Who really is Barack Obama?"CLAIMS & DEBUNKS (Who do you believe?)

[michael_33]

I found this "quote" in a forum and thought I would share it with you,for those that may not have seen it!

Claim: When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Debunk:Barack Obama's parents divorced when he was two years old, his father moving to Connecticut to continue his education before returning to Kenya. When the younger Obama was six years old, his mother married again, this time to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian oil manager. Barack and his mother moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama spent 4-5 years attending both Muslim and Catholic schools before his mother sent him back to the United States to live with his maternal grandmother. The school Barack Obama attended in Indonesia was "Muslim" primarily in the sense that the preponderance of its student body was Muslim (because Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country), but both the Muslim and Catholic schools he attended in Indonesia offered a few hours of religious instruction each week.

In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama elaborated on his early schooling, explaining that he attended both Catholic and Muslim schools in Indonesia & not out of any particular religious affiliation, but because his mother wanted him to obtain the best education possible under the circumstances:

During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables.

Claim: Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Debunk:Barack Obama never stated that he "was once a Muslim" (radical or otherwise), so his "handlers" have nothing to "conceal." Obama communications director Robert Gibbs noted that "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim. As a six-year-old in Catholic school, he studied the catechism." Barack Obama has been associated with the United Church of Christ since the mid-1980s, describes himself as a Christian, and says that he is "rooted in the Christian tradition."

Claim: Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned

to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Debunk:As noted above, Barack Obama's parents divorced when he was only two years old, and his father then moved thousands of miles away, from Hawaii to Connecticut, so he couldn't have received much of an "introduction to Islam" from his (biological) father:

My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was two years old.

At the time of his death, my father remained a myth to me, both more and less than a man. He had left Hawaii back in 1963, when I was only two years old, so that as a child I knew him only through the stories that my mother and grandparents told.

(Barack's only other childhood contact with his father occurred when he was eleven years old, and his father came to visit Hawaii for a month at Christmas time. The elder Obama died when Barack Jr. was twenty-one years old.)

Claim: Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Debunk:The claim that Obama attended a radical Wahabbist school in Indonesia in the mid-1960s is exceedingly far-fetched, given that:

The large Indonesian community resident in Mecca was a medium through which knowledge about Wahhabism reached Indonesia, but the community itself appears to have remained virtually immune to Wahhabi influences. In reality there was little direct influence of Wahhabism on Indonesian reformist thought until the 1970s.

Insight magazine claimed in a January 2007 article that Barack Obama spent at least four years attending what is variously described as a "madrassa," a "radical Muslim religious school," or a "Muslim seminary" in Indonesia, but CNN has more recently reported that its own investigation found those claims to be false:

Reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the 'Situation Room.' "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."

The Associated Press reported similarly:

A spokesman for Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs said claims that Obama studied at an Islamic school are groundless.

"SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths," said the spokesman, Sutopo, who goes by only one name. "Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school."

Obama later transferred to SDN Menteng 1 the elite, secular elementary school at the center of the controversy. The school is public but is very competitive and has exceptionally high standards. It is located in one of the most affluent parts of Jakarta and attracts mostly middle- to upper-class students, among them several of former dictator Suharto's grandchildren.

Indonesia is home to several of the most radical Islamic schools in Southeast Asia, some with alleged terrorist links. But Akmad Solichin [the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1], who proudly pointed to a photo of a young Barry Obama, as he was known, said his school is not one of them.

Moreover, a statement released by the Obama campaign affirmed that:

In the past week, many of you have read a now thoroughly-debunked story by Insight Magazine, owned by the Washington Times, which cites unnamed sources close to a political campaign that claim Senator Obama was enrolled for "at least four years" in an Indonesian "Madrassa". The article says the "sources" believe the Madrassa was "espousing Wahhabism," a form of radical Islam.

All of the claims about Senator Obama’s faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama’s stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school.

To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.

Claim: Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Debunk:As noted above, Barack Obama describes himself as "a Christian," says that he is "rooted in the Christian tradition," and his association with the United Church of Christ began over twenty years ago, long before he contemplated a political career. (Obama was first elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996, but he has been involved with the United Church of Christ since the mid-1980s.) The beginnings of Obama's relationship with the church were described in an April 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article:

Obama is unapologetic in saying he has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." As a sign of that relationship, he says, he walked down the aisle of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ in response to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's altar call one Sunday morning about 16 years ago.

The politician could have ended his spiritual tale right there, at the point some people might assume his life changed, when he got "saved," transformed, washed in the blood. But Obama wants to clarify what truly happened.

