Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Playing the Farrakhan card

Ann Althouse takes apart Barack Obama's response to the question in Tuesday night's debate about Louis Farrakhan. Obama was playing politics, trying to distance himself from Farrakhan while trying to hang on to whatever Farrakhan's support might bring him. He makes clear that he rejects Farrakhan's anti-semitism while dancing away from the idea that he ought to explicity reject his support.

I can understand why he wants to do this. Farrakhan has some support within the African American community and Obama wants to avoid getting cross-wise with anybody over that issue. He would have preferred to avoid the question altogether but tried to minimize the damage from Russert's question, even calling this virulent racist "Minister" as in "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Grand Dragon Duke's racist remarks.) (If you don't think that how he treats Farrakhan is an issue, listen to WMCS sometime.)

Hillary tried to push him on it but gave up too soon. What she should have done is ask a follow-up: "Will Louis Farrakhan have a place at the table in the Obama administration? He will be persona non grata in mine."

Maybe she felt that, the Democrat coaliton being what it is, that would be going too far. That's hard to believe (I think she just blew it), but McCain won't hesitate to draw that line.

How would Obama answer? I don't see how he could do anything other than say that Farrakhan won't be invited to the White House. But, if David Duke endorsed McCain (he has, in fact, said he sees no difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama; they are all equally terrible in his view), you'd see no hesitation or equivocation about rejecting him, his support and his statements. His very existence would be regretted and McCain might even allow as he wishes that Duke had never uttered - or even heard - his name.

Is there a difference?

I understand that some people think that there is, but, politically, Farrakhan is poison. If it came to it, I suspect that Obama would not hestitate to throw him under the bus, but there is a lot of hard left stuff in Obama's background and record that will not be so easily jettisoned. We don't hear it from Hillary because it can't much help her in a Democrat primary. But we will hear plenty in the fall and, until we do, the Democrats should hold off on ordering the champagne.

46 comments:

3rd way said...

The Nation of Islam is dead wrong on most issues (especially race relations), but they also have done some positive things in Obama's community. The NOI is much bigger than Louis Farrakahn. Obama won't go out of his way to denounce the NOI because to do so would be turning his back on the positive things they have done.

Farrakhan and Duke are not a good comparison. What has David Duke ever done besides exploit race issues for political gain? The NOI is deplorable, but they also have a good side. That good side certainly does not negate the bad side but I won't pretend it is not there, and neither will Obama.

He played this perfectly in my mind. He "denounces" and "rejects" their teachings and does not actively engage them or even acknowledge them. It is a stretch to think he would ever invite Farrakhan to the White House.

Seth Zlotocha said...

You begin the post by suggesting Obama steered clear from rejecting Farrakhan's support entirely b/c of Farrakhan's support in the African American community, and you point to talk on WMCS as evidence.

Even though I actually think Obama sufficiently rejected Farrakhan's support, and the debate wasn't the first time he'd done it, I do think Obama is sensitive to the fact that while much of Farrakhan's social commentary is hateful (particularly, as of late, toward the gay and lesbian community, which is pervasive sentiment in fundamentalist religion and Obama -- to his credit -- confronted it recently in a speech at the prominent Ebenezer Baptist Church last month), Farrakhan and his group have made positive strides, as 3rd Way points out, to improve the economic situation of black people in inner cities.

But what really interests me about this post is that in the end you seem to suggest -- although I can't entirely tell based on the wording of your last paragraph -- that the lack of a complete enough rejection was attributable to "a lot of hard left stuff in Obama's background and record," which -- based on the first part of that sentence's reference to Farrakhan -- you seem to be linking with support for Farrakhan in the black community.

For starters, what "hard left stuff" are you referring to?

Second, along the same lines, I am reading your last paragraph correctly; that is, are you saying that Farrakhan's support in the black community -- identifiable in places like on WMCS -- is akin to "hard left stuff"?

joe stalin said...

Seth, I understand 3rd way completely.
If a hard-core racist anti-semite is black or liberal, or if he supports 3rd ways liberal candidate, it's ok. After all Farrakahn once helped an old lady cross the street.
But if a Conservative Senator honors a 100 year old former segregationist on his 100th birthday, Katie bar the door.
And if a former segregationist Senator is Bill Clintons mentor in Arkansas, that's okay too! And if William Byrd used to be a KKK member we forgive him as long as he votes for lib causes.
I agree with 3rd way, Farrakahn and Duke are not fair comparisons. No one would recognize Duke if he was on TV. Everyone knows Farrakahn. Farrakahn is far worse.

