Obama and Culture Shock

Via email from the author.  You can leave your comments for him at the bottom of this post.  I have omitted portions of the article for several reasons.

Obama and Culture Shock -- Coming Soon to an Election Near You

by Billy Rojas

As a bachelor in good standing I am free to indulge in as many harem fantasies  as my heart desires. These reveries have little or no impact on American culture  and little or no impact on US politics, either. Things are rather different when  discussing  Barack Obama, front runner for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

Not that Obama has ever publicly expressed a favorable opinion on the subject of polygamy. At least none has ever come to my attention. However, a February 26, 2008 article by Nicholas Kristoff calls to everyone's attention some undeniable facts about Obama's family history that merit public discussion that is unlikely in the extreme to be brought up in the Democratic campaign. To do so would be regarded as insensitive,   anti--multi-culturalist, and politically incorrect.

The point is not that any man should be held responsible for the "sins of his father," but that the background  of any man elected to the highest office to which a  US citizen can aspire, the presidency, deserves to be thoroughly investigated  from every relevant perspective.

As someone with Mormon friends, even though I am not Mormon, I can understand the argument that Latter-Day Saints make about "celestial marriage." As long as it is completely voluntary, involving  people of legal age, and  regarded a lifelong responsibility, then free choice ought to prevail.  And, after all, the Hebrew Bible ( the Old Testament ) is replete with examples of polygyny  .Solomon is said to have had scores of wives, other monarchs and respected men of the community had several wives,  and the patriarch, Abraham, had two wives himself as well as at least  one concubine  No less than Martin Luther sanctioned the practice under certain conditions.  And, needless to say, Brigham Young, after whom nationally famous BYU is named, had 27 wives and said that plural marriage was divinely sanctioned.

Plus we have de facto polygyny already.  How many women have been more-or-less the wives of Hugh Heffner ?  How many male Rock stars  and celebrity athletes have bedded women by the hundreds ? Or celebrity politicians like Bill Clinton ?  And what is serial monogamy but polygyny on the installment plan?

What does this have to do with Barrack Obama ?

It turns out that his grandfather, who once was a Christian, became a Muslim who had four wives. It also turns out the Barrack Hussein Obama,Senior, the father of the Senator, had two wives, his mother being # 2. People in Kenya who knew the father affirm this fact as does the Senator himself.  That is, since the father was also a convert from Christianity to Islam he also was polygynous and did not divorce his first wife when he married the woman who was to become Barack,  Jr's mother.

There are several serious questions this raises.  But before we get to them,  it should be made clear that the photograph that first appeared on the  Drudge Report showing the Senator wearing Muslim garb that is common in Somalia and parts of Kenya is also very relevant.

The fact that both Obama's grandfather and father were Christians who converted to Islam has to be regarded as very important. This is NOT something that any rational voter should be expected to ignore. Quite the contrary. This suggests  a pattern . Yes, Obama makes much of his  presumed Christian faith. But just  how much confidence can anyone have in his protestations of sincerity when his self-proclaimed spiritual guru,  Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has made repeated  public statements that have praised Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam in uncompromisingly  glowing terms?

Consider a speech that Farrakhan delivered one month prior to receiving the  highest award that Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ , of Chicago, can give. This is its " Lifetime Achievement Trumpeter Award, "bestowed on Farrakhan in December of 2007, somewhat  more than  2 months ago as this is being written.  And the November / December 2007 issue of the magazine published by the church, The Trumpet,  congratulated Farrakhan for his " honesty and integrity,"  calling him a giant among African-Americans to whom all should turn for inspiration.

That is, before Rev. Wright gave Farrakhan the award, he knew, full well, what the Nation of Islam leader had said only a few weeks previously, This, as reported by NewsMax,com -

“Do you know some of these Satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?   Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”

These words were spoken on November 11, 2007.  Rev. Wright sees nothing wrong with such sentiments ?  And apparently he sees nothing wrong, either, with Farrakhan's standard-fare sermonizing, repeated ad nauseam to all who will listen:  White people are "blue eyed devils" and Jews are "bloodsuckers" who control the media and government.

The press has made much of Obama's education at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Clearly he is a smart man. Are we supposed to believe that he was unaware of the implications of the award bestowed by his church upon Louis Farrakhan ?  Are we also supposed to believe that an award with considerable importance that had to have real impact on the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama was not discussed with the Senator?

There is no question that Obama repudiated Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic views on January 15, 2008.. But why then ? Clearly he had to do so , he had become a serous contender for the nomination of his party. The vital question, therefore, is: Why didn't he do so long before ?  Instead,  there seems to be no evidence that he had any problems of consequence with the decision by his church and Rev Wright to honor Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

This is not intended to give credence to rumors and disinformation campaigns to the effect that Obama is a "secret Muslim." But it IS to say that there are justifiable fears about his relationship to Islam.

