News Bogus Claim - Obama wants to implement Sharia Law

[mugaliens]

This isn't mainstream.

As interesting as the topic might be to me, I don't see it as either mainstream, or supportable.

Is a motion to close the thread out of order?

 

[WhoWee]

As interesting as the topic might be to me, I don't see it as either mainstream, or supportable.

Is a motion to close the thread out of order?

Oh, come on, let's see where Ivan goes with this - it could be fun.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can I post in this thread even if I'm not Ivan?

Today, I watched TV for about 20 minutes. This is not a common thing for me, since I don't have a TV, and so only watch when I happen to visit someone or if I'm at a bar, or somesuch. It's been a while.

But that brief spell of watching taught me that the claims in the thread title and OP are not as isolated and fringy as I'd thought them to be.

Some examples I came across:

Angle, a Republican running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, met with a Nevada tea party group in late September and was asked to share her thoughts about Muslims “wanting to take over the United States” and “taking over a city in Michigan.”

Angle responded: “We’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it,” according to a recording of the event the Mesquite Local News provided to multiple media outlets.

“My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Mich., and Frankford, Texas, are on American soil and under constitutional law. Not sharia law. And I don’t know how that happened in the United States,” Angle added. “It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43451.html

When asked about this later:

LARSON: Now did you say though that Sharia law was in place in Dearborn right now?

ANGLE: I had read that in one place, that they have started using some Sharia law there. That's what I had read.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/sharron_angle_on_sharia_law_in.html

And I guess that's how these things become widespread.

Here's a related incident involving Birther proponent, Steve King of Iowa:

QUESTION: I keep reading that Obama keeps bringing small quantities of Muslims into this country. Why can’t Congress stop that?

KING: You know, I don’t know what the basis is of that. I wouldn’t be surprised that that is the real factual basis.

This shouldn't come as any real surprise to people that know about King. I didn't.

In general, it looks to me like the conspiracy mill is going berserk. Just today, the Pentagon spokesperson, Geoff Morrell had to refute outrageous claims being repeated on Fox, right wing radio, and by people in Congress like Michelle Bachmann, about Obama diverting 10% of the US Navy for a trip he was making to India.

I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days. We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia; that's just comical.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

 

[WhoWee]

Is this one of those "Bogus Claims"?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2621639/posts

or should we believe this?
http://nation.foxnews.com/gm/2010/11/04/obama-lets-gm-execs-fly-private-jets-again
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it was "not accurate" to say that the government approved GM's decision to use private jets."

I'd like to know if Obama approves of the use of jets to promote the IPO?

 

[WhoWee]

I found another "Bogus Claim" - that Obama is spending a lot of money and has a huge entourage on his trip to India. How much could 40 planes and a few thousand people cost - certainly not millions - right?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021841-503544.html

"Earlier this week, the Press Trust of India reported that the United States will "be spending a whopping $200 million per day on President Barack Obama's visit" to Mumbai."

 

[D H]

I found another "Bogus Claim" - that Obama is spending a lot of money and has a huge entourage on his trip to India.

Who wee! This one is a doozy.

When I first heard this doozy it involved sending 2,000 people to rent 800 rooms in the Taj Mahal Hotel, with 40 planes carrying those 2,000 people. Now it has grown to 3,000 people, 34 warships, passenger planes plus a fleet of escort fighter jets, ...

My first thought: Obama is making two or three people share a hotel room (2,000 people in 800 rooms)? What a cheapskate! Let's take those numbers as a given, and let's give a truly outrageous price of $1,250 per night for one of those rooms. Okay, there goes the first million dollars. Where is the other 199 million? They have to eat. I would guess that a $1,000 per diem just might cover costs. So, another 2 million. We only have 197 million to go.

40 passenger planes carrying 2,000 people means only 50 people per plane. Party time! Let's make those planes jumbo jets (Boeing 747 capacity = 500 people) so that our civil servants can properly spread out. That might up the ante by another few million dollars per day. Maybe. Call it 7 million. The math so far: We've accounted for $10 million by some extremely bogus math. Where is the other $190 million?


