Reports say Obama admitted he's a Muslim
"[In] this latest report...Foreign Prime Minister Gheit on Nile Television...said that, in confidence, Obama told him that he was a Muslim," says Geller, "and that after he straightened out domestic issues would show the Muslim world how to handle Israel."
-Pamela Geller, author and publisher of AtlasShrugs.com
[Link added to sidebar]
Ms. Geller's article, Report: Obama said 'I Am a Muslim' can be read at AmericanThinker.com
Especially troubling is the list, toward the end, of Obama's track-record...
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight.
ReplyDeletePam Geller, noted blogger and bikini model is reporting that Avi Lipkin is claiming that his wife heard that an Egyptian politician claimed that Obama told him... Well, as he put it:
6. Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the "Round Table Show" that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.
Of course, earlier in that same story, he wrote:
Today, the United States has a president by the name of Mubarack Hussein Obama. Until proven otherwise by a real live birth certificate, I would rather believe that according to the US Constitution, this president is ineligible to be president of the US because he was born in Kenya, not the US.
But we should always believe every fifth-hand rumor spread by a birther, shouldn’t we? (And I guess it’s good to know that globalism has given us Israeli birthers, isn’t it?)
That’s some high quality reporting there, Ms. Geller.
So let me get this straight: Because Pam Gellar was a bikini model (and if that's her---Hot-Cha-Cha-Cha-CHA!) and Avi Lipkin isn't convinced of Obama's citizenship, then there can be nothing in either story (Geller's OR Lipkin's) that is worth further investigation or consideration? I see. And exactly what in the history of either of these people makes them so easily dismissable? Are either known for routinely false reporting?
ReplyDeleteAll that Geller has listed toward the end of her piece can be verified as true. They are evidence of a decided lean toward the Arabs instead of our ally, Israel. Considering the rhetoric so common out of the Arab and Muslim world toward Israel, I can't stomach the idea of an American president giving the Arab world the time of day, much less respect over Israel.
We must indeed deal with as many foreign nations as we can in order to calm relations and increase our ability to do business with as many of them as possible. But we must never sacrifice our friends in order to do it. Barry seems unconcerned with the plight of Israel. Worse, he seems way too concerned about the feelings of the Arab world when his actions have only served to make look weak in their eyes. If I was a leader of a foreign nation that was long considered an ally of the USA, I'd be preparing for a life without US support right now.
Pam Geller will write anything that meets her political agenda, whether it's true or not.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how often she gets called on it, the woman keeps lying.
Israel has problems, but if the answer is to turn into a mini-South Korea (or, more accurately, a Pol Pot-era Cambodia), maybe we don't need to back them. I don't support any government, Arab or Jewish, who believe genocide is the answer.
Israel also had a chance to continue improving relationships with Turkey, the most moderate Muslim nation in the world, and they screwed that pooch with the flotillacide.
Because Obama is willing to use diplomacy instead of invading countries we disagree with, our relationships with the Middle East are actually improving, as opposed to the unbroken wall of hatred we were facing under Bush. (Except for Saudi Arabia, of course, who was willing to let us lean over and grab our ankles for them - of course, they did produce 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, so maybe things aren't all hunky-dory over there, either).
Wow. No wonder you go nameless. I checked out your first link and with the names listed across the top of the blog, the host should look in the mirror for the biggest loon of all. Then he could check YOU out. You don't give yourself much credibility when you link to such a site. A site with ads for Jon Stewart and Koz doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteI don't fault anyone for having a story wrong once in awhile. But I don't think Gellar has that rep no matter what loons like you think. What's more, you still haven't addressed what she says in the article, particularly the list of pro-Muslim actions on the part of Obama.
Yeah, Israel has problems. The first is how many nations to one degree or another feel like the world might be better off without it. The next is that those who feel that way to the highest degree are really close to them and well within striking distance. Most UN members consider Israel a nation deserving of sanctions, and all they're trying to do is survive. Many UN members actually hate and want to destroy Israel. Now, their largest and most powerful ally is lead by a punk who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground and fools very much like yourself think he's actually made things better for us with our Arab and Muslim "friends". Only idiots think things are improving for us with MidEast nations. If you think we're better off now than with Bush, you're a complete fool. Those "loons" listed atop the blog to which you linked have a whole lot better perspective on Muslim attitudes than you do.