Considering the fact that both his grandfather and  father were Christians who then converted to Islam , what assurances do we have  that Obama won't do likewise and follow the course taken years ago by Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali ?  We have no such assurances. Which is troubling given the pro-Muslim sentiments expressed openly at Trinity United Church, a member congregation of the UCC, the United Church of Christ, which has an outlook about such matters that is indistinguishable from that of the Unitarians.

Then there is this oddity.

Exactly how  much credence to place in the document is an open question, but there exists a statement by one Usama K Dakdok, president of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry, recounting a conversation he had in which he telephoned Trinity and made inquiries about joining. Four other people were listening to the conversation at the time, apparently fairly recently. That is, they presumably can verify Dakdok's report.  The crux of things is that a membership officer at the church told Dakdok that,  "yes, Muslims are members of our church." Dadok had asked about this since he made it clear ( by way of a detective's device ) that he himself was a Muslim but liked the church and wanted to join.

To the extent this is true  -the document is also available at Free Republic- it means that Barack Obama has been a member of a congregation for20 years in which he has mingled with Muslims on at least an occasional basis. But even if there are no Muslim members, clearly he has belonged to a "church" that decade after decade has had a positive outlook toward Islam. And, after all, he is well aware that his entire family in Kenya,cousins, aunts and uncles, etc, plus his devout half-brother, are all Muslim believers.  And do not even try to say that this has no influence on Obama.  It has to have an influence and the only question that really matters is "how much ? "

The inference to draw is that it is certainly thinkable that in the future Barack Obama might follow in the footsteps of his grandfather and father and become a Muslim himself. He already has a Muslim middle name, Hussein, which he can hardly overlook or forget . If this was to happen  it could well be an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Finally let us deal with the subject of polygamy  -more properly "polygyny."  [snip]

But Americans have every right to at least consider what they may be getting into.  It is an entirely legitimate question to ask: "What will the fact that his father was a polygamist mean to Obama should he be elected ? "  How might  this effect his judgement ?  Would he try to legitimate polygamous marriages in the United States?  Which is not  -in his case- about Mormons in Utah or northern Arizona, but about Muslims living on Long island or in Dearborn , Michigan or in LA.

Such a question has extra meaning since his grandfather had four ( 4 ) wives and did so as a practicing Muslim.  {snip]

Like it or not, the photograph of Obama wearing traditional Somali clothing, as was the fashion in his father's home village, suggests the appearance of his grandfather's harem. Exactly why shouldn't American voters be concerned ? Exactly why shouldn't Americans freely discuss what is implied in all of this ?

If this photo showed your grandfather's four wives it would have no relevance to any of your political views ?  Don't be absurd, of course it would.

Americans have every right to be concerned and to discuss the implications.

An article by Phyllis Chesler ( posted at Chesler Chronicles ), makes the point that at a minimum we might get our " first Muslim president. "  What she had in mind was analogous to the epithet given Bill Clinton, as America's first Black president.   The " best " we could hope for would be pro-Muslim policies that   " out-Bush"    George W Bush. and his pro-Muslim policies replete with hand-holding with Saudi royals.

The worst we might end up with ? Do we really want to contemplate  any such thing ?  After all, we are at war with Muslim extremism, with Islamic terrorists of various types, and with what has rightly been called "Islamofascism."

All of these issues deserve to be discussed by the American public.  But  -surprise, surprise-- none of this is being discussed by Americans citizens except the relative few who understand what is at  stake and who participate in Internet forums. The mainstream news media simply will not deal with such matters  -at all. 

It de facto censors all such discussion.

This is inexcusable.

It is also understandable, given the almost universal religious illiteracy that prevails at all TV networks and nearly all major metropolitan daily  newspapers. And bad as such ignorance is,  it is made worse by attitudes of Political Correctness that pervade the news media  , to the effect that it is off limits to offer any honest criticisms of Islam whatsoever out of fear of offending Muslims.  It is OK to criticize Evangelicals at will, to criticize the Catholic Church  whenever it is convenient to do so, and to criticize still other religions, but Islam is off limits. After all, what TV network wants a celebrity news anchor assassinated by a Muslim crazy, what newspaper wants a leading editor killed by an Islamic terrorist ? But this is EXACTLY the point.

 

And now Americans are seriously considering voting for someone with deep Muslim roots as our nations president ? ? ?

With no debate on the subject ?  With no informed discussion in the news media ? What do you call that ? It seems to me that there is only one good answer to the question, call it what it is-

Gross irresponsibility, even criminal negligence, it is that unjustifiable

.

By : Billy Rojas

Billy Rojas is a former college teacher of Social Science, History, and Comparative Religion at Phoenix College, Alice Lloyd College, Lower Columbia College and the City Colleges of Chicago on assignment to the US Navy on board the USS Enterprise as part of the PACE program for service personnel. My home is now in Eugene, Oregon.

