Frank Gaffney Thinks Obama is a Secret Muslim
Nutjob defense analyst Frank Gaffney has decided to really double down on the theory that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, writing that “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.” The “evidence” for this proposition appears to consist of Obama having some familiarity with Islam and attempting to conduct himself in a respectful manner. By this standard, I suppose I’m only pretending to be Jewish since when I find myself in a church (visiting a nice cathedral, say, or attending a friend’s wedding) I try to comport myself correctly.
Matt Duss has more and concludes:
As I said, Gaffney’s own past work strongly argues against taking him seriously as an analyst. As someone willing to cast deeply irresponsible and transparently bigoted accusations against the president, however, he should be taken very seriously.
All true. But what’s more is that television networks have a nasty habit of turning to Gaffney as a commentator on all kinds of defense and security questions.
40 Responses to “Frank Gaffney Thinks Obama is a Secret Muslim”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
But Gaffney is a proponent of plugin hybrids, proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The rest of the world thinks Gaffney is a not-so-secret fuckwit.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
But Gaffney is a proponent of plugin hybrids, proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
All wingnuts adopt one token rational, vaguely liberal-ish position on something, just so they can say they’re being “reasonable.” I suspect Hitler may have adopted vegetarianism for similar reasons.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
My favorite part of this vacuous column is where he claims that “By the time Mr. Obama’s friends in the radical Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census takers, the official count may well claim considerably more than 7 million Muslims are living here.”
The Census Bureau is prohibited by law from inquiring about religious affiliation.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Gaffney is published in the Washington Times? Funded by the Reverend Moon?
Will Gaffney reveal his opinion of his paymaster? Do we someday get a column entitled “America’s First Cultist Newspaper”?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
He’s probably a Zionist, so of course he is fuckwit. And worse, much worse, a lowlife. Name one – just one – person alive today who is a Zionist and not a lowlife.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Re James Gary
Actually, Mr. Gaffney doesn’t support plugin hybrids because he is a closet environmentalist. He supports them as an approach to reducing US dependence on imported oil from the Middle East, certainly a laudable goal.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Mr. Gaffney is correct about the shariah. The shariah is a radical movement of muslim terrorists based in Egypt. The shariah has been attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Mubarack administration for years.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
If you’re Jewish and go into a cathedral you’re basically obligated to take a dump on the altar while singing Havah Nagilah. Otherwise you must be Catholic. Likewise if you’re a Christian in a mosque, a Muslim in a Buddhist temple, etc.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I especially like “This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black” followed a few paragraphs later by “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.”
And of course, “The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.” Because if Obama was actually Muslim it would have consequences similar to WWII.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“… the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.”
Am I misreading Gaffney, or is he casting Obama as Hitler in this analogy? They’ve been comparing him with Chamberlain for ages now, but if he’s the one doing the duping, hasn’t he moved up to Hitler status? I think conservatives have blown their wad a tad early.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Mr. Gaffney is correct about the shariah. The shariah is a radical movement of muslim terrorists based in Egypt. The shariah has been attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Mubarack administration for years.
Is this satire? Does John F. Blevins know what Shariah means?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Churches creep me out.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“The shariah is a radical movement of muslim terrorists based in Egypt.”
Umm, Shariah is basically a legal system. Although there are many interpretations, so it’s not even one system.
“The shariah has been attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Mubarack administration for years.”
Democratically elected? You can’t be serious. He’s as democratically elected as Saddam Hussein or Papa Doc Duvalier. In order to be democratically elected, you need to have an opponent. Forcing people to sign ballots that say: “I support candidate X” is not democracy. Egypt doesn’t quite go that far, they just outlaw the opposition parties.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Is this satire? Does John F. Blevins know what Shariah means?
“Satire” is the wrong word. Look a post or two up the page: Blevins is the real name of a noted pseudonymous blogger who was recently outed by a right-wing hack, and here on Yglesias’ comment threads some asshole has been signing his name to a few comments.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
It is odd, though, that the dishonest person commenting as Blevins upthread would be writing comments like he’s writing. The real Blevins is a moderate left-winger. Why, then, associate him with inflammatory right-wing comments? It’s clearly not him, and to the extent it’s not clear, the content of the comments reflects badly on positions Blevins disagrees with rather than shares.
I mean, if some right-wing troll or bully or proto-fascist wanted to discredit Blevins because he’s liberal, the obvious way would be to sign his name to something written by Ward Churchill or something. Instead, we’re seeing the reverse. Either the person writing the comments is a nonpartisan asshole mocking someone recently outed for the fun of it but not particularly interested in the victim’s politics… or he’s just not too bright in general.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Re the phony John Blevins
Mr. phony Blevins is either very confused or very ignorant. The religious opposition in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, many leaders of which propose to impose the Sharia on Egypt if they were to obtain power.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Cyrus,
Someone used my name in another thread to say something racist. That was not me. John F. Blevins is not racist.
