Was it Hitler or Goebels who

Was it Hitler or Goebels who said that if you tell a lie long enough it will become the truth. Does it really matter what Obama's religion is? Wanna see the shit-hit-the-fan; Obama to declare himself as an atheist. America would light their hair on fire.

Goebels

And our entire marketing system and media politics are largely based off his theories and practices.

We're Here To Liberrate Your Women...

The religious and political nutters of the Right are in fact encouraged by the absence of a "serious" political Left, a Revolutionary Left, both in the US and here.

Besides, what does it matter if Obama were a Muslim... or an Atheist? I thought there was religious and/or otherwise freedom in the US. Apparently I was wrong? (Though the US Empire is armed, dangerous and killing people in the Middle East proclaiming that it offers religious freedom and freedom of thought. Eh, and it's there to liberate their women too. Wink. Wini.)

I never knew or woulda thunk it!!

If these nutters are going to be stopped in their tracks, there and here, another quite different countering force is called for.

The problem is that the

The problem is that the world has always been governed, ruled and ultimately self destructed by "faith", only to have another idiocy take the place of the previous nonsense,

When we look at the pictures, movies of the writings of the rulers through history, we can't help wondering how in hell people could believe and even die by the millions, for the ravings of certifiable nutcases ?

We're now living in the so called "information age", which, in theory should mean the growth of logical thought and behavour, but what we can see is totally the opposite, with more crooks given more powers to mislead and rule, than ever before.

Based on "faith", of course.

I grew with and in the era of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin and find it incredible that people still fall for more of very similar, faith based , ideological crap pushed by their successors, pretending to be the messengers of God, and sold as "wealth creation", while tens of millions starve to death. .

Ed Deak.

If 18 percent believe he's a muslim.

It shows that 18 percent of American are really stupid. They are the one who listen to Bill O'reilly. or Glen Beck or Ann Coulter

Full Joeseph Goebbels quote

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Gordon Campbell's and Steven Harper's modus operandi.

Slow days at the Tyee

Viral e-mails and goofball tabloid reporting.

Sarah Palin for president!!!!!!

Haper plans Fox News North run by one of his aides

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_fox_news_canada/?vl

Prime Minister Harper is trying to push American-style hate media onto our airwaves, and make us all pay for it. His plan is to create a "Fox News North" to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics. The channel will be run by Harper’s former top aide and will be funded with money from our cable TV fees!

One man stands in the way of this nightmare -- the Chairman of Canada's Radio and Telecommunications Commission Konrad von Finckenstein. And now, Harper is trying to get him out of his job. Sign the petition below to send a wave of support to von Finckenstein and forward this campaign to everyone -- we'll publish full page ads in Canadian papers when we reach 100,000:

I encourage everyone to sign the petition
http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_fox_news_canada/?vl

Hussein

As Obama has joked, giving him the middle-name of Hussein was part of his father's grand plan to make his son President of the United States of America.

I didn't think it was possible, but the crazies are getting crazier. Isn't there a point where you are so saturated with crazy that you can't get any worse. Is there no upper limit?

No Guarantees...

"We're now living in the so called "information age", which, in theory should mean the growth of logical thought and behaviour, but what we can see is totally the opposite, with more crooks given more powers to mislead and rule, than ever before." Wrote Ed Deak.

We are still a quite primitive species methinks, Ed. Indeed, we may not get beyond this primitive level of development. There are no guarantees.

United and crazy

"The religious and political nutters of the Right are in fact encouraged by the absence of a "serious" political Left, a Revolutionary Left, both in the US and here."

Excellent point, coyoteman.

They are indeed "encouraged" by the opening in the fence and they are going for it....as Booker notes: "I didn't think it was possible, but the crazies are getting crazier." And they are.

In Counterpunch Anthony DiMaggio called it "The Rise of America's Idiot Culture" - which is bang on.... especially when it comes to Beck's and Palin's Roadshow.

There is no critical thought there - not even in a Conservative sense, which at least you could respect even if you didn't agree with the point of view.

It really is just blatant bigotry and racism....and for Beck and Palin it is also an egotistical and desperate need to be the ever-revolving center of controversial attention....no matter the collateral damage inflicted.

Let's NOT put it aside

"Putting aside the issue of why Obama being Muslim would be such a bad thing..."

Yes, that's really what it says! Is the entire article written just in order to 'tackle' this? The notion that a Muslim as the American president would be 'a bad thing'? Sorry, it would be a bad thing. Why? Because there is no reciprocity in this. Where in the now-established Muslim world would a ruling head of state or top figure be allowed, who WASN'T a Muslim? There is one entire city you cannot get into and visit if you're not a Muslim. There are ountries where women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men. Interestingly, the men can marry whomever they will. There is no charity, respect, allowance, or equality in an entire part of the World for people who are not Muslim. So why should a person of that orientation be acceptable as a head of state on this continent, which is not situated, thank the Aesir, Vanir and their entire following, in the Muslim part of the World?!