Some facts: Taj Mahal Hotel in New Delhi has 294 rooms and suites. That alone makes it just a tad difficult to rent "all 800 rooms" in the hotel. Then there is cost. I just went to their website to book a room. Without any discounts whatsoever, they want to charge me $354 for a single room.

My $1000 per diem is a bit over the top. This State Department website, http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem_action.asp?MenuHide=1&CountryCode=1155 shows that allowances for New Delhi are $380 max (nice!) for hotel room plus $106 for meals and incidentals (also very nice).

The numbers will never add up. This is a doozy of epic proportions.

Prediction: Suppose the cost of this trip turns out to be $40 million total rather than $200 million per day. I predict that the promulgators of this particular doozy will not retract their previous statements. They will instead complain about Obama's $40 million trip as a sign of Obama's excesses.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe they're adjusting for inflation (Obama is printing money - QE-2)?

 

[turbo]

Maybe they're adjusting for inflation (Obama is printing money - QE-2)?

Already debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

 

[Office_Shredder]

You have to include the hundred dollar bills that Obama and his entourage will be using to snort coke

 

[WhoWee]

Already debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

LOL For a moment, I thought you were using snopes to debunk the threat of inflation relative to QE-2.

 

[mheslep]

Sharon Angle, very nearly Senator from NV

More reasonable and less prone to rash statements than the present Senator for NV, IMO

 

[Jack21222]

Who wee! This one is a doozy.

When I first heard this doozy it involved sending 2,000 people to rent 800 rooms in the Taj Mahal Hotel, with 40 planes carrying those 2,000 people. Now it has grown to 3,000 people, 34 warships, passenger planes plus a fleet of escort fighter jets, ...

My first thought: Obama is making two or three people share a hotel room (2,000 people in 800 rooms)? What a cheapskate! Let's take those numbers as a given, and let's give a truly outrageous price of $1,250 per night for one of those rooms. Okay, there goes the first million dollars. Where is the other 199 million? They have to eat. I would guess that a $1,000 per diem just might cover costs. So, another 2 million. We only have 197 million to go.

40 passenger planes carrying 2,000 people means only 50 people per plane. Party time! Let's make those planes jumbo jets (Boeing 747 capacity = 500 people) so that our civil servants can properly spread out. That might up the ante by another few million dollars per day. Maybe. Call it 7 million. The math so far: We've accounted for $10 million by some extremely bogus math. Where is the other $190 million?


Some facts: Taj Mahal Hotel in New Delhi has 294 rooms and suites. That alone makes it just a tad difficult to rent "all 800 rooms" in the hotel. Then there is cost. I just went to their website to book a room. Without any discounts whatsoever, they want to charge me $354 for a single room.

My $1000 per diem is a bit over the top. This State Department website, http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem_action.asp?MenuHide=1&CountryCode=1155 shows that allowances for New Delhi are $380 max (nice!) for hotel room plus $106 for meals and incidentals (also very nice).

The numbers will never add up. This is a doozy of epic proportions.

Prediction: Suppose the cost of this trip turns out to be $40 million total rather than $200 million per day. I predict that the promulgators of this particular doozy will not retract their previous statements. They will instead complain about Obama's $40 million trip as a sign of Obama's excesses.

Plus, even if this were all literally true, and the President spent $200 million a day, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, that comes out to 73 billion dollars. The federal budget is over 3550 billion dollars (source: Wikipedia). That means under the most absurd situations possible, they've only accounted for 2% of the federal budget. That's a drop in the bucket if they want to balance the budget.

 

[Gokul43201]

More reasonable and less prone to rash statements than the present Senator for NV, IMO

Aw, cheap shot. Naw fair.

 

[Gokul43201]

Plus, even if this were all literally true, and the President spent $200 million a day, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, that comes out to 73 billion dollars. The federal budget is over 3550 billion dollars (source: Wikipedia). That means under the most absurd situations possible, they've only accounted for 2% of the federal budget.

