Obama has a lot going for him. For starters, he’s the most eloquent of the contenders, and let’s face it, American politics has been short on that for quite some time now. He speaks in soothing tones of hope and love and it’s hard not to conjure images of rainbows and unicorns and other lovely things in your mind as you listen to him. And, well he’s young, African-American, a democrat and NOT Muslim. McCain isn’t either, to be fair, but his name is McCain, and well, he was in Vietnam.

Of course, none of those things qualify Obama to be President of the United States. If Obama wins, it will be because of what he appears to represent (that whole hope theme I mentioned earlier).

I’m loathe to even consider him as the lesser of two evils though. Obama is weak. I was disgusted, although I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, by his feeble position on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. I don’t think he really offers much by way of actual solutions (economy, etc). His weakness is also very evident in the way he panders to the redneck demographic.

It’s sort of amusing, but he’s heading into dangerous election territory. In his rage to win over Americans, Obama is isolating American Muslims, of which there are many, and consequently excluding them, I presume, from the American utopia he will create if he becomes President. He seems to be positively going out of his way to assure everyone that not only has he never been Muslim, he sure as hell wouldn’t want to be one. Even non-Muslims are noticing, and well, they’re not too impressed by it. Writer Emily L. Hauser has a great piece on this issue.

There was that amusing rally incident where his volunteers ushered some Muslim girls out of a shot. Obama, as has become his shtick, personally apologised to the girls over the phone.

But what I find most amazing is the way in which Obama considers the Muslim connotations to be a smear. Let’s just be clear on this, because Obama has a lot riding on this point: he is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim. He really isn’t. Anyone who says otherwise is tarnishing his image, discrediting him, sullying his name.

Well, you get the idea.

Obama says so himself on his special Fight the Smears website. So, for the record, here is the truth about Obama’s faith:

Lie:
Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Truth:
Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.

The actual smear on the intro page originally read “Barack Obama is a Muslim”. Now it reads “Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim”. Either way, apparently being called a Muslim, a secret one or otherwise, is a bad thing.

I can back up Obama’s claim. He’s not Muslim. Well, I haven’t seen him at any of the meetings in any case.

Ever since Washington, where Rudd cooly dropped the acronym CSBM (confidence- and security-building measures) during an address to foreign policy wonks at the Brookings Institution, collecting examples of what Rudd calls “geek talk” has become a trip favourite.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest, where Rudd spoke of war in terms of establishing and measuring performance benchmarks, the ABC’s Louise Yaxley asked him whether the leaders had streamlined the rules of engagement that apply to the NATO soldiers.

“You mean RoEs,” said Rudd.

“Yes, I mean rules of engagement,” said Yaxley.

At the Grove, Rudd’s acronym use hit near-fatal levels as he rattled off – always without explanation – EWS (early-warning system), RTP (right to protect), CCS (carbon capture and storage), and IFIs (pronounced iffeys, international financial institutions).

The ripper came when he chaired the session on climate change, reminding each speaker to keep their contribution to three minutes. When the first speaker easily exceeded three minutes, Rudd tried to crack a joke as he warned Jens Stoltenberg of Norway, who was up next: “Jens, if you go beyond three minutes, your ODA goes up 0.1 per cent.”

No one laughed or said anything, either because it was possibly the unfunniest joke ever told or it took a good while for everyone to work out what ODA meant (overseas development aid).

You can read the piece in its entirety here.

“It doesn’t recognise Israel”, says Toby. A perplexed Bartlet points out that it was drawn in 1709. “Israel wouldn’t happen for another 250 years,” he adds.

Toby agrees, but still says no to the map. “Some people are going to find it offensive.”

Bartlet asks why. “It doesn’t recognise Israel,” Toby repeats.

It’s an interesting scene. The dialogue is brief, but it says so much.

And it’s sort of strange that I first saw this in the same week our new PM Kevin Rudd made the fortuitous decision to mark and honour Israel’s 60-year occupation of Palestine — sorry, “statehood”. But this weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald’s Alan Ramsey considered the other side of the story.

Imagine, if you will, a world without Islam—admittedly an almost inconceivable state of affairs given its charged centrality in our daily news headlines. Islam seems to lie behind a broad range of international disorders: suicide attacks, car bombings, military occupations, resistance struggles, riots, fatwas, jihads, guerrilla warfare, threatening videos, and 9/11 itself. Why are these things taking place? “Islam” seems to offer an instant and uncomplicated analytical touchstone, enabling us to make sense of today’s convulsive world. Indeed, for some neoconservatives, “Islamofascism” is now our sworn foe in a looming “World War III.”

But indulge me for a moment. What if there were no such thing as Islam? What if there had never been a Prophet Mohammed, no saga of the spread of Islam across vast parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa?