"It wasn't an epiphany," he says of that public profession of faith. "It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them ... I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me."

These days, he says, he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.

So how did he become a churchgoer?

It began in 1985, when he came to Chicago as a $13,000-a-year community organizer, working with a number of African-American churches in the Roseland, West Pullman and Altgeld Gardens neighborhoods that were trying to deal with the devastation caused by shuttered steel plants.

"I started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job-training programs, or after-school programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communities," he says. "And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened.

"I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and its importance in the community. And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply."

Claim: ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Debunk:This statement is completely false. It is a mistaken reference to a different politician, Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, not Barack Obama.

Claim: Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Debunk:Senator Obama drew some criticism over a photograph that showed him standing without his hand over his heart during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, but the claim that he "will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance" is false.

During the Democratic candidates' debate on 15 January 2008, Senator Obama directly refuted the three primary rumors about him that are circulating via e-mail: that he is a Muslim, that he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance:

I thought these were pretty interesting and never thought a potential Presidents background, would draw up this much controversy...

It's one thing when the topics are Social Security,Medical Insurance Policies,Global Warming,Abortion or War-Time future Plans...but when a Man's personal and religious background is clouded in such mystery,it makes you wonder who you could potentially be voting for?

Just a thought!

[chaddukes]

I've never bought the charge that Obama is or was a muslim. I do believe that he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

If this site really wanted to debunk something they could attempt to debunk his voting record.

[Thiebear]

I've always thought the "swearing in as a muslim" was put out there just to be refuted so easily.

There's no mention of Aires

There's no mention of his new seal

There's no mention of him disowning Wright/his Grandmother

There's no mention of his wife finally being proud of America

There's no mention of his brother

There's no mention of his 130+ "present" votes so he didnt have to defend anything.

There's no mention of his 97% vote with Pelosi rate?

There's no mention of his promise on funds and then going back on it.

There's no mention of giving Hillary the finger

There's no mention of Change

If were going to just throw things against the wall for refuting, let make it a sticky wall.

[chaddukes]

I've always thought the "swearing in as a muslim" was put out there just to be refuted so easily.

There's no mention of Aires

There's no mention of his new seal

There's no mention of him disowning Wright/his Grandmother

There's no mention of his wife finally being proud of America

There's no mention of his brother

There's no mention of his 130+ "present" votes so he didnt have to defend anything.

There's no mention of his 97% vote with Pelosi rate?

There's no mention of his promise on funds and then going back on it.

There's no mention of giving Hillary the finger

There's no mention of Change

If were going to just throw things against the wall for refuting, let make it a sticky wall.

C'mon! That's Ridiculous! Can't a guy just enjoy his waffles?

[Burgold]

It's actually quite simple. Republican strategists do not want to attack Obama on the issues. They'll lose. Why? Polls indicate that the vast majority think the country's headed in the wrong direction. So, to point out that he wants to do something other would be a positive. Diehard Conservatives and Republicans are going to dislike his agenda, but they'd dislike any scenario including:

If you're child is trapped on the third floor of a burning building and has

succumbed to the smoke we need to have emergency services available and

able to rescue him or her.

Republicans would counter. I don't want my money to go to Fire Departments or training emergency personnel. People need to be accountable. They need to be self-sufficient. If my child isn't man enough to rescue himself from a burning building than he should die. No handouts.

So, they don't attack on the issues. They attack on the personality. They did it with Gore and Kerry too. The Bush/Kerry election was much more about Kerry being a flip flopper and a liar and a false war hero... than any issue. The Gore election attacks were all about Gore being too wooden and stiff, and untrustworthy because he's Clinton's third term, and isn't he unlikeable? Wouldn't you rather have a beer with Bush?

They attacked Gore on personality b/c the economy and country was doing well. They are attacked Kerry and are attacking Obama on personality because they've made a giant mess and don't really have an area that they can trumpet about. All the Republican thinktanks have in their arsenal is personal attacks, mud flinging, and lies.

What I've said here is a touch overstated, but essentially true.

[@DCGoldPants]

Obama is a new breed of evil.

He's a Commie-Muslim-Christian.

He'll use his socialist views to destroy our strong capitalist economy. His Muslim views to wipe out all the non-Muslims. Then his "Church" to unleash duel-Pastor attacks on the nations fragile minds.

Once he has us where he wants us. He'll force all of us to train on how to perform abortions and same sex weddings.

Then when its all over. We'll surrender to the terrorists and build a giant drought machine to turn the United States into a compete desert from coast to coast.