But that would be 2% of the budget spent on the President's personal affairs, and 98% for the affairs of 300 million citizens.

 

[WhoWee]

But that would be 2% of the budget spent on the President's personal affairs, and 98% for the affairs of 300 million citizens.

Is that in line with other monarchs?

 

[Gokul43201]

Is that in line with other monarchs?

I don't know. What's your point? Obama is a monarch? As far as I can tell, you're the only one here that actually believes that claim!

 

[Jack21222]

Is that in line with other monarchs?

Did you feel the wind as the point flew right over your head?

I stated that even if we went off the deep end and said Obama was spending 200 million dollars a day on himself, every day, 365 days a year, which is clearly an absurd situation, it would still barely be a drop in the bucket in our budget.

 

[WhoWee]

Next time I'll insert a little smiley when I'm having fun.

 

[WhoWee]

I guess nobody is going to tell us how many Navy ships ARE on the way to the Indian Ocean?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/pentagon-dismisses-reports-of-34-warships-for-obama-trip-security.html

 

[lisab]

I guess nobody is going to tell us how many Navy ships ARE on the way to the Indian Ocean?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/pentagon-dismisses-reports-of-34-warships-for-obama-trip-security.html

Well they did confirm the number that are *not* going .

Seriously, when the president goes overseas they keep a lot of logistical things secret. Even things that don't seem sensitive, it seems. And it's not just that way for this president, but for every president in modern times. The press should know that, and stop asking questions they know can't be answered.

 

[Evo]

Well they did confirm the number that are *not* going .

Seriously, when the president goes overseas they keep a lot of logistical things secret. Even things that don't seem sensitive, it seems. And it's not just that way for this president, but for every president in modern times. The press should know that, and stop asking questions they know can't be answered.

Oh gee, why can't we just post every move that the President makes and advertise all of his security information? That anyone would even question this is moronic.

I guess it's a compliment to Obama that since he isn't a major screw up people have to resort to nonsense in order to talk about him.

 

[WhoWee]

Oh gee, why can't we just post every move that the President makes and advertise all of his security information? That anyone would even question this is moronic.

I guess it's a compliment to Obama that since he isn't a major screw up people have to resort to nonsense in order to talk about him.

The thread is about a bogus claim.

 

[mheslep]

Aw, cheap shot. Naw fair.

Eh? I don't think so. I see you spending a lot post space on how nutty this or that TP or right wing conspiracy theory may be. That is fine, there are no shortage of targets there, but also essentially useless without some context from the other side of the political spectrum.

 

[Gokul43201]

Eh? I don't think so. I see you spending a lot post space on how nutty this or that TP or right wing conspiracy theory may be. That is fine, there are no shortage of targets there, but also essentially useless without some context from the other side of the political spectrum.

Then provide the context! A blanket assertion of someone else's kookiness without any supporting evidence is bordering on ad hominem. I think you'll find I have only made statements about people based on specific things they have said. I think you'll also find that I was objecting to the style of your response, rather than its truth value (of which I have no opinion yet).

 

[arildno]

Well, if the snopes debunking is correct, an 11-day trip of Bill Clinton cost 5.2 million dollars pr day (adjusted for inflation). He had then 1300 people with him.

Now, I would think the bulk of the money spent is to compensate the disruption of ordinary business is going to cause, rather than on aide salaries. (Perhaps I'm wrong??).
And such compensation would hardly grow linearly as a function of the number of aides, I would think it to be a strongly sublinear function.

Perhaps 7-8 million dollars pr day is a realistic assessment?

It is not quite 200 million, though..

 

[WhoWee]

Well, if the snopes debunking is correct, an 11-day trip of Bill Clinton cost 5.2 million dollars pr day (adjusted for inflation). He had then 1300 people with him.

Now, I would think the bulk of the money spent is to compensate the disruption of ordinary business is going to cause, rather than on aide salaries. (Perhaps I'm wrong??).
And such compensation would hardly grow linearly as a function of the number of aides, I would think it to be a strongly sublinear function.

