Edit Article Title changed today, March 18, 2008, to Remember, You Saw It Here First.
This articel was originally published on February 26, 2008. At that time, there was no allusion to Obama's affiliation with Pastor Wright and his controversial teachings. No matter your opinion, this is an issue that took some time to catch on, but it finally did.
Edit: Title changed from This Is The Reason He Doesn't Salute Our Flag to the above. Last sentence "I maintain that herein is the reason that Obama will not and cannot salute the flag of the United States of America," removed. March 6, 2008
Outside of mainstream Christianity, the Protestant and Catholic denominations, there are three major goups of Christian sects, Fundamentalists, churches like the Assemblies of God, of which Pat Robertson is a member, Evangelicals like the sect of President Bush, and Pentecostals, mostly comprised of former Baptists of the Protestant denomination.
There are other fringe sects such as the Messianic Jews, and probably others of which I'm unaware. Within these sects are also, often, what I will term as sub-sects, a subtle flavor that is distinctive for a particular Church or several Churches within that sect. The Fundamentalists seem to have fewer of these sub-sects. Their features are all basically the same within sub-sects. It can also be viewed as the personality of the sect. An example would be that the Fundamentalists seem to cater more to the family. You'll feel most welcome and comfortable in one of these churches if you are an established family with more than one child with plans to have more children. This is not to say that you'll be ostracized should you not be in that category, but you might not have the sense of belonging that you would otherwise. All of these sects and sub-sects have some type of such personality, at least in my vast experience with them. The one thing they all have in common is a desire to grow and develop. Money is tantamount to the endeavors of all the sects and sub-sects.
The United Church of Christ of which Barack Obama is a member, would fall into the Evangelical category. As its name indicates, its purpose is to evangelize, or spread the Word of God. The Bible, however, is a very complicated book if not understood as it should be, which is really very simple, an all encompassing message of unadulterated love, a pervading and underlying goodness superseding all other interpretation. Since, however, that message is often obscured by its many interpretations, it largely depends upon how the Bible is interpreted as to what kind of message is spread. The Pastor of any of these sects sets the tone from his/her interpretation of the Bible to the congregation, and the Word is disseminated as such.
There are some churches, like Obama's, belonging to the Evangelical sect, that also have a set agenda further categorizing them into that sub-set of the sects that I mentioned above. These might also be more commonly referred to as cults. They are identified by a set of rules or tenets that are exclusive to their evangelism or to whatever base upon which they have been founded. Thanks to Lera, who pointed out this informative link to me yesterday, I am able to provide the link to the Church to which Obama belongs with its tenets listed on its website. (Edit February 27, 2008 This site is inaccessible today, not only from this link, but from a Google search or from the URL in any browser. Very interesting in light of last night's debate.)
I could expound on all of them, but the most important to the point of this article is tenet #4, quoted here with the same capitalizaton as is on the website. "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA." This clearly indicates an uncompromising loyalty and allegiance to Africa. If one has such loyalty, there is no way that he can possess or express his allegiance to any other entity without negotiating a portion of such allegiance to that entity.


Comments: 146
Obama, should be asked these tough questions. He is such a smooth guy I am sure he can handle it.
and his companions are above scrutiny? I don't think so.
I'm not upset, but I do NEED to wonder why someone running for the highest office in this country does not salute the flag of this country. Maybe after this article's ideas get around, he'll get a special dispensation from his Pastor, but I'll know the truth and that's what counts.
Yes, isn't it odd, Katie and Rex? It reminds me of the subtitle of the article preceding this, When It Matters Not What Is Done, But Who's Doing It.
That's right, Mickey. It would have to be very gingerly approached by a White reporter.
How do you know larry? You really do not know. This is your personal opinion. Unless you are part of the church you do not know. Maybe someone in the press should ask Obama. He is a big boy, he can handle it.
"Obama supporters are like heroin addicts. You'll not dissuade them. You can tell them that it will kill them tomorrow, but they'll find a way to go back to it because they just can't help themselves. They like that false euphoria and the feeling that anything is better than their reality."
Get that mouse firmly in place over the one star!
