Frank Gaffney: Hey, maybe Obama’s a Muslim

Loxodonta, I can’t prove what anybody believes – either positively or negatively.

I don’t know what Obama is.

But I react strongly against anyone who says that there’s something wrong with us if we wonder if a guy who has lied to us about everything else has also lied to us about (gasp) his religion.

Obama told us in his first book that he joined Wright’s church so he could have street cred. That shows a person who will dress up as a sheep for his own purposes. He’s also called Romans an “obscure book” – that’s the treatise on Christian doctrine! He takes the Sermon on the Mount out of context. He attended a church for 20 years under an ex-Muslim who subscribes to Black Liberation Theology: that any god who isn’t against white people must be KILLED. Get that. That may be called a “Christian” church, but anybody out to kill the Jesus who died for every race of mankind is not Christian.

Again, my main point, though, is that it is not helpful for truth, for conservatism, or for this nation for us to call names when a person suggests that a person trained to lie in a very specific way might actually be lying to us in that way.

justincase on June 9, 2009 at 11:35 PM

blatantblue at 11:34

If Catholics were bent on making the US bow to the Pope and killing anybody who wouldn’t, would you consider it more urgent to know whether he was a mealy-mouthed hypocrite sitting through mass and catechism, or whether he was a true believer?

If he said he was no longer Catholic but did everything in his power to punish non-Catholics and everything possible to worship the Pope, would it affect your view of what he really believed? If the Pope told him to lie about being Catholic so he could become president and turn the Pope into the world’s governor, would that make any difference?

He could be anything. But I’ve got 4 pastors in my immediate family. A kid who doesn’t even want to take catechism class is NOT going to take it and be tested in Latin. Sure, his parents might MAKE him do the extra, but parents who demand that are not the ho-hum, none of us really believes this anyway type of folks, like Obama painted his parents as.

What I’m saying is that the only solid evidence we have seems to be at odds with Obama’s own words – which he has been found to be lying about all along.

A person is NOT crazy for wondering exactly what the truth is. You’re willing to bet that he was irreligious as a kid rather than something more dangerous. But are you really ready to blame someone else who doesn’t want to play Russian Roulette with something so potentially dangerous?

How are we going to teach Obama and Islam that if they lie they lose?

justincase on June 9, 2009 at 11:47 PM

blatantblue at 11:43

I don’t understand what context renders the facts irrelevant. How is Obama’s history different than, for instance, Mohammad Atta’s? How did Atta’s “true belief” show any differently than Obama’s on Sept 10, 2001?

I’m not saying Obama is Atta. I’m saying that sometimes the benefit of the doubt is dangerous, and we shouldn’t be too quick to tar and feather someone because they think we should check a little closer.

That is my real problem with what AP seems to be saying, as well as others here. There’s this almost gloating over the fact that “I’m not as stupid as those moronic ‘truthers’!”

Those “moronic truthers” may be the only ones who recognize the signs and weren’t afraid to call a spade a spade.

First they came for the “truthers” but I wasn’t one so I joined in their ridicule of them. Then they came for those who connected Obama with Ayers… Then they came for those who spoke of the Cloward-Piven Plan.

Don’t you see? Part of communist strategy is to “diagnose” all dissenters as psycho. Once a person or group is discredited as psycho, anything they say will fall on deaf ears. If you go along with that and act like those who put more significance on facts that you doubt are important are psycho, it’s just a matter of time before YOU are similarly defined as psycho because of a conclusion you reach – regardless of how solid your facts and reasoning are.

That’s why Janet Napolitano can say that anybody who believes in limited federal government should be suspected of being a right-wing extremist. She is beginning the redefining of “psycho”. First they went for the “birthers”. Then they went for those making the Ayers-Alinsky-Cloward/Piven connection. And on and on. Character assassination is the game. If they can get conservatives to call other conservatives crazy instead of having the factual, measured, reasonable discussion…. they’ve won.