Perhaps 7-8 million dollars pr day is a realistic assessment?

It is not quite 200 million, though..

Unless he's making promises along the way that will end up costing that much - what's a couple of billion in guarantees or subsidies for Obama?

 

[Andre]

40 passenger planes carrying 2,000 people means only 50 people per plane. Party time! Let's make those planes jumbo jets (Boeing 747 capacity = 500 people)

I have seen the POTUS traveling around on a few occasions. Always with two 747's, callsigns: the Air Force One and the Luggage One.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess it's a compliment to Obama that since he isn't a major screw up people have to resort to nonsense in order to talk about him.

Didn't you get the memo? There is no question that Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States.

Perhaps not the best source, but it has the direct quote I'm referring to: http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2010/06/10/bachmann-obama-worst-president-in-united-states-history/

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a rising star in the Republican Party, a true representative of the tea party spirit. She’s plainspoken, brilliant, and incisive. She’s running for re-election to the House in Minnesota. And today, I had the chance to pre-record an interview with Congresswoman Bachmann for my radio show, “The Ben Shapiro Show,”...

In the interview, Congresswoman Bachmann characterizes President Obama’s response to the BP spill as “infantile,” says he’s the worst president in American history, says he’s siding with the Islamic world against Israel. How’s that for guts!

 

[Evo]

Didn't you get the memo? There is no question that Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States.

Perhaps not the best source, but it has the direct quote I'm referring to: http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2010/06/10/bachmann-obama-worst-president-in-united-states-history/

I think this has the typo corrected.

In the interview, Congresswoman Bachmann characterizes President Obama’s response to the BP spill as “infantile,” says he’s the worst president in American history, says he’s siding with the Islamic world against Israel. How’s that for nuts!

 

[mheslep]

Then provide the context! A blanket assertion of someone else's kookiness without any supporting evidence is bordering on ad hominem. I think you'll find I have only made statements about people based on specific things they have said [...]

I assume (hope) you have a point about posting random, isolated instances of reckless or oddball behavior, beyond the specifics and verifiability of some particular instance? I https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2969135&postcount=841" you to make the point directly in the Tea Party thread. If your point is to draw attention to what you perceive is a distinguishable trend, then the burden of context is on you.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Polk? Grant? Harding? Buchanan? Pierce? Surely any person with a reasonable understanding of US history would say that Obama couldn't *possibly* be the worst president.

 

[Char. Limit]

Polk? Grant? Harding? Buchanan? Pierce? Surely any person with a reasonable understanding of US history would say that Obama couldn't *possibly* be the worst president.

Oh, come on... Polk wasn't that bad.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Oh, come on... Polk wasn't that bad.

Actually, I tend to agree -- but he's not thought of well by many.

 

[mheslep]

Polk? Grant? Harding? Buchanan? Pierce? Surely any person with a reasonable understanding of US history would say that Obama couldn't *possibly* be the worst president.

I suggest anyone who understands the definition of 'history' alone should have refrained from making such a statement 24 months into office, one way or the other.

 

[WhoWee]

I suggest anyone who understands the definition of 'history' alone should have refrained from making such a statement 24 months into office, one way or the other.

Really? Ivan posted this on October 8, 2008

"Originally Posted by WarPhalange
If you're saying Obama will be the greatest president in your life, you are just accepting the fact that future presidents will be worse and just don't care. I don't understand that mentality. I don't know how old you are, but it's like you're just giving up.

(then Ivan posted) "I see Obama as a once in a lifetime leader; in any lifetime. But more importantly, he is the right man for this time. When was the last time that you saw 200,000 Germans waiving the American flag?

Keep in mind also that he is trying to get elected in the same country that elected Bush. He has to be a politician, as do they all. And there is no doubt in my mind that if Obama was white, there would have been no race at all. The fundamentals - the economy, etc - would normally demand a change of party; esp given such a talented candidate.

Here is your Zen moment: It is almost as if we had to suffer Bush and the calamity that follows, in order to get Obama.

