Obama & Islam

I've been disinclined to believe that Barack Hussein Obama was an Islamic "Manchurian Candidate." I was more inclined to be concerned that his family background and early education might make him more sympathetic to Islam, and less sympathetic to Western values of tolerance.

I have been concerned about some of the questions about Obama's involvement with sleazy people like Rezko. Then I see this curious news account from the February 1, 2008 Times of London--and it includes details that no one else has mentioned--such as Rezko's birthplace, and involvement with other Middle Easterners:

An undeclared $3.5 million (£1.8 million) payment from a corrupt Iraqi-British businessman has landed Barack Obama’s former fundraiser behind bars.
The payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that Mr Obama’s long-serving bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain’s richest men. The relationship is a potential embarrassment for Mr Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a central plank of his campaign.
Court papers describe Mr Rezko as a close friend of Mr Auchi. The two are involved in a large Chicago land development together. But it is unclear how long the two men have known each other or whether they were linked before the 2003 Iraq war. Neither side would discuss their relationship.

Now a friend who is on the MoveOn mailing list tells me that:

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: MoveOn Members Endorse Obama
From:    "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action"

Date:    Fri, February 1, 2008 11:40 am
To:      XXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote results

Obama:   197,444 70.4%
Clinton: 83,084  29.6%

Dear MoveOn member,

With hundreds of thousands of ballots cast across the country, for the
first time in MoveOn's history, we've voted together to endorse a
presidential candidate in the primary. That candidate is Barack Obama.

If there is anything that better demonstrates that Barack Obama is probably a threat to the national security of the United States than an endorsement by MoveOn, I can't imagine what it is.

Now, if you want to play politics with it, a Republican might argue that it would be good to have Obama win the Democratic nomination, because this would guarantee a Republican victory. There is still some racism in the United States, and there would be some voters--maybe 5% or so--who would vote against Obama because of his race. There is still some rationality in the United States, and Obama's endorsement by MoveOn and general delusionary attitude on foreign policy will cause another 30-40% of voters to vote against Obama. Obama as the nominee pretty much guarantees a Republican victory.

But what if the Republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) does something really, really outrageously horrifying just before the election? Would you want Obama to be president? I sure wouldn't, with all the peculiar and worrisome connections Obama seems to have. Americans of both parties need to pick the candidate most likely to keep America safe.

Hillary Clinton is detestable, dishonest, and a great threat to civil liberties in the United States. But Clinton at least knows that we are at war. I would rather the Democrats pick someone I detest, even at the risk of making it hard for a Republican to win the presidency, rather than picking someone like Obama--and create the small but enormous risk that Obama ends up in the White House.

Many years ago, I took advantage of California's first open primary in decades to vote for what I considered the weakest Democrat trying to get the Democratic nomination for governor. It turned out that Gray Davis wasn't weak at all. He easily won the general election, and screwed up California good and proper.

No more Machiavellian politics for me. Each party needs to pick the best candidate that they can. I'm disappointed that Fred Thompson dropped out--although his showings were so poor that it made sense. I'm horrified by McCain, who might as well be a Democrat. I am uncomfortable with Romney's sudden conservativism. Giuliani strikes me as just too New York sleazy, and I don't particularly trust his recent conversion to supporting gun rights. Let's just say that I will be having a hard time figuring out what to do in the May primary here in Idaho.

UPDATE: Just to clarify: I am not arguing for Clinton over McCain. I'm arguing that no one should support Obama over Clinton because Obama would be easy for the Republican nominee to beat.