The basis for President Obama’s speech to the Muslin world June 4
Published: June 2, 2009
Updated: June 2, 2009
President Obama will “make a major speech on ties with Muslims” on June 4, as part of a “continuing effort of the president to engage the Muslim world.”
The text has not yet been released, but the content of that speech has been being written throughout our president’s life.
He was born in Hawaii to Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan of the Luo ethnic group, and Ann Dunham.
“My grandfather, who was Kenyan, converted to Christianity, then converted to Islam,” Obama said. “[A]lthough my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.”
Ann Dunham Obama next married Indonesian student, Lolo Soetoro, whose visa was revoked in 1967.
So, when Barack was six, his family moved to Indonesia, where Barack was enrolled and listed as a Muslim attending a Muslim school in central Jakarta from 1968 to 1972.
The Chicago Sun-Times quoted Obama’s own description of his stepfather’s faith: “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”
“In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology,”1 but his own favorite book, Mr. Obama says, is “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”, Alex Haley’s book about the assassinated leader of the Nation of Islam.
As an adult, Obama was a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Chicago church for more than two decades.
Rev. Wright’s church gave Louis Farrakhan, the current head of the Nation of Islam, its 2007 “Trumpeter Award” because, Rev. Wright said, “Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.”
During the primary season, Rev. Jeremiah Wright commented: “Barack might be forced by the media and/or by supporters to be very absent from this church and to put distance between our church and himself.”
Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
Obama identified Rev. Wright as his “spiritual adviser” and mentor. The training he received from Wright, Obama said, “was the best education I ever had.”
Former PLO and Arafat spokespersons Raschid and Mona Khalidi founded the Arab American Action Network in Chicago. A gala dinner was held in their honor with a commemorative book filled with testimonials, including ones from the Khaladis’ friends and Hyde Park neighbors, the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers and then-state Senator Barack Obama.
One of Mona Khalidi’s groups had received a $40,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama and Ayers served on the fund’s board of directors.
Khalidi told the mostly Palestinian crowd that state senator Obama deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat: “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.”
Earlier this year, news cameras filmed President Obama bowing to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London, showing our president bent low at the waist, head lowered, and his right hand extended for King Abdullah to accept. The Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat wrote approvingly: “Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz…”
What will the president say in his June 4th speech? Whatever he says, we can only pray that it will be spoken with a respect and appreciation of the personality of the people for the United States, whose national motto is, “In God We Trust.”
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
You’ve just proved my point,OW!!!! Cheap talk and sarcasm!!! You just can’t stand to be called out, can you????
rogersk, Hope you’re not smokin that muslin. You write with a double-mind. You started off with concern for cheap talk, bickering, worried that we’re talking like experts and with sarcasm. Then your age comes out with doing the same thing you seem worried about us doing…name calling, and sarcasm. Maybe it’s past your bedtime, or maybe you’ve just had a few too many. No matter, when you add it up, you had nothing to say anyway.
Typo…Across, not acree…don’t tknow where that came from.
Hey!!!! Are you guys for real???? Can any of you do a anything about the Annenberg Foundation, Bill Ayres, his wife, or any of the other things discussed here??? All of you talk as if you’re experts and if you are why aren’t you doing something other than calling each other names and depending on your sarcasm to get your points across. TALK IS CHEAP!!! Don’t just bicker, do something. BTW. OW.. I think you’re full of hot air and so discombobulated you cannot possibly get your point acree…I reiterate, Is your name Alice because you seem to be in Wonderland.?
REFERENCE THE C-SPAN2 TV SHOW ON BILL AYRES:
I googled Bill Ayres. I was surprised. I figured he was a long hair hippie type wearing near rags, the stereotypical hippie. But I learned he is “Professor Ayres, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar” at the University of Illinois-Chicago As Sharman states in his column this week, Ayres was an anti Vietnam War advocate and member of both the Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. He was convicted of domestic terrorism because he was linked to bombings.
Neither he nor his wife Prof. Bernadine Dohm has apologized for their domestic acts of violence.
I did not and do not agree, accept or support their acts of violence, and frankly they are not ‘my cup of tea’
I don’t practice the classic position of the ostrich in these matters. I don’t accept the view that burying my head and brains in the sand will protect me from politically dangerous or possible politically dangerous speech. (I am a big boy now.) On the other hand I believe that the ostrich position displays a most prominent part of my anatomy and exposes me to danger.
Bill Ayers has written several books, including a memoir on his anti war activities. I have read none of them and do not expect to read any. He lives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. I don’t know Chicago, but I suspect Hyde Park is like the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington and the Central Park West neighborhood of NYC; upscale neighborhoods: economically, socially, artistically, professionally and politically. I AM DEFINITELY NOT IN THAT LEAGUE.
