Comment

Comment by Marni E. Goldberg on August 13, 2012 at 7:27pm

Lacey, I'm familiar with Brian White's work. He is a true role model in the black community. And while both Michael and Kelly make valid points on their list of issues, your passion for free speech is refreshing.

Comment by Zane Whitman on August 13, 2012 at 4:47pm

Been following this debate and came across a video that's pretty funny. Thought I'd share it. It's not that Obama is or isn't un-American, it's that he isn't solving our nation's problems. It's that simple. Nothing personal. We expect our leaders to lead. When they fail, we blame them.

The Obama That I Used To Know (Parody)

Comment by Michael Clauw on August 10, 2012 at 5:54pm

I think the President of the United States always has been and always will be Pro-America. Just because a President lacks success when dealing with certain issues, doesn't mean they don't have the best interests of the nation in mind. Regardless of their political views, I think Obama loves our country just as much as Bush, Reagan, Clinton, or even Washington. Although they have differing ideas of how to accomplish this, all those who seek this Office do so because they want to help fix some of the problems they see in front of them. But because there will always be those who hold directly opposing opinions to those of the President, he may do something he sees as helping the country, while others think he is making it worse.

This means that Presidential action will always go against someone's view of how America should be. The whole point of this article is that, yes, Presidents will always seem like they are against the interests of someone. Politics are a game of priorities.

Obama might seem un-American to Republicans because they think he is against small businesses and freedom by passing Obamacare. But from his prospective he loves his country and wants to make sure as many of its citizens as possible have access to healthcare.

Bush might seem un-American to Democrats and Libertarians because they see the Patriot Act as our government taking away their freedoms so that their job can be easier. But to him, I'm sure he loves his country but responded to the tragedy of 9/11 by prioritizing safety and security over certain individual liberties.

Many people look at these powerful politicians that have completely different priorities than they do and they stop thinking of them as people with good intentions and view them more as the personification of opposition. 

And I don't think that the government was out to get us before, during, or after Bush. I wholeheartedly believe that both Bush and Obama, despite radically different policy ideas in certain areas, loved their country the same. They've both enacted a lot of policy that was directly opposed to the interests of certain people, but because of the necessity to prioritize, this will always happen.

And I also don't think this has anything to do with free speech. People are welcome to call people with opposing political beliefs un-American all they want. People can also call people with opposing religious beliefs un-American. They can call people of other skin colors un-America. I just think that people should recognize these things as closed-minded. The point I am trying to make in all this is that the term "un-American" should not be part of healthy political discourse. If you don't like a policy call it ineffective, unfair, wasteful, dangerous, costly or any other descriptor that identifies a tangible problem. Using the term un-American implies sinister intent behind a politicians thinking without any evidence of it existing.

Despite their powerful positions, politicians are people too. They are people with families who they love, and want the best for. Just like us they have dreams, desires, insecurities, doubt, happiness, and sadness. We often think of our government as a big looming entity; a "big brother" if you will. But our government is us. It's a collection of people and opinions, decided by democracy, meant to represent the current interests of our citizens as best as possible. Sure, often times politicians do things out of self-motivation. The possible negative impact of lobbying and campaigning cannot be denied, but I believe at the core of most politician's motivation to go to work everyday is the desire to enact what they believe is positive change.

Comment by Lacey Jones on August 10, 2012 at 7:36am

Yo why haven't I been addressed!? You two boys can argue all day long, but the questions still stands - is this a freedom of speech issue? Or is our President really Pro-America? Because seriously, I haven't seen much be done for the Black community and I'm not gunna lie, some of us are pissed! Have you ever heard of the site or book Black Carpenter? Now that is CHANGE. Brian White is the man! And he's not even President - which goes to show ... is Government really that in favor of the people? 

And question to you Michael, you said "I don't think the government is out to get us." Is that before or after the Bush era? 

Comment by Michael Clauw on August 8, 2012 at 2:27pm

Alright, I'll make my responses relatively quick, but keep in mind the point of the original article, and the fact that you said Obama was un-American. That was the point I was arguing against.

NDAA - A pretty much agree. Obviously, there are reasons for this clause - in a war on terror where enemies are not defined by borders, terrorists could very well be American citizens. But, yes, a clause authorizing the the indefinite detention of U.S citizens IS unconstitutional. I see it as an unfortunate reflection of post 9/11 panic, and was simply arguing against your claim that this somehow makes Obama un-American as opposed to any other President.

