Women wearing hijab in accordance with the way they practice their faith were discriminated against by the Barack Obama campaign on Monday. The two Muslim women were told that they could not sit near the podium where Obama would be speaking. The campaign does not officially state that women wearing hijab should not be associated in any way, shape or form with Obama but in practice the campaign discriminates against these American Muslim women at, what one assumes to be, the will of Obama himself.
The Islamophobic presidential candidate has recently denied his Muslim background, much like Hitler denied his own family background. Obama has even gone so far as to call his half-brother Malik’s assertion a “smear.“
As I have said in the past, being a Muslim, having an Arabic name, and/or being liked by Muslims is nothing to be ashamed of, and for Barack to call it a smear is insulting to all tolerant, freedom loving Americans. Barack has a thing or two to learn about the ties that bind all Americans together in harmony, the ties that, in fact, make these individual states The United States of America.
From the AFP (NOT the AP)
Obama’s vigorous denials have frustrated some followers of Islam because of the implication that there is something wrong with the religion.
In separate incidents Monday at the rally in Detroit, which boasts one of the largest Muslim communities in the United States, two women were told they could not sit in the section that forms the visual backdrop behind Obama.
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change,” Aref told Politico.com.
“The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters,” she said.
A friend accompanying Aref said a campaign volunteer had specifically cited “the political climate” as an explanation.
The other woman, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, said she was told no one with any head coverings, including baseball caps and scarves, could sit behind the stage, and that the rule was not an attack on her religion.
But, as I said above, the campaign seems to pick and choose when they feel religious discrimination is prudent. The article continues:
The Obama campaign insisted that the volunteers had acted on their own initiative without any kind of official approval. It distributed photographs from other events that show the Democrat standing with women in Islamic dress
The fact that these people are volunteers is meaningless, Jim Johnson was also a “volunteer” but that does not negate Obama’s decision to entrust him with vetting potential VPs. Ditto for Obama’s relationship with Revs. Wright and Pfleger, the fact that these men were not official employee’s of the Obama campaign, does not negate the fact that Obama ran to men who see the world through the eyes of racists when he need consolation. (Obama has edited his website, but the internet cache still has the link to Rev. Wright on Obama’s website) Perhaps this explains his discrimination against American citizens of different religions.

28 Comments
What can “The Senator” do? He is dammed if he does and dammed if he don’t. All of the pundits that are crying about the Muslim women not being able to sit behind Senator Obama at the rally are the same people that would be calling him a radical muslim sympathizer if he comes anywhere someone in muslim dress. This guy will be a President for everyone. The GOP and their flunkies in the media don’t have anything on him and are grasping at straws. The fact that they have to get used to saying President Obama is eating away at their souls. These volunteers were only trying to protect Senator Obama from his avowed enemies
Yes, they’ve got absolutely nothing…. oh, wait… except for the fact that his personal spiritual advisor is a Marxist and a racist, and that his campaign supports religious discrimination against honest, law-abiding American citizens.
Wake up, this radical, Socialist… oops, “Progressive” … racist is the polar opposite of everything American.
Wake up, this radical, Socialist… oops, “Progressive” … racist is the polar opposite of everything American.
Hey Mr. P!
Is that your version of America, or mine?
peace
ps,
I still haven’t mastered the smilies.
;>
Our America, vermontdave, our America.
Obama is will be the American Hitler, minus the holocaust. He has a cult following and they will blindly follow him.
You are really reaching here, Konservo. Your own links don’t back you up.
Sergei,
You’ll have to be more specific. Everything I’ve linked supports what’s written above… in fact, in light of the new AP decision to start enforcing their copyright rules, what you see above is really just paraphrasing of the articles to which I link. However, if you think you see an inconsistency in post and content in one of the links, please do point it out.
First, you said, “The Islamophobic presidential candidate has recently denied his Muslim background.” You linked the phrase “Muslim background” to an article that begins, “Apparently the Jerusalem’s Post’s sloppy paraphrase of a radio interview with Barack Obama’s half-brother created the false impression that he had explicitly confirmed the ‘Muslim background’ of the likely Democratic Presidential nominee.” That’s not exactly what I would call conclusive proof; indeed, it’s more like the opposite.
Then, you said, “Obama has even gone so far as to call his half-brother Malik’s assertion a ’smear.’” In order to prove this, you linked to a page that mentions neither Obama’s brother nor the assertion it turns out he didn’t actually make.
As to your claim that “The fact that these people are volunteers is meaningless”, do you really expect Obama to be personally micromanaging every single minute aspect of his campaign?
Also, the right-wing smears of Obama have now reached a new level of absurdity. Obama is now an Islamophobic Muslim with a radical Christian pastor.
Well, Sergei, I said that Obama is as Muslim as Hitler was Jewish.