Bill Ayres has a web site billayres.org which I have not perused
REFERENCE THE C-SPAN2 TV SHOW ON BILL AYRES:
I googled Bill Ayres. I was surprised. I figured he was a long hair hippie type wearing near rags, the stereotypical hippie. But I learned he is “Professor Ayres, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar” at the University of Illinois-Chicago As Sharman states in his column this week, Ayres was an anti Vietnam War advocate and member of both the Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. He was convicted of domestic terrorism because he was linked to bombings.
Neither he nor his wife Prof. Bernadine Dohm has apologized for their domestic acts of violence.
I didn’t and don’t agree, accept or support their acts of violence, and frankly they are not ‘my cup of tea’
I don’t practice the classic position of the ostrich in these matters. I don’t accept the view that burying my head and brains in the sand will protect me from politically dangerous or possible politically dangerous speech. (I am a big boy now.) On the other hand I believe that the ostrich position displays a most prominent part of my anatomy and exposes me to danger.
Bill Ayers has written several books, including a memoir on his anti war activities. I have read none of them and do not expect to read any. He lives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. I don’t know Chicago, but I suspect Hyde Park is like the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington and the Central Park West neighborhood of NYC; upscale neighborhoods: economically, socially, artistically, professionally and politically. I AM DEFINITELY NOT IN THAT LEAGUE.
Bill Ayres has a web site billayres.org which I have not perused
EL SAYS - OW, I do not hate Sharman and in your words I guess that makes you a liar. I SAY: Your very statement makes you a liar, since you have been the one challenged to explain all your name calling, and the only answer you can now give is that you “do not hate Sharman”. So, what happened to all your proof of Sharman pomposity and arrogance, and where he’s written that single women ruining the world proof? Couldn’t find it could you!!
EL SAYS - All that other stuff is dribble since once again you did not post the names of the Republicans. Your justification for not doing so is ridiculous. You act as if only Ayers and Obama made any of the decisions before or after. I SAY: I find when you cannot grasp what someone wrote or what you think you saw, even though everybody else can, it is your comprehension problem, like I said when I first started responding to you last Fall. So when you can’t grasp something, you start calling it names too, like “dribble”. I think your reasons for asking is ridiculous and off topic. Why don’t you explain your reasons for asking? I always explain mine. Since the association to Ayers was about their friendship and why they won’t produce minutes from their meetings, and why they won’t explain the results of how much good the use of this money was in a descent report back to the Annenberg foundation, and thus lost further support. But you think if you go off on this rabbit trail, that somehow that’s going to change the essence of what was written about Obama and Ayers, you are wrong.
EL SAYS – “Sharman has written much which you oppose?” I SAY: When did I say this? On the contrary, I can’t think of anything he wrote that I oppose. So where did I say that? More lies from you, or perhaps, just that comprehension problem again?
EL SAYS – “Please try to understand that contrary to what you claim you do deny ANY negative comments about Sharman or his writings and you want to play that “you must prove everything you say to me while I am under no obligation to actually provide anything to you”. I SAY, now this is dribble. WHAT are you TRYING to say here?
EL SAYS:- “I challenge you, defy you, dare you to actually post your own proof and accept that others may reach a different conclusion based on the same proof (the last part which you can’t seem to grasp).” I SAY: I’ve never posted a response to Sharman’s articles until after you and others have posted comments. Based on those comments, I have asked you all to explain or prove what you claim. And only once did you ever give me proof that Sharman was factually wrong on something he wrote, and that was clearly a math error, that in which made no impact to change what he wrote about or his beliefs.
EL SAYS – “You are also telling TIPP you will watch the show and then I bet you will trash it while not acytually providing contradicting proof to what is said on that show”. I SAY, once again, this is your negativity problem which you are now using to predict the future and what I will do.
EL SAYS – “Your other comment toTIPP needs smome more detail so we can figure out what you are dribbling, While not liking violence he seems to understand that it may benecessary, Does that mean he can’t questions someone else’s use of violence?” I SAY, TIPP was not questioning “someone else’s use of violence”. (Your comprehension problem again). TIPP started out talking about the playground bully, and to ignore when a bully calls you names. Then he ended with the same playground bully and a violent solution. I just found the two ways of handling a “bully” in the same setting quite telling of TIPP’s thinking. And now yours. Either you believe in handling a bully with or without violence. And stating both ways in one paragraph is double-minded.
EL SAYS – “OW tell me about the terrorist who kiled that doctor in Church. Do it without tems like “but” or “however”.” I don’t mind answering your question, but you will not tell me what terms to use. You are not my teacher giving me an assignment. Just like who are the board members of the Woods Foundation. When that was not the problem any body had with Obama. The problem is that these records are locked away, and the problem is his friendship with Ayers and how the money was spent, not the other board members.
