There are references to Islam in Hawaii. If one is to believe he was raised there. He may however, have spent way too much time watching the Flip Wilson Show on television. That might explain just why he spent so much of the taxpayers money on "The Mecca of Detroit".
ps This might also show some small inkling of your question: http://www.westernjournalism.com/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-trials-will-ex...
RE: Obama's exposure to Islam
His primary exposure was in Indonesia, and this is what[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia] Wikipedia[/url] has to say (in part) about Islam there:
"Islam is the dominant religion in Indonesia, which also has a larger Muslim population than any other country in the world, with approximately 202.9 million identified as Muslim (88.2% of the total population) as of 2009.
The majority adheres to the Sunni Muslim tradition mainly of the Shafi'i madhhab. In general, the Muslim community can be categorized in terms of two orientations: "modernists," who closely adhere to orthodox theology while embracing modern learning; and "traditionalists," who tend to follow the interpretations of local religious leaders (predominantly in Java) and religious teachers at Islamic boarding schools (pesantren)."
Edit: Obama says that he was in one of those "boarding schools", which means he was likely under the influence of the "traditionalists". As a side note, by the teachings of the Muslim faith, because he would have recited the statement "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet", Obama would be seen by Muslims as being himself Muslim (regardless of how he views himself). He does seem to have a better knowledge of Islam than he does of Christianity, although I'm still inclined to believe he worships at one the lesser altars of Marxism Lite.
Syrian Rebels Take Responsibility for Gas Attacks, Claim it was Accidental
Dime short, day late, if this is true. Guess they didn't want to see their country turned into a parking lot by the USA and other nations.
NOTE - click through the ads via the "close" button if needed.
I thought the CIA released a four page document a couple of days ago that PROVED that the Syrian
government murdered those people in the chemical attack.
If I understand the rebels taking responsibility for this, they said they obtained the weapons from Saudi Arabia.
Should we not adjust the target slightly on those cruise missiles?
That would seem reasonable, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Obama and Biden would prefer to avoid admitting they got it completely wrong.
Reader Comment of the Day
It seems that my progressive liberal brethren have forgotten that during the run up to the 2008 Presidential election then-Senator Obama said we cannot "go it alone" when it comes to military action.
Fast forward 5 years and what I President Obama looking at? Well he is looking at "going it alone" in Syria.
Let's compare President Bush and President Obama in the run up to military intervention in the middle east.
President Bush went to Congress and received authorization for both Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama is doing the same thing.
President Bush had 30 nations sign on including Great Britain for Iraq. President Obama has no one...well maybe France.
President Bush went to the UN seeking a resolution which he didn't get. President Obama either hasn't or won't go to the UN seeking a resolution against Syria.
The Liberals of the U.S. called President Bush a "reckless go-it-alone cowboy abusing his war powers". Where is the outcry from that same group? Where are the Cindy Sheehan's and the Dixie Chicks of the world? Why isn't Hollywood coming out against this? Where are the war protesters and the BDN posters that cry out against the "military industrial complex" and the deaths of innocent civilians?
Where is the outcry? The rage over ANOTHER military intervention?
After reading Naran's post 33, I Googled ' rebels responsible for chemical attack'. I did it again within the news filter. The results weren't at all surprising. The news has their version of the news and that's the one they're sticking with.
I hadn't seen that prior to the qresidential press-in-attendance conference. I darn sure hadn't seen it anywhere else.
It may be the truth, and it may not. However, it would make sense that those responsible would finally step forward, seeing their country faced with an attack from the US and other countries.
I agree as to it's truthfulness .. who the heck is this guy, anway?
My problem is that it has been filed by a credentialed reporter to an xAPx xsitex and our watchdog media is choosing to ignore it. So the theater of Syria will drag on and the slate of domestic scandals will continue to be ignored.
Who's responsible is immaterial, we don't have a dog in this fight! Nothing to gain.
Congress may be a useful exit strategy for Mr. Obama, who is just starting to realize he almost made a huge mistake.
But do you believe that he is capable of admitting that mistake. Most of the civilized world wants to take a "wait for the inspectors" report stance, whereas this egomaniac would rather fire first and bury questions later. It would not surprise me in the least for further evidence to be "found" specifically for the benefit of Congress to get the vote he wants. I wonder if the Maine delegation will even question the Presidents "facts"?
Putin has already stated that an unprovoked attack on Syria by the USA would be "unacceptable". I would take that to mean that Russia would honor it's defense treaty with Syria. This swaggering by our fearless leader is what is unacceptable. He's fearless all right, fearless with other peoples lives.
