Obama, the murtadd

Lefty insulted Lawrence twice yesterday, calling him a Liar for his opinion that Obama came across as someone who didn’t need advice. It did no good to explain to Lefty that opinions were what they were and not lies. What could Lefty be up to?

While walking the dogs it suddenly came to me that Lefty saw how Polly’s persistence in attacking Palin caused me to dig into Obama’s religion and as a consequence others, who wouldn’t ordinarily have known, now knew that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation Theology. So in a panic Lefty decided to take one for the team. He stuck his helmeted head out there and said, “Liar” thinking Lawrence would then spend all his time beaning Lefty and never realize that greater love hath no Leftist than that he should take lhis umps for Obama.

But old Lawrence saw right through that. “What was Lefty trying to hide,” he wondered? So he turned away from Obama’s religion and began digging in other Obama places.

What about . . .

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1F297C14-C64D-41B1-AEBB-E0325C823CD8

Daniel Pipes said back in January that Obama really did practice Islam. Could that be true? Could this be what John was trying to hide?

“Daniel Pipes writes, “In a recent analysis, “Was Barack Obama a Muslim?” I surveyed available evidence and found it suggests “Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father.” In response, David Brock’s organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), which calls itself a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” has criticized one of my sources of information.

“MMfA contends in “Daniel Pipes relied on disputed LA Times article to revive Obama-Muslim falsehood,” that “key aspects” of a March 16, 2007, Los Angeles Times article I quoted were later challenged by another newspaper account, “History of schooling distorted,” by Kim Barker in the Chicago Tribune on March 25.

“Falsehood? That's a strong word.”

Tell me about it, Daniel. One of Obama’s minions called me a liar.

Pipes discusses Barker’s statements, point by point and concluded that they didn’t contradict what Pipes originally wrote. Pipes then writes, “All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

“In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he “for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."

“Therefore, what MMfA calls the “Obama-Muslim falsehood” is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.

“Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.”

Well ferreted, Daniel!

Lawrence Helm