Communication Control - Kelly, we are never going to agree on this because we have two fundamentally different world views. What I've taken from debating with you is that you expect the worst/ most sinister intentions out of our government. You see an increase in governmental power and assume it will be used against the people rather than protect us. And no, this is not at all the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA at all. If SOPA were passed, there would have been real, tangible affects on people's lives. Many sites on the internet would be regulated, sites would be taken down, and many more would be forced to take down or edit their content or else face criminal charges. Communication control does not have active tangible affects. It was put into place just in case it ever needs to be used. You have absolutely no evidence that it is more than this. The only affects it has are on your mind. You think that the government will use it to spy on you or control you, but this is pure cynicism. Yes, Kelly, I usually take things at face value. I examine the facts, and I don't let fear or irrational cynicism let me think its something more than it is. I don't think the government is out to get us. And for that reason, like I said, we will never agree on this issue.

Fast & Furious - Ok, I agree with you that the President needs to accept some degree of responsibility for what happens in the federal government. But for you to say that he, or you, or any other President could have predicted these events to unfold purely by examining the character of Eric Holder is just foolish. Fine, maybe you could say that Obama lacks foresight. But to say that Fast and Furious is an example of how Barack Obama is "un-American" is just nonsense.

War in Syria - The article you posted makes some valid points. And I think that there are valid reasons to be concerned. I was just vehemently disagreeing with the language you used asserting that we were in a "war".

And now back to his name. Kelly, you know exactly what you did, I don't know why you are trying to cover it up so much. There is nothing wrong with Obama's middle name, and there is nothing wrong with anyone's middle name. People just don't use them. You contest this point by saying that people often said George W. Bush, but you are completely missing the point as to why. People didn't say the "W" simply because they like saying George Bush's middle name. They did it to distinguish between the other George Bush that was our President eight years earlier... People say George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush to avoid confusion, not because they liked saying it. If we already had a President named Barack Obama, then it would make sense to use his middle name to distinguish. 

How often do you say people's full names in everyday life? I don't know you, but if you are like most people, I'm going to guess basically never, unless intentional. I wasn't saying that there is anything wrong with using a middle name, I was making the point that because it is so rare to do so, people need to make a special point to do it.

And you made a special point to do so in this case because Hussein is a name that people associate with the middle-east or Muslim nations.

So in a sense, you made the extra effort to add in his middle name so to help you point that Obama is somehow Muslim. I don't think there is any denying this is what you did.

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood, I think this is an issue that is much too two-sided to debate over the internet, and I'm quite frankly tired of doing so. I respect the opinions of your girlfriend's family and your friend, and I more than understand how she feels that way about the Brotherhood. Christians in Lebanon were treated horribly by Islamist groups in Lebanon, there is no denying this. Different groups and religions have been oppressing and killing eachother in horrible ways for the past 30 years, ever since the rise of radical political Islam in the 70's. I am not denying any violence committed by members of any group including members of the Brotherhood.

Here is how I feel about conflicts such as this: the facts that make people form opinions about things are not biased. But usually the opinions that are formed are biased.

Let me explain. When any two countries are at war, there are usually acts of violence committed by both sides that the other side consider's an atrocity. There is usually a reason that violent acts are committed. When an act of violence is committed, usually only one side feels it. Look at the Israel Palestinian conflict. Both sides are incredibly polarized because for years they have had to deal with the death and suffering of their countrymen, and have been raised to have the political opinion that their country holds. This is how it is with everyone. I'm not saying that anything experienced or witnessed by the people you know is false in any way. The things they experienced are very real and shaped the way they feel in a very real way, as they should. I'm saying that there is probably an identical family who lived in Syria rather than Lebanon that went through similar things and feels a completely different way because of their experience and their differing home countries.

Often times the people closest to wars are the ones most polarized by it. Again, please don't take this to mean that any opinions held by the people you know are somehow invalid - in a way they are much more valid than people far from the events, like myself. They have experienced it up close, and I have not. But with that closeness comes the opportunity for bias. Thats all I'm saying.