The link in Naran's #33 was mirrored at INFOWARS. INFOWARS has been updated to clarify that, while the author is an AP correspondent, the story was not filed under the AP banner.
INFOWARS also points to a profile of MINTPRESS, the site to which the 'responsible rebel' story was posted. INFOWARS also points out that the MINTPRESS site is down because .. Obama caught wind of it .. I mean because of the traffic that has been drawn to it.
I did notice also that the article refers to a man named Saudi Prince Bandar:
When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution."
Gavlak continues in his report: "A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material. We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, ‘J’ said."
According to the report dozens of rebels said they were receiving salaries from the Saudis.
It's said that Bandar was educated in the U.S. both military and collegiate. He is also said to have "served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy."
Prince Bandar's intelligence agency is said to have been the first to bring allegations that Assad's regime used Sarin gas in Feb.
This small excerpt from Naran's post indicates to me that it is very possible that the CIA and Washington had prior knowledge that WMD's were being introduced into the area by the rebels and that an "accident" was more than possible. The MSM would follow the party line and report only that which they were told to report. The fix being that Bandar is in high favor with the CIA. With Obama having such a hard time with domestic issues, he definitely would want to divert attention to elsewhere no matter, and at the same time spur domestic weapons production for the defense manufacturers within this country thereby paying off another political debt. No matter how many people were killed in the process.
Breitbart - One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened
Rebel group al Nusra say they accidentally released the sarin gas in Syria on August 21st. Could this be true, and if so, is Obama going to ignore this too? Probably, if it doesn't fit in with his plans for helping his beloved Muslim Brotherhood destroy another Middle Eastern nation.
Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan is identified as the source of the chemical weapons in this "accident" as claimed by the rebels. Is it not possible or even probable the these chemical weapons were some of those found in Iraq and concealed by the CIA for further use ? That possibly the implication that Saudi Prince Bandar is indeed well known to the CIA as was alleged by the rebels. And since we already the Obama administration was trafficing in arms to the rebels that this was also provided through the Saudi's as well? Is it no possible that our ambassador to Egypt took offense at this and was intentionally allowed to be murdered by a mob which was incited precisely for this purpose?
With an administration as corrupt and as full of lies and deceptions as this one has become, I would put no treasonous act beyond it's ability.
That which is most questionable is why this President would seek to aid and abet those who have sworn to destroy western civilization and all persons not of Islamic faith?
Syria Laughs While Obama Vacillates and Passes the Buck to Congress
Anybody else think he and Biden should have kept their focus on the golf course and the next vacation, instead of drawing lines in the sand?
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here." Wimps don't understand the concept!
Hillary had NOTHING TO SAY, because she doesn't think her vote made any difference anyway, and what does it matter?
Yesterday at 6:05 PMMichaud cautious on Syria strike support
By Michael Shepherd email@example.com
State House Bureau
“I do not believe the president has the power to send our warriors into war, and that’s exactly what this is,” Michaud said at a Labor Day picnic in Augusta’s Capitol Park. “If the president really wants to listen to members of Congress after we have that thorough debate once we go back into session, then he should listen to members of Congress.”
King Statement on President’s Plan to Pursue Congressional Approval for Military Action Against Assad Regime in Syria
Saturday, August 31, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) released the following statement today regarding the President’s announcement that he will seek Congressional approval to conduct military action in Syria:
“I believe the President is right to seek the support and approval of the United States Congress before moving forward with military action against the Assad regime.”
“As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I have been closely monitoring the situation in Syria, including the recent and troubling reports of chemical weapons attacks, and last month I traveled to Jordan and Turkey to gain a better understanding of the impact of the conflict on U.S. national security interests in the region.
"The conflict in Syria is incredibly complex and we must be extremely mindful of the ramifications of any actions we may pursue. As we proceed with this important debate, it is crucial to me that the Administration identifies regional coalition partners, sets out the intelligence case for concluding that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime as clearly as possible, and that it identifies its objectives and plans to achieve them with equal clarity.
“I will review the evidence and arguments with great care before deciding how I will vote on this difficult and important issue."
Senator King's Press Release
Aug 31 2013
Senator Susan Collins: Reaction to President's Decision to Seek Congressional Authorization for Military Action in Syria
Congress should begin further deliberation of President's plan immediately
BANGOR, Maine— U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today released this statement following the President’s announcement that he will seek Congressional authorization for U.S. military action in Syria.