Your referenced comment (to my article) was directed to another's comment, and while it may be fair in his case, surely it doesn't apply to many of "Obama's supporters." I am sceptical of Obama's qualifications myself, in no small part because he has not addessed himsef to serious issues, as at least several candidates (now no longer in the game) have. I am disappointed that he and the other active leading candidates have not.
In regard to your article, which is informative, I ( an American Episcopal "mouse") question the value of judging Obama based on his association with a church that declares its commitment to Africa. That doesn't give me a reason to think he "cannot salute the flag of the United States." I can understand his commitment to their community without accepting every statement
some of their leaders make. Obama supported the cause of the Palestinians for some years, but when he became a candidate , he reversed his position and courted the influential American Jewish lobby. He reasoned that this was a political necessity, as have the all the other candidates who are still active.
If there is a point to add here , I suggest that FDR courted various groups to get elected, but he also included proposals and ideas that ran counter to the most "popular" ones: he left himself an "edge" and the power to claim a mandate to act independently. When he was elected he had the power to act to change policies
Sue, read this:
Sliming Obama
It is going to shock you, and disspell all of the lies being circulated about Senator Obama, for that is all that they are -- lies, political smut, and innuendo, based on one thing and one thing alone -- F-E-A-R, aka FEAR.
Now let me go on record again in saying something that may appear to make me look like a buffoon, but I do not care about appearances, so here it goes:
It shall not work. Period. The END.
Try as they may, these tactics shall not work, and if anything, they shall backfire.
Senator Obama shall win the nomination, and shall go on to win the Presidency.
The best they may hope for is a failed Presidency, but as far as stopping his Presidency? Forget it. It won't happen.
For those of us who love this country, what we should be doing is working TOGETHER to try to fix, repair, mend all that is broken; there is much work to be done, and there are many who would love to see this country fail and fall.
Instead some -- maybe even many -- prefer in-house fighting, tearing down and bickering, and to what purpose?
We need to unite to combat our real enemy: terrorism and terrorists.
A house divided cannot stand. Your next President shall need your help, all of you.
I do not remember who said it, but the words still ring true:
If you are not for me, then you are against me.
Not a problem. Do this. Access it manually. Here:
1. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977267553
and I shall attempt to link it one more time:
2. Sliming Obama
So there! If one link does not work, the other most certainly shall!
IF Obama was some sort of subversive, wouldn't he go to great pains to hide this? He would wear TWO flag lapel pins and salute the flag with both hands! He would be sure to join all the most patriotic sounding organizations. For a fellow who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, surely he would have thought of some of these ways to conceal his REAL identity.
Feel free to delete my comment if you choose. I don't get insulted nor do I care.
Austin made a good point about asking Obama. Of course, many will say, how can we believe him? I try to form my beliefs from checking out different sources. This would be just one source, of course. But it would not be wise to listen to only one side of the story.
Again, feel free to delete me. IDC. I don't care.
Sure, Austin, I never realized all the answered questions there are on the threads of the candidates' articles on Gather, including Obama's. How remiss of me to notice 0!
Oh, yeah, Bruce, Dodd, my favorite senator! Usually I run as far as I can from anything he supports. I live here with the results.
No dah, Joe! Why wouldn't they have all those programs? They are a church, aren't they? There's nothing wrong with a committment to helping the poor and diseased in any continent, in any country, state, or city, or any race, religion or nationality, HOWEVER, "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA" bothers me just a wee bit when the possible future leader of the USA who should have a non- negotiable commitment to the USA belongs to such a congregation with such a tenet and so is obviously already otherwise engaged. Excuse me for my concern.
Katie, as you already know, I NEVER delete comments because I despise the feature. You are, and have been a great connection and friend, and I would not do that to your comment even if I didn't hate the feature.
I haven't looked up the location of that church, Bruce, but I would venture a wild and unsubstantiated guess of the predominant race of its location, not to say that's a bad thing, but it's nice to see a Christian church go beyond the barriers of race to helping all.
Katie, I always respond to your comments, and if I have missed any, it's an oversight. I haven't been on here since about 2:30 this afternoon because I've been working continuously since that time. As you know, I spend lots of hours at the office here, but when I work I work diligently and non-stop for hours, and today was one of those days.
Thanks, Paul. Your comments are always appreciated, whether we agree or not.
