Obama: Yes, I’m Muslim
Good work via Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs:
Via Web Today (#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. (more here)
This is according to Israel Today here [PDF]. Here is the passage from the May 2010 issue of “Israel Today.” It is on page 3 in an article titled “Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe,’” by Aviel Schneider:
The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.
That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.
“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”
Well, this won’t surprise many of us and would explain a lot if it turns out true. I don’t think there are many, including myself, that ever believed he was a Christian.
There’s much more at Pamela’s site on this issue, so please check it out.
View Comments to “Obama: Yes, I’m Muslim”
Leave a Reply
subscribe to us
required viewing
If this is true it would certainly explain a lot of his actions of late wouldn't it? I would love to see the video from Nile TV, I wonder if its in English? I anyone finds a link please post it.
[...] I said a little over a year ago that if Israel felt the Obama Administration was not going to back them up, they’d just handle this business without us. I was right. Why is this threat of an Israeli bombing run over Tehran making news now? Because our president went and told the Egyptians that he was most definitely a Muslim, and that once he got some of these pesky domestic things – *cough Obamacare cough* – taken care of, he would “show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.” (source) [...]
Taqiyya…
Is he… or, isn't he?
Dissembling to promote an agenda is as old as the first lie recorded in the bible when Lucifer said to Eve, “… you will not die…” but will be as your creator, knowing the difference between good and evil.
Yeah… uh huh.
So, what was Lucifer's agenda with his taqiyya statement? Control of the dialogue and result… period.
So, what is Obama's agenda that requires obfuscation and dissembling (…taqiyya) and paying lawyers $1.7 million to prevent legal discovery about his heritage, lineage and eligibility to be POTUS? Control of the dialogue and result… period.
The “father of lies” and “lies about the father”… are related… dissembling to promote a “transformative” agenda.
Just sayin'…
Art
STOP! Islamization Of America
Since O's mother is definetly an American it really doesn't matter where he was born. I understand what and why the constitution is clear that the Pres cannot be anything other than American born. However, he is an American citizen because of his mother, who was a legal US citizen. His upbringing in another country that was obviously anti American I think holds more importance and gives credence to his anti America stand, though sorry to say no reason for impeachment or disqualification.
a) The single eye witness account of an egyptian politician isn't exactly reliable information
b) If he was a muslim, so what? The only thing that would bother me would be that he lied to the public. But it would be completely irrelevant to me what he blieves privately.
The key words are “natural born” Born overseas, of a non-citizen father kills that. Obama can be a citizen, but still not eligible for POTUS.
Even better, under the law at the time, since Stanley Ann was under age, and had lived outside the US too long, IF Obama was born in Kenya, he's not a citizen. Natural, or otherwise.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing an Egyptian official. But it doesn't matter what religion Obama is or is not. His ideology is his religion. I'm actually a little surprised we haven't seen more leftist programs being shoved down our throats.
Except for the fact that to attend the Indonesian school it was required that he be a citizen of Indonesia. In order to become a citizen of Indonesia he had to give up his US citizenship.
I don't believe Obama is a Muslim.
Or a Christian.
He's a scientologist! No, just kidding. He's a secular humanist.
I think many of you are missing the point (maybe intentionally)- It is not that he may be a Muslim that is the problem- the problem is that he would lie to the country he leads about a core belief. Such a core belief that, in Christianity, many would accept death before denying their God. Who can trust a man that would deny his God?
The secrecy about his history is not an issue at this point since he is the POTUS. What I think we should see (and what I mean by we is the American people) is the pressure from the media for a revelation of the same relevant issues for which GWB was excoriated.
I don't trust another country's media (hell, I don't trust my own), but I do trust my gut- and when my gut feeling is substantiated, I pay attention- regardless of who provides the information. We do not live in a world of too much information.
actually, due to a few supreme court cases, natural born citizenship is only available to “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”
Here's a source for you so you know where to start researching:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-suprem...
Therefore, since Obama was born, for the sake of argument, in Hawaii, he is still not a natural born citizen due to the fact that his father was a Kenyan, and a British citizen due to the colonial status Kenya had at the time.
Uh, if that's the case then wouldn't this issue have been dealt with a really long time ago?
one would think so, but how many things still happen with complete disregard for facts or logic? Besides, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper right? It doesn't have any bearing on what our government does now anyway… (insert sarcastic tone)
P.S. Just on a matter of intellectual rigor, the article begins by citing a translation of de Vattel that was published a decade or so after the constitution was written – there were previous translations that likely said the same thing, so I'd suggest you cite one of those. Incidentally, the Law of Nations was not adopted as our constitution and we're not bound by it, and pretty much every nation in the world, even the most bat$hit crazy jus sanguinis purist ones recognize citizenship at birth for only one parent. Your system essentially would lead to the birth of thousands more stateless people, which is generally not considered a good thing. Unless, of course, you don't reject the notion that he's a citizen, specifically that if he were born in Hawaii to an American mother he's a citizen and has been one from birth – in that case, well, current law only distinguishes between natural citizens (i.e. those born to a US citizen or on US soil) and naturalized citizens (who may do anything except, well, be president or vice president), and what you're essentially proposing is a system that stratifies birthright citizenship so that some babies are treated as “natural born” and some are treated as “naturalized” from birth.
But I digress, the article then concludes by citing a supreme court case that overturned the precedent on which your claim was founded, and includes only one passing mention of the case that you believe serves your point. May I suggest reading the entire court opinion and then making up your mind? It says things like….
“There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion…
…16 Wall. 83 U. S. 72. And, in treating of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he said:
'The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.'
16 Wall. 83 U. S. 73, 83 U. S. 74.
Mr. Justice Field, in a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley concurred, said of the same clause:
'It recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry.'”
Or, how about just the last paragraph of the majority opinion…
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil [sic] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
So in addition to the fact that his mother's a citizen and he was born here, last I checked, Obama's father wasn't here on official Kenyan Business.
You can't just cherry pick the part of the 200 page decision that you like and ignore the other 199 pages – especially when the other 199 pages literally trace hundreds of years of history to show you exactly why your argument is flawed.
Better luck next time.
see below
Obama: I have become all things to all men that some might be duped.
1 Alinsky 9:22
No fooling.
Your sources?
FYI parents can't renounce citizenship on behalf of minor children, who can't do it themselves until they're 18. I suggest you read US law.
this ruling is the perfect example of why all federal judges should have terms and limits to those terms. Being bullet-proof where activist judges are concerned is a primary path that the left has used to subvert original intent.
I have read all of this 3 times now and still don't see what the title of the post said….
I don't have time for birfer, troofers, and so forth.
If he is a Muslim, what does that prove except that he is a liar–and we already know that.
Now available: a slot on my “must read” list.
Um, people? This is the “muslim” thread, the Birth ceritificate thread is the second thread down from this.
A couple things.
1) The “original intent” of the constitution is that justices would serve for life, so unless you have an amendment in mind you've got no legal ground on which to propose term limits.
2) You can't just deride anything you disapprove of as “activist judging.” For starters, the decision, which I encourage you to read, painstakingly tracks this debate throughout recorded political history to arrive at its conclusion, which was a 7-2 verdict, by the way. Also, the two dissenting judges were Harlan I and Fuller, who are generally regarded as very liberal and very conservative respectfully.