I stand by my comments about the shariah, however, which is in fact a radical islamic movement in Egypt. Foster is apparently confusing the shariah with the umma. As for Mubarack’s election: no democratic system is perfect. Mubarack is as democratically elected as George W. Bush was.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
…since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain…
Because everybody knows he pretended to be an Englishman, named Hilter. With friends Vibbentrop and Bimmler.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Amongst other things, this highlights how inconsistent the views of crazy extremists are. We shouldn’t trust Obama because he’s just a talker without substance and is unable to function without a teleprompter. But his every word is also deeply meaningful and substantive and he apparently doesn’t use speechwriters.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Frank Gaffney is a nut. The problem is that if you guys keep screwing shit up, these are the guys that are going to be running FP in 4 years time.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Foster is apparently confusing the shariah with the umma.”
Umm, no. You are confusing a legal system with a political party. Here’s the definition of Sharia: “The term means “way” or “path to the water source”. It is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on fiqh (Islamic principles of jurisprudence) and for Muslims living outside the domain.” I’m not sure which “Umma” you refer to (and you certainly don’t), but as it applies to Egypt, it is an extremely irrelevant political party there. Only a few hundred members. The relevant opposition in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. They do want some form of Sharia to be imposed, but that doesn’t make them ‘Sharia.’ An analogy would be the Republicans and Natural Law. While there is a Natural Law Party, it is not the same as the Republican Party. And while Natural Law is supported by most Republicans, it is still a legal philosophy, not the Republican Party.
“Mubarack is as democratically elected as George W. Bush was.”
That’s silly. For that to be true, the Democratic Party would have to have been outlawed prior to the election.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Wow – that’s weird. I guess people have no way of knowing if I”m telling the truth, but that comment above (by Blevins) was certainly not written by me.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Re: And while Natural Law is supported by most Republicans, it is still a legal philosophy, not the Republican Party.
If what the Republicans spout has any relationship to real Natural Law (in the neo-Hellenistic sense) then I’m a horse’s @$$. A real Natural Law approach to economics would base itself on the observation purpose of property is to encourage the flourishing of human virtue and the provision of human needs, not treating property rights as an absolute right unconnected with any duties and obligations.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Fair enough, Hector. They obviously don’t agree with all of Natural Law. I was using the ‘Natural Law’ term the way that Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas apply it. They reject the economic justice aspects of Natural Law while applying Christianity to the law as it pertains to abortion, gay rights, etc. I guess when I think about it, your views are the only ones that consistently uphold the traditional view of Natural Law.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Re Matthew Yglesias
It’s about time to ban the phony John Blevins who is usurping the real Prof. Blevins name to post crap comments on this blog.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
He did bow to the King of Saudi Arabia!
June 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
And that’s the problem: Gaffney gets to go on television and spew his nutball ramblings as a “Defense Analyst.”
The media: legitimizing illegitimate rightwing “opinions” since 1980.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
That’s just plain pure unadulterated hatred and fear of black men and muslims. Disgusting stuff.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Maybe Gaffney could team up with David Irving and write a few papers, maybe even a book. It sounds like they’re on the same page when it comes to distorting or refuting known facts.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
There is mounting evidence that Frank Gaffney is secretly the Abominable Snowman of claymation Rudolph fame. I’m not saying he is, any more than Bill Clinton is black, but he is. Judge for yourself:
http://clrapp.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/snowmanimage.jpg
June 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“I guess when I think about it, your views are the only ones that consistently uphold the traditional view of Natural Law.”
Well, you (Hector) and the Liberation Theology movement in the Catholic Church.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Because everybody knows he pretended to be an Englishman, named Hilter. With friends Vibbentrop and Bimmler.
Those sneaky National-Bullshitists!
I heard they meet at Axis cafe down on Rosedale Road.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
So he says that Obama may be considered America’s first Muslim President.
He says that as if a Muslim President would automatically be a bad thing.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I agree with SLC on this. It’s not as if he’s taking a controversial stance or bucking the accepted beliefs of patrons of this site. He’s just making a spectacle of himself. Banning him isn’t censorship, it’s sanitation.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Frank Gaffney thinks that Saddam Hussein bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Gaffney is published in the Washington Times?
I actually know a guy who’s an editor at the Washington Times (he’s a hardcore conservative), and he says that, for what it’s worth, of the three papers he’s worked for, the WT is the one in which the owner interfered the least in the editorial content of the paper.
Now, maybe that’s just because only conservatives work there, or what, but there it is.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am
[...] light of Frank Gaffney’s latest efforts to hype up the “Obama is a secret Muslim” myth, Brendan Nyhan draws my attention to the [...]
June 10th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
BHO, the jig is up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cE0RZo8DcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWcxKuE94B8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAGfunfpNU
http://americangrandjury.org/
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/rally-for-the-republic/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXKyO2G8kGM0&ei=MFQwSu6nL5vMMuPUzPIJ&usg=AFQjCNHdY-ny5-9jIwfWeoG02MlyTTmvXg
s/ceaucescu/obama/g;
Note to Michelle and Hitlery: there is a flip side to women’s lib.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXKyO2G8kGM0&ei=MFQwSu6nL5vMMuPUzPIJ&usg=AFQjCNHdY-ny5-9jIwfWeoG02MlyTTmvXg
s/ceaucescu/obama/g;
That URL and s/ceaucescu/obama/g could get you a visit from the Secret Service, nabalzbbfr.