Nalita, I haven't looked at the link yet, but I will and let you know what I think.
El homo, I am not singing GWB's praises here either, but that's not the issue. Even if it were, the reason we have people in office that we complain about later is because of lack of due diligence on the part of the electorate. Always willing to listen to or read another viewpoint, but when I've taken the time to substantiate my points, whether you agree or not, please don't expect a response from me in the future if you want to spew off your distaste for someone or something unrelated to the issue while contributing nothing of worth to the thread.
Marilyn, that doesn't surprise me, although I didn't know that before. That school that she started in Africa is right in line with the commitment of her church that Africa comes first. I'm not saying what she did was wrong, but it doesn't benefit anyone here. At least she's not running for President. Thanks so much for that info, because it now validates some other things that I've thought about her in the past.
Joe T., Feb 26, 2008, 11:20pm EST
I'm sorry Sue, I missed you saying "Excuse Me" in the first place. Lol, did you delete your own comment? Lol lol
My UCC lists no tenets, and is the most Bible-oriented church I've ever seen.
No wonder it boasts some 2,000+ members.
You said don't remember who said, "If you're not for me then you're against me." I don't know what it has to do with this, but that was Jesus Christ, Nalita.
In Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, Jefferson and Madison in particular argued for what Jefferson called a "wall of separation" between church and state, as a means of protecting individual liberty in religious belief and practice, guarding the state against sectarian strife, and defending organized religion against the state's encroachment or undue influence."
Obama feels that personal morality and religious beliefs should be injected in public-policy debate but "What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."
It sounds noble, just and forthright and sets the stage for any detractors of any plans he might have in that respect to seem heartless, cruel, bigoted and un-Christian.
To me, it's downright dirty!
" OBAMA: You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
I would bet he and his teachings had a good deal of influence on Oprah starting the girls' school in South Africa but, of course, I don't know that for sure. All reports I've heard or read just say that it was a promise she made to Nelson Mandela. It does go right along with the agenda of the Trinity UCC Church of which she and Obama are members.
in other words,...Some guy told some staffer who told Obama who couldn't even repeat the story accurately. That's the reality, the truth, and the facts.
Liberals are out there going bonkers every day over how stupid Bush is. This Obama interview is just scary. Let's see. Find another one here. He gets it wrong on who ratifies treaties and who consents to them. He says the president doesn't have the authority to abolish treaties. And the president does! Bush abolished the ABM Treaty shortly after taking office because Bush said it's irrelevant. The Soviets are gone. I'm getting rid of this. The liberals went nuts, but they couldn't stop him because the president does have the authority to get rid of treaties. Obama says here that the president does not have the authority to undermine Congress, the Senate here, which ratifies treaties. The Senate doesn't ratify, they consent to them. The president makes treaties, negotiates them, comes up with them. When's the last time you saw Gorbachev meeting with some senator at Reykjavik or anywhere else? Gorbachev met with Reagan, for crying out loud.
...And Obama wants to run this country, I guess write his own laws,..since he doesn't know our laws!!
I'm not really sure on any of what you've just said at all. A lot of this is very legal and it would take some research for me to know the facts. Glad you brought it up, though. I definitely will make a point of looking into it.
Looks like you had a good time with Clarkie boy!
Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praise)
Machapequa?
"Sue, what sort of things might be included in such an agenda?"
You answered as if you didn't really know"
"I have no idea what he has planned, Bruce."
Then later, talking about Oprah, you apparently did seem to know:
"It does go right along with the agenda of the Trinity UCC Church of which she and Obama are members."
If you don't know then you are making some pretty strong assumptions and possibly unfounded accusations. If you do know, why don't you share?
Another Gatherer also wrote about this and also would not venture a guess as to the "agenda" that he referred to.
So they smear and lie and smear and lie and smear and lie all the while Americans die for NO reason in Iraq and the rest of the US goes in the toilet.
You bushies are just plain pathetic.
You asked me what sort of things might be included in that agenda. I don't know. I can speculate, I suppose, but I'm not going to get drawn into that nonsense. I have no idea. Maybe we'll have a new tax that will go to Darfur. Now the nuts can come in and pick up on that one sentence that I didn't even want to write, and have a riot. Make you happy? OK.
