The Pink Flamingo :: Is Obama Racist, Extreme Christian, Islamic, or Just a Spoiled Brat?

I am getting email on a daily basis announcing that Barry (Barack) Obama is Islamic, had ties to the Nation of Islam, and is the Manchurian Candidate. I am ashamed to admit I fell for some of them before I realized the “usual sources” are involved. Geez I sound like a broken record. When are people going to wise up and realize these people have ulterior motives? Let’s take Barry Obama out on his record (which is almost non-existent) and not on allegations of Islamic ties. I don’t know what the man believes. He says he is a Christian. Even though his current actions are far more “Christian” in many ways than most of our leading conservatives, I am going to with-hold judgment on them, and on him. His relationship to Christ is between Barry Obama and Christ.

Hatewatch is doing a good job taking out the rumors.

"...The Trinity United Church of Christ is a mega church in Chicago that is completely Christian, and proud of its African-American heritage. While the congregation is primarily black, whites as well as blacks are quite welcome there. Americans are commonly proud of their heritage, and we have the right to be so without criticism from others. With the upcoming retirement of their current pastor, Trinity UCC will be changing leadership in the summer of 2008 to Rev. Otis Moss, a leading member of the Cleveland clerical community, who will continue the proud traditions of this Christian church.

Our Constitution says there shall be no religious test for anyone holding public office. In other words, it doesn't matter what religion, ethnicity or “color” they are, what matters is whether they can do the job. The smear campaign against Obama is quite similar to the smear campaign against JFK as a Catholic, when people said the Pope would run the US. IMO, the smear campaign against Obama reveals the writers' own racial insecurities. BTW, you might at least try to get Obama’s name correct. His middle name is not “Mohammed”, (I notice you cannot even spell that correctly), it is “Hussein”...."

There is a link to a blog that just goes out of its way to slime Obama. Like I said, I want to take him out on his record. I’m also linking to Fact Check, which is a non-partisan source. I would suggest using it as a compendium of information about just what is fact and what is a lie about Obama. The man is so liberal he is scary. I’d much rather alleviate his front runner status using provable fact and not canards.

"...As for the accusations against his church, this e-mail is not the first place they have come up. Nearly a year ago conservative blogger Erik Rush called the church "cultish" and "separatist" in a Feb. 2007 interview on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" and questioned whether its parishioners could consider themselves Americans or Christians....It is true that Trinity describes itself as "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and which "does not apologize for its African roots." The church’s Web site specifies a commitment to Africa and to "historical education of African people in diaspora." The congregation is overwhelmingly black; few if any whites can be seen in the photographs and videos of the congregation posted on the church's Web site. But none of that makes the church "racist" or anti-American....

...There's no question that Wright has been a controversial figure, a passionate advocate for black self-help and to some, a radical. Jason Byassee, in a lengthy article on the church published in Christian Century magazine, said, "There is no denying ... that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity." He added, "Conservatives may find the Africentric church too political, and liberals may squirm over its revivalist emotion." But he praised the church's success in growing to more than 8,000 members, making this black congregation the largest single church in a predominately white United Church of Christ denomination, saying "the black church continues to makes converts in unlikely places, reflecting a God who makes a way where there is no way." Wherever we looked we found ample evidence that Obama's church is pro-black, but we found none to support a claim that it is anti-white. Calling it "racist" is, in our judgment, a falsehood....

...That same day, Obama’s Senate office issued a press release saying the claims in the magazine story were false and citing CNN and other reports. Subsequent news stories in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune found no merit in the madrassa claim. Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, a country with the world’s largest Muslim population, is not something he has attempted to hide. He dedicates pages in his best-selling book "Dreams from My Father" to his life overseas.

This e-mail cobbles together some other false claims that have been circulating for months.

Swore on Koran? The e-mail says "when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran" – bunk yet again. Obama did not place his hand on the Koran when he was sworn into the U.S. Senate. This claim confuses Obama with the first and only Muslim member of Congress, Democratic House member Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Obama was sworn in using his own Bible, as widely reported in newspaper accounts and pictured above. That's his wife holding the Bible with Vice President Dick Cheney swearing him in. (Under the Constitution, the vice president serves as president of the Senate.) ...