Anonymous said...

Glenn Greenwald points out the absurd double standard demonstrated by media commentators on this issue -- and now by Mr Esenberg too.

Is there a post in the offing here in which Mr Esenberg details the many hateful and ridiculous views of "Rev." John Hagee, who just threw his support behind John McCain? Will McCain be taken to task for accepting Hagee's support without any effort to recognize and disown Hagee's morally and politically degenerate views?

It would be a shame to promote a double-standard -- as if, say, the right had sunk so low that basically nothing could be held against it anymore, while the center (the left having long since been pruned out of this race) could be criticized on account of still having some putative principles.

I Jeff said...

I would be interested in having someone dissect Mr. Obama's hard left leanings. I suspect this will happen before the general election, but its not going to happen in a Democratic primary where everyone has been trying to out liberal each other.

I think it would be safe to say you don't gain the top liberal voting record in your party (above Teddy Kennedy) by not having hard left leanings. If McCain had the equivalent conservative ranking Democrats and the mainstream media (I know that's an oxymoron) would rail about his radical, far right positions.

3rd way said...

I too would like to see a dissection of Obama's "hard left stuff".

Jim C. said...

I'm consistently confused by Rick's posts. He can't just come out and say anything. What is his point here?

But that said, there's a deeper irony here. Rick is a man who refuses to denounce "nappy headed hos" as racist. And now he wants to take on others -- others who both reject and denounce antisemitism and antisemites. It baffles the mind.

Who here holds the moral compass? Clearly, Obama.

Jim C. said...

By the way, of course Rick doesn't bring up Farrakahn's homophobia. It's an ideology the two of them share.

Jim C. said...

Any chance Rick will now give McCain the same treatment in reference to this Althouse post?

McCain neither rejected nor denounced that anti-Catholic bigot. He stood on stage with the guy and welcomed his endorsement.

Seth Zlotocha said...

I think it would be safe to say you don't gain the top liberal voting record in your party (above Teddy Kennedy) by not having hard left leanings.

Why don't we try to go beyond the talking points with that National Journal ranking and look at exactly what the ranking was based upon. Here are all of the so-called "key" Senate votes that led the NJ to hail Obama as the most liberal senator in '07 (he was 10th in '06 and 14th in '05). Do you see anything, let alone a pattern of things, i jeff, that constitutes a "hard left" record? Is it the vote to establish an Office of Public Integrity for ethics complaints against senators? Or how about the vote to allow the federal government to negotiate Medicare drug prices? Or how about the vote to block individuals from serving on a FDA advisory panel if they have a conflict of interest?

If not, then maybe we should dispense with the ranking as a talking point and move on to something of actual substance.

Jim C. said...

Turns out that guy--you know Pastor John Hagee, as in the guy whose support McCain is "very proud to have"--he's an anti-Semite (as well as anti-Catholic and anti-gay).

Let's go to Bill Donahue for his thoughts:

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"

"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.


So even someone as politically opposed to Obama as Donahue can see the obvious truth of Obama's genuine repudiation (rejection and denunciation) of Farrakhan.

Any guesses how long it will take for Rick to come out against McCain's hard right company?

Anonymous said...

Well said, Seth!

3rd way said...

By linking to Althouse Rick has put himself into a bit of pickle.

If he doesn't comment on McCain's enthusiastic reception of Hagee's support we will be led to believe Rick is willing to look the other way when it comes to Hagee's anti-gay, anti-catholic rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Let's see...

Obama is supported by, Oprah, Kerry, Kennedy, some silly video's produced for on youtube and now Farrakhan.

He doesn't say the pledge of allegience, wear a lapel flag and his wife has never been proud of the U.S. until people voted for him.

It still wasn't clear where he stood regarding his Muslim background and than we saw him in a Somalian Muslim suit. We also heard that he joined a Church that supports Farrakhan and now Farrakhan supports him.

He says that he will pull out of Iraq and then he'll go back in if al-quieda goes in. McCain calls him on it and then he says that it's our fault that there in Iraq while not being able to explain how he would pull out if there still in Iraq.

It looks like his foundation is built on sand, which would not be good for any of us.

Anonymous said...

Boy, Anon 3:20, you sure are gullible to believe the spin the conservatives put out on Obama. I bet you believe Dubya is one of the greatest presidents ever, too.