I know about what Oprah did because it's already been done and it's a good example, but I'm not Jean Dixon so I don't know what specific plans are in the offing, or if there are any at the present time. What I do know is that if, once again, a person is a member of a church that espouses a non-negotiable commitment to ANYTHING, and if that person is of the character to be true to such a belief system, then that commitment CANNOT be superseded by any other commitment, including a commitment to any other person, place or thing, including his own country, that will take precedence over that most important pledge, in this case the commitment to Africa.
I don't see something dangerous to our nation in building a school in Africa.
My response to your comment which I quoted in bold text above, to which you would like an answer was "Hey, I'm not the one with the name el homo fabuloso."
According to the clock there was a two minute time frame and there were no other comments between your comment and my reply. I don't see any need for any explanation but I'm not going back on my word.
You had, moments before, just told me that I dislike the fact that you didn't fall at my feet and declare me the greatest mind of our time so I replied that I'm not the one with the name "fabulous human." That means that I'm not the one that thinks I'm worthy of such praise, but since you have such a name, you probably do. It was rather sarcastic, I suppose. I hope you 'get it' now.
Now to answer your second comment and question: "Do you have the same concerns over jews and roman catholics?" The issue is not about religion. The issue is about a particular sect that has a member running for the highest office of this country. Michael Bloomberg is not going to run for President, but if he did, unlike Obama, he had no commitments to any continent or country that would interfere in his allegiance to this country. JFK was a Catholic but he also had no other allegiances that would take priority over this country's priority.
If Obama belonged to another church that did not have that commitment to Africa that is not able to be compromised , I would not have a problem with his church either. I do not have any problem with his religion, it's just the particular church to which he belongs that has these odd rules. If you see the post of CA, above, she belongs to the same group of churches that Obama does, but her church has no such rules of any kind, she said.
The boy was just a quiet type. Well, maybe sometimes, in retrospect, he may have been too quiet, but he never caused any trouble and he just faded into the background. How may lives did he take that day along with his own? Why didn't we pay more attention? The signs were there but his actions seemed benign. We should have seen those clues.
Very different scenario, but you get the idea, Bruce.
I don't see something dangerous to our nation in building a school in Africa.
I never said there was something dangerous in that at all. What I did say is that it implies that Oprah, who also belongs to that church, has a very avid interest in Africa. She can give ALL her time and money to Africa and that's her business as long as she doesn't run for the office of President while she still puts another continent's welfare above our country's.
Thank you to all who have commented.
Very different is quite an understatement! This sounds like you are equating Obama with some young kid who open fires in a school. Fearmongering is the only word that comes to mind.
One of the most common human 'frailties' is hindsight. Everyone has some. There's no one I know, including myself, who hasn't said AFTER the fact that there were clues that something was evident before an event took place. The event would not have been so surprising had we paid ATTENTION or been more AWARE of the evidence that preceded it and what its consequences would mean to us. It might be something as innocuous as not taking your umbrella when you glanced toward the sky and saw an ominous cloud before you got into your car upon leaving your house. In your hurry, you didn't wish to go back inside to retrieve your umbrella. You later get caught in the rain and say that you knew it was going to rain, but you ignored it and now you're caught in a downpour without it. You now wish you had heeded your thought when you saw the cloud. Now please don't accuse me of likening Obama to an ominous cloud or a downpour of rain. This is merely a metaphor, just as was my last example. (which we have forgotten)
Obama, at this point in time, doesn't have a lot of political backgound so we have much less upon which we can evaluate his actions than we do of the other candidates. We're just really learning about him now. I am merely pointing out things that I think MAY BE significant to his nature. I hope I'm not right, but all evidence from what I know and have experienced, about churches and the people who follow their leaders, points to the fact that I cannot dismiss the point I've made in this article and I'm not going to quote that quote again.
As I said, I am not asking you to agree, nor change your mind. I am merely asking that you OPEN your mind to legitimate possibilities that you may not have thought of before. If we had evidence of his actions that would prove that he is not going to put his Presidential duties beneath his allegiance to anything else, that would be fine, but I don't know of any. Do you? Besides asking that you open your mind, I also ask that you don't totally dismiss my point without EVIDENCE to the contrary. No fear, just a healthy vigilance...