...The photograph was taken during a "steak-fry" for Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa on Sept. 16, 2007. What is pictured is the singing of the national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. For proof, see this video taken by ABC News during the event.

And for proof that Obama has no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, check this video of C-SPAN’s recording of the Senate’s morning business, with Obama presiding, on June 21, 2007. Or this one from Feb. 1, 2007.

A point not raised in this e-mail: Some have complained that Obama should have placed his hand over his heart during the singing of the anthem, as pictured in the Time photo. It is true that the U.S. Code states that "all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." But the word "should" rather than "shall" makes that a recommendation and not a legal requirement. To confirm, we spoke with Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society – home of the original manuscript of "The Star-Spangled Banner," and asked if anyone could be punished for not placing their hands over their hearts during the national anthem. She quickly replied, "Oh, of course not," adding that "there is no obligation to put your hand over your heart." Garside told us she has been asked numerous times about this rumor and finds the controversy to have "gotten a little bit ridiculous."..."

I am more interested in the fact that Barry Obama is one of the most liberals in the Senate. He needs to be exposed on the basis of the fact that he is way too liberal for the mainstream. We all know the average American is MODERATE, neither liberal nor conservative - right down the middle. When people read what little voting record Obama has, and the fact that he rarely bothered to vote, it will do much better than making him the poster boy of conservatives gone bad.

Majority Rules blog

1. Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois).......................95.2
2. Senator Barbara Boxer (California)....................95
3. Senator Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts) ........93.7
8. Senator Patty Murray (Washington) ..................89.3
10. Senator Barack Obama (Illinois)...........86 ...Presidential Candidate
11. Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) ..........................86
12. Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts)............... 85.7
15. Senator Russell Feingold (Wisconsin).............. 84.5
17. Senator Christopher Dodd (Conn.)........84 ...Presidential Candidate
22. Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington) ...........79.7
23. Senator Harry Reid (Nevada)...........................78.2
24 Senator Joseph Biden (Delaware) .........77.5 ...Presidential Candidate
25. Senator Dianne Feinstein (California).............76.5
32. Senator Hiliary .Clinton (New York) ...70.2 ...Presidential Candidate
36. Senator Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) ......67.5

Or let's discuss the great big con job that is Barry Obama. Again from Majority Rules (a Democrat blog) comes the information that Obama's big victory in Iowa was hardly that. He only received support from something like 4.67% of Iowa's registered voters. That is not a ground-swell. It's a drop in the bucket and proof the MSM is creating their own little candidate. We don't need false information about Obama, just the truth. Trust me, the truth hurts!

"...And only 3.69% of Iowa's registered voters turned out for John Edwards and only 3.66% for Hillary Clinton. The Iowa caucus system is a crazy system for picking a new President. As the New York Times notes today in an editorial entitled "Let it Start Now"; now is a good time to look forward and work for a better process next time.

The Iowa Secretary of State's website listed some 1,922,235 active registered voters as of 1/3/2008. This number was the total based on figures for each Congressional District.

The Iowa Caucus results as released by the Iowa State Democratic Party are not actual vote totals or a tally of votes cast for specific candidates. According to the Washington Post "Instead of reporting the actual number of caucus voters, the Iowa Democratic Party releases an estimated number of delegates to the state party convention that each candidate will receive based on their proportional support in the caucuses"

Accordingly the Iowa State Democratic Party reported that Barrack Obama received 37.57% of the delegates, John Edwards 29.75% and Hillary Clinton 29.47%. These are the adjusted figures after delegates realigned their votes if their candidate did not meet a minimum 15% threshold figure to qualify for a delegate.

According to the Iowa State Democratic Party some 239,000 voters participated in the Democratic caucuses and some 115,000 voters participated in the Republican caucus.

So overall some 363,000 of Iowa's 1,922,235 active registered voters participated in the caucuses. This is equal to 18.9% of all the registered voters.

Iowa does register people by party. From the Secretary of State figures there were 575,949 registered Republicans, 605,052 registered Democrats and 741,231 registered Independents.

The result is that some 39.5% of registered Democrats and 20% of registered Republicans participated in the caucuses. Overall participation was significantly higher than in previous caucuses..."