I completely disagree with your dismissal of academic sources because they are somehow biased, and it is very cynical of you to label them as such. I know this sounds snooty, but the Political Science department at UofM is regarded as one of the top 5 in the United States, and the professors who make up its faculty have researched these issues for decades to develop their classes and opinions. I've studied under several experts in Middle-Eastern affairs and Political Islam, and although it is fine that you disagree what they or I may say, for you to say that academia by nature is biased is incredibly arrogant. Unlike people on the Internet, these professors cannot just make claims and post occasional links. They constantly publish research and writings that are extensively criticized by their peers and the public. They are the opposite of biased. Have you ever spoken to professors like this, or taken classes? What gives you the right to call them biased?

Kelly, what evidence do you have to make the claims you make about the Dream Act. Is it just a feeling? A guess? An extension of how you think economics work?

Well, whatever it is, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees. They estimated that the Dream Act would actually have positive affects of the United States economy. This is because it is creating college educated citizens who will pay taxes, shop in our stores and contribute to our economy. Their report on the Dream Act says that, if passed, it would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion dollars over the next 10 years due to an increase in the revenue pool. After that though, there will in fact be an increase in government spending, but here is why. Currently, many illegal immigrants contribute to payroll taxes, but obviously will never receive the money back in the form of Social Security and Medicare, because they are not citizens. But if they choose citizenship after college, they will be eligible for those benefits if they continue to pay taxes. So there is an estimated increase of anywhere from $5-$20 billion per year from 2021-2061, but in that 40 year period another study estimated that those new citizens would contribute between $1.4-$3.6 trillion in taxes. So, doing a little math here, even if we take the high end of the potential cost over 40 years ($20 billion per year x 40 years = $800 billion), it is still less than the lowest estimate of it's benefit over 40 years ($1.4 trillion). According to these numbers, the worst case scenario is that the Dream Act only erases $600 billion from our deficit over 40 years.

Here is the CBO Report: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11...

And the outside study: http://naid.ucla.edu/uploads/4/2/1/9/4219226/no_dreamers_left_behin...

But hey, one of them is from a government agency, and the other is an academic source, so they are probably just made up, right?

Comment by Kelly Wade on August 8, 2012 at 10:32am

Here comes another book... lol I just have to laugh at how extensive this is getting. Just a note, Michael, this is not offensive, just trying to reason...

NDAA - this just furthers the issue of the Patriot Act which should have been revoked a long time ago, instead this one was signed in and under the shadow of the SOPA fiasco which scared every American so much so it was pulled off the Senate floor - almost as if to create a diversion to slip this NDAA through. And Michael, I’m sorry, but for the House to intentionally add in citizens, makes this a much bigger threat than it has been in the past. Regardless of how you feel, it sets up the country to be at the mercy of what the government poses as a “National Threat.” Don’t you find it strange that FEMA camps are in place for this? I’m not saying this is an Obama problem, this is a government problem. FEMA camps, which have been built throughout the country for the last 20 years (stemming out of the George Herbert Walker Bush days) have what appear to be 3 person deep biodegradable coffins. 

VIDEO -

Communication Control - I can’t believe you would be so nonchalant about this. This is the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA and yet nobody has a problem with it. I understand everything is under the guise of “National Security” but come on WAKE UP! Why do you take everything for face value? Nothing is ever what it seems. 

Fast & Furious - I never said the President signed anything about this ... but having the wrong people in place is part of his problem. When the President is in charge when this takes place, and he appoints people, like Eric Holder, then yes, the President has some responsibly for it. I believe this was another ploy to question the 2nd amendment. 

War in Syria - This was the source I had used to gather my previous opinion. http://mathaba.net/news/?x=630942

There is something un-telling about this situation. The mainstream media is saying that we have yet to intervene and that the rebels themselves are angered by the lack of US involvement, but it doesn’t make sense with the quotes from the Mathaba source.  

I understand that as a country we proclaim values of freedom and want the same for the rest of the world. And I don’t believe Assad is the answer. Regimes in general are not good, but this is only the beginning of a war to come. We have CIA operatives in Turkey who are supposedly coordinating outside military supplies and training.

I don’t know who to believe on this matter. Regardless, I’m against war all together. And I know the layers of men behind the curtain is always way too deep to ever be revealed. 

About saying BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

I really don’t understand why it is a problem to use his full name. Why should we be discouraged from saying it? It is his name right? Am I missing something? Oh that’s right, it’s only used in official ceremonies or when tying him to Islamist beliefs. What a joke Michael. No one ever had a problem calling George W. Bush - G.W. 