So may others would refuse to keep an open mind. I'm looking for people just like you who have a different opinion from mine. It's always nice to hear when someone agrees and validates your points, but without someone like you who can, or is at least willing to offer a legitmate and reasonable perspective that is different, it doesn't afford me an opportunity to learn anything or to expand my knowledge and mindset.
So...thanks again.
No, I don't see that Obama's association with the African church indicates any commitment to some of its beliefs. I don't even think he supports their generally positive concerns and interests. Obama is a calculating politician. Was it an indication of commitment when he went to Connecticut to campaign for Sen. Lieberman?
Obama's rhetoric and speeches appeal, yet his record has consistently shown he is no supporter of 'change. 'He has supported the wealthy and politically powerful interests since he has been a US Senator. This article by a San Francisco liberal commentator examines his record:
http://quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/nucleus/plugins/print/print.php?itemid=5413
"generally positive concerns and interests" however. I will have to say at this point it is just my opinion as I am not offering any support of that. *smile* I will likely endeavor to do that in the future.
Then, of course, the arguments mount against this candidate. He or she is defended and then you become even more committed to the candidate. In today's world, it seems like if you give an inch, someone takes advantage of it. If you admit a mistake or a weakness, you are never forgiven, no quarter is given. The "other side" does not likewise admit a weakness or mistake and thus bring about more open, honest discussion. So the penalty for being "open" is greater than the penalty for fighting for your candidate.
We justify this by admitting that our candidate has flaws but in the end will be better for the country than the other. The end justifies the mean.
I know I am rambling. I am just trying to give back to Sue a little of my thoughts how how I process things as she is open with how she forms her opinions.
I will continually look for reasonable people like you to give me evidence of justifying that there is hope, as my concern remains that there are those who will take advantage of the knowledge that people are desperately seeking such while only offering rhetoric that appears to suffice.
My own belief is that to embrace ANY organized religion is most fowl--and will be the ultimate end to us all.
This is one of those times I hope I am mistaken.
On my comment: the segment bellow came after a short discussion on one rational objection about Obama that I read during my short times at gather.
{But most of the articles and comments that I found on gather describing misgivings of the Senator was completely irrational.
This is the first election that I have followed with this much enthusiasm. And it is mostly due to Obama. I find the prospect of an Obama presidency very appealing. I think the symbolic message alone will do great deal of good for the country. Yet, I am willing to stop and try to make sure that my final judgment is governed by reason.
On gathers, I was looking for a medium that allows for sound exchange of ideas about the candidates, especially the candidate of my choice, Obama. It is really discouraging when all you find is unfounded arguments by people seemingly not willing to consider any other prospective.
I will continue to look for reasonable discussions. Sue, the one who left the comment above, seem to at least claim that her opinions are formed based on reason [and facts], so I will go check out her article.}
I must say I was disappointed.
Ok where should I start -- how about the title -- "This Is The Reason [Obama] Doesn't Salute Our Flag"
He does SALUTE the flag!!!
Since the rest of your article is explaining the why, it is no longer relevant; It is just as valid is as an article explianing why gravity only acts on yellow objects. In one sentence your whole argument just evaporates.
This is the information age; facts are just a click away.
Here is a link showing Obama saluting the flag with hands squarely placed on his heart.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710240006?f=h_latest
Sue, you know what is funny, there was one incident where Obama did not place his hands on his heart, and you wrote a whole article speculating why. You know what Obama spokesman said when asked why Obama did not place his hand on his heart-- "[no particular reason] sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't".
That put Obama in the same category as many Americans; any speculation that suggest beyond that is outright misrepresentation.
>for sure anymore whether it's real or it isn't.
No Sue! An appropriate response would be to make a note of the pictures in your original article. And an even more appropriate response would be for you to change the title all together.
Why did you not question the images showing him not placing his hand on his heart? Is it because it suited your predisposition? The picture is the best evidence I can present you; if you are going to question that, then there is no hope in convincing you.
You know the link I gave you also shows Bush, on one occasion, not placing his hand on his heart during the pledge, yet nobody speculated why. You did not write article titled "This Is The Reason [Bush] Doesn't Salute Our Flag" an I don't think you will.
