Shocking Truth Revealed!!!
Barack Obama is a Muslim. No, really.
Edward Luttwak makes the case in The New York Times that even if Obama is elected POTUS, he will not be looked upon favorably by the Muslim world because he is an apostate.
Personally, I don’t buy Luttwak’s premise, and most voters in this country won’t choose a POTUS based on what the Muslim world wants, but he gives some reasons why Obama MIGHT have problems abroad, if elected:
1. Since his father was a Muslim, under Muslim law, Barack is a Muslim, which he cannot renounce, even though he converted to the Church of the Wacky Pastor.
2. This conversion is a crime under Muslim law called irtidad or ridda which is translated as “apostasy”, and is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit—even worse than murder.
3. The penalty for apostasy is execution by clerical beheading, stoning or hanging.
4. Any Muslim who kills an apostate cannot be punished, and interference with such a killing is prohibited by law.
5. Security planning for POTUS Obama visiting Muslim countries would be complicated because the very act of protecting Obama would be sinful for Islamic security guards.
I thought the hate whipped up for George Bush couldn’t be topped, but it appears the fact that Obama had a Muslim sperm donor, complicates things even more. Either way, thankfully POTUS security has been beefed up due to the unhinged hatred for GWB, so I trust our security forces will be able to handle protecting POTUS Obama should he win the presidency and decide to travel to Iran to meet, without conditions, their charming President.
Wow - now this presents all sorts of scenarios that one never otherwise had to consider.
Every week with Obama brings new excitement.
By November, we might learn that Obama is really the Linburgh-baby. Or maybe, was part of the Manson-family.
Comment by tiger woods | May 12, 2008
Let me get this straight. Is it Ok for Republicans to like Obama now that Muslims hate him?
Comment by the oracle | May 12, 2008
qce,
You are doing a great job! Keep up the good work and be sure to keep spreading the word that some fundamentalist Muslims may hate Barack Obama because he is a Christian. This is just the sort of message we need to get out to the people who read your blog!
Comment by David Barrett | May 12, 2008
Hey Barrett, don’t blame me, blame the NYTimes.
My guess is that the NYTimes has a larger readership than QC Examiner.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 12, 2008
Blame you? I am commending you!
I suspect some people read you who do not read the NYTimes. We need to counter the rumors that Barack Obama is a Muslim with facts and I am glad you are doing this important work.
Comment by David Barrett | May 12, 2008
Barack Obama is winning because he is receiving 95% of the black vote. There is no other way to say it than racism is propelling Obama to the democratic nomination. This same racism will be his undoing when he isn’t running against an ex-presidents wife and runs against a strong war hero like John McCain.
Stand up and vote for the strength of John McCain instead of the racist weakness of Barack Obama.
Comment by Sid | May 12, 2008
Barrett, thanks for “commending” me—I think.
I doubt many, if any of my readers think Obama is a Muslim, but I’m not sure the NYTimes piece destroys this canard. Just because we don’t think about religion the way others in the world do, doesn’t mean we should discount what 1/4? 1/3? of the world’s Muslim population believes.
So technically, it IS true that Obama is a Muslim, at least to many in the world.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 13, 2008
Sid, I’ve deleted the personal attacks in your comment—they were pretty harsh.
Try to stick to the topics at hand without getting personal with other commenters—or me!
Remember, we attack politicians here—not people!
Comment by qcexaminer | May 13, 2008
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Hillary appears to be killing Obama in West Virginia. This is not just a small State, ‘who cares’, issue. Gore lost West Virginia against Bush - had he won it, he would have been President.
No Democrat has ever lost WV and won the General Election.
Obama has a VERY REAL PROBLEM.
He is the presumptive nominee.
He outspends Clinton by 3:1,
Yet he is still losing States!
Does this mean that he will have to bring Hillary onto the ticket (as VP) in order to win in November?
Comment by tiger woods | May 13, 2008
I’m no Hillary fan, but I always thought those in the press and other Obama supporters were obnoxious for calling on her to get out of the race.
What the heck—she keeps winning and people keep voting for her, and states that have never had a say in the outcome of a POTUS nomination before now get to be in the national spotlight and make a difference.
Another thing this long primary race has done is given everyone a good look at Obama to see how he operates under stress—it ain’t purty.
As I mentioned before, I voted for him in the primary, but I seriously doubt I will vote for him in the general—-he has been exposed as the new boss, same as the old boss, and the HOPE & CHANGE bit just looks phoney now.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 13, 2008
First, the comments on Obama are over the top, but this is America not Iran. I for one could care less what radical Muslims think about Obama’s conversion - and neither should he. Moreover, I disagree with your assertion that there is in someway differing degrees of terrorist hatred of the U.S. - there isn’t, their hatred for America is absolute apostasy or not. Also you, like many conservatives, are lumping all Muslims into this fundamentalist camp, as if all Muslims would want Obama dead.
As for Clinton and West Virginia - while history can be an important indicator or what will happen in the current political arena - in West Virginia’s case it is not. The demographics in WV have changed - no Democrat will win WV this election. In the recent primaries that have been hotly contested (IN,PN) - Hillary is winning counties that Democrats will lose in the general election. She would turn right around and lose those counties in the general election if she were to be the nominee. I for one think that Hillary cannot beat McCain - conservatives know this. Republicans know the tide is not on their side – they would love for Hillary to be the nominee, but if not – make Obama spend some of his war chest.
Comment by Rob Mellon | May 13, 2008
QCE - Remember it is the job of Obama’s opponents and enemies to make people view him as a phony. I am cynical, I don’t think he can change anything drastically, but he has the best shot.