Publius said...

Anon 3:35, Is that any different then you believing he is the worst?

Rick Esenberg said...

As for Hagee, I don't know anything about him but it appears that he is a nutjob and McCain ought to dump his support.

As for my so called "homophobia," once again Jim C. expresses an opinion on something he does not - and could not - know anything about. I do not fear or hate gay people. I do not even believe that homosexuality is a moral wrong. I supported the marriage amendment on other grounds.

I don't recall endorsing Don Imus' description of the Rutgers women's basketball team. I believe that I said that Imus' job is apparently to say disgusting things and I don't know if he means any of them. Unlike some, I get no psychic gratification from speculating as to the state of others' soul.

As to Farrakhan and the hard left, I don't think that Farrakhan fits into that spectrum very well. My point was to wonder why Hillary took a half step toward pressing Obama on this and stopped. I then expanded the point to suggest that she is unable to effectively attack Obama because the area where Obama may be vulnerable - the issues - is an area where there is little daylight between them. That won't be so with McCain in the fall.

As to whether the NOI makes the trains run on time, I quite frankly don't care.

As to how far left Obama is, more later.

Publius said...

Hillary probably pulled her punch on Obama because along with Russert’s insistence, it would have seemed like “piling on.” She has a good chance in Ohio.

She needs it or mathematically or she will appear to be on her way out. She also does not need to appear to pounce on a black man on such a no substance issue. Win-or-lose she will still be a Democrat in her next race, “Presidential or Senatorial.”


I believe her only hope now is to hit Obama on his ability to win in November.

Anonymous said...

"As for Hagee, I don't know anything about him but it appears that he is a nutjob and McCain ought to dump his support."

Surely that can't be all there is to say. We'd better have a series of ten or so blog entries from you, replete with innuendo about how far to the radical right this sort of thing shows McCain to be.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:47 -

Rick can fight his own battles but I would like to say that your arguement is preposterous.

Who knows Hagee and what he stands for. A couple statements made by your kin in politics?

I don't know Hagee but I do know of Farrakhan. There is a clear difference.

3rd Way said...

I don't know Hagee but I do know of Farrakhan. There is a clear difference.

There is also a clear difference between denouncing intolerance and enthusiastically embracing those that are intolerant.

Jim C. said...

The double standards stack up at an astonishing rate around here.

Bigotry is bigotry, and it should be denounced wherever it appears, not merely when it serves your politics. Kudos to Senator Obama for meeting this standard time and again.

Seth Zlotocha said...

I don't know Hagee but I do know of Farrakhan. There is a clear difference.

Hate to point out the obvious here, Anon 8:25, but if you don't know Hagee, how do you know there's a clear difference between him and Farrakhan?

Rick,

As to how far left Obama is, more later.

The anticipation is building. I'm hoping it's something better than Obama=Carter on foreign policy and Obama=Europe on the economy. Then again, maybe I should hope it isn't any better than that.

Anonymous said...

Althouse did a great job deconstructing Obama's non-rejection "rejection" of Farrakhan. The usual ankle-biting trolls claim that McCain is equally fault-worthy, because he failed to reject support from an obscure homophobe no one's heard of. That's setting the bar high for an ethereal candidate who's going to heal our broken souls.

gnarlytrombone said...

from an obscure homophobe no one's heard of

Eh? Hagee's megachurch alone has more members than the entire Nation of Islam, and sermons are broadcast into 100 million homes. His last book sold 500,000 copies, was the #1 seller at Wal-Mart and made the USA Today top 50 best-seller list for six weeks. He's also had private consultations with high-level officials at the White House, including Elliott Abrams.

Is this how you define obscure?

Anonymous said...

More ankle-biting, gnarly, but have it your way. Hagee is a political force of tsunami dimensions. So what? For all I know Hagee's group has performed good works in the anti-gay, anti-Catholic community. By the logic of the Obama trolls on this thread Hagee's endorsement would therefore support no more than mild criticism.

And suppose I'm wrong: Hagee has never performed good works, making McCain a cheap whore. Again, so what? The question for the Obama trolls is whether they want their candidate (not someone else's) held to a high standard of rectitude. Indeed, I thought that was one of the very points of his campaign, that he's going to usher in fundamental change in the way we do -- and see -- things. Or is that merely another cynical rhetoric ploy.

3rd Way said...