Given our intense current focus on terrorism, war, and rampant antiAmericanism—some of the most emotional international issues of the day—it’s vital to understand the true sources of these crises. Is Islam, in fact, the source of the problem, or does it tend to lie with other less obvious and deeper factors? For the sake of argument, in an act of historical imagination, picture a Middle East in which Islam had never appeared. Would we then be spared many of the current challenges before us? Would the Middle East be more peaceful? How different might the character of EastWest relations be? Without Islam, surely the international order would present a very different picture than it does today. Or would it?

The entire article can be viewed here.

If readers would like to ask any questions of Professor Fuller, they can send them to FP by this Friday, January 25, and the magazine will publish his answers here on January 31.

The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether – as well as thrilling longtime libertarians who have been laboring in the vineyards all these years and haven’t seen anything like this before. On the other hand, it has inspired – if that’s the right word – a counter-movement, an anti-Paul coalition that extends from the extreme Left to the neoconish Right, and all points in between. What’s interesting is that the lies told by these anti-Paulistas amount to pretty much the same tiresome mantra, no matter what the politics of the perpetrator, and it amounts to this: Paul is a secret neo-Nazi.

I kid you not.

…

The anti-Paul Popular Front is wide-ranging, extending from the neocons over at the Weekly Standard and the editorial offices of National Review to the left-wing Web sites priming their readers for Hillary’s candidacy – and leading, finally, to the lair of something called the American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP), a neo-Nazi outfit run by a weirdo by the name of Bill White. White’s contribution to the smear campaign is a cock-and-bull story, posted on the Vanguard News Network forum, which claims that Paul and his aides have regularly met with neo-Nazi nut-jobs such as himself, supposedly at a series of dinner meetings organized in Washington, D.C.

The entire piece is worth reading.

Raimondo concludes:

The sheer breadth of the anti-Paul Popular Front is an astonishing sight to behold, extending all the way from avowed Nazis to radical Zionists, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Beck. Both Fox News and the International Socialist Organization are out for Paul’s scalp – and you can tell an awful lot about people by their enemies. What this tells me about Ron Paul is that he’s just what many people on both sides of the political spectrum have been waiting and hoping for.

Domain Name: nelsonfacts.com
Created on ………….Mon Nov 26 16:46:53 2007
Expires on ………….Thu Nov 26 16:46:53 2009
Record last updated on .Wed Nov 28 18:51:42 2007

It’s not immediately clear who is behind the site but when one looks at the Whois record, it is apparent that they are using the ALP DNS server, dns1.alp.org.au.

Interestingly, the same person or group also registered costellofacts.com, bishopfacts.com, abbottfacts.com, turnbullfacts.com, and robbfacts.com (all named after prominent Liberal politicians who may have been contenders for the leadership) so obviously they were hedging their bets on who would assume leadership of the opposition today. They haven’t yet registered pynefacts.com (after Christopher Pyne) or andrewsfacts.com (after Kevin Andrews).

Geraldine Doogue
Imam Ali, what do you believe are the major moral issues to be addressed in this campaign?

Imam Afroz Ali
The issue of climate change is a moral issue. I think I’m quoting Al Gore there. That it’s not a political matter. It’s a moral matter. And we need to return to understanding what the environment is. What is the environment? Why does it exist? Do we use it until the last drop of water on earth? Is that how it is? Is there a cross generational responsibility?

It’s interesting to note that the other religious representatives made similar points. And recently the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils were calling on the government to:

Ensure Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions peak and begin to decline in the next five years, set a long term reduction target of at least 60-90% below 1990 levels by 2050 and a pathway of strong interim targets to meet that long term target.

Is this a “major moral issue” for religious figures to be speaking out about? Or is it, as Frank Furedi wrote recently in Spiked Online:

These days, moralisers find it easier to make people feel guilty about their impact on the environment than about committing one of the seven deadly sins. Not surprisingly, many religious institutions are busy reinventing themselves by promoting ecological virtues and preaching against the eco-sins of polluters.

On occasions, the attempt to recycle traditional theological concerns in a green form becomes a caricature of itself. In August, Dom Anthony Sutch, a Benedictine monk, announced that he would hear eco-confessions of sins against the environment at the Waveney Greenpeace festival, in a confessional booth carefully constructed from recycled materials. The good monk clearly practices what he preaches. He tries ‘very hard’ to live a green lifestyle and is proud of his principal achievement – reducing his electricity bill by 30 per cent. This mock ritual is unlikely to offer penitents’ salvation or redemption, but their ‘awareness’ will be raised. And these days being ‘aware’ is recognised as akin to being virtuous.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The fifth of November is, of course, the day on which an attempt was made to blow up the parliament and features prolifically in the movie V for Vendetta. The next online Ron Paul fundraiser promises to be even bigger; to be held on December 16th, the day of the Boston Tea Party.

Unlike some of his opponents, Ron Paul’s message of small government, humble foreign policy, personal freedom and low taxes is simple and coherent. It is interesting that the message — or elements of the message — evidently resonate with many people, including people who might not have identified themselves as Republicans or libertarians in the past. A Ron Paul victory would be good for the United States and good for the rest of the world. Let’s hope this is the start of something.