I think this is unfair. Sue please reread the last two paragraphs of my previous comment.
>I still don't like the Farrakhan connection to the Pastor who has led Obama's spiritual life for >so many years. It has to influence his thinking
You know what, I had the same concern too, so I researched. One Idea in particular that concerned me was, if Obama harbors anti Israel sentiments. When I checked his willingness to continue to treat Israel as a friend of the US, he passed with flying Colors.
I have yet not found a reason to lead me to believe that Obama was negatively influenced by his pastor. I don't think you did neither.
I will continue to do more research. The most important thing is the willingness to look at the issue from all possible modes OBJECTIVELY.
There's no doubt that his voting record is pretty much on par with other Senators on Israeli issues. Once again, I look to the people with whom a candidate associates, because a President chooses a cabinet and the people comprising such are not going to be much different, and may even be some of the same as the ones with whom he is and has been associated throughout his career.
You might not find it important that he gets his spiritual leadership from a man who gets his advisement from someone who is not only anti-Semitic, but anti gay and anti-White. I'm sorry, but that bothers me. (of course, there are things called lies and deceit that bother me too, but one thing I've learned on Gather is that lies and deceit are OK as long as the person you like is doing them) That doesn't work for me though. If it works for you, that's fine, but don't put me down just because it doesn't suit my taste to like someone and approve of what they do because you like them rather than to like them because you approve of what they do.
There are others with whom he has associated that are also of concern to me. I won't go into Tony Rezko here because that's a different issue for a different day, but let's stick to the anti-Israel theme now, since that seems to be the one that's gotten you snagged.
There's also some concern that his association with Brzezinski, Obama's foreign policy advisor and creator of the Trilateral Commission who advocates conciliatory talks with Hamas, may belie some of Obama's future dealings in the area of foreign policy. I think he endorsed Obama because he feels that Obama can be more easily persuaded and influenced by him. Obama is very left wing and Brzezinski will have no problem, under Obama's leadership, to weaken the US further to the point of realizing the one world order he endorses.
What are you taking about Sue?
"There's also some concern that his association with Brzezinski, Obama's foreign policy advisor"
Wrong!!!
Obama already have said He is not among his advisors.
I was going to look for a credible source to collaborate this info, but what is the use, you may say it is a misprint.
I can't help the strange feeling that in a dialog with you, I would be at a disadvantage, because my argument is constrained by facts, while yours, well……...
You said, "What are you taking about Sue?"
For one thing, in the case of the Obama, (that is about whom we're speaking now, I think) I find it deceptive that he used his opposition to NAFTA and his support of the same to his advantage depending upon the group he was addressing. I don't know how that sits with you, but it certainly reeks of deception to me, so in answer to your question, I suppose this is something you dismiss because you like him, while I see it as a reprehensible act that is equally as reprehensible no matter the perpetrator.
So now we get to the FACTS. You use the excuse to say that I won't believe your source not to have to prove that as you said, "Wrong!!!Obama already have [sic] said He is not among his advisors. I accept credible sources, but don't take me to a blog or a slanted site like the Huffington Post to prove it either. If you can provide a source that is within reason, I'll accept it. To be very honest, I've seen sources that corroborate both of our views on this. One fact is that Brzezinski has ENDORSED Obama, and that's for sure. No matter how much Obama may try to disassociate himself from the Farrakhans and Brzezinskis that have endorsed him, one must ask why these types choose to endorse him. I certainly know I wouldn't endorse someone with views and interests counter to my own.
I go to B&N every couple of weeks to take a look at books I won't buy and read parts of them while there. I happened to take a look at Obama's autobiography. In this book, he expresses his admiration for Malcolm X. On page 80 of Dreams From My Father he states, "Malcolm's discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation."
A statement like that is certainly an example of what would prove to me why Louis Farrakhan, whose main objective is to promote Islam worldwide, endorsed him. I'm sure there are also plenty of other reasons the good Reverend could cite if asked why he supports Obama. Obama can kick and scream all he wants to disassociate, but to copy your style, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, well...
On Mar 4, 2008, 7:10pm EST you wrote:
I said, "(of course, there a