Proving your poor understanding is underlined by your "flotillacide" comment. The blockade was necessary to prevent the flow of weapons and terrorists that used to flow in from the sea. Egypt was on board with the blockade making sure, as was Israel, that actual humanitarian supplies got through (Israel provides much of this themselves) and not bad guys bent on terror and destruction.
If you want to remain ignorant of the people who Gellar and others report on, you might want to go live among them in their lands where they'd love to have a useful idiot like you join up.
I have to agree with Marshall, Nameless... your two links alone are troublesome. some of the things you've written are themselves examples of hatred... or flat-out ignorance.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Loonwatch... consider the source. From their 'about' page:
"Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists."
Other such pages include titles of:
--The Young Ottomans
--The Constitution of Medina
--Modern Islam
--Caliph
Some pretty radical stuff, there, Cynic. And the hatred there is unquestionable.
Your second link is even more troublesome. Some of the so-called evil 'haters' include Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell, David Limbaugh, and Brit Hume, of all people.
What makes this site so dangerous, is they get some names right, lending the whole a facade of respectability. But they allow their ideology to cloud their perceptions. This site hates everyone, Jews, Christians, even some left wing media kooks. There is a deep underlying slick of hatred just below the surface and anyone going there could easily be sucked in. As you have.
We here at American Descent get it wrong on occasion. Everyone does. But even WE wouldn't link to a site like this-- I wouldn't, at least. We have too many people ALREADY disdainful of this blog to resort to the kind of trash to which you've linked. The first site is decidedly PRO-Islam and anti-Jew/America. The second is sheer buffoonery disguised as rationality.
I'm not impressed.
Here's the problem. You're taking the word of folk you do not know with obvious axes to grind. Granted, we ALL have to take the word of some folk, but you have to learn how to differentiate between the grain and the chaff. A task you have failed at here. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it respectable. After all, you can find animal-porn just as easily as you can find the Gospel.
"[You]don't support any government, Arab or Jewish, who believe genocide is the answer."? Excellent, neither do we. And neither does Israel. Blockades are legal, btw. Even Barry Soetoro admitted that much.
But how do you answer this little conundrum. If Israel is so evil why has Saudi Arabia, in response to the growing threat from Iran, given Israel permission to use the northern corridor of their airspace as a shortcut for IDF bombers to more easily reach nuclear targets in Iran? Imagine that! Muslims giving the hated Jews easier access to the killing of other Muslims. But Obama, of course, won't do the same with Iraqi airspace... typical. He won't even suspend the Jones Act to make it easier for foreign ships to aid in the gulf cleanup. But then, many of us here don't believe he wants the oil cleaned up... at least not until he gets what HE wants out of the crisis.
Support Obama if you wish. But don't expect any of us here to fold up and blow away simply because you waltz in and offer up tripe in place of filet. We already have some of that in the White House. He hasn't tuned any hearts here. Stomachs, yes, but not hearts.
You find hatred at that loonwatch website, but not at the crazy lady website?
ReplyDelete"We here at American Descent get it wrong on occasion"
ReplyDeleteSpeak for yourself, Art. I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
Oops, sorry. I meant Eric, not Art. I guess the above comment makes a liar out of me, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteOh well, I was just funnin' anyway.
There you go again, Danny, throwing like a girl.
ReplyDeleteGive examples of how the "crazy lady" is any crazier than the lunatics at those two anti-Semitic websites, please.
In her own words...
ReplyDelete"Back in the early 80’s, there were only two reasons to travel to Pakistan. Jihad or drugs. I think he went for the drugs and came back with jihad. (He did, after all, change his name to Barack Hussein Obama from Barry Soetoro, upon his return from that trip)..."
...Why isn’t CNN pursuing the nude pornographic photos of Obama’s mom...
...Every decision, every move, every policy decision the President has made in regards to Israel has been the act of …. an anti-semite...
...So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well known that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth...
If you don't know why this stuff is crazy and inappropriate, perhaps it's time for a visit to the therapist yourself.
Give examples of how the "crazy lady" is any crazier than the lunatics at those two anti-Semitic websites, please.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you'd return the favor and give examples of how the "anti-Semitic" websites are anti-Semitic? I didn't see anything anti-Semitic in my brief visits there.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteRegarding you 12:36PM comments---
The point Gellar is making is in regards to the rumors about politicians. Why do they report those on Palin as if there is some validity, but have NEVER done a damn thing about tracking down ANYTHING negative regarding Obama? That is, if they even consider it negative. There was and is an incredible double-standard that exists and that it exists at all is bad enough for the press, but to the extent it actually does exist is reprehensible.
