Train Wreck Politics header image 2


Muslims: pro-American Americans, real Americans

By Griffin · October 20th, 2008 · 10 Comments


In the midst of his endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday, Colin Powell made some remarks about the religious bigotry of some McCain/Palin supporters– including GOP officials– that I would like to strongly associate myself with:

Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That’s not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel particularly strong about this because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother at Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone, and it gave his awards – Purple Heart, Bronze Star – showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the head stone, it didn’t have a Christian cross. It didn’t have a Star of David. It has a crescent and star of the Islamic faith.

And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could serve his country and he gave his life.

And here’s the picture Powell was referring to:

fallen-muslim-american-soldier.jpg
It is so important that we as Americans stand up to and put an end to this notion– this notion that John McCain and Sarah Palin are using their campaign platform to actively promote– that somehow if you’re white, Christian, gun-owning, and from a small town, you are more patriotic and authentically American than everyone else.  It’s divisive, it’s un-American, and it’s a slap in the face to every man and woman who wears our uniform but does not fit into to all or any of those categories.

So the next time someone tells you they can’t vote for Barack Obama because he is a Muslim, it’s fine to correct them and let them know he is in fact Christian, but it’s also imperative to respond as Powell does: “So what if he is?”  Right now, there are Muslims– and Christians and Jews and athiests and Hindus and non-white, non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals– who are dying in American uniforms.  They deserve our respect.  And their children deserve to know that in this America– our America, the real America– they too can grow up to be President.

Tags: Barack Obama · Democrats · John McCain · Republicans · Sarah Palin


Related Posts

10 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Ron // Oct 20, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    “my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim”

    Haven’t seen that.

    “and might have an association with terrorists”.

    Sure. He’s good friends with unrepentant terrorists.

    “showed that he died in Iraq”

    He probably, like the WW2-interred Nikkei, wanted to prove his loyalty.

    “Hindus”

    If there are, it’s a pretty darned small number, compared to the number of Hindus in this country.

    “non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals– who are dying in American uniforms.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  • 2 Griffin // Oct 21, 2008 at 12:51 am

    Stop hogging all the Kool-Aid, Ronald! Pass that!

  • 3 Ron // Oct 21, 2008 at 1:27 am

    Because I disagree with you, I must have drunk the Republican Kool-Aid?

  • 4 Griffin // Oct 21, 2008 at 9:12 am

    No, Ron, because you “haven’t seen” Republicans pushing the Muslim smear, because you’re parroting Republican talking points like “good friends with unrepentant terrorists” (plural?), and because you laugh at the notion of American soldiers who don’t happen to be small town conservatives dying in uniform. Classy.

    I’m sure the 84 young men and women from Massachusetts who’ve given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan would be interested to hear why you find that so funny:

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ma/

  • 5 Ron // Oct 21, 2008 at 9:32 am

    [quote]No, Ron, because you “haven’t seen” Republicans pushing the Muslim smear[/quote]

    You’re reading too much into what I write.

    Maybe it’s happening, but *I* have not seen it.

    [quote]you’re parroting Republican talking points[/quote]

    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Like “spread the wealth” being an updated version of chicken-in-every-pot populist socialism, and Bill Ayers actually being an unrepentant terrorist, no matter how often you deny it.

    [quote]“good friends with unrepentant terrorists” (plural?)[/quote]

    Bill Ayers and his wife.

    [quote]I’m sure the 84 young men and women from Massachusetts who’ve given their lives[/quote]

    You are thus explicitly stating that all 84 of those fallen service members were “non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals”, and that’s just *wrong*, proven by the very web site that you use as proof.

    If you don’t believe me, zoom in and see that ZERO are from Cambridge, and only 4 from Boston (which, being a big city, has more than just latte-sipping liberals.

  • 6 Griffin // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:13 am

    Okay, Ron, I’ll grant you that you’ve never personally seen any Republicans pushing the Muslim smear. But that’s like me saying, “Oh, sure, maybe the Earth is round, but *I* have not seen it.”