This little 'aside' is far from innocuous. The rest of the article is pablum of no value. I beleive the author is out in a very troublesome and seriously michievous errand here. Don't dream it.

Freedom of religion means that you are free to practice your religion. It does not mean you can hammer down any kind of 'affirmative action' scheme, particularly not if doing so would mess with the fundamental tenets of the community in which you live. The US has enough trouble with its own tribulationaists and other extremists. It does not need to add Muslim claims to superitory to the mix.

Still don't see my point? Please follow the link and think again what we are doing:

http://www.theatrezone.org/productions/past/firebugs/firebugs.htm

Religions have been the

Religions have been the biggest killers and enslavers in history, used by the usual by predator classes as excuses to start wars, colonizations, mass murders. And in many ways, still are. The Muslims are now actively involved to take world control by increased birth rates.

We also have to remember that ideologies and economic theories, licencing grand theft and the resulting enslavement of billions, are also pseudo religions, now using the perceived power of non existing, imaginary capital to rule, conquer and impoverish.

All in the name of "freedom", of course.

Ed Deak.

On the sewer ladder with Fox News

And this is why all the "free speech" arguments in the world can't convince sane people that bringing Fox News to Canada is a good idea. Especially if, as Steve Burgess claims, Fox News is just a half-step higher "on the sewer ladder" than the tabloid Globe.

Dorothy

It isn't about what if Obama was a Muslim. It is the insidious lying because the lie fuels a a hostile reaction. If it was true then yes, so what. But we are talking about the American looney right and the lengths they will go to to get votes against a president with some brains. This is the bunch who thought parrot Dubya was just peachy and who now have an orgasm at the thought of air-head Sarah Palin in the White House. It is a disgusting technique that would have be practiced by Hitler or Stalin.

dorothy

It doesn't matter what Muslim countries allow, what they do in their own countries has no bearing on us. They can only allow giant white rats as leaders for all I care.

dorothy?

While I am a vocal atheist with little respect for religions in general, I don't like reading diatribes like dorothy's railing against Muslims as if they are all a big, homogeneous conspiracy group.
The Muslim world is quite diverse, and Muslim countries bicker amongst themselves as much as Christian countries do.

But my main argument with your assertions above is that it sounds like your rationale for not allowing "one of theirs" in the white house is that "they" would never allow "one of ours" to rule their countries. Reciprocity is the reason it would bad if Obama were Muslim? Are you trying to be sarcastic?

It would be nice if all our leaders believed in science and human equality over fairy tales and the after-life. And it would nice if people lost the "us vs them" gene.

Good Understanding by "Most" Commenters...

Outside of Dorothy, of course, generally good comments and understanding displayed here by nearly all commenters, re this issue of whether there is really "freedom of thought" in the so-called "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave"... engaged in a world-wide campaign, in which we are complicit, of imperialist wars against underdeveloped, largely Middle East countries, for oil and hegemony. Which some don't, can't or don't want to get.

I agree with Frank, "It doesn't matter what Muslim countries allow, what they do in their own countries has no bearing on us. They can only allow giant white rats as leaders for all I care."

And an excellent comment by khed67 as well.

What's the Dif?

Right wing Christians and right wing Muslims they are just two close breeds of Rabid Pit-bulls! Dangerous if listened to!
In about 500 years American money will be printed with "In Alla We Thrust".
Most Muslim countries ban all other religions, yet no Christian countries ban other religions, so are we totally Stupid? America could get off their high horse and learn faster to just say no.
Because two parasitic belief systems can't survive in the same space.
I'm a Liberal Minded Atheist, boy am I in danger....What a messed up planet...Are we really a higher life form?

Sarcastic? Whaddayamean??

"It would be nice if all our leaders believed in science and human equality over fairy tales and the after-life. And it would nice if people lost the "us vs them" gene."

How close have you been to Science? If it's any good, belief is not needed. So we all believe in real science, but not in the admittedly inventive fairy tales that sometimes pass for it.

And I don't see, and you don't explain, what is wrong with reciprocity as a criterion for acceptable deals. The main argument, of course, is, that the fact that 'they would never allow one of ours' is expressive of the different nature of Islam as opposed to our basic value set, which decrees that the state should be secular and egalitarian, and that no one should cram religon down someone else's throat. Islam is all-encompassing. There is nothing outside of it, so it also encompasses poltics and the state etc., etc. You're either out or in. The terminology 'moderate Muslim is an oxymoron, just as hypocritical as the claim that one can be a for-real Catholic and use contraception and 'believe' in Science.

