year." That should tell you something about how these guys think
regarding the management of our economy.
The fact is that Bush's policies have helped billionnaires, the top of
the top one percent.
America needs to return to a more
balanced and responsible kind of economic policy. I think Obama's vision is more flexible, less beholden, and
less Bushy than McCain's. I think,
and this is crucial, that it will help strengthen the middle class.
To sum up: If John McCain were
running against a loudmouth like Al Sharpton or a nut case like Louis
Farrakhan, I'd be more responsive to some of your criticisms. But I don't see anything of this in
Obama. Consider his demeanor
during the campaign. In Obama we
have a man who respects due process, who respects the values of careful debate,
who is not fuming and screaming for some particular interest group. This is a man capable of balancing many
considerations and finding a common ground. This is what I think we badly need.
Perhaps we see two different
things in Obama. I see an
extraordinary American who happens to be black; you seem to see a black man who
wants to be president.
Best,
Eric
Dear Eric:
There is something apparent here that you aren't seeing. You cast
total negation at everything said on Fox News. To you they are all lies. It
seems, in your mind, you are so pro-Obama that you can't imagine a things could
be amiss in all that has been spoken. I don't see it that way. I can never
remember a candidate for the presidency having so many negative
connections....Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, Rezzko, Jarret and Khalidi. Isn't this
at all odd? Isn't it odd that Muslims have been such a prominent part of his
associates? Doesn't this make you wonder? I, for one, could not spend 20 years
in a church listening to the hateful sermons of Wright who is also connected to
Farrakhan. I cannot imagine how, if Oprah couldn't stand that church and left
immediately, how Obama lasted 20 years and hailed Wright as his great mentor
and religious educator. Come on Eric....no excuse fits here! Couple that with
Michelle Obama's comment, "For once I'm proud to be an American."
I've always been proud to be an American.
Rezzko:... How could a new young lawyer, with only a few years in
practice, make the purchase of such an expensive house as the one he managed to
get in Hyde Park? It's quite obvious Rezzko helped him get it.
After all the years with John, we could never manage to buy
something like that until late in life and then it would have been a stretch.
Ayers...He lied about his associations with Ayers. Ayers wasn't
just someone in his neighborhood. Ayers was even in attendance with him at the
dinner in which Khalidi made all the Anti-Semetic remarks. Obama launched his
campaign in Ayer's home. Ayers, it's now found, dedicated a book to Sirhan
Sirhan, the killer of Robert Kennedy. Then at this anti-semetic dinner, the L.
A. Times won't release the facts from, Obama spoke highly of Khalidi. We aren't
allowed to see this video either. Example of more and more cover-ups by our
vetted senator.
I can understand your position on papers written in college. I
can't understand how he paid for his Harvard education. He lied about this too
as no loans were apparent for this debt to be met. Did a Saudi really pay for
this and, if so, why? Another unanswered question.
So, how can you say that he's vetted? There are too many
unanswered questions to call this man vetted. Plus, he hasn't had even enough
senatorial experience to be the leader of the most powerful country in the free
world.
There is one thing I have to admit. I called him a Marxist. I need
further education as regards this. Wasn't it Carl Marx who promoted Socialism?
Is a Marxist exactly the same as a socialist? This I'm uncertain of. I thought
they were both in the same school of thought as regards re-distribution of
wealth. I do believe that Obama is a socialist. What gives him the right to
decide to remove money from richer people; they have earned the right to keep
their money. It is the choice and right of those people to give their money to
poorer people, but it's not his right to turn this into a welfare situation in
which Obama makes this choice for them. This is socialism! It's also
questionable whether these handouts really inspire people to work harder on
their own. I honestly doubt it's helpful. It seems to me that hard working
people are generally too proud to be given money. I definitely am not
anti-black, but I do hate all the lamenting black people, having tons of
babies, sitting on their butts and yelling, "Help me...Help me!" It's
like Bill Cosby said...."It's time you stop blaming others and do
something for yourselves." My father came from a low income family. He
held two jobs to put himself through Northwestern Medical School. Obama wants
to give people college educations. Why can't they work for them like my father?
