On Sep 8, 7:27=A0am, Ubiquitous wrote:
> President Obama has again said through a spokesman that he is Christian--=
or,
> in the precise words of press secretary Robert Gibbs, "a committed, mains=
tream
> Christian." Since no Christian qualifies his declarations of faith with t=
he
> antecedent adjective "mainstream" and few make such declarations through
> spokesmen, this is sure to feed the apocryphal, bogus, concocted, deceitf=
ul,
> erroneous, fictitious rumor that the president is Muslim.
>
> Roger Ebert to the rescue! "Our political immune system has only one anti=
body,
> and that is the truth," he proclaims:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The time is here for responsible Americans to put up or s=
hut
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 up. I refer specifically to those who have credibility am=
ong
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the guileless and credulous citizens who have been infect=
ed
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 with notions so carefully nurtured. We cannot afford to a=
llow
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the next election to proceed under a cloud of falsehood a=
nd
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 delusion.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 We know, because they've said so publicly, that George W.=
Bush,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 his father and Sen. John McCain do not believe Obama is a=
Muslim.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 This is the time--now, not later--for them to repeat that=
belief
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in a joint statement. Other prominent Republicans such as=
Mitt
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul also certainly do not =
believe
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 it. They have a responsibility to make that clear by subs=
cribing
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to the statement. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbau=
gh must
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in parti=
cular
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he be=
lieves
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have=
evidence,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 or does he have none? Yes or no.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 To do anything less at this troubled time in our history =
would
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 be a crime against America.
>
> To summarize: Certain people, those designated by a movie critic as
> "responsible Americans," must "put up or shut up." If they shut up--if th=
ey do
> not sign "a joint statement" refudiating this outrageous slander--they wi=
ll be
> guilty of "a crime against America"!
>
> Oh wait, sorry, it's not a slander. Ebert later appended this update to h=
is
> post:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Many readers have made the same point: What if Obama were=
a
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Muslim? What would be wrong with that? There would be not=
hing
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 wrong. There is no religious test in this nation for hold=
ers
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of office.
>
> So why not demand that "responsible Americans" say _that_ rather than att=
est
> that the president isn't Muslim? One begins to suspect that Ebert is less
> interested in truth and enlightenment than in improving the electoral for=
tunes
> of the Democratic Party. If one reads on, one will find proof.
>
> Ebert is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks combating the Muslim rumo=
rs
> will help the president. It is true that "Obama is a secret Muslim" is am=
ong
> the crazy theories popular on the fringe Angry Right. But this was the ca=
se in
> 2008 and early 2009, when Obama was still popular. If these theories have
> gained currency since then, it's not because the Angry Right has done suc=
h an
> effective job of promoting them. It's because Obama has done such an
> ineffective job of maintaining the American people's loyalty.
>
> We've seen this movie before. It was called "Fahrenheit 9/11." The Angry =
Left
> believed all sorts of crazy things about George W. Bush, and unlike the A=
ngry
> Right, its crackpot theories received considerable support from the mains=
tream
> news and entertainment. But that didn't stop Bush from winning re-electio=
n. He
> subsequently lost the support of the majority of Americans because of
> shortcomings in his governance, just as Obama has done.
>
> Which brings us to the proof we promised that Ebert is a mere partisan, h=
is
> devotion to truth but a pose. Ebert gave "Fahrenheit 9/11" a rave review:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at od=
ds
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong l=
eader.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplisti=
c in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 speech and inauthentic in manner. . . . [Michael Moore] r=
emains
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 one of the most valuable figures on the political landsca=
pe, a
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outra=
ge and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to B=
ush's
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.
>
> "Fahrenheit 9/11" made charges against Bush that actually _were_ slandero=
us,
> unlike the false but benign claim that Obama is Muslim. That didn't bothe=
r
> Ebert, who gave this crockumentary 3=BD thumbs up.
>
> What a difference a change of party makes. Today Ebert complains of the
> "thoughtlessness and credulity" of citizens "who have been infected" by
> falsehoods about the president. In 2004, when he called Michael Moore a
> "rabble-rouser," he meant it as a compliment. Ebert should stick to movie=
s,
> for his political pronouncements carry no moral weight.
>
> --- =A0
> "If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the 21=
st
> century."
You seem to be quoting someone named ______ Nadler, yet nowhere do you
show his name, the source, or anything else to indicate who Nadler is,
you dumb son of a bitch. |