Obama Praised by Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots
May 29, 2008 – 10:43 amDemocratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades, yet many Americans fail to question these allegiances and their potential ramifications. Barack Obama — the man who is known for his incessant and rampant use of the word “hope” — is the latest candidate to score terrorist support.
Before delving into Obama’s current fan-base, let’s review what occurred back in 2004. Just days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden issued an October surprise when he attempted to appeal to the American people. Aside from claiming that Bush had misled the public, bin Laden explained away Al Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 as the mere result of U.S. foreign policy:
What bin Laden failed to mention is that he’d like us to all convert or die. Ironically, his perverted perception of God and religion were absent from his rant.
While Osama’s quasi-endorsement of Kerry proves intriguing, Obama’s enthusiasts are more plentiful — and more disconcerting. When considering Obama’s cringe-worthy endorsements one cannot help but wonder why these war-mongers, criminals and racists would want to see Obama win in November. Clearly, something within Obama’s character or proposed policies resonates with them.
FOX News compiled an interesting list of individuals who voiced support for Obama. In mid-April, Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef was quoted as saying: “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle.” And if that’s not terrifying enough, Fidel Castro is enamored as well, as he has called Obama intelligent, while praising his work ethic.
And let’s not forget about Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s ties to Reverent Wright and company.
Agree or disagree with me — whatever you’d like. But the fact of the matter is that these individuals — persons who hold questionable and often dangerous word views — are endorsing a man who claims to stand for hope and a brighter future. Yet the legacies of the aforementioned individuals are comprised of nothing more than pain and suffering (or in the case of Farrakhan and Wright — societal damage as a result of reverse racism).
I’ll be interested to see who endorses Obama next.
11 Responses to “Obama Praised by Hamas, Castro and Other Crackpots”
The problem I have with this argument is that it makes it seem like we care about the opinions of our enemies.
“Don’t vote for Obama because the terrorists like him.” is the essential message.
I thought we were supposed to be concerned with what we want to do, not what the terrorists want us to do. It seems that proponents of this argument don’t care about what the terrorists say, except for selective situations like this when they do. How come when the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power, we chose to ignore those results and dealt only with Fatah?
Now when the Palestinian President supports Obama we care what he says? There is way too much cherry picking involved to take this argument seriously yet we hear it from conservative media outlets all the time.
You can’t really take anything Fidel Castro says these days seriously. Come on. The man is old and very sick and hasn’t had a lucid thought in several years. Let’s not worry about who he is voting for in November.
Besides, is Obama’s ties to Wright any worse than the Republican Party’s ties to people like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, etc.?
There are religious nuts on both sides of the aisle.
By Joshua Rosenstock on May 29, 2008
There are massive differences between Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, etc. and Wright — massive. The former mentions do not serve as spiritual advisers to John McCain. They did not inspire his books and have not worked on his campaigns. Dobson doesn’t even like McCain.
Furthermore, Wright’s focus is on race, not religion, so the mention of these pastors is irrelevant.
This argument is more than valid. You’re missing the point. Something is making these hate mongers vote “yes” to Obama. Doesn’t that concern you in the least - that there are qualities in him that appeal to these nuts?
By Billy Hallowell on May 29, 2008
My point is this: if Bush and his advisors don’t care what these nuts think about anything (if they did, we would never have invaded Iraq), why should we?
I also think there is a chance these nuts aren’t as dumb as we think. They know that by supporting Obama, they are rallying people to support McCain, who has said he will keep us in Iraq for the forseeable future. The presence of our soliders in the Middle East is the greatest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has ever had.
By Joshua Rosenstock on May 29, 2008
Interesting point, but I disagree. Wright, Farrakhan — probably even Castro don’t have much to do with Iraq. And Iran — a nation’s government we know wants nothing more than to see Americans dead has not officially endorsed Obama. In fact, the Iranian president said that he is not endorsing Obama in any way, shape or form. I don’t think our enemies are stupid by any means, but I do think that they want to be left to their own devices, which is why they always seem to favor the Democrat.