In terms of reach of influence Farrakhan is far more obscure than Hagee.

I stated that there was a difference between Duke and Farrakhan. There is also a difference between Hagee and Farrakhan, but it is a much better comparison.

gnarlytrombone said...

Ahem. It was your contention, not mine, that relative degree of obscurity determines whether McCain's ass-kissing of bigots and hatemongers is egregious.

3rd Way said...

Ankle biting trolls... That is a laughable characterization from someone hiding behind anonymity and willing to link to a claim that is clarified as bunk directly below the claim.

Anonymous said...

It was your contention, not mine

Well, it was my contention that the Obama trolls are deflecting attention from his slippery handling of Farrakhan -- which Althouse brilliantly exposed and which simply hasn't been dealt with on this thread. More deflection by gnarly.

Ankle biting trolls... That is a laughable characterization from someone hiding behind anonymity

Hmm. Interesting accusation hurled by someone hiding behind a nom de plume.

... and willing to link to a claim that is clarified as bunk directly below the claim.

Do I have to do all your work for you? More here ("Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report ..."); and, from today's Toronto Star:

Two things should be kept in mind when parsing the anti-NAFTA threats of America's two Democratic presidential challengers.

The first is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are almost certainly not serious when they talk about taking apart the North American Free Trade Agreement that links Canada, Mexico and the United States.

You know, the idea that a political campaign employs hypocrisy every know and then isn't exactly startling. Not unless you're running as a beatified candidate in the business of soul-mending. Then it's a problem.

gnarlytrombone said...

Not unless you're running as a beatified candidate in the business of soul-mending. Then it's a problem.

It's also a problem when you're the beatified candidate of "straight talk":

Barack Obama never sought support from Louis Farrakhan, never appeared on stage with Farrakhan, never pronounced himself proud to be backed by Farrakhan, but was nonetheless asked on national television to specifically disavow the man. People don't want to put a political coalition that includes Farrakhan in office.

McCain and his staff actively sought out Hagee's endorsement, he appeared and campaigned with Hagee, he said he was proud to be backed by Hagee. Hagee is, in short, part of McCain's political strategy. Now he tells us he doesn't agree with Hagee about everything. Well, which things? Are we supposed to believe that McCain's not into the bigotry, or the foreign policy aimed at apocalypse, but just likes Hagee because of their shared opposition to gay marriage? Is McCain going to be courting Osama bin Laden's endorsement?

It's reminiscent of McCain's on-again, off-again quest for the support of "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. McCain's trying to wink with one eye to a segment of the electorate, wink with his other eye at his fans in the media, and somehow maintain a reputation for straight talk throughout all this.

Anonymous said...

It's also a problem when you're the beatified candidate of "straight talk"

Then we're agreed: McCain and Obama both have their moments.

3rd way said...

I love these games you guys play. Someone claims Obama's denunciation of intolerance is not adequate. We counter by pointing out the hypocrisy of making such a claim while your candidate openly seeks and accepts the support of an intolerant bigot. Someone anonymously counters by stating Obama's denunciation is another example of his duplicity by pointing us to a discredited story claiming one of Obama's staffers is trying to play both sides of an issue. This returns us to another issue where you guys are trying to pin something on Obama for something an associate said (except this time there is no proof that anyone even said it).

There is some serious grasping at straws with the game of Obama gotchaisms. I am waiting with bated breath for the unearthing of "hard left stuff in Obama's background" that is supposedly the key to victory in November. The true blue leftists are completely turned off by Obama because of his pragmatism and resistance to liberal ideology. At this rate by mid-summer the Obamaphobes will be reduced to adopting the tactics of the far far right and simply try to explain to us how Obama is the anti-christ.

Seth Zlotocha said...

I thought that was one of the very points of his campaign, that he's going to usher in fundamental change in the way we do -- and see -- things.

Obama's promises of change are predicated on a belief in the need for increased participation in the political process, open dialogue, and governmental transparency. How have his statements about Farrakhan contradicted that campaign message?

Anonymous said...

The anonymous 3rd Way remains in high dudgeon:

I love these games you guys play. Someone claims Obama's denunciation of intolerance is not adequate.