(As an aside, the article that included the last quote thought it was scoring points that Gellar used the word "allegedly". Seems to me that the story of his "alleged" involvement with the crack whore is what she was referring to as "well known", not the invovement. Talk about "looney".)
Regarding your 12:40PM comment---
I didn't have more than a brief visit myself, but if a site lists people like Rob't Spencer, Walid Shoebat and other people so knowlegable about Islam as them as "loons", it's likely not a stretch that they don't much care for Israel. I'm not about to spend time looking for anti-Semitic remarks there, but I don't think it would be a bad wager that they are indeed anti-Israel, if not totally anti-Semitic.
So, no evidence?
ReplyDeleteGiven a lack of evidence, I would suggest most folk would wisely not accuse folk of anything.
Most reasonable folk.
RE: Palin rumors vs Obama rumors...
What Palin rumors are you referencing that the media has spent time on? As to Obama rumors, has the media NOT spent time (copious amounts of time) on rumors of his being a Muslim, rumors of his not being an American, rumors of his "involvement" with Wm Ayers, rumors of his involvement with Rev Wright, rumors of his being a socialist, etc, etc?
What rumors about Obama are you wanting to see gain attention and why? Rumors that his mother has nekkid photos out there? Ridiculous and I'm not interested.
What! Have you not heard, Dan? Sarah Palin has had breast 'augmentation' surgery! Gasp! As if media has nothing better to focus their attention upon besides Mrs. Palin's chest!
ReplyDeleteDan, also, that second site is run either by Muslims or folk with their heads firmly up Islams backside. They are neither fair nor objective. They malign everyone who has anything negative to say about Islam... especially former Muslims, who would know more than you or I about the legitimacy of a religion founded upon intolerance and conquest...
ReplyDeleteFor anyone out there who thinks Islam is a religion of peace, I suggest you may have your eyes and ears covered. May I also suggest some 'light' reading?
Andrew McCarthy's Grand Jihad. I bought and read this last week. The west has been duped into believing there is anything even remotely 'peace-like' in Islam.
Of course, I didn't need to read McCarthy's book to know the truth of this but, I was very surprised to discover just how much I didn't know about Islam.
As to McCarthy, a short bio:
"Andrew C. McCarthy led the prosecution team in the 1995 terrorism trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheik.) He was able to get the sheik and eleven others convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. After the September 11 attacks he supervised the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Command Post in New York City. From 1999 until his resignation in 2003, he worked as a Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Justice Department in New York. "
I don't need evidence of the leanings of a site that lists people like Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat and other people knowledgable about Islam as "loons" to know it is unworthy of serious consideration. I have no trouble assuming anti-semitism runs parallel with their pro-Muslim theme when they do list such people in that manner. It's of no consequence to me what you think of my assumptions, either. And it's worth noting that an assumption on my part does not necessarily equate to an accusation, especially considering the reasons given for my assumption. I also wouldn't call their slamming of Geller in their post, as well as the list I've mentioned, as a lack of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. You've drawn conclusions about homosex marriage on far less evidence.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Palin rumors, I dismiss them out of hand so that I don't have any off the top of my head. I recall something about breast implants. The point is that there needn't be many, but that more legitimate concerns of Obama get little to no attention by the MSM. What gets attention is the people who bring these things to light and THEIR credibility, whether or not they are "loons", rather than any real investigation into the charges themselves. All too commonplace these days.
"As to Obama rumors, has the media NOT spent time (copious amounts of time) on rumors of his being a Muslim..." NO. "...rumors of his not being an American..." NO. "...rumors of his "involvement" with Wm Ayers..." NO. "...rumors of his involvement with Rev Wright..." NO. "...rumors of his being a socialist..." Absolutely NOT. "...etc, etc?" NO. And even as his poll numbers sag, we're still not seeing much. I'm still reeling over the fact that the REAL loons, as found on MSNBC, have actually criticized Obama's last speech. It's unprecedented considering the level of worship Obama usually gets.
For many of the rumors surrounding Obama, it may be too late on one level, since he's already in office. These things should have been done while he was still campaigning. The MSM have lost all credibility by their dismissal of legitimate concerns about this guy in order to prevent the election of another Republican, even one so Dem-like as McCain.
But on another level, his reelection is still possible when one takes into account the stupidity of those who elected him the first time. I don't see that we can afford the chance that pain won't be tangible enough by enough of those buffoons to prevent his reelection. So to bring up what should have been brought up before, and a real look into whether or not there's anything to be concerned about would be beneficial to the entire country.