Then, finally, on abortion. Obama said, and I heard him say it,
that life does not begin at conception. You claim to be of the Catholic faith.
Catholics believe life is so precious that you cannot practice birth control.
How then can it be a Christian act to remove a fetus from the womb? Even worse,
how can one support abortion and remove a near full term baby from a womb by
crushing it's skull? Then, when an aborted baby survives, how can you not give
it aid after you've attempted to kill it? Obama did vote for this. I saw an
entire program on television about it. Also present on this program was the
nurse that took this struggling infant out of the trash can and held it until
it died. God was crying when he saw this. How can a human being stoop so low as
to kill infants. Babies should have the right to be PRO-LIFE...AND BABIES
SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE CHOICE TO LIVE because God gives them that right.
Obama is not a true Christian. Life is sacred and killing infa
nts is a sin.
What is truly sad is that so many people aren't at all troubled by
the above unanswered issues. They seem to be too dumb to demand the right to
fully qualified answers before they hand a man the highest job in the world.
This to me is insanity. It is also obvious that the other major news sources
are so pro-Obama that they refuse to fully address or even whisper about these
issues.
I hope Mc Cain wins. I think Obama is going to win.....If this
mystery man, with little experience wins and no vetting wins, I hope he will do
justice to the position he's been given. I would hate to see our country
totally drift away from the American Way. There are many people living with
this fear, not just me.
Though I appreciate the time you took to type all your thoughts, I
guess I remain unconvinced. I am extremely Conservative, deeply Christian and
Anti- Muslim. That's me.
Sincerely,
T-----
Dear T-----:
Alright, alright. You are convinced by the portrayal of
Obama. But it's mostly fluff and
nonsense. You don't have to read
the following if you don't want to--you say you're not really interested in
further discussion--but I think you'll find it interesting even so.
Just consider the way you
establish your arguments:
"Rezzko:... How could a new
young lawyer, with only a few years in practice, make the purchase of such an
expensive house as the one he managed to get in Hyde Park? It's quite obvious
Rezzko helped him get it. After
all the years with John, we could never manage to buy something like that until
late in life and then it would have been a stretch."
Why not just look at the
record?
The Obamas bought their house in
2005 for $1.65 million. That's a
lot of money, certainly, but there's no reason to believe the deal was greased
or there was a contribution from Tony Rezko. And why not?
Because there didn't need to be any such help. Far from it.
Tax returns for the period show that Michelle and Barack between them
were making more than $500,000 a year, all of it legitimate income: his salary
as senator and his book royalties, her salary from the University of Chicago
Hospitals. Just consult the tax
returns, which they've made public.
For a couple with their combined
salaries (in 2006 they earned over $900,000), a house of that price is actually
pretty modest. The Obamas didn't
need any help, so why keep implying they did? If they were making less than $100,000 a year, there'd be
reason to wonder--but it's simply an utterly boring, well-established fact that
they weren't.
You tell me I should have some
respect for Fox News, but if that network is still making this Rezko
insinuation--implying that Rezko somehow funded the Obamas' home purchase--it's
all just B.S. Then why is Fox
doing it (if indeed they are)?
And here, in this letter, you
again mention Rashid Khalidi, and again you put this halo of danger around
him.
Where did this halo come
from? Do you even know who Khalidi
is? In any case, it's obvious you
don't realize how easy it is to get accused of being anti-Semitic when one
begins to discuss Israeli policies.
The accusations of bigotry against
Khalidi are a result of the work of Campus Watch, the group founded by Daniel
Pipes to hound academics who dare to criticize Israel. Here are a few quotes (from Wikipedia)
about Pipes:
Pipes
[is] an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of
"distortions...twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and
stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose." . . . Christopher Hitchens, a
fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, has also
criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursues an intolerant agenda,
"confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty
vendettas with scant regard for objectivity", making him a "poor if
not useless ally".