As far as the abortion doctors killing, I do not know anything about the killer. All I know is that it is the 4th killing of a doctor in this country since 1973 who was a doctor that aborted children, and who was targeted by another killer, who has been caught and will be brought to justice. Remember what TIPP tried to convey, violence begets violence. That’s what happened here. Now, why don’t you explain your use of the term “terrorist”? Since no proof yet has been offered to show he was tied to a known network of other people from which he set out to fulfill a certain groups objective in order to make a statement.
EL SAYS - OW, I do not hate Sharman and in your words I guess that makes you a liar.
EL SAYS - All that other stuff is dribble since once again you did not post the names of the Republicans. Your justification for not doing so is ridiculous. You act as if only Ayers and Obama made any of the decisions before or after.
Sharman has written much which you oppose? Again, using your terms I will say the track record indicates more lies from you.
Please try to understand that contrary to what you claim you do deny ANY negative comments about Sharman or his writings and you want to play that “you must prove everything you say to me while I am under no obligation to actually provide anything to you”.
I challenge you, defy you, dare you to actually post your own proof and accept that others may reach a different conclusion based on the same proof (the last part which you can’t seem to grasp).
You are also telling TIPP you will watch the show and then I bet you will trash it while not acytually providing contradicting proof to what is said on that show.
Your other comment toTIPP needs smome more detail so we can figure out what you are dribbling, While not liking violence he seems to understand that it may benecessary, Does that mean he can’t questions someone else’s use of violence?
OW tell me about the terrorist who kiled that doctor in Church. Do it without tems like “but” or “however”.
Thanks for the tip TIPP on the upcoming C-Span shows. I like to watch them when I can, and I’ll be sure to catch these. I’d like to see that Ayer’s and Bernardine are peace-loving people now, and not the anti-American radicals they used to be.
On a personal note TIPP, I find it ironic what you learned in the school yard. On one hand the adults taught you to ignore the school yard bully, and all the other good stuff. And that “speech advocating violence is never Free Speech”. On the other hand, in the last paragraph, you learned in the same school yard, to ignore the bully once and to warn him, and then if the bully didn’t stop, you got to haul off and hit him in the face so he’d run away crying. The irony is, you don’t like violence, but you believe in it cause it works on loudmouth cowards.
OK, lets take these accusations right here, point by point.
EL SAYS: “OW, you have rejected any facts that ANYONE has posted that is contrary to what Sharman says.” I SAY, I do not. I take them like this one at a time, and determine first if it is a cold hard fact, or if an opinion. From there often opinions turn into mean spirited words.
EL SAYS: “It’s not just me. You attack, yet you accuse everyone else of attacking.” I SAY, Of course it is not just you. The only people that respond here are just a few that long ago decided they have differing views then Sharman and/or me. Since I always wait to respond till after you guys on the opposite side, it is not me who is attacking, but responding and asking questions, and putting for facts and my opinion. Why don’t you show me in just this article alone, where I am attacking? Then you’ll have something to back up what you say.
EL SAYS: “You want “wait to see”. Sharman will continue his trash and you will jump right on the bandwagon.” I SAY, yes, you are probably right. Since I know we have the same basic beliefs, I can’t say there is anything Sharman has written yet, which I would oppose. My wait to see attitude comes in at wanting you to provide evidence to back up your accusations. And I ask on each article, and it has been since last year since you’ve come close.
EL SAYS: “Tell me who the Republicans are? I know who they are.” I SAY, since you and I know who they are (or don’t), why is this question relevant? I’ve explained in great deal how the Annenberg Foundation works both in the past, and briefly below. I think they were very generous, and showed bipartisanship when delving out money. They had no control over the board that Obama sat on and from where the money was disbursed and used. They had to await a report back on that and the results of their work.
EL SAYS: “It matters that Obama was on the board, but it doesn’t matter who “delved out the money”?” I SAY, yes. It mattered how a “grant” was spent, not who gave it to them. I even used an organization from which Obama received a paycheck from for years, ACORN, as an example of money given to them, yet we all know how millions was stolen and wasted, and they have yet to have an audit and show the money trail, even though they are using our tax dollars.
EL SAYS: “If it had been a Dem you and Sharman would have posted their names here. Sharman won’t do it. I defy you to do it.” I SAY, you are accusing here, and without any reason. This is your way of stirring up your own invented crap. There is simply no reason to go into the names on the Annenberg foundation board. Neither Sharman nor I wrote negatively about any of the board members, whether black or white, or Democrat or Republican; so why do you insist on creating a division and strife where none is?
Advertisement