About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Investor's Business Daily: "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?"

January 16, 2008 3:25 pm ET

SUMMARY: An Investor's Business Daily editorial claimed that "the core" of Sen. Barack Obama's "faith -- whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two -- is African nativism" and asked: "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?" The editorial's claims about Obama's faith being "lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two" echo widely debunked allegations that Obama is or ever has been a Muslim.

38 Comments

A January 16 Investor's Business Daily editorial claimed that "the core" of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "faith -- whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two -- is African nativism" and that Obama's familial ties to Africa "have potential foreign policy, even national security, implications." The editorial also asked what it called a "valid question": "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?" The editorial's claims about Obama's faith being "lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two" echo widely debunked allegations that Obama is or ever has been a Muslim. Investor's Business Daily also cited "the issue" of Obama's "Muslim past," pointing to recent claims by Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes that Obama "had a reasonably Muslim upbringing" and that Muslims may "consider him a 'murtadd' (apostate), that is, a Muslim who converted to another religion and, therefore someone whose blood may be shed." As Media Matters for America noted, however, Pipes' claims were based largely on a Los Angeles Times article from March 2007, key portions of which were later challenged by the Chicago Tribune.

Additionally, Investor's Business Daily claimed that Obama "already has heeded his church's 'nonnegotiable commitment to Africa,' spending an inordinate amount of his campaign time on the Kenyan crisis, for one," but offered no explanation as to why the paper considered Obama's attention to the recent violence following Kenya's disputed presidential election "inordinate." The editorial also said that "Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with [Kenyan opposition leader Raila] Odinga, who claims to be his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki." However, the editorial did not note that according to a January 12 Economist article, Obama "has apparently tried to get in touch with Mr. Kibaki, too, but without success."

The Investor's Business Daily editorial also attacked Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, claiming that the "Black Value System" espoused by Trinity United "encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders." This claim, however, is false; "encourag[ing] blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society" is not a tenet of the Black Value System. According to a document posted on Trinity's website, the Black Value System urges members to "Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions," but does not, as Investor's Business Daily claimed, "encourage[] blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society" in doing so. Several conservative media figures have attacked Obama's church, as Media Matters has documented.

From the January 16 Investor's Business Daily editorial:

Since we first drew attention to Barack Obama's Afrocentric church a full 12 months ago, other media have weighed in. And additional disturbing information has come to light.

At the core of the Democratic front-runner's faith -- whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two -- is African nativism, which raises political issues of its own.

In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks.

It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media's portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.

The code also warns blacks to avoid the white "entrapment of black middle-classness," suggesting that settling for that kind of "competitive" success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them "captive" to white culture.

[...]

Wright makes the Rev. Jesse Jackson look almost moderate and patriotic. Yet this is whom Obama picked to baptize his daughters, plus to act as his "sounding board" during his presidential run.

The candidate already has heeded his church's "nonnegotiable commitment to Africa," spending an inordinate amount of his campaign time on the Kenyan crisis, for one. Obama has close family ties to Kenya, and even founded a school in his ancestral village -- the Senator Obama School.

In the bloody conflict there, which already has claimed some 700 lives, Obama appears to have sided with opposition leader Raila Odinga, head of the same Luo tribe to which Obama's late Muslim father belonged.

[...]

With al-Qaida strengthening its beachheads in Africa -- from Algeria to Sudan to Somalia -- the last thing the West needs is for pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Yet Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, who claims to be his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.

Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?

It's a valid question, and one voters deserve to have debated regardless of the racial and religious sensitivities. Thanks to a media blackout of these issues, the electorate has yet to benefit from a thorough vetting of Obama.

We have to wonder how much of the national agenda Africa would consume under an Obama administration. Of the six "world threats" Obama lists in stump speeches, at least half of them concern that chronically troubled Third World continent.

Yes, some of his African priorities are noble, such as fighting AIDS and genocide. But how much U.S. aid, resources and presidential time would he devote to them? How much is enough? If Bill Clinton was America's "first black president," would Barack Hussein Obama be our first president for Africa?