As for Malik’s mis-quotation by the JPost, you’ll notice that I published my post on the 19th and the link found therein is dated the 20th… how could this be, you might ask? It’s because, as the article states:
So, thank you for pointing that out to me, however, at the time of this post no such correction had been made.
But still, let’s look at the link:
Shared heritage. A heritage that Obama would like to test artillery on, just as Adolf Hitler demolished his the hometown of his (supposedly) Jewish ancestors.
The fact is, Sergei, Obama thinks that being mistook for Muslim is a “smear” … why?
I’ll tell you. Islamophobia.
Also, Obama is not responsible for personally micromanaging ever aspect of his campaign… but, the least he could do is say something like “Hey, uh… how’s about not discriminating against Muslims, folks?”
I never claimed that Obama was a Muslim. I say he’s an Islamophobic Socialist with a radical/racist pastor.
“The fact is, Sergei, Obama thinks that being mistook for Muslim is a “smear” … why?
“I’ll tell you. Islamophobia.”
Yes, but not on his part. Those pushing the “Obama is a Muslim” meme are trying to deny him the Islamophobe vote.
In the perfect world nobody would care if he was Muslim, nobody would care if they saw hijabis standing behind him in the audience, nobody would care if he was black, white, brown or green.
There is a Bosnian saying that goes “A lie told three times becomes the truth”.
I’m with Jwhite and Sergei on this one – damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t and with a 7 year republican campaign of fear-mongering – these types of allegations can and do hurt him.
Sergei,
So? Would you like Obama to have the Islamophobe vote? Is that how you’d like to see him win?
Samaha,
Most of the fear mongering I’ve seen comes from neither Dems nor Repubs. It comes from people like Naomi Wolf, Ron Paul, and others blabbering frantically on the fringes of society. (of course there are exceptions, but, by far, the loudest voices are not coming from true representatives of either of the two main political parties in the USA).
Most of the fear-mongering I see today seems to be more of an attempt to sell books than to rally a mob.
Konservo – besides feeling like a kindergartner – how does ‘today’s security alert is code orange’ make you feel when you are at the airport? And, I’m sorry but I don’t feel any safer that they are alerting me that we are in code orange – these rules should just be changed to constantly have stronger security in force – and as my daughter (who wears a scarf) was going through a different type of screening due to her being in a wheel chair after fracturing her foot at keystone – I manged to get in three bottles of water that I forgot. I don’t mention her wearing a scarf to complain that she is being treated differently because that isn’t the case – I just mentioned it because she may have been a distraction to the people working on the scanning machine that should have noticed the water bottles – although that’s not the only time I’ve wondered why they haven’t noticed an item that should not have gone on the plane and she wasn’t around.
How do you feel every time you fill out an application for a bank account or a mortgage loan and you’re being asked for appropriate identification – what’s the title of that form that must be filled out?
Tightening security is one thing and something that we needed regardless – making a campaign out of it is quite another.
Samaha,
I actually don’t fly on planes and I deal in cash.
But, be that as it may, it seems to me that what you’re talking about is security-mongering. The idea of those screens is to make people feel safe (even when they are perhaps not as effective as they could be… I don’t know… ). I understand “fear-mongering” to be just the opposite, for example, when people talk about “creeping sharia” or “the Bush regime will never leave office… he’s a fascist dictator (after all, we all know what he said about dictatorships being easy)” that is the type of thing that I consider fear-mongering.
Okay – I’m being a bit of a drama queen in regards to fear mongering however those screens are not making anyone feel safe. All they are doing is reminding us of 9/11 (and I’m not saying we should forget it) and proving the inadequacies of the government to protect us so we would rather accept overdoing it as it is better to be safe than sorry.
I have to say that while Osama and his ilk are dangerous – we’re really losing site of everything our country stands for through the patriot act and it is seeping into our everyday lives. When we as parents start allowing the public school system to start patroling our children outside of the public school system ie. through myspace and nobody is standing up for the state entering into our private lives – we’ve got a problem. We’re raising a generation of children that aren’t aware of everythig that we have fought for up until 9/11. In my day – our parents would have been SCREAMING invasion of privacy. The consequences are going to be far reaching.
“even when they are perhaps not as effective as they could be… I don’t know… ”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
Samaha,
I actually have been discriminated against, I don’t know if it’s because I look like an Uzbeki militant or if it’s because I was down about 20 over the speed limit, but I was pulled over, asked to step out of the car, police searched my person and my car and I was questioned for a good 15min before I was allowed to resume my drive home, speeding ticket in hand.
I was honest, friendly (even when I was under suspicion and was being questioned like a criminal), and I when I got home, I logged on to the DMV website and paid my ticket online with a debit card (I was speeding, so I wasn’t going to try to fight it in court, I was in the wrong).