What is the country hiding from if shame comes to those who use his full name? I will never apologize or feel shame for using the name of our President. I think it’s a shame you don’t. And I wonder how the President himself would feel if we asked him if it was okay or not to say his name? I mean that’s how stupid this name argument is. I give you permission to use my full name - Kelly James Wade. 

In regards to the Brotherhood, I think you are the one who is extremely misguided, and I really would truly like to see where you are gathering your facts. Seriously, because if I'm missing something or am misinformed, then I want to know. 

My girlfriend is from Lebanon. Her father was a professor at the University of Cairo in the 60s and moved the family to Lebanon in the early 70s. I think I have a lot more first-hand knowledge on the subject than most. She turned me onto a woman named Brigitte Gabriel, who was also from Lebanon and underwent the horrors of the Syrian Muslim takeover. However, Brigitte is a Christian and therefore had a slightly different experience.

You should listen to her story and then determine if these facts are biased. 

STORY/INTERVIEW 

And as far as the timeline, I agree I should have done more research, but these are not inaccurate facts. These things did take place. And the Muslim Brotherhood is a scary entity in the MidEast. I don’t know how you can think they are for freedom without speaking to the people over there who are really affected by their power. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken over Gaza, Libya, Egypt, and soon to be Syria. What happened in Egypt last year was almost like Occupy. The young people were inspired to reject the Mubarak regime and cry for freedom. This opened up a pathway for the Brotherhood, who had political experience and money to step into power. The young people didn’t stand a chance. For you to think the young people were in favor of the Brotherhood is simply wrong. They tried to run against them and lost big time. Like I said, they didn’t have the money nor experience to even make a dent. 

What you fail to recognize in the timeline is although Obama might not have ousted Mubarak (whom no one supported - I’ll stand behind that) Obama did give $1.5 billion in federal aid to Egypt which was in turn used as Brotherhood campaign money. Regardless of the intentions behind the money from Obama (hopefully they were good) it still ended up being what put the Brotherhood in power. And it is a fact that Morsi will visit the White House in September. 

My girlfriend and her family don’t trust the Brotherhood and they are all of Muslim faith backgrounds. My girlfriend herself, who does not take her practice to an extreme, has a Quran. What they don’t support is the Sharia Law. Luckily for her and her mom, her father loves them so much that he would bring them to this country, and recognizes the strength and intellect of women.

You are taking everything you read for face value Michael, and that is a dangerous position. You had me up until you said your knowledge came from Academic sources - one of the biggest biases. 

A little about who I am because you’ve retorted with such animosity. I was born and raised in San Francisco - one of the most liberal cities in the world. I come from a very liberal family, and most of my social infrastructure voted for Obama in 2008. When I say America believed Obama was a true American, I don’t believe I was wrong in saying that. A lot of people I knew truly liked him because of his policies and a lot like him because he was black and they wanted to be apart of history. No joke. Some didn’t even know his middle name was Hussein - not that that is a problem, but you seem to think it's shameful to say it.   

As for the Dream Act, I should have said WILL allow. Because that is exactly what will happen. I’m not against amnesty, I’m just for the betterment of our citizens who are hurting as a result of unemployment. We will find out what will happen on Aug 15 when the US Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting applications for special immigration statuses. 1.3 million illegal immigrants under the age of 31 will be eligible for the policy. 

I’m not against those that were brought here as babies and are now facing the issue of being deported to a foreign country in their eyes. Believe me, I have friends that are in this situation and no I don’t want them being sent away. But I also don’t think it’s fair that they stand a better chance of being accepted to college just because they are under this provision. I know first generation Chinese people who worked their asses off to get into a good school and some have a hard time because of the acceptance rates. How do they measure with something like this? They’re parents came here legally - went through the system - put in their time to become a legal citizen. What does this say to them? 

I don’t want anyone deported unless they are causing harm to citizens in this country, but I think there needs to be a better alternative during our current economic state. 