Here's the link to the Free Republic, with a photo-shopped image of Obama that I intentionally omitted from the above article.

Apparently there are those who do not want us to print the truth these days, or opinion pieces like the one above, or personal commentary.  Too bad.  While I do not like the talk show host Cunningham's style, all he did was use Barack Hussein Obama's full name.  Yet McCain apologizes like Cunningham had called Obama some four-letter word.  It's THE MAN'S NAME for heaven's sake.

Here's video of Obama's defense plan.  Do we have permission to debunk that???

Also see "Are these the qualities of a Commander in Chief?" at Wake Up America.

Obama IS anti-Israel, no matter how much protesting goes on at places like this.

Watch and listen to Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama here at The Corner and NRO TV.

Watch "All the CAIR propaganda fit to regurgitate" at Michelle Malkin.

Clinton might be Obama's Vice Presidential pick?

OK, tell Mr. Rojas what you think of his article by leaving comments.

In other reading: Action Needed to Protect Nuclear Reactors from Terrorism,  Jim Kouri, CPP Bomb Gaza. Win the War., Israpundit Public Broadcasting Activists Refute McCain Campaign 'Facts' on FCC Letters, The Blotter

____________________________________________________________________ Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, A Newt One, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Lionel Bottari]

It took me several attempts to wade through the above article. Apparently guilt by association has to be stretched for several generations these days in order to create a new accusation: "third generation from polygamist?"
The clearest thing about the article is Mr. Rojas's anti Muslim prejudice. Singling out extremes as representatives of the whole of a religion no less divided by sects than Christianity and assuming that extreme represents the whole of it is unrealistic, illogical, and yes, prejudiced.
One could, using Rojas's excuse for logic, accuse him of prejudice against Negroes, too, since he seems to have targeted only members of that race for his odd (see above) slander.

[nancyfernandez]

The article is highly informative.From this i come to know about Obama in detail.
==========================
nancyfernandez

http://www.legalx.net

[Roger W. Gardner]

Hi Debbie. As usual you present a fair and reasonable balance.

I have stated elsewhere that I learned quite a while ago that when anyone begins their comments with a condescending insult, it almost invariably goes downhill from there and is seldom worth responding to. That previous nasty one from TDS is a perfect example.

[Debbie]

Stormwarning:

You and I will have to disagree on some points, but the truth does matter, I never said it didn’t.

There is a creepy thing going on in this election. Somehow Obama is supposed to be off limits. The Left/Democrats/ whatever, can say, do, anything. Use any ugly name they want, call Bush and Rover Hitler, whatever … and that’s OK. But now with Obama, it’s hands off? What makes him so different, so special? Because he’s Black?

I would love to be able to vote for a Black man or woman, or a White woman, or Brown, or Yellow, whatever. But Obama is so liberal, so out there, so America hating, so … racist himself. This is a critical time for America and I do not want Obama elected. I think he is dangerous simply because of the direction he will lead this country, if for no other reason.

Susan, a/k/a Spree:

Thanks, I know you are all over this too. Seems like I've heard it all, then more info comes in.

[Stormwarning]

Not that it makes a "hill of beans" difference...but my reply is now posted on my blog with the article to which you "so kindly" linked. We disagree. I won't engage in any sparring.

[Debbie]

Thersites D. Scott: I posted the article because I felt a good discussion about it was called for. As you will note at the intro, I cut out several paragraphs that I felt were over the top and not substantiated, and some images that were not originals and could not be sourced.

It's good to get everything out in the light of day, disect it, discuss it. I think Mr. Buckley would approve, read it with his great intellect and then proceed to give his own views on the subject.

That's the point of this blog.

[Thersites D. Scott]

After wading through the mock-balanced, pseudo-intellectual essay above, I have three thoughts:

1. We could have a President who understands and appreciates a religion besides his own -- and may therefore be able both to communicate well with the vast majority of Muslims who don't hate America but who struggle to understand how our values jibe with their traditions, and to understand and therefore more effectively fight the minority of Muslims who are trying to do us harm? God forbid we should have a president with insight into both our enemies and those we wish to be our friends!

2. Obama has worn traditional African (not Muslim -- African) cultural clothing, so his grandfather's "harem" must be in the works. But I'm pretty confident guessing that Rojas has worn leather boots -- and Emilio Zapata wore leather boots -- and Emilio Zapata killed people -- so that means insurrection and murder by Rojas must be a significant possibility, too, right?

3. Lordy, I do miss William F. Buckley, whose keen intelligence, open-mindedness, insistence on objective truth and logical consistency, rejection of innuendo, and respect for his opponents themselves all show the current crop of conservative "thinkers", including Rojas, for the small, small people (and minds) they are. Sad how far the Republican party, and conservative thought, have fallen.

[Susan Duclos]

Excellent article Debbie and better to have too much information than too little...always.

Good for you for publishing this!