Then there is the issue of his Muslim past. Obama, 47, was raised by two Muslim fathers and attended Islamic classes in Indonesia.

He denies being Muslim, however, and says he "embraced Christ" while answering the altar call 20 years ago at Trinity. (Contrary to anonymous e-mail rumors circulating, Obama never took the oath of office on the Quran. He used a Bible, and Vice President Dick Cheney swore him in during his Senate ceremony.)

This merely raises another concern, beyond that of the controversial church he chose to baptize him. If Obama were ever Muslim, even as a youth, he would now be viewed as an apostate, which in radical Islam is punishable by death. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes has noted, a President Obama could be the target of a fatwah.

Still, his Muslim heritage is not the signal issue before the electorate. It's his Afrocentric church, which preaches black socialism and black nativism, and his family ties to an African tribe that's fanning the flames of Marxism and militant Islam in a country once considered strongly democratic and a friend of the U.S.

"I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change," Obama has asserted. He also says his faith has led him to question "the idolatry of the free market."

If a President Obama's foreign and domestic policies are anything like the Afrocentric doctrine he's pledged to uphold, Americans will pay a hefty price, including those among the growing black middle class.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (January 16, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
         
      Gee - Rush Limbaugh-style racism seems to be spreading....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 16, 2008 7:26 pm ET)
           

        The claims that the school Obama attended in Indonesia was strictly Muslim has been debunked, but whether or not Obama was at any time a Muslim or engaged in Muslim practices or received Muslim religious instruction has NOT  been proven to be false.  Not that I care, I'm an atheist so I think ALL religions stink, but I'm just saying ....

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by atheist (January 16, 2008 7:30 pm ET)
             

          Further, it's not so outrageous to wonder if Obama might be an Africa loyalist because the Trinity Church which he appears to be so connected to does state in it's Mission that they have a "non-negotiable committment to Africa", whatever that means.  Again, not saying that I personally think this is a big deal, but I can understand why it might be to others.

          So I see the heat is off Hillary now and on Obama.  Interesting.

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (January 16, 2008 11:20 pm ET)
             

          "but whether or not Obama was at any time a Muslim or engaged in Muslim practices or received Muslim religious instruction has NOT  been proven to be false."

          Those of us who believe in the American system of justice also believe that you are innocent until you have been proven guilty. 

          Obama is the one being accused, the burden of proof should not lie with him to prove he is innocent of the charge of Muslim practices.  The burden of proof is on the accusers.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 17, 2008 12:35 am ET)
             

          The claims that the school Obama attended in Indonesia was strictly Muslim has been debunked, but whether or not Obama was at any time a Muslim or engaged in Muslim practices or received Muslim religious instruction has NOT  been proven to be false.  Not that I care, I'm an atheist so I think ALL religions stink, but I'm just saying .... Atheist

          Atheist, tell me, when people choose not to accept a persons word, how does one go about proving, to someones satisfaction that they were not a Muslim, did not engage in Muslim practices or receive Muslim religious instructions? By the way what are Muslim practices and what is involved in Muslim religious instructions?

          Obama's birth parents were both atheists. His stepfather, was reportedly, by some right-wing rags, a "radical Muslim". This "radical Muslim marries an atheist? IMO, it doesn't make sense for a radical Muslims to marry an atheist. He lived in Indonesia for 4 years (age 6 to 10) then Hawaii for prep school on to Los Angeles where he attended Occidental College, received his degree from Columbia University and on to Harvard Law School. IF Obama had any Muslim "practices or religious instructions" with him running for President, one would think there would be someone to say that he did indeed have Muslim "practices or religious instructions". I have not heard of anyone coming forward to say that he did, so maybe, just maybe Obama's telling the truth. Will that fact EVER be acceptable? I doubt it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 18, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
               
            The right will continue to repeat the lie, becuase if it's repeasted often enough it will be accepted as the truth by enough people to steal another election.  If the republican were held to actual facts, and the US population wasn't so easily duped the party would all but disappear.  They offer nothing but propaganda.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (January 16, 2008 3:34 pm ET)
         
      How about his tribe from Harvard Law School, think they would benefit? Oh right, they already do.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
         

      Of course, we'd never see a republican putting - oh, say terrorists, for instance - ahead of US interests, right?

      http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Ex_lawmaker_charged_in_terror_consp_01162008.html

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 16, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
           

        Snoop,

        Convicted until proven guilty eh?  