In
addition, Pipes has sparked local controversies as an invited speaker at
college campuses. When Pipes was invited to speak at the University of Toronto
in March 2005, a letter from professors, staff and students asserted that Pipes
had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist [speeches] that goes
back to 1990." University officials said they would not interfere with
Pipes' visit.
So this is the guy who managed to
make Prof. Khalidi worthy of getting the attention of the likes of Fox
News. To be fair, there are
Muslims who praise Daniel Pipes for being such a dogged critic of Muslim
radicals. But my point regarding the
"anti-Semitic" line is simple: All you have to do is criticize the
government of Israel--and there are many nasty things committed by that
government--and the Jewish lobby's attack dogs will be out to imply you are
Hitler or Ahmadinejad. This
practice is longstanding and totally unfair, and it blinds Americans to
reasonable consideration of a government that gets more funding from us, from
our tax dollars, than any other on the planet. If we had been more even-handed
long ago--if we'd somehow managed to keep the Israelis, say, from continually
coming in and starting new settlements on the little land the Palestinians have
left--the world might well be a different place.
Besides, since you're a
conservative Christian, have you considered that a large percentage of
Palestinians are also Christian?
Rashid Khalidi is a highly
respected historian and critic of the Israeli government. He now holds the Edward Said Chair at
Columbia. I haven't read Khalidi,
only read about him, but I have a lot of respect for Edward Said, have read
some of his books, and attended a lecture by him when I was in Madison. These men are legitimate critics who
don't deserve to be demonized.
Here is Khalidi himself
interviewed about Campus Watch:
Q:
What are your initial feelings about the project?
Rashid
Khalidi: It is a McCarthyite attempt to silence the very few voices that speak
out about the Middle East, and to impose by fear a uniformity of view on the
campus debate. This monitoring of the classroom is reminiscent of the tactics
used by police-state dictatorships. It intends further to delegitimize and
marginalize the field of Middle East studies.
Q:
Have you noticed any monitoring on your campus? Have other faculty reported any
such monitoring?
Rashid
Khalidi: Such monitoring on our campus on a "volunteer" basis has
been going on for a while, and has resulted in some outrageous and false
accusations of anti- Semitism and bias against Israel being made against the
University and some of its faculty, including myself, over the past few months.
Q:
Do you feel this will affect academic freedom on campus? How?
Rashid
Khalidi: I do not think that it will ultimately succeed, but it may have the
intended poisonous effect for a time.
As for Islam, I agree with you
that it has more potential for violence than Christianity. Note, however, that I use the phrase potential
for violence. I don't agree with those who say Islam necessarily will
express itself this way. The best
way of dealing with the Muslim world, in my view, is: 1) develop a more even-handed
policy on the Israel-Palestine question; 2) treat moderate Muslims with respect
and encourage development of more openness; 3) keep a vigilant eye on al
Qaeda-style radicalism and use military means when necessary to fight it.
Another point regarding historical
Islam, one which you probably won't like, is as follows: Although, because of
passages in the Koran, I'd agree Islam has more potential for militant violence
than Christianity, paradoxically it is the case that in most periods of history
Christian Europe was more intolerant and violent than the Muslim world. Up until modern times, in fact, Jews
suffered far more persecution under Christian rulers than under Muslim
ones. There's no debating this:
scholars from either or any side acknowledge it is true.
If we look at the fanatical idiocy
of bin Laden and friends and say, "See, Muslims are inherently
violent," educated Muslims around the world, in the same kind of gesture,
will look at the Holocaust or the Spanish Inquisition and say, "See, Christians
are fanatical murderers with a sick penchant for torturing and burning anyone
who doesn't join them."
The Koran is full of injunctions
to fight and full of denunciations of those outside Islam. The Christian New Testament is far less
aggressive. So it's odd indeed
that Christians throughout history have taken it upon themselves to make their
faith into an excuse for torture and massacre. As Christians we must always work to make sure our faith
never leans toward these things again.