    And I’ll grant you “terrorists,” plural, referring to Ayers and his wife. As long as you grant that John McCain has had a much closer relationship to a man who was involved in the most damaging subversion of democracy in American history: Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. A man who McCain said, “I’m proud of you, I’m proud of your family.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column

    And of course, there’s Charles Keating. Two can play the guilt by association game, but Obama largely chooses to focus on actual issues instead.

    I won’t grant you that “spread the wealth”– referring to our progressive tax system that’s been in place for nearly a century– is socialism. Every American president since, I believe, FDR has taxed people at the top differently (and more) than people at the bottom. So because Obama wants to restore the tax rates to what they were in the prosperous Clinton years, he’s a socialist? It’s a phony charge.

    And I won’t grant you your despicable use of numbers to dimish the sacrifice of the “only” four fallen American soldiers from Boston, MA. My point was that we need to remember and respect that there are men and women of all races, religions, and political persuasions serving and dying in American uniforms. And there are. Your numbers game doesn’t change that.

  • 7 Ron // Oct 22, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    1.

    Liddy paid his debt to society.

    Keating was a big economic fish in the relatively small pond named Arizona. Do more research and see that McCain did no wrong.

    2.

    The first thing that Clinton did in 1992 was try to nationalize health care. It’s one of the reasons the Republicans won both houses of Congress and were able to moderate his left wing desires.

    Obama will also over-reach, just like Clinton.

    3.

    [quote]And I won’t grant you your despicable use of numbers to dimish the sacrifice of the “only” four fallen[/quote]

    Carefully re-read what I wrote, because it does NOT say what you accuse me of saying.

  • 8 Griffin // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Ronald….

    1.

    Liddy paid his debt to society, fine. But Ayers was never convicted of anything. So what’s your point about that? And Keating may have been a big fish in a small pond, but his pond was big enough to ensnare five U.S. senators in a major national scandal. So what’s your point about that?

    These are rhetorical questions, really. I don’t care about Liddy or Keating, I was just making a point about the pointlessness of the guilt by association game.

    2.

    It’s possible that Obama will overreach just like Clinton. But I’m glad we both agree he’ll be the next president.

    3.

    As Barack would say, I’ll take you at your word that your intention was not to diminish the sacrifice of our troops. Though I’m not sure how else “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!” can be interpreted.

    As for your “only 4 from Boston” remark, I’d just say be careful when using the word “only” to describe the sacrifice of any city, community, family, religious group (your comment about Hindus in the military didn’t really work for me either) or otherwise.

    Even Cambridge– the other Massachusetts city you scoffed at– is doing its part in the war effort. Where do you think all those advanced weapons systems are developed? MIT. And where do you think the next commander in chief– Obama– was trained in the law (which will come in handy with issues like Guantanamo, rendition, wiretapping, etc.)? Harvard. So be careful with all that.

    I do appreciate you posting here, and I don’t want you or anyone else to feel persecuted for offering a dissenting view around here. I don’t delete or censor comments (except for extreme vulgarity), so you have the right to say whatever you want in TWPland. But just to be fair, so do I.

  • 9 Ron // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    1.

    We are known by our associates. It speaks to our judgment.

    3.

    I was mocking your assertion that NGOLSBCLs (non-gun owning, latte-sipping, big city liberals) would actually join the military.

    [quote]your comment about Hindus in the military didn’t really work for me either[/quote]

    It’s not a judgment against Hindus, but just an observation based upon the Hindus which I know.

    [quote]Where do you think all those advanced weapons systems are developed? MIT.[/quote]

    MIT is a big place. Do you really think that everyone who goes there is a NGOLSBCL who works in defense research?

    Of course not.

    [quote]And where do you think the next commander in chief– Obama– was trained in the law[/quote]

    Since Obama is a NGOLSBCL and he did not join the military, thanks for bolstering my point.

  • 10 Gregg W. // Oct 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

    that was good keep up the good work!

Leave a Comment