Thank you for not giving me marks for my writing, Coyote. You honor me greatly in understanding what a trespass I would feel that to be.

He Is

Obama is a Muslim.
According to Muslim law if your father was a Muslim you are a Muslim. In BO's case his father and grandfather were Muslims.

What do you expect him to say to the Muslim press. If he is interviewed by a newspaper in a Muslim country he will admit he is a Muslim because he knows they are well aware of Muslim laws and he does not want to lie to them.

Just look at his name. Middle name is of course Muslim but even his first name which he changed from Barry to Barrack is Muslim as it was the name of Mohammed's horse when he rode into heaven.

This brings us to the question what is the problem with him being a Muslim. He should admit it and move on.

I find it hard to believe

... that Muslims are any more dangerous than Christians.

Besides Islam and Christianity (and Zionism) being so intertwined in history, they all pick up where reason leaves off. All faiths are grounded on this higher level of knowledge (and I use knowledge very loosely) where the existence of God, it is said, is provable through reason independent of revelation. And this all seeps down from the teachings of Plato* where, essentially, it is impossible to understand without belief.

To this I disagree. I think that although philosophy tries to understand the world through thought rather than observation, when it gets into the realm of metaphysics it has no choice but to make educated guesses. And these guesses are, in my world view, not enough to base one's life on as a servant to a creed.

That said, no one should worry whether Obama is a Christian or Muslim. According to the Prophet Mohamet, who died early in the 7th C, is was the duty of Islam to conquer as much of the world as possible but not to persecute 'the people of the Book'; namely the Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians who followed the Scriptures. So, at worst, we have a lying politician deceiving his people while his Christian folks are safe (except from themselves I would add).

*Plato funnels a lot of ideas from both East and West into his philosophy.

wisemonkey

I think you are wrong there. Religion is not a blood line. It is a choice. One might have been born to Muslim parents but that does not make you Muslim any more than being born to Christian parents makes you a Christian. It is a choice one makes when they are old enough. Your definition would give the crazies credibility. Obama would only be Muslim if that is the religion he currently practices and believes in.

samuidave

"I find it hard to believe
.. that Muslims are any more dangerous than Christians."

And there, of course, you are right. It is merely a question of the Christian might of the West being a little on the skids due to all the scandals and our better insight into the inside wranglings and deceptions due to us actually having adopted this choice in religion into our own culture.

fundamentally speaking, religion is between you and your Gods. You are or should not, as a religious person, be interested in the next guy's doings and how HE relates to his gods. If you nevertheless start crawling all over other people and try to 'convert' them and even use forcible methods to do so, you are no longer acting as a religious person, but are just in line with any other little fascist. O don't care whether this dictum to go out and make more disciples is part of the gospel itself. That is all very neat and self-serving in the extreme. What I do know if that if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

So, you have the right of it, Dave. The xians and the followers of Allah are equally dangerous, it's just a question of to what extent how many people have currently got their number. I am not saying there are no 'sincere' Muslims or Christians, but each and every one of them must nevertheless bear some responsibility for endorsing institutions that have committed atrocities. There never were any positions open as innocent bystanders. That is and always was a grand delusion.

us versus them

I spent almost 2 years living and working in Muslim countries (Yemen, Turkey, and Egypt), and nobody ever tried to convert me. Dorothy, you ask how close I have been to science--how close have you been to Islam? I don't mean to defend this religion, as I share your distaste for it, but you seem to be painting with a broad brush.

Back to my original point (that you don't seem to understand): You said it would be "bad" if the American president were Muslim "because there is no reciprocity in this." If I understand your logic, you mean that if "they" (Muslims) would permit one of "ours" (a Christian) to lead one of "their" countries, then it would be OK for a Muslim to lead one of "ours."

I think this reciprocity idea is ridiculous, and it's coming from the us-versus-them crap that throws everyone together in convenient, black-and-white compartments. Fox News would be proud.

And another thing

I realize i have not accounted for the 'reciprocity thing'. It simply arises out of fundamental inter-human 'rules'. If you are made to, or make yourself, grant something to another, which he would never grant you, you put yourself in a subservient position. Seeing no reason to do so vis a vis the Muslim paradigm, I have no stomach for that. I know there is some Christian notion that by lowering yourself, you raise yourself up in the eyes of God, but no. 1, I am not a Christian, and anyway it is smacking too much of making a virtue out of necessity for my taste. I believe we deal best with one another here on this Earth on an equal footing. People who customarily tax others for not being of their Faith don't grasp the idea of equality.