Obama and McCain, now at the end
of their contest, are both telling lies about the other. On the issue of taxes, Obama has
nowhere proposed the kind of things McCain accuses him of. Following is a kind of roundup of each
campaign's lies:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/166692?GT1=43002
It's going to be an interesting
Tuesday.
Best,
Eric
The following two letters are
post-election:
Dear T-----:
After all the raving about Obama's
secret Muslim faith and all his anti-Semitic friends I thought it was hilarious
to see his first major appointment: Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff!
Here are some quotes in Wikipedia
on why Emanuel isn't exactly what one would expect from a covert radical
Muslim:
Palestinians
were angry over Obama's appointment of Emanuel as Chief of Staff, especially
after his father Benjamin Emanuel was interviewed by the Hebrew daily Maariv in an article entitled "Our Man in the White
House." He stated: "Obviously, he will influence the President to be
pro-Israel. Why shouldn't he do it? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to
clean the floor of the White House." Subhi Abu Ishira on the Palestinian
NGO network responded "With the appointment of this Zionist, Barack Obama
is proving that he is more Zionist than the Zionists." The Window into
Palestine blog referred to Emanuel as
"the son of a terrorist, a real living terrorist." He referred to
Benjamin Emanuel's participation in the Irgun, which the Anglo–American
Committee of Inquiry and the New York Times labeled a terrorist group for its
bombings of Arab and British civilian and government targets. According to the New York
Times Benjamin Emanuel "passed secret
codes" for Irgun leader Menachem Begin.
Palestinian
American Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada speaking on Democracy Now! criticized Obama's appointment of Emanuel, who he called
"one of the most hard-line supporters of Israel in the Congress," and
"far to the right of President Bush when it comes to supporting
Israel." He said Obama is sending the signal he would not be taking
"more balanced, more objective, more realistic advice that could change
the course from the disastrous Palestine-Israel policies of the Bush and
Clinton administrations."
John V.
Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised Palestinian negotiators in
talks with Israel, wrote that Obama's appointment of Emanuel sends a
"contemptuous message to the Muslim world." He writes Muslims have a
"profound loathing and hatred" of the the United States because of America's
unconditional support for injustices inflicted on Palestinians, "the
core" of American foreign policy and "national security"
problems.
Whoever added these paragraphs to
Emanuel's Wikipedia entry seems to be overdoing it a bit. But nonetheless I think my point should
be clear.
Secret Muslim Obama goes into
action. Yeah, ULTRA-secret.
Best,
Eric
Dear Eric:
I do so hope you are right on this and that your laugh is a deep
belly laugh! I guess I am one to
believe that in a ton of information at least some of it is correct. I also
hope that Obama turns out to be one of our greatest presidents as we sorely
need things to improve. If all the
rumors and suspicions are incorrect that is good, but I still do not like so
many of his liberal positions.
He seems to lack respect for the unborn. He has already announced his switch in Bush's position on
stem cell research. His positions
on abortion are very troubling. A
true Christian cannot hold the positions he holds in these areas. Sure, stem cell research will possibly
solve many ills, but at the cost of innocent lives. This is not success!
I also do not like his socialistic stances. I never cared for Robin Hood.
Other than his liberal views, I hope he is a great president. It was said that Michelle and Barrack
with their children could bring another "Camelot" as in Jack and
Jacqueline. I don't think so. Judging from Michelle's red and black
dress at the victory speech in Chicago, she has a long way to go to equal
Jacqueline Kennedy. That dress was
a snipers dream come true. The big
red dots looked like targets.
I am very happy that a black man could be elected president in
America. This I feel is
wonderful! We've come so far in
this country as regards racial issues.
Now maybe Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will quit their endless laments
on inequality toward blacks. Now
maybe all blacks will realize if they have a gripe that perhaps they alone
should get off their lazy butts and fix it.
T-----
Email: inthemargins03@hotmail.com
---------
This page is at http://www.necessaryprose.com/