As an example, the post above shows things that not only align with some of what Gellar says, but also shows that Obama did at one time proudly claim membership with a socialist organization. What has he done (not said, because his word isn't worth a damn) to demonstrate that he does not believe in that philosophy anymore? Nothing that I can see. But the MSM did nothing to really look at that aspect of his past, any more than they looked at any aspect of his past, beyond really superficial crap like his "community activism", which, of course, never resulted in anything beneficial for anyone.
Soooo, still no evidence of anti-Semitism at that website, is that what you're all saying?
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for a quote, something where they're saying "we hate jews," SOMETHING to support this otherwise spurious charge other than just your say so.
As to the media, I have heard nothing about the media pursuing stories about Palin breast implants. Does that mean it hasn't happened?
No. I'm sure it is entirely possible that it could have happened (and if so, it would have been a stupid thing to cover).
Likewise, just because you "feel" like there hasn't been coverage of Obama's "socialism" "muslim roots" and/or "pacts with the tooth fairy" does not mean that there hasn't been coverage (well, except for the tooth fairy one).
Eric...
ReplyDeleteFor anyone out there who thinks Islam is a religion of peace, I suggest you may have your eyes and ears covered.
What I know about Muslims I take from their actual writings and from missionary friends of mine who actually LIVE with Muslims. Their take on the Muslims in Morocco: They're more "Christian" than most Christians they meet. They are, indeed, peace-loving people, according to first hand accounts. According to their writings I've read.
So, I'll take first hand information as more authoritative than second hand rumors.
Am I saying there are no violent Muslims out there? No, of course not. Just as there are violent Christians and, I'm sure, even violent Amish out there. But the actions of the few or even the many do not define the whole, whether we're talking Muslims or Christians. Do you really want Christianity to be defined by Timothy McVeigh?
Forgive me Dan, but the truth of Timothy McVeigh being a Christian is in serious doubt. Muslims are a different matter altogether. Theirs is a religion, according to their 'holy' writings, of subjugation, conquest, and brutality-- all your 'peace loving' Muslims notwithstanding; that a Muslim desires to live in peace does not change this fact. Furthermore, though perhaps well-meant, this statement: "They're more "Christian" than most Christians they meet..." ignores the fact that no Muslim can be Christian short of forsaking [fully rejecting] their Muslim faith and wholeheartedly embracing Christ. There is NO OTHER path to God. None whatsoever. I have no doubt that there are millions of Muslims who have no desire in their hearts whatsoever to personally kill 'unbelievers,' but this doesn't change the fact that their prophet extols the virtues of doing so. Nor does it mean that many of these so-called 'peace loving' Muslims don't, in their hearts, support those who would and do. And, I must point out, these Muslim you speak of are in the minority. Not only that, but ask what percentage of these 'peace loving' Muslims would welcome the imposition of Sharia Law over all the world. That number is far higher than you presently imagine.
ReplyDeleteIslam cannot honestly be equated with Christianity; Islam is a false religion, and Christianity is no religion at all.
"Soooo, still no evidence of anti-Semitism at that website, is that what you're all saying?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps, Dan, you missed the part where I said
"I don't need evidence of the leanings of a site that lists people like Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat and other people knowledgable about Islam as "loons" to know it is unworthy of serious consideration. I have no trouble assuming anti-semitism runs parallel with their pro-Muslim theme when they do list such people in that manner."
But I'll put it another way that is much more to the point. I don't give a flyin' rat's butt. I have no intention of perusing a site that lambasts such notable experts on Islam.
As for your statement
"Their take on the Muslims in Morocco: They're more "Christian" than most Christians they meet."
Doesn't impress in the least. Such an expression has been used to describe so many non-Christians. It shows a great lack of understanding on the concept of what a Christian is. I have no doubt it's meant to describe the people as "nice", but as Eric suggested, it doesn't mean these missionary friends of yours know their butts from a hole in the ground. Are these the same missionary friends who defend the communist supported Sandanistas? I wouldn't be surprised. Likely trained the same way if not.
But it's really not a matter of what any particular Muslim believes. It's what Islam is and teaches. Just like some corrupted Christians believe that God would bless same-sex marriages, there are Muslims who also pick and choose what they decide to believe in. Fortunately for the rest of the world, when a Muslim strays from orthodoxy, the world is that much safer.