Comment by Rob Mellon | May 13, 2008
Rob,
I would suggest that the “demographics of WV have not changed” - are you suggesting that conservative, white collar people are moving IN to WV?
In addition, the fact is that WV, like all states, have two (2) Senators, both very liberal Democrats - Byrd being one. And you think this state will necessarily go to a Republican?
Comment by tiger woods | May 14, 2008
Rob, there you go again with your liberal condescension toward conservatives.
Nobody here is “lumping all Muslims into this fundamentalist camp”; we all know the Beheading Wing of Islam is not in the mainstream, so give it a rest.
As for who made Obama a “phony”, I’d say he did that himself. The other day I was wondering at what point I turned from a moony, swoony Obama Girl to an Obama Skeptic, and when I look through my archives, I appears what flipped me was the way Obama handled the Rev. Wright thing.
When the Wright controversy first came to light, Obama claimed he was not in church on the days Wright was making his inflammatory statements; then he characterized Wright as “an old uncle” that he didn’t always agree with; then Obama said didn’t think his church was all that controversial; then in his famous speech March 8, he said he could no more disown Wright than the black community; finally Obama was “outraged” by Wright’s statements and supposedly was not the same person he met 20 years ago. Sheesh!
This is not “new politics” or “change”, this is the same old, same old and Obama’s opponents didn’t inflict Rev. Wright on Obama—Obama brought this on himself, and his handling of this told us something important about him.
There is absolutely nothing in Obama’s past performance that would indicate he is capable of changing anything—those who believe he can are acting solely on faith, not fact.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 14, 2008
The Democratic Party was the main political force in the South even before the Civil War. In fact, the only time there were Republicans in the South was during Reconstruction. Roosevelt maintained Democratic control of the South with his economic policies that aided poor Southerners (TVA for example) - he needed Southern Democrats to pass his New Deal legislation so he had to sacrifice meaningful civil rights policy to get it though. The trends in the South started to shift during the Civil Rights movement - when the Democratic Party became the main agent of change in that arena - change the South was not interested in. Here is the thing though - a political transformation of this magnitude does not occur over night. Reagan’s popularity in the South solidified the So. Democratic Party’s demise. Since 1980 the South has been converting to the GOP and embracing social issues that have been important to them for many years. Recently due to the unpopularity of President Bush there has been a very minor Democratic recovery in the South - that won’t get Obama electoral votes in WV though. The people of WV have always been socially conservative - no new people moving in - they would say the Democratic Party has moved away from them. There is no question WV is a different animal – but it is very socially conservative. The issues just do not match up for a Democratic win in WV.
Comment by Rob Mellon | May 14, 2008
The south has not changed - it is the Democrat Party that has changed.
The Democrat Party of the Kennedy-era is now right of the Republican Party of 2008!
This is the biggest joke of being a Democrat. People who have been ‘life long’ Democrats are voting in 2000-2004 and 2008 for things that were 180-degrees different from what they believed in in 1960.
The south has not changed, they have always been Conservative. The Democrat Party has just been hijacked by the ultra-left and they are smart enough to see this (whereas the Union-led sheep of the Midwest are blind to this reality).
Comment by tiger woods | May 14, 2008
I was making the point that the South has not changed - I am not sure who you are referring to with the “ultra-left” comment, but the Democratic Party was responsible for much needed changes regarding civil rights in the South. Historically the Democratic Party has stood up for issues important to the “common man” - all the way back to Jackson. Sometimes this has manifested itself in support from labor unions, but certainly not always. There are several issues that the average family faces – gas prices, food prices, health care, education costs, and shrinking economy – simply, the current administration has not made the life of average Americans better. The conservative laissez-faire philosophy does not provide enough solutions that many hard-working Americans are looking for – no matter how strongly you personally believe in limited government.
Comment by Rob Mellon | May 15, 2008
Rob, I find your comment, “the current administration has not made the life of the average American” rather foolish and socialistic at the same time.
1. The Administration has cut income taxes FOR ALL AMERICANS, which has,
2. Increased the $$ ion each Americans pocket, and
3. Fueled the economy which was tanking at the end of the Clinton-Administration and reeling after 9-11.
4. No further terrorist attacks on US soil has most definately made every American’s life better as well.
I would suggest on matters of - gas prices, the Democrats not allowing US exploration in areas that (1) are already being used (ANWR - Alaska) and (2) coastal areas that the Chinese are drilling but US companies cannot - the Democrats hurt the American public in amazing ways.
Food prices, healthcare - are issues that the Democrats and Republicans alike have failed the American public/ Congress specifically.
Education costs - do you want the government to make a college degree free too?
Comment by tiger woods | May 16, 2008
I think my point stands up just fine on its own - at the end of the day the average American was far better off during the Clinton Administration. Your fixation of drilling for oil is very short sighted and would do very little to alleviate the crushing gas prices. I am glad you brought up education. Do you think it is right for recently graduated students to be $50,000 to $100,000 in debt at age 22? $100,000 and not even started a career yet – we are doing our young people a complete disservice. Is there not any middle ground between government run, free post secondary education and crippling debt? It is critical that something be done in both of these areas. The cost of gas has had a devastating effect on the economy. The Fed has done everything it can do to stimulate the economy with little success - I am sure the rate cuts have not helped out the rise in inflation. I know you don’t agree, but after 8 years of inaction it is time for action.
Comment by Rob Mellon | May 16, 2008