Oh, the price of Camels will go up.

[chaddukes]

It's actually quite simple. Republican strategists do not want to attack Obama on the issues. They'll lose. Why? Polls indicate that the vast majority think the country's headed in the wrong direction. So, to point out that he wants to do something other would be a positive. Diehard Conservatives and Republicans are going to dislike his agenda, but they'd dislike any scenario including:

If you're child is trapped on the third floor of a burning building and has

succumbed to the smoke we need to have emergency services available and

able to rescue him or her.

Republicans would counter. I don't want my money to go to Fire Departments or training emergency personnel. People need to be accountable. They need to be self-sufficient. If my child isn't man enough to rescue himself from a burning building than he should die. No handouts.

So, they don't attack on the issues. They attack on the personality. They did it with Gore and Kerry too. The Bush/Kerry election was much more about Kerry being a flip flopper and a liar and a false war hero... than any issue. The Gore election attacks were all about Gore being too wooden and stiff, and untrustworthy because he's Clinton's third term, and isn't he unlikeable? Wouldn't you rather have a beer with Bush?

They attacked Gore on personality b/c the economy and country was doing well. They are attacked Kerry and are attacking Obama on personality because they've made a giant mess and don't really have an area that they can trumpet about. All the Republican thinktanks have in their arsenal is personal attacks, mud flinging, and lies.

What I've said here is a touch overstated, but essentially true.

Are you even serious? Republican's don't want fire and rescue services? No, thats not even a realistic example. Republican's only attack on personality? No, they are more than happy to attack Obama on the issues.

The truth is the the "media" is the one doing the personal attacking, and that goes on both sides. Between Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh you can't find out every personal fault of both candidates. Don't be so naive!

[Dan T.]

I personally think it's an asset for Barack Obama that he has had some exposure to Muslim culture during the course of his young life. He will be less likely to demonize hundreds of millions of Muslim faithful based on the actions of a radical subset of the group, unlike many xenophobic Americans who are quick to do so. Obama's exposure to other cultures should serve him well in rebuilding the U.S.'s tattered U.S. foreign policy.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I believe he's the 2nd Jimmy Carter, too.

s'cool. We'll learn.

[Burgold]

Are you even serious? Republican's don't want fire and rescue services? No, thats not even a realistic example. Republican's only attack on personality? No, they are more than happy to attack Obama on the issues.

The truth is the the "media" is the one doing the personal attacking, and that goes on both sides. Between Daily Kos and Rush Limbaugh you can't find out every personal fault of both candidates. Don't be so naive!

What issues have the Republican war machine attacked on? Seriously, link me an ad produced by the GOP or one of their affiliates that is a Republican versus Democrat platform analysis. One honest Republican attack that goes and breaks down an issue and shows in counterpoint why the Republican position is stronger.

And seriously, if Obama suggested more support for fire and EMT services. If he pointed out that fire engines were getting older and they needed new and updated equipment. Republicans would complain about that. They'd say... New Fire Engines! He wants to raise your taxes. How's he going to pay for putting more crews in the streets? Training more Emergency Technicians. He's going to raise your taxes! We don't need that.

The closest thing to an issue I've heard is the campaign finance stuff... and that's more..

"He's raised more than us and that's not fair. Candidates should not make use of their advantages. Republicans always have a larger war chest. It's nto fair. It's not fair. It's not fair."

[chipwhich]

The closest thing to an issue I've heard is the campaign finance stuff... and that's more..

"He's raised more than us and that's not fair. Candidates should not make use of their advantages. Republicans always have a larger war chest. It's nto fair. It's not fair. It's not fair."

Uhhhh Universal Health Care.

For me anyone wanting that wont get my vote.

Thats a big enough issue.

[Burgold]

Uhhhh Universal Health Care.

For me anyone wanting that wont get my vote.

Thats a big enough issue.

Honestly, I haven't heard an ad on Universal Health Care. I've heard us talk about it a lot, but I haven't heard a lot from the Republican Machine.

And that's probably because in the abstract (just like drilling) most Americans are for the idea of Universal Health Care. It's the mechanisms or cost that get people all hung up.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Uhhhh Universal Health Care.

For me anyone wanting that wont get my vote.

Thats a big enough issue.

I'd say voting based on one issue is foolish.

Universal Health Care won't happen in this country, even with an Obama Presidency and a Democrat Congress--and it shouldn't.

Way too expensive, period.

[The Sisko]

...but when a Man's personal and religious background is clouded in such mystery,it makes you wonder who you could potentially be voting for?