Regarding coverage of Obama and the various questionable aspects of his past and his beliefs, I believe the words you used were "copious amounts of time". That's laughable. There's been just enough time to admit the concerns exists and then to dismiss those concerns. No serious investigation regarding the validity of those concerns by the MSM.
What's worse, Dan, is that YOU'VE done very little in the way of investigating this guy before you voted for him. You've just listened to his sweet talking and bought into it like a fat, homely chick pining for a date. Now, like all other Obama disciples, you bristle at the notion of any negative reporting at all and dismiss it as well as the reporter.
sigh.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance is its own bitter reward, I suppose.
Amazing. Even the high priests of Liberalism (Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Howard Fineman) are turning on Obama, but you gotta give 'ol Danny boy credit.
ReplyDeleteHe's still 100% behind Obama.
His apostle-like devotion to his Messiah is admirable.
The thing about ignorance is, the more you make uninformed and wholly ignorant statements, the easier it is for YOU to believe them somehow, while simultaneously it is more obvious to the rest of the world to see just how ignorant the statement is.
ReplyDeleteA year and a half into his regime, and we still know much more about a failed vice-Presidential candidate than the duly elected President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteBut, Danny thinks he knows his messiah.
For instance, for folks who can read and comprehend, they can see that I've never made ANY (ie, NOT ANY, ZERO, NONE) statements supporting Obama or his handling of this DBD-crowd-caused disaster. Having made ZERO comments in support of Obama's handling of the disaster, it is fairly easily demonstrated to the REASONABLE person that claims such as Mark's are just partisan, ignorant and worthless.
ReplyDeleteBut to the ignorant, such absence of ANY evidence whatsoever to support such false claims is somehow only evidence to SUPPORT the false claim.
Of course, to the ignorant, unicorns shit magic apples that are especially tasty in June.
You support Obama by questioning the info surrounding his past and that people who report them. But you don't question it in an objective manner, you simply dismiss. It's been shown in the past that you knew next to nothing about this guy before you voted for him and that his promises lured you like a kid chasing the music of an ice cream truck. Now you want to point to one single incident to show that you DON'T support him. Nice try. (Not really.)
ReplyDeleteAnd talk about ignorance, you seek to stand on moral high-ground with your negative attitudes towards the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd as if it is our fault this BP incident occurred. All the while, you ignore your own culpability as a "steward of God's green earth" for the environmentalist pressures that pushed the drilling so far out into more dangerous waters.
I continue to support drilling damn near anywhere we can find a good reserve of oil in our own territory in order to improve our economy, provide for our energy needs and lessen the flow of cash to nations that don't like us. YOU, OTOH, can peddle your kids to the local country doctor who can cure them of their broken bones with leeches rather than support the extraction of a resource that is so important in the production of materials used in so many ways to improve health care.
Short on time, Marshall. Suffice to say, don't be an idiot.
ReplyDeleteI am opposed to killing children. Does that mean, therefore, that if someone heeds my demand NOT to kill children and chooses to kill adults instead that I am responsible?
What sort of goofed up reasoning is that?
In short: Don't be an idiot. Sometimes you can be funny, clever and even have something important to say. There was NONE of that in your last comments here.
"I am opposed to killing children. Does that mean, therefore, that if someone heeds my demand NOT to kill children and chooses to kill adults instead that I am responsible?"
ReplyDeleteYet you have absolutely no problem placing culpability for the oil leak on the doorstep of those who support drilling for our own resources. Then you dare call me an idiot. The drilling is essential to our way of life. Where we drill was a result of pressures by people like yourself. Only an idiot wouldn't get the connection. You want to regulate the hell out of corporations that actually contribute to real progress in the world, and then you want to hold them responsible when they try to progress in spite of those regulations. You can't push it all off on the corporations and those that support the work they do.
We on this side of the drill issue have no problem holding accountable any corporation that is rightly responsible for any negative impact their actions inflict on the populace, whether that impact was the result of criminal activity, neglegence or simply not having the God-like ability to foresee any future event like you believe they ought to.
So your environmental concerns relieve you of culpability, how exactly? Your concern for illegals relieve you of culpability for the tragedies and environmental impact of their illegal activity, how exactly?
You stupidly called this a "DBD-crowd-caused disaster". The cause is yet to be determined if it ever can be, but you have no problem finding the whole crowd of supporters of drilling on our own territories guilty of this incident, but take no responsibility for forcing drilling to take place in areas easily placed on the very difficult end of the spectrum where incidents like these are more likely.
And BTW, your analogy is, like all your analogies, really idiotic. That's nothing like what I suggested.