This scares the heck out of me because I see their conspiracy (their own ADMITTED conspiracy) working like clockwork even on those of us who know their game plan.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Loxodonta at 12:05

I agree. That’s what I’ve been doing and intend to keep doing. B

But we need to stop ridiculing people just because we think their conclusions will sound crazy. We’re living in a crazy time. Who would have thought that 5 months into Obama’s presidency he would have control over how much private businessmen get paid? Who would have said he would be able to overrule bankruptcy law to give the property of secure debt-holders to the union instead? Who would have expected him to force healthy banks to accept government money, use that money to control what they can do, and then refuse to let them give the money back? Who would have thought Homeland Security would be calling George Washington and Ben Franklin “right-wing radicals”, 5 months after Obama moved into the White House?

Those who were predicting those things last fall were thought to be crazy extremists who were just out to get a black man.

But they were the only ones who were right.

I think those who are “mainstream”, credible “conservatives” need to learn a little bit of humility and not be so quick to call somebody crazy, when they may be the only ones who are right when all is said and done.

If we let the media decide what conclusions are “cool” and which are “nerdy” we’re going to get junior high results. We must NOT submit to that.

I can show you 2 observations that prove Obama posted a forged COLB, but not if you have already written me off as a crazy person and thus refuse to even look at my evidence. I like Michelle Malkin. I agree with her on a lot. But if Fox tells her that she can’t even look at the evidence of forgery, then she is being used and I lose bits and pieces of my respect for her each time she talks about being reasonable. She who is supposed to be so reasonable won’t listen to facts. That will always be a sad thing and it will always hurt the truth.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Every fact you cited to convince non-conspiracy theorists to take you seriously has absolutely nothing to do with a COLB or Obama’s religious preference.

These issues are irrelevant, unless they can be used by the MSM to further tar Republicans, in which case they will cost us and our party big time.

Black Yoshi on June 10, 2009 at 12:31 AM
>>>>>>

If dealing with reality costs our party big-time then this country is beyond hope.

If it truly doesn’t matter whether the man in the White House committed forgery in order to be there, then we may as well kiss laws good-bye.

Turns out, we HAVE kissed the rule of law good-bye. But those who said the eligibility didn’t matter have no place to cry about all the other laws being broken now. They already said that lawlessness is fine and that I was a kook for beating a dead horse. Those who lament the trashing of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution had no problem with trashing the eligibility requirements of the Constitution. They asked for everything they’re getting by saying the rule of law doesn’t matter.

And that is problematic for me. If standing up for the law makes us lose, I’d rather lose and at least have my integrity.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Black Yoshi, I’m not saying whether Obama is Muslim or not. I’m saying that in light of taqiyya, we’re not just being paranoid idiots if we wonder what all Obama has lied to us about and why. You consider the evidence weak. I’m not sure what you would consider a smoking gun, considering the game plan calls for blending in until you’ve already done the damage.

Yes, we choose our battles carefully. But in choosing them we need to be very careful about what ground we concede. When we concede the need for the rule of law we’ve lost everything because we’ve handed the country over to any moron who’s willing to call us “extreme”. We can’t let somebody else’s name-calling convince us to give up the need for the rule of law.

Two years ago would you have considered it extreme for one presidential candidate to be asked to show the legal certification of his eligibility just like the other candidate did willingly? Would you have considered it extreme for people to ask for an investigation when the candidate posts an obvious forgery instead of valid certification? Would you have expected every conservative on the radio to roll over and say it doesn’t even matter if he’s eligible?

How did we get here? If this simple verification is too much for us to ask of our government, then we’ve already accepted fascism and Obama is just putting on the finishing touches.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM

Big Old Dog at 1:12

Exactly! Any public which would defeat us because we’re honest deserves the Blagos and TOTUSes they are stuck with. If we have to be liars to win, then we’ve lost even if we win.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 1:17 AM