However, I do know that if I’d taking a slightly different attitude it could have turned into a “Don’t Tase Me, Bro!” reenactment, I didn’t want that.
Do I feel that my privacy was invaded by the police? Maybe a little, there was no cause for them to suspect me of anything but speeding and there was no reason for them to search my car.
Do I feel that we are becoming a totalitarian police-state? No way.
Early Americans fought for a representative government, i.e., a government which had the interests of the people in mind when governing. America is constituted in such a way as to provide for the rectification of any legislation, institution, or social practice that comes to be seen as more of a burden than a help, e.g. slavery, habeas corpus, etc.
Maybe it’s because I believe so much in the America as conceived by Jefferson and P. Henry that I know nothing will reduce my fellow Americans to a state of oppression.
Okay – if I haven’t gotten out of my ticket, I’m going to go and get supervision to keep it off my record just so that my insurance will not go up. (I get pulled over a lot – ~shrug~)
“America is constituted in such a way as to provide for the rectification of any legislation, institution, or social practice that comes to be seen as more of a burden than a help, e.g. slavery, habeas corpus, etc. ”
Really? Tell me how code Orange applies in this sense. The sad reallity is that code orange, code red, code … are all indicative of pandering to corporations for the sake of saving them a few bucks while they try and ’secure’ the nation and at the same time these ineffective ‘increased security’ methods are constant buzz words associated with terrorism. The Patriot Act is the same thing. None of these things are reflective of rectification of legislation, institution or social practice that is a burden on society.
Federally mandating stricter airport and airline security measures and federally mandated identification proceedures are one thing and enough has not been done but trying to label these insufficient, corporate pandering initiative as ‘for the greater good’ by labelling them “The Patriot Act” and “Security levels” is in my opinion an exploitation as well as endorses fear mongering.
You may be a cash guy but everytime I’ve had to open an account or had to refinance or finance anything – I’ve had to turn in a “Patriot Act” document.
Okay – we’ve gone way off subject here. What’s your opinion in regards to what is being said now about these girls that were denied a seat behind Obama?
That may be the case, but my point was that things which come to be seen as counter-productive (for instance, parts of the Patriot Act are not favored by many) can be rectified. This creates a sort of river-like meandering with policy ebbing and flowing from liberal to conservative with brief periods in between.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what color the code is.
What’s being said about them now? From what I understand Obama called them and apologized. I don’t know much else that has been said since I posted this…
“That may be the case, but my point was that things which come to be seen as counter-productive (for instance, parts of the Patriot Act are not favored by many) can be rectified. This creates a sort of river-like meandering with policy ebbing and flowing from liberal to conservative with brief periods in between.”
The problem is that they rarely get rectified over night and once they get into the system they usually have to go through long periods of evolving before they show any semblence of being part and parcel to our basic principals.
” I don’t know much else that has been said since I posted this…”
I thought you were a devoted reader of that slightly right of center
site lgf: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30407_Obamas_Hijab_Women_Connected_to_Radical_Groups
Or have I missed reference to it?
No, you’re right, it’s slightly right of center.
It makes no difference regarding the discrimination, whether or not these young women are affiliated with questionable groups. It’s still religious discrimination.
Even if Osama bin Laden was asked to leave the rally solely because he is a Muslim, I’d still say it was wrong. If Obama’s campaign kicked the women out because they had ties to extremists, that’s one thing, but the fact is they were asked to leave because of their religion and nothing else.
It seems like the LGFers (or “Lizards,” if you will) aren’t too surprised at the background info of these women:
and:
Of course it is still discrimination – no one would have any way of knowing this – and if they did – they ought to patent it – could be good for national security. And – they weren’t asked to “leave” – they just weren’t allowed to sit in camera view.
You said in your post to imagine how this would have turned out if McCain were the culprit. I agree with you. I just think it would have turned out quite different on both sides of the spectrum.
I have no interactions with MSA’s so I can’t really say that I know what goes on, yes – I’ve seen some articles in regards to MSA’s but I’ve also seen some articles in regards to other groups as well in which they like to provoke each other it’s like academic gang rivalry – but I find that second statement to be a offensive.
Why? It’s usually those with the strongest beliefs that are more outspoken (regardless of the issue, religion, politics, a baseball team… those who are more obsessed tend to be the loudest).
Except that for emerging ethnic/cultural/religious groups – political activism is a stepping stone and a sign of integration into one’s community.
“It’s usually those with the strongest beliefs that are more outspoken”
One can strongly hold moderate beliefs.
True, Sergei, and I would expect those who hold moderate beliefs strongly to be out voicing their opinions in the political sphere along side those who hold strong conservative and those who hold strong liberal beliefs.
Can you really blame him? The muslim religion should not be allowed in America. The koran produces nothing but mindless, angry, hateful people. Any religion that preaches it should kill other people should be illegal. They are not welcome here in America!