In terms of the other wing-nuts like Farrakhan and Wright — they hold horrifically racist viewpoints and they connection to Obama is nothing short of scary.
By Billy Hallowell on May 29, 2008
@”Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades,Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades…”
This lead is the perfect crystallization of that clarion false note struck by right-wing apologists when they want to smear Democrats as terrorist-friendly traitors.
I don’t doubt that Ann Coulter thanks the Prince of demons every night that Obama has ‘Hussein’ in his name.
And of course neocons try their best to taint Obama with the odor of terrorism, even in such dud stinkbombs as this little homily.
It’s a simpleton’s fallacy in logic to maintain that if a politician is favored by entities deemed to be evil, then by some Mephistophelian alchemy he is transmuted into an evil person himself or at the very least tainted by this “association”, and should be abhorred.
It’s the FOX News approach to political commentary— where the yellow “journalism” that made Rupert Murdoch rich finds its natural home.
By Vince Williams on May 29, 2008
Billy,
You really don’t think Hagee, Robertson, etc. aren’t racist? Don’t you find their close proximity to the decision makers of the Republican Party somewhat disturbing?
By Joshua Rosenstock on May 29, 2008
No, Joshua. I don’t. I do think that they are not tolerant of certain ideologies…obviously. And I’m not a fan of either of them. They might be a lot of things, but comparing them to Wright — in terms of racist commentary — simply isn’t fair. If you want to speak about homosexuality or other issues that they have made controvercial statements on, be my guest.
And Vince, I never called Obama a terrorist. What I did do was point to solid evidence that morally bankrupt individuals support his candidacy. This is undeniable. And I never claimed that readers should hate him. I simply warned and asked voters to question his policies and character.
By Billy Hallowell on May 29, 2008
They are both disgusting. They both preach hatred towards people that are different from them and should be repudiated equally by both sides.
Instead we place them in order as if one type of hatred is better than another. The excessive entanglement between government and religion has done significant harm to this nation and needs to be stopped.
By Joshua Rosenstock on May 30, 2008
And I would disagree with you on that end as well. While the state should not impose religion, our forefathers did not intend to remove God from every aspect of society (the original capital building had a chapel with pastors on staff). Faith is an immensely personal experience, which is why it creates political segmentation. Faith systems govern how people live — so do political institutions. It makes perfect sense why there is an intersection.
As I said, I am not a fan of either pastor you mentioned. That said, making the jump to assume that they represent mainstream Christians isn’t fair, nor is the notion that faith should be removed from political institutions. It’s actually more harmful to take excessive measures to remove Christianity from America than it is to simply allow the natural entanglement.
In sum: It would be totally and utterly unnatural to remove one’s faith from one’s politics.
By Billy Hallowell on May 30, 2008
@ “It’s actually more harmful to take excessive measures to remove Christianity from America than it is to simply allow the natural entanglement.”
Obviously my first comment didn’t penetrate Billy’s understanding, so let’s move on to his latest tautology.
Who is trying “to remove Christianity from America”, other than Daniel Dennet and some other strident atheists, and from where in hell did Billy hallucinate the idea that the entanglement of Christianity with government is “natural”?
Forbidding the posting of religious texts like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is neither an attack on anyone’s faith, nor a limit on his freedom— if his definition of personal freedom respects my right to be left alone from religion, especially when I interact with the State in the conduct of my life.
Need it be said that these cheerleaders for unwelcome religious intrusions in our government have no such concern for religions other than Christianity?
By Vince Williams on May 30, 2008
Billy,
The reason we have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is because our Founders were extremely weary of an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth Rock were fleeing the oppressive King and Church of England and wanted to practice their religion with persecution. That is why there is no official religion of America, no matter what right-wing religious leaders would have you believe.
Therefore, it is very American to keep church and state separate.
By Joshua Rosenstock on May 30, 2008