        At least they arrest Republicans. They elect Democrats to Speaker.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2995828&page=1%22

         

        ;-)  

        Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (January 16, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
             
          Whenever you post something, AA, it almost never proves what you imply it does. Pelosi made a trip to Syria. The White House criticized her. Are you suggesting Pelosi did something illegal? And do you seriously think that White House criticism serves for any objective basis?  
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (January 17, 2008 12:23 pm ET)
               

            Pelosi made a trip to Syria.

            At the same time that several Republican lawmakers also travelled to Syria.  And we'll never hear AA criticize any of THEM.....

            Report Abuse
        • Author by T-Hone (January 16, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
             
          AA, do you even bother reading the articles you link to?  Why don't they EVER support your arguments?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 16, 2008 8:10 pm ET)
             

          AA,

          Surely you can make a better analogy than that!  Did Pelosi give money to a terrorist organization?

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 16, 2008 8:43 pm ET)
               

            Fried and all the rest,

            My post was simply a rejoinder using a well known example regarding a Democrat to an off topic post by my friend Snoop in a put down of Republicans. We all know an analogy doesn't have to be exact to be an analogy. Besides, The implication I made with my analogy is that there are current Democrats also act contrary to U.S. positions in dealing with terrorists or in this case rouge states who support terrorism as opposed to a Republican Congressman who served 20 years ago and has not yet been tried or convicted. You can accept it or not, but I believe Pelosi's actions were in direct conflict with U.S. foriegn policy and in fact was undermining that policy of the United States by consorting with an enemy of the United States and in addition made false assertions regarding an allie, (Isreal,) to Syria. 

            Feel free to disagree.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (January 16, 2008 10:37 pm ET)
                 
              It wasnt an analogy at ALL. It was STUPID. There is NO evidence that Pelosi acted against US interests. She went to Syria. We went all over this at the time.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 16, 2008 8:45 pm ET)
               

            Fried and all the rest,

            My post was simply a rejoinder using a well known example regarding a Democrat to an off topic post by my friend Snoop in a put down of Republicans. We all know an analogy doesn't have to be exact to be an analogy. Besides, The implication I made with my analogy is that there are current Democrats also act contrary to U.S. positions in dealing with terrorists or in this case rouge states who support terrorism as opposed to a Republican Congressman who served 20 years ago and has not yet been tried or convicted. You can accept it or not, but I believe Pelosi's actions were in direct conflict with U.S. foriegn policy and in fact was undermining that policy of the United States by consorting with an enemy of the United States and in addition made false assertions regarding an allie, (Isreal,) to Syria. 

            Feel free to disagree.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2008 8:47 pm ET)
                 
              Since I don't recall seeing you criticize the republicans who made the same trip after Pelosi did I have to say I think your analogy rings a little hollow.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (January 16, 2008 8:47 pm ET)
                 
              Sorry for the double post.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 16, 2008 9:28 pm ET)
                   

                Let me fill you in. :-) I think it was a bad idea for the Republicans to go.

                The difference is tThe Republicans did not put themselves out there as proffering an alternative foreign policy as did Pelosi and gang. Their meddling in foreign policy goes beyond their constitutional rights. 

                Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a member of Pelosi's delegation, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "We are going with the clear intention of making our position crystal clear to the Syrian leadership, basically indicating that it is in their interest to return to a position where they can be part of the positive forces in this region and not be in tight alliance with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's Iran."