(And, of course, if you are Australian and you too are sick of the depredations of government, then you know who to vote for in the coming election.)

As I have written previously, it’s my view that the political ideology that best guarantees us those freedoms is libertarianism. It is therefore of particular interest that there is a libertarian party, the Liberty and Democracy Party, running in the coming election — and they have a real chance.

So, to find out how this party views issues of concern to the Muslim community, I put a few questions to John Humphreys, the party’s vice-president and senate candidate for Queensland. We report, you decide; but I know who I’ll be voting for on election day.

What is the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP) all about?

The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) is the only political party in Australia that doesn’t want to tell you how to live your life. Every other political party thinks they know how you should behave – which hobbies you should have; how you should raise your children; how you should spend your money; and what sort of community you should join. The LDP is the only party that says “it’s your choice, not the governments”.

We understand that people sometimes make the wrong decisions in life. But if we really are a free people, then we must be free to live our own lives, even if that means occasionally making our own mistakes.

The key to the success of a free pluralistic society is tolerance. The LDP does not promote any particular lifestyle choice. Further, it is not necessary for Australians to agree with the decisions of their neighbours. All that is required is tolerance. The LDP is the party for non-interference and tolerance of diversity.

In recent years, the government has taken steps to ban books and other material that it believes is ‘extremist’ or inciting hatred. Assuming the literature doesn’t call for specific acts of violence, what is the LDP’s position on this?

The LDP believes in absolute freedom of speech, even when that speech might be controversial or offensive.

So long as there are no direct and specific threats of violence, people should be free to promote any ideas, even if those ideas are ‘extreme’, absurd or unpopular. The truth has nothing to fear from an open debate.

There have been repeated calls in Australia and abroad for the government to impose limitations on what Muslim women can wear in public. Does the LDP support the freedom of women to wear whatever they please?

The LDP fundamentally believe that each person owns their own life and should be free to make their own decisions without undue government interference. So long as people interact voluntarily and peacefully, they should be free to make their own lifestyle choices and wear what they choose.

The LDP would certainly defend the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want.

What is the LDP’s position on private schools and particularly religious schools?

The LDP supports a schools policy of more parental choice and less bureaucratic control. Our policy calls for a “voucher” system of funding the parents (who then use that money on a school of their choice) instead of giving money directly to the schools.

We believe that this would lead to more competition between schools and a greater diversity of schooling options, including a range of religious schools and non-religious schools.

The LDP supports the freedom of these schools to control their own staff, rules and agenda. So long as they abide by minimum standards necessary to prepare their students for university, schools should be free to cater to the specific demands of their community.

When people talk about ‘multiculturalism’ it can mean different things. On the one hand, it means that people are free to practice whatever culture they choose (providing it does not harm others or limit heir freedoms) without interference from the state. On the other hand, there is a form of multiculturalism as government policy where the government takes an active role in funding and controlling or influencing the expression of different cultures.

Does the LDP support the freedom of people to practise their culture and religion as they wish free from government involvement? What is the LDP’s view on the state establishing and funding religious organisations, choosing leaders for the Muslim community, and generally interfering in the cultural and religious affairs of a minority?

The LDP absolutely supports the first version of multiculturalism described above – the freedom to choose your own lifestyle free from government interference.

We do not support the government’s efforts to control and manage multiculturalism. Culture is fluid and dynamic and should not be controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. We do not support government programs that try to change, preserve or adjust people’s culture. Nor should the government interfere in the appointment of community leaders or the religious affairs of any group – whether they are a majority or a minority.

Culture is a very personal and private decision and the government should not be involved.

What’s the LDP’s view on the war in Iraq?

The federal LDP did not exist when the Iraq war was being debated. But personally I have always been a fierce critic of the war and in 2004 I published an award-winning essay on the need for us not to over-react to terrorism.

In that essay I wrote: “It is hard for any rational analysis of the war [in Iraq] to reveal a net benefit”. My argument was that the greatest threat to our freedom was irrational fear and political over-reaction. I also argued against the ASIO Act which reduces the civil liberties of all Australians.

What is the LDP’s immigration policy?

The LDP recognises the significant benefit gained from immigrants and we are a pro-immigration party. Indeed, we are the only minor party that supports high levels of non-discriminatory immigration. We condemn the calls by Pauline Hanson and the Christian Demoratic Party for a halt to African and/or Muslim immigration and the LDP would like to make it clear that we appreciate the contributions of all immigrants — from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

The LDP would support the introduction of “free immigration agreements” with approved countries so assist in the easier flow of people. We already have such a policy with New Zealand and there is no reason why it couldn’t work with Singapore, the Netherlands or Dubai.

While it is necessary to detain unauthorised arrivals for security and health checks, once those checks are complete then refugees should be free to be released on bail, to live in the community while they are awaiting the final decision of the courts. The LDP believes that Australia should be responsive to the calls for greater refugee intake in times of crisis.

Consistent with our other policies, our immigration policy is one that celebrates diversity, calls for tolerance and reduces the role of government.