Well, not quite. First, take the trouble to actually read Althouse (which you ought to be doing regularly anyway, but that's another matter. The crux of her analysis noted Obama's "failure to reject Farrakhan. It's extremely clever, but don't be fooled by the cleverness, which was hard to catch in real time. He's creating the space for Farrakhan to operate separately, bringing him support." (Don't agree with her assessment -- I do -- but if nothing else, take the time to ponder just how someone could share her perception and just why it would instill a very deep disquiet about this candidate.)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm deeply troubled by the prospect of a president able and willing to create space for Farrakhan. Obamaniks respond: hey, Farrakhan has done some good things in the hood; and, they say, McCain accepts support from a creep. The first argument is irrelevant. The second certainly has some merit but doesn't explain why they utterly refuse to similarly criticize their man -- ultimately, it's the equivalnet of,"So's your momma."

I don't want a president who cottons to an anti-Semitic, racist black nationalist any more than I want one who cottons to an anti-Catholic homophobe.

Seth Zlotocha said...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm deeply troubled by the prospect of a president able and willing to create space for Farrakhan.

What exactly do you mean by "create space for Farrakhan"? What has Obama said about Farrakhan that suggests to you he'd have a seat at the table in an Obama presidency?

3rd way said...

Mr. Anonymous... I use the blogonym 3rd Way consistently. People know who they are dealing with when I comment. Does it make you feel better if I go by Erik Johnson? I am pretty sure my real name has no more significance to you than 3rd Way.

I did read Althouse, and I saw the debate. I don't see how anyone could interpret what Obama said as proof that he will "cotton" to Farrakhan. I also don't get how you fail to comprehend that Obama spoke out against intolerance, yet McCain reached out to an intolerant bigot. The difference between the two is like night and day. Someone has the high ground here and it certainly isn't McCain.

It was politically expedient for Obama to deal with the Farrakhan question the way he did. It is a stretch to think that he is leaving any room for Farrakhan at his table. McCain and Obama will deal with these questions again. Obama is in a much better position than McCain on the issue of pandering to intolerant religous leaders.

Regarding your ridiculous claims about duplicity. Take a look at this gem that McCain laid for us. His slogan of "straight talk" will be a big part of his failure.

February 28, 2000

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

OWWWWW... That one is going to leave mark.

Anonymous said...

seth:

What exactly do you mean by "create space for Farrakhan"?

I'd simply commend to you the entirety of the Althouse post, from which this language was taken, and which link by Shark triggered this entire discussion. You'll either find her persuasive or you won't, but read it with an open mind, which I'm confident you'll do.

As to M. 3-way, I have no such confidence. For that matter, I find his or her presumption that I am Mr. Anonymous disturbingly sexist. No wonder s/he rejected Ann Althouse's analysis.

Seth Zlotocha said...

I'd simply commend to you the entirety of the Althouse post

I'd say you're the one who needs to read Althouse again since she doesn't say anything about Obama creating a space for Farrakhan in his presidency; she was referring to space for Farrakhan to informally drum-up support for Obama's campaign. You read the former into her comments, and there's a significant difference between the two.

This is also where the issue of solicitation takes on importance. If Obama solicited the endorsement and support, there could be some expectation of reciprocation under an Obama presidency. Without solicitation, however, there aren't any of those expectations.

You seem to want to judge Obama on a question he wasn't asked; that is, whether Farrakhan would have influence in an Obama administration. Althouse doesn't take that same leap.

Anonymous said...

I'd say you're the one who needs to read Althouse again

No, all I did was quote her (entirely accurately) about how Obama has created "space" for Farrakhan.

she doesn't say anything about Obama creating a space for Farrakhan in his presidency

Take your own medicine: re-read my post. I'll wait. Didn't take long, did it? Did I say anything about space for Farrakhan in an Obama administration? No, clearly I did not. A candidate who creates "space" (Althouse's term) for a bigot is not least worrisome because it's reasonable to assume the candidate will do the same if elected. Call if conferring legitimacy if you want.

But this does get back to one of my points, which is that Obama supporters seem to expend an awful lot of energy deflecting attention from their guy's missteps. As Althouse masterfully showed, candidate Obama created space for a racist.

gnarlytrombone said...

This is the same Althouse who sees subliminal racial epithets in childrens' sleepwear, right?

Methinks someone slipped a mickey into her winebox.

Seth Zlotocha said...

Did I say anything about space for Farrakhan in an Obama administration? No, clearly I did not.

You said (emphasis mine) "a president able and willing to create space for Farrakhan" and "a president who cottons to an anti-Semitic, racist black nationalist." This suggested to me that you thought Obama would be making space for Farrakhan as president (you know, like you wrote).