"The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens is abhorrent and violates international conventions. However, launching an attack on Syria requires serious deliberation in Congress because of the potential consequences. This afternoon, I participated in a lengthy conference call conducted by Secretary of State Kerry, National Security Advisor Rice, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey, and Director of National Intelligence Clapper. Those of us on the call had the opportunity to ask a wide variety of questions concerning the effectiveness, timing, and strategic implications of the military strike that the President is advocating.
"Congress must be involved in this weighty decision, and I strongly agree with the President's decision to seek congressional approval for this military action. In fact, I hope that the President will encourage the leaders of the Senate and the House to reconvene next week to begin further consideration of the Administration's plan immediately. In the meantime, I will continue to receive both classified and unclassified briefings to evaluate the wisdom and feasibility of the President's plan and look forward to participating in the Senate debate."
Full press release
King, Pingree applaud Obama’s decision to seek Congress approval before military action against Syria
By Sun Journal,
Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, issued a short statement.
“I’m inclined to vote no but will listen to the president and am glad he is seeking the approval of Congress,” she said.
I haven’t had a chance to put this into a spreadsheet or tried to flowchart the allegiances, but Congress needs to understand all this before we start lobbing missiles willy nilly.
I know the Middle East relationships are much more complicated then the Financial Times letter indicated. They left out many more players such as Russia, China, Syrian Rebels, religious factions and many others.
Using only the nine players and text listed in the letter, I made an attempt to graph the relationships. Solid red lines signify foes and dashed green lines signify friends. I know that Obama wants the US to bomb Assad, but even though Assad has four solid red lines, the US and Obama only have one dashed green line each. Simple math makes it seem that the US and Obama would make more people mad than they make happy if they bomb Assad. How can Obama win by getting the US to bomb Assad?
Now, there's a fine kettle of fish.
I don't get the distinction between Obama and the US. He is US, like it or not.
Mr KN Al-Sabah is making the distinction between the US and Obama in his Financial Times letter. Maybe he doesn’t have all the dynamics detailed, but using only his information, it seems that if Obama gets the US to bomb Assad, Obama and the US can’t win, but the Muslim Brotherhood can.
Maybe we will know more in a year or so how this all works out and who the winners are. I don’t think the US is going to win a Peace Prize or anything, but who knows?
If you can accept that Assad was considered civilized enough to have a sit down dinner with John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2009, it is hard to believe that he would gas some of his own people.http://www.news.com.au/world-news/john-kerry8217s-cosy-dinner-with-syria...
If we ask who had the most to gain by gassing some of Assad’s countrymen, maybe we can identify who was actually behind the gas attack. Since Assad had everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing so, my guess that one of the players identified as foes of Assad in post # 51 above or the Syrian Rebels are attempting to frame Assad with the gas attack. Which of those players is calling the loudest for Assad to be blamed?
The middle east should laugh at Obama and Biden for claiming the US has the moral authority to militarily intercede under moral grounds for killing of innocents by others.
How many innocents has Obama & Biden killed with their drone attacks?
Who doesn't Obama think he has the authority to kill? He has the authority to kill any American without due process. He seems to feel he can kill any person in another country on his authority. He can assassinate heads of other states at his authority. His secretary of state Clinton famously said we came, we saw, he died.
Now let us see if congress thinks they can kill anyone they please any where in the world. Congress already believes they can kill any Aamerican they choose.
Events are now moving rapidly to accomplish the next step in the agenda of the globalists that will lead us into the unimaginable horrors of World War III. With each passing day, each passing hour, the curtain is being lifted a little more to expose the true agenda of the psychopaths and sociopaths who are leading the charge of war in our name, with our money and despite our apparent collective reluctance illustrated by a recent poll about intervention in Syria, our tacit approval for what is about to take place.
Evidence contrary to the official version continues to grow:
New threat to Israel uncovered and reported by RT
RT sources: Syrian rebels plan chem attack on Israel from Assad-controlled territories: http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/
Take it from whence it comes but at least it gives a balanced report. If this report is true, then it should be fairly clear that the Al Qaida "rebels" had the chemical weapons last month as well. This would also bring Israel and the USA into the conflict immediately. That would mean WW3 and that is exactly what these terrorists want. The question is "Why does Obama insist on aiding Al Qaida?"
Thanks for the links Rebecca. In other news, Suzie is still undecided as she dines with Obama and Biden in the White House.
Is dinner for Suzie at the White House this evening? Last night it was at the Biden residence with other swabs such as Ayotte from NH. She's still firmly undecided as this is one of the most difficult political decisions she has had to make in some time. Much too difficult for us commoners to understand who are not entitled to the "behind the scene" complexities of these type of issues.