                Besides there is a big difference in the eyes of the world when the person third in line to the Presidency and leader of Congress not to mention the opposition, meeting with Syrian leaders rather than one of 400+ other Congressmen. 

                I hope you now see my critique is not as hollow as you made it out to be.

                Go ahead and defend Pelosi. Otherwise you are guilty of the same hallowness of which you accuse me.  

                 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by sportsguydave (January 17, 2008 1:11 am ET)
                   

                AA:

                It wasn't all that good the first time.. :)

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (January 16, 2008 10:39 pm ET)
                     
                  And how is that an ALTERNATIVE foriegn policy as opposed to EXACTLY the US position? It was weak
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2008 11:09 pm ET)
                     

                  Chuckle!

                  Of course you believe that. After all, all she did was meet with the guy, it's not like she was in a position to offer any alternatives to the administration's plans. But go ahead and push that idea if it makes you feel good.

                  And I'm kinda surprised you would think this guy deserves a fair trial. If he were, oh, say Jose Padilla, I'm sure he would be treated just as fairly, right?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (January 17, 2008 12:24 pm ET)
                     
                  No one is as hollow as you, AA.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (January 16, 2008 10:33 pm ET)
             
          That was sad and pathetic even for YOU AA. Your hiveminded nonsense is just a joke
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (January 16, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
         
      Investor's Business Daily?  Is it related to the Paris Business Review and the famous O'Reilly boycott of France?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
         

      Maybe Obama is on the hit list because he's not demanding Americans to work harder. Us lazy liberals just want to kick back and enjoy the government teat and all!

       http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/16/bachmann-jobs/#comments

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (January 16, 2008 4:14 pm ET)
         
      The racism toward Obama is spreading, the media really is showing its true colors. Quite disapointing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 16, 2008 4:16 pm ET)
         

      It's not racism, its religious bigotry for judging simply based on Church attendance. Obama's Church brings race into play so it's really not a hands-off subject when speaking of his church.

      That being said, these comments are NO WORSE than some on here questioning whether Huckabee's stated beliefs will be put ahead of the Constitution if he's elected president, for example.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (January 16, 2008 4:42 pm ET)
           

        "...these comments are NO WORSE than some on here questioning whether Huckabee's stated beliefs will be put ahead of the Constitution if he's elected president..."

        I'm not sure how you figure that.  Huckabee said that the Constitution should be changed to conform to God, because you can't change God to conform to the Constitution.  He personally made that comment, so I'm not sure how that's equivalent to all the extrapolating and theorizing about something that Obama's church states, which we don't even know what it really means or whether Obama himself takes that tenet very seriously or not.  It doesn't seem to be as valid or as important of a question to me.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (January 16, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
         

      Let's see the oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States right?

      So if he shirks his duty (if he becomes President) and puts say, some special interest group ahead of the nation, he should be impeached. I wonder who else we could apply that logic to??

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 16, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
         
      Exactly. Huckabee should be hammered by the press for his idiotic statement, but they are too afraid of the GOP's Troglodyte base. Has Obama made any kind of statement that the Constitution should be amended to conform to his church's teachings? I don't think so.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hilaryhawke4039 (January 16, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
         

      I often wonder why the Media reports of slavery never include the fact that without black Africans enslaving their fellow Africans and then selling them to white Europeans, the slave trade would never have existed. 

      An African filmmaker released a movie several years ago addressing the black on black roots of the slave trade and, needless to say, it never became a box-office hit.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by funnymanpants (January 16, 2008 5:34 pm ET)
         

      Investor's Business Daily really wrote one ugly smear. The logic strikes me as something you would read in Freeper land, not something a business magazine would put out. They must really not want a Democratic president. After all, look how much their investors can gain if a Republican gets in and makes the tax cuts permenent.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 17, 2008 2:34 am ET)
         

      The editorial speaks of a conflict of interest with respect to Obama without putting it into the context of previous Presidents having similar conflicts with respect to the place they identified with, namely Britain during the two world wars.

      Report Abuse