Comment by Michael Clauw on August 6, 2012 at 6:54pm

Alright Kelly, I’m just going to jump right into it. Before addressing the whole Obama siding with Muslims part of your argument, I’ll go through a couple of things that you think make our President un-American

1. NDAA – By NDAA I’m assuming you mean the clause in the 2012 version that specifies the President’s powers to detain indefinitely, even those who are U.S. citizens.  While this year’s NDAA was in fact signed by Obama (because it must be signed by the president every year), just like any bill it was drafted, edited, and passed by members Congress. And most importantly, the bill did not in fact give the president those powers to detain, as many interpreted. The President was in fact given those powers 10 years ago shortly after 9/11. Back then, most Americans were more interested fighting back against terrorism than their individual liberties, so the law was passed without much complaint. This version of the NDAA simply reaffirmed Congress’ approval of that previous law signed by Bush ten years ago. Read for yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-iss...
2. Communication Control – I believe you are referring to the Executive Order that allows him to seize control of communications in times of crisis or when necessary for national security. You know what, fine. If you are cynical enough to believe that the President issued this order to somehow use our own country’s communication system against us or spy on us, then you go right ahead. I’m probably not going to be able to convince you that this was not done because of sinister intentions, but rather to bolster our national security against cyber attacks, so I won’t try.
3. Fast & Furious – Fast & Furious was a really shitty and stupid thing for our government to do. But you kind of just incorrectly threw it into a list to try to prove a point. Obama didn’t “sign” Fast & Furious. It was an operation authorized by someone below Eric Holder, who was appointed by Obama. There was no signing, no authorizing by Obama; just appointing a guy who appointed a guy who authorized it. And it was a continuation of gun-walking programs first authorized by Bush during Operation Wide Receiver in 2006. So there’s that.
4. Now a war in Syria – What?!? Come on, this is just blatantly false. This isn’t even subjectively false, it’s just factually wrong. What you are referring to is the recent news that Obama secretly authorized the CIA or other federal agencies to provide assistance to the rebels in Syria fighting against Assad’s army. Specifically, non-lethal supplies. What was authorized was the use of $25 million to supply rebels with vital non-lethal equipment such advanced radios. We are not in a “war in Syria”. Sure, we took sides, but we take sides in nearly conflict that has happened in the history of the world. Radios. We’re giving them radios. Stop making stuff up. 

And now for the meat and potatoes of your argument.

First off, shame on you for trying to bold and display our President’s full name as if it matters. The only time people say “Barack Hussein Obama” is either during an official ceremony, or when they are trying to use his middle name to ignorantly argue that he is Muslim or somehow un-American. Feel free to deny that this is what you were doing, but I’m pretty sure no one would feel the need to include the middle names of and bold “William Jefferson Clinton” or “George Herbert Walker Bush” if it were them you were trying to compare to Muslims.

Second of all, double shame on you for having the audacity to imply that Obama’s background and ethnicity made him seem more American and was therefore more liked. The country absolutely did not say, “WOW, this guy is SO American,” but rather tried to de-legitimize him as an American because of his race, background, and culture in any way they could.  They demanded to see a long form birth certificate, and after he showed it still to this day many refuse to believe he was born in this country.  Seventeen percent of our country believes he is Muslim, despite his clearly stated Christian beliefs (not that it should matter). And even when people do acknowledge his chosen religion, they spend it calling his church pastor anti-American.

I don’t know where you got your education on the Muslim Brotherhood, but what you are saying is extremely misguided. The timeline that you posted is incredibly biased and full of opinions. You say it’s from the Canadian Free Press, but it was actually reposted there from an ongoing column called “The Obama Record” in Investor’s Business Daily. Every single article in “The Obama Record” is written in an attempt to destroy the president’s image and reputation and has an extreme Conservative bias. It’s actually one of the most biased and inaccurate collection of articles I’ve ever read and that’s saying something. Of the 20 articles in the series, here are some gems:

“Obama Embraces The Islamist Enemy Within”

“The Tragic Illusion Of Obama’s Fine Mind”

“Is President Obama A Pathological Liar?”

“Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close to Totalitarianism”

“How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners”

“How Obama Shares His ‘Anti-Anglo’ Father’s Dreams”

“ObamaCare Vs. LeninCare: U.S. Copies Soviets”

And the one with your timeline in it

“How Obama Engineered Mideast Raicalization”

And the list goes on and on.  You can read them here to get an idea of where you are getting your information:

http://news.investors.com/specialreport/608610/201204201703/the-oba...

I took the time to read through some of the others. At best, they are extremely biased, at worst, sensationalized filth.