So I asked: "What has Obama said about Farrakhan that suggests to you he'd have a seat at the table in an Obama presidency?"

To which you responded (albeit only citing the first part of my question): "I'd simply commend to you the entirety of the Althouse post, from which this language was taken, and which link by Shark triggered this entire discussion."

I then suggested you re-read Althouse's post since she doesn't say anything about Obama as president, which you clearly did.

After all, isn't what's truly troubling the idea of someone like Farrakhan or Hagee -- those "agents of intolerance," as McCain once put it -- having influence in an administration? Who really cares if all they do is drum-up support for a candidate during a campaign w/o any payback on the other end?

And, as I pointed out, Obama isn't on the hook at all for Farrakhan since he didn't solicit the support. McCain isn't so free and clear.

Veritas Christo said...

One critical distinction 3rd Way -- you go your way, I'll go Yahweh and he'll go the 3rd Way -- seems to miss here is this:

It is not so much a question of who follows or endorses you, but whom it is you follow and endorse!

McCain is not a follower of Hagee and certainly does not attend his church. I do not support McCain, but know that he has hardly said anything that could be seen as supporting most conservative evangelical Christians, and Hagee is among the most fervent conservative evangelicals there is, promoting an extremely strong pro-Israel agenda and end time prophetic teachings, etc. (I am not passing judgment on those stands, only giving a thumbnail as to his beliefs.)

Furthermore, not only does McCain not follow Hagee, he does not attend his church, pray with him (as far as I know) and has never named one or more books after a Hagee sermon, called Hagee his closest spiritual advisor (or advisor of any sort), endorsed white supremacy and/or proclaimed a white or Hagee-centric view of the world!

On the other hand, Barack Obama

FOLLOWS the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Attends Wrights church

Has called Wright his closest mentor and spiritual advisor

Prayed with Wright

Worshipped with Wright

Had Wright lead prayers at Obama events

Subscribed to Wright's magazine

Hailed Wright in his books

Named a book after a Wright sermon title

The list goes on!

The difference is clear! So there's essentially no reason to apply the same criticisms to McCain over Hagee as there is Obama over Wright and Farrkhan.

At the same time, 3rd, feel free to attack Hagee's personal views...

But then wasn't it you who wrote in another thread here that such attacks are "guilt by association" and such criticism of YOUR candidate is not fair?! How, then, would it be fair to do the unfair thing to your opponent?

Ah, then again, that is the INCONVENIENT TRUTH of Barack Obama and so many of his supporters: double standards and little or no truth in their words!

For my mind: B.O. can be a Muslim or a Christian and otherwise qualified and be elected president.

On the other hand, for him to claim that he supports both and they are both legitimate is to ignore the fundamental and mutually exclusive claims of both. Like someone else said here, Jesus Himself said He (not Barack, but Jesus) is "the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the father in heaven except through me"! He also called himself THE son of God (again, Jesus, though BO may have done the same, given all the worship of him you all manifest), yet Islam and the Qu'ran make it clear that Jesus is nothing more than a "wise prophet" (they don't explain how they can call someone a "wise prophet" whose claims about His character and nature would constitute some of the most egregious, blasphemous and heretical lies ever told to mankind -- the very claims of His own godhood that prompted the Priests and Pharisees to call for His execution in the first place).

You can lead a blind man to The Living Water but you cannot make him drink -- or think!

parton said...

ウォシュレット 小倉競馬場 ダッチワイフ まつげパーマ 講習 探偵 調査 調査 会社 尾行 調査 体験入店銀座 レストラン ウエディング アダルトグッズ 麻布十番 フェイシャル 英語 勉強 税理士 東京 電報 結婚式 まつげエクステ カップリングパーティー 素行調査 興信所 興信所 高収入 アルバイト 高収入 アルバイト 競馬予想 電話占い カップリングパーティー 結婚式 ウェルカムボード 株式情報

Anonymous said...

This store carries products that are overstocked [URL=http://www.nfoutletonline.net/#921]north face outlet[/URL] manufacturing facilities because they were unsold for quite some time, or those products with small factory defects. On the other hand, consumers are still guaranteed of good top quality and dependability; with merely [URL=http://www.nfoutletonline.net/#921]north face outlet[/URL] repairs, these products are actually good to go.

Anonymous said...

[link] proscar vs propecia cost - propecia 10 year study