Just a thought!

...or what somebody is trying to distract you from.

:secret: See Burgold's post for the answer.

However, you still haven't done your homework yet.

[The Sisko]

I'd say voting based on one issue is foolish.

Universal Health Care won't happen in this country, even with an Obama Presidency and a Democrat Congress--and it shouldn't.

Way too expensive, period.

Wait until the hospitals start going broke and closing due to non-payment OR the insurance companies go up so much on everybody's premiums to the point where ever larger numbers of employers eliminate coverage. At that point the American public will be the ones "flip flopping" on this issue.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Wait until the hospitals start going broke and closing due to non-payment OR the insurance companies go up so much on everybody's premiums to the point where ever larger numbers of employers eliminate coverage. At that point the American public will be the ones "flip flopping" on this issue.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Gasp! Don't call us flip-floppers!

Its possible, but I think many people will still have an aversion to Universal Healthcare. Too many people are so very against the 'gimme' programs as they call it for such a thing to pass IMO.

[PeterMP]

Wait until the hospitals start going broke and closing due to non-payment OR the insurance companies go up so much on everybody's premiums to the point where ever larger numbers of employers eliminate coverage. At that point the American public will be the ones "flip flopping" on this issue.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Is there any reason to believe his reforms will actually bring down the cost of medical care vs. simply transfering it to the goverment?

How does that really change anything?

[The Sisko]

Gasp! Don't call us flip-floppers!

Its possible, but I think many people will still have an aversion to Universal Healthcare. Too many people are so very against the 'gimme' programs as they call it for such a thing to pass IMO.

Again, hospitals are getting squeezed harder and harder. More and more they'll be forced to shift the costs for non-payers to folks with insurance and/or be faced with having to close. Once that happens, what was once seen as "socialized medicine" or a "gimmie program" will all of a sudden be seen as a viable option.

Us good ole Americans, we sure do know how to solve a problem...but only when it blows up into a major conflagration. We don't believe in nipping it in the bud.

[The Sisko]

Is there any reason to believe his reforms will actually bring down the cost of medical care vs. simply transfering it to the goverment?

How does that really change anything?

I keep tryin' to get out, and they PULL me back in!.

I've pointed out several times in other threads devoted to healthcare reform that private insurance consistently has much higher overhead than Medicare/aid in spite of the later having to cover a much sicker/older population. This is a case where govt. is actually the more efficient option.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Again, hospitals are getting squeezed harder and harder. More and more they'll be forced to shift the costs for non-payers to folks with insurance and/or be faced with having to close. Once that happens, what was once seen as "socialized medicine" or a "gimmie program" will all of a sudden be seen as a viable option.

Us good ole Americans, we sure do know how to solve a problem...but only when it blows up into a major conflagration. We don't believe in nipping it in the bud.

But see that's the thing, its an issue of a mindset.

Why is marijuana, while less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco illegal? Its taboo in this country.

I'm certainly not comparing the two, but I think there are far too many people who see Universal Healthcare as a socialist program and I'm not sure that they'll ever support it.

If it makes sense fiscally, then I would support it. Overall, I have seen too much evidence that seems to state that it would be too expensive but you do raise a good point.

[Zguy28]

All you need to know about Barack Obama

[DarrellsMyHero28]

All you need to know about Barack Obama

Its an uphill battle isn't it?

[PeterMP]

I keep tryin' to get out, and they PULL me back in!.

I've pointed out several times in other threads devoted to healthcare reform that private insurance consistently has much higher overhead than Medicare/aid in spite of the later having to cover a much sicker/older population. This is a case where govt. is actually the more efficient option.

But it isn't just private insurance costs that are going up. There was thread about Perot graphs, and it showed that everybreak down of healthcare costs was going up by about 30% over the last how many ever years (I want to say the last 4, but I could be wrong) w/ the most explosive areas going up almost 40%.

Realistically, you can't simply pass those costs onto the goverment and pretend the problem went away. Less overhead by the insuring organization (e.g. goverment vs. private insurance) doesn't change those numbers.

There has to be a real discussion about why those costs are going up that way, where the money is actually going, what we are really going to do about, and what the ramifications of those actions are going to be.

Which is a conversation neither party really seems to really want to have.

[Zguy28]

Its an uphill battle isn't it?

And I don't even like the guy (Obama) that much. :laugh:

[DarrellsMyHero28]

And I don't even like the guy (Obama) that much. :laugh:

Well you get my respect for actually bringing facts to the table.