One thing you are correct about though is that the slogan you found is still the original credo of the Brotherhood. This credo began being said by members of the Muslim Brotherhood soon after its creation by founder Hasan al-Banna in the late 1920’s. Hassan al-Banna, an Eygptian who very much hated the United States and West, and very much fit the description of the Brotherhood that you have tried to paint. He wanted a Caliphate, just like you said, and he wanted to destroy our culture. He died in 1949, and the Brotherhood has changed very much since then.

Yes, the traditional credo still stands. I’m sure that some members still stand true to the original intentions of the group, but those people lie on the fringes, not in power. This slogan does not reflect the reality of the Brotherhood today. While branches of the Muslim Brotherhood exist in scores of countries, I’ll focus on their activity in Egypt, as it is the country in which they currently hold the most political power.

Now I’ll get to why the timeline is incredibly biased.

After reading the original article, it was clear that the point the author intended to make was that Obama sided with Islamists over Secularists. He says that we didn’t support Hosni Muburak when his power was in question, but instead supported the Muslim Brotherhood when they came to power. But to support this idea you either have to have an extremely short memory, or be against the principles of freedom and democracy that Kelly seems so passionate about.

Hosni Mubarak was not ousted because Obama was ignoring him and siding with the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact he wasn’t even ousted by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian Revolution in 2011 was a bottom-up protest that started with the people, not a shady group of Islamists. It was started by people who were tired of Muburak’s 30-year dictatorial reign. It was about self-determination, democracy, and freedom, not jihad as you would like to think.

The re-emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood came a little more than a month after Mubarak was ousted, when members of the Brotherhood created the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) to contest the upcoming free and fair elections. And that’s what they did. The FJP campaigned on a platform of social justice and freedom, imbued with moderate Islamism. Although they never hid their Islamic base, they made it clear that they were for protecting all people’s rights, and although they would implement some elements of Sharia, their leaders and modern and moderate, and do not plan on implement anything close to what is seen in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The FJP managed to do so well in the elections because most considered them the most genuine party that had the true interests of the people in mind (it also helped that an estimated 90% of the country is Muslim). For years the Muslim Brotherhood was there to provide social services (very similar those provide by Christian churches in America), and hence became popular amongst the people. The elections were not the result of some anti-American dubious plot, but instead displayed the will of the people. Your timeline implies that we should have kept Muburak and prevented the Muslim Brotherhood’s party from taking power. But to do that would mean supporting a dictator in the time of a democratic awakening. It would mean turning our back on the will of the Egyptian people and backing an oppressive ruling regime simply because it is more secular. Is that what your idea of America would do?

In your timeline it says that the Muslim Brotherhood stole the election, but that is completely unfounded and based on extremely mixed reports. I was actually curious about that when I read it because I had never heard such accusations so I did some research. Those accusations were made by rival candidate Ahmed Shafik, a former member of Mubarak’s Regime who was supported by many of the nation’s Coptic Christians in the elections. Both Shafik’s party and the FJP made accusations of fraud and intimidation against each other. In fact, many of the accusations against Shafik’s party were more credible than those made against the FJP. The author of the timeline ignores these facts and fabricates unfounded claims just to make Obama seem anti-Christian.

I don’t have the time and energy to explain the bias in every one of the 23 statements about the Muslim Brotherhood and FJP that you copy-pasted, but I will advise doing further research into who they are before labeling them enemies of our country. You can go read the FJP’s platform and their position on issues in their own words. I advise everyone following these posts to do so at the link below.

http://www.fjponline.com/articles.php?pid=70

I know in this situation on Internet comment sections, its really just my word against yours, but I encourage everyone to check the truth of these claims before accepting or denying them. I’ve extensively studied the rise of Political Islam academically, and would be happy to back up any of the claims I’ve made with academic sources if you’d like. I don’t say anything I’m not prepared to back-up

I was going to end it there, but you haaaaaaad to say this:

“The DREAM ACT has allowed millions of illegal immigrant student to clog our college systems while our own citizen students are being buried with debt and not able to find work to pay it off.” 

Well for one, the DREAM Act has absolutely not done what you said… Because it isn’t even a law yet. Last time I checked, bills that have not yet become laws do not affect the economy. Even though the first version of the bill was introduced in 2001 (keyword here is introduced), no version of the bill has ever cleared both houses of Congress. California passed their own version of the Dream Act, but that was their decision and it has nothing to do with the President or federal government. I have no idea how you came up with this idea.

I appreciate comments on my blog posts and enjoy getting feedback. But not when they are based in half-truths and some objective falsehoods, like in the case of the DREAM Act. I’d appreciate if the next time you want to make a response like that, to first do some background research so I don’t have to spend my time doing it for you.

Comment by Lacey Jones on August 6, 2012 at 9:13am

Whoa Kelly you wrote a frickin book! I never knew about that timeline. Kind of changes my opinion as to what I was going to say...

But Michael, I half agree with you now. I like your last statement - 

To be good Americans we must support and respect each other. We must encourage each other and hope for one another’s success, no matter how we attempt to achieve our goals, lest we be bitterly divided.

I wish this were the case, and in a utopian society it would be. However, that is not the world we live in. I think the greater issue here is freedom of speech. When did everything have to become so politically correct? A good friend once said "Political correctness is just an anti-free speech movement."

No one should be criticized for saying what they feel. I'm surprised you left the conversation. If you didn't agree with what she was saying, perhaps she was ill-informed and needed factual evidence to prove her otherwise. But to say that calling someone Un-American is anti-intellectual and a way of putting someone down, well there has to be reason for it. Why is she saying those things?

Digging deeper for an answer can sometimes prove to that person that they can't justify their opinion. But you may be allowing the ignorance to fester if you don't speak up and have an INTELLECTUAL debate. Whether it's you who is the intellectual simply informing the ignorant or vice versa. 

You also mention that this is a rejection of change. -- I'll be honest, I voted for the President because I believed he could change our government and abolish our corrupt political system, but the past four years has proven me wrong. I'm so saddened and disappointed by his term in office. There has been NO CHANGE for the good, from where I look now, it seems to only be bad. This next election is an important one and sadly I don't feel motivated to vote. 

Comment by Kelly Wade on August 5, 2012 at 12:08pm

Dude. The question of Un-American needs to be defined and evaluated a little bit. What does it mean to be Un-American?

Regardless of differences in opinions (which has always been present in this country) there are forces that are trying to tear down the country from the inside out, and that is the basis of this conversation.

To be un-American simply means to be against the freedoms this country stands for. Millions of foreigners have traveled here over the last 200 years to seek out precisely those freedoms and opportunities that have not existed anywhere else. During the Red Scare, Americans were in fear of Communists would turn  into a Communist state. Today, Americans fear "terrorists" or "jihadists" who are against the western world and want to spread a global Caliphate. So there really is no difference between being Un-American or being Anti-American. 

Let's look at the subject here - President Barack Hussein Obama.

Now, on the onset of this man's emergence, the country thought "WOW, this guy is SO American. He's a black man who understands the plight of the American people." Here in Hawaii, people are still flipping out about this guy. But I'd like to unveil a timeline that speaks otherwise of his Anti-American values. Beside all of the hypocritical and damaging policies that have been signed by him, i.e. NDAA, Communication Control, Fast & Furious, now a war in Syria, etc. I would like you to analyze the relationship between our President and the Muslim Brotherhood, whose motto by the way is "The Quran is our Constitution, jihad is our way, and death for Allah is our highest hope." (look it up if you don't believe me) 

Check out this timeline from Canadian Free Press:

2009: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims, and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

2010: Hussain meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

2010: The Brotherhood’s supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.

2011: Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak’s ouster, storm buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.

2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor — Clinton’s special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists —gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs — including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader Omar Abdel-Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison.

June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorist who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They’re all invited to the White House to meet with Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the Blind Sheik.

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September.

Although most of this timeline is about the Muslim Brotherhood, the President and his Administration's support for such Anti-American believers is in itself not helping to procure Pro-American values. I'm sure you'll argue that "He needs to make peace with these people for the betterment of our country." But that's the wrong argument. Instead, we should be asking "WHY would he support such a group of people who literally despise Westerners, especially Americans, and think he could change their beliefs?" Unless he was in favor of those beliefs... 

Again, we should also analyze his 4 years in office and truly see what he has done to turn this country around. To my knowledge, the economy is still pretty weak and unemployment stands at 8.2%. There are more federal workers than EVER, and the black community is still strangling to get off the dole and become independent. The DREAM ACT has allowed millions of illegal immigrant student to clog our college systems while our own citizen students are being buried with debt and not able to find work to pay it off. And instead of bringing home our troops, we have more boots on the ground throughout the Middle East.

Now please, enlighten me, how was your friend's statement incorrect?