I think you are scratching for pebbles when a boulder is under your nose. Don't allow discontent to blind you to greatness - or at least the potential for greatness.

I am 50ish. How old are you?""

 

[CRGreathouse]

WhoWee, I read and understand the quote but don't see your point. Would you explain?

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I read and understand the quote but don't see your point. Would you explain?

Sure, I stepped back and looked at the premise of the thread (Bogus Claim). Then I read the post about rating Obama best/worst after only 2 years. Although he might now have more experience as President than he did Senator? Lastly, I compared it to an equally Bogus Claim by Ivan in 2008. The irony is wonderful.

 

[Hepth]

By "Bogus Claim" do you mean his OPINION that he sees Obama will be a once-in-a-lifetime leader? I don't there there was any claim that it was a fact more than an opinion... It's not really ironic, but more a stretch of what we're using as "claim" as well as "bogus".
I don't see how a predictive opinion about the quality of an upcoming presidency can be later looked at as a "bogus claim" if said presidency maybe wasn't as influential... a long stretch.

When reading all of these political topics here on PF I really try hard to remain independent/center, and open-minded to both sides. Most of the time its not really the topics and facts that are presented that seem to be disagreeable with me, but rather the methods of debate. WhoWee, this is not a personal attack as you've posted quite a few things I've agreed with, and some that I haven't; and I'm glad there's some lively debate going on (moderated very well) from both sides; but I have to ask, do you really think this line of attack somehow progresses this topic?

 

[mheslep]

The bogus claim about Obama and Sharia is a red herring. The relevant issue is about Sharia law entering Western civilization in general, a topic that is very real, hence (in part) the resolution in Oklahoma.

 

[Evo]

The relevant issue is about Sharia law entering Western civilization in general, a topic that is very real, hence (in part) the resolution in Oklahoma.

I thought the resolution was considered crackpot? (from the article that was linked)

 

[mheslep]

I assume most people had already heard about the lunatic NJ judge that let a guy off for assaulting his wife when the guy claimed he had that right under Sharia (since overturned). If Oklahoma is being a bit paranoid, the M. Gazette article was being overly cute, at least in its title.

"We must realize there is a major campaign in Europe to impose Sharia law and Sharia is beginning to be cited in a few U.S courts. It is completely incompatible with our Constitution," says Woolsey, who also says that he is not advocating interference with Muslims practicing their religion

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html

 

[Evo]

I assume most people had already heard about the lunatic NJ judge that let a guy off for assaulting his wife when the guy claimed he had that right under Sharia (since overturned). The M. Gazette article was being overly cute, at least in its title.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/28/oklahoma.sharia.question/index.html

I read the domestic violence case. The judge wasn't agreeing to implementation of sharia law, he was trying to abide by "freedom of religion", IIRC. I blame the abuse of the "freedom of religion clause". I seriously doubt that the people that founded this country ever imagined the ways in which this would be stretched and distorted to cover things they never even dreamt of.

 

[mugaliens]

I read the domestic violence case. The judge wasn't agreeing to implementation of sharia law, he was trying to abide by "freedom of religion", IIRC. I blame the abuse of the "freedom of religion clause". I seriously doubt that the people that founded this country ever imagined the ways in which this would be stretched and distorted to cover things they never even dreamt of.

+1. I'd add that I'm sure they envisioned different religions, as they were well-read and were no strangers to non-Christian faiths. Everyone cite's Jefferson's "separation of church and state "clause," but that's not what 1A's religious clause says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson's "separation of church and state was merely in response to a minister's concern regarding governmental control of his church, and holds no more weight in law than anyone of any other President's letters or speeches given since the dawn of our country. Presidents do not make law, and "separation of church and state" is not law. It is, however, one of the most misused, airbrushed, and misapplied phrases in the history of the United States, so much so that when people learn that Thomas Jefferson opened up the Treasury building for church services, they're aghast in disbelief, thinking, "How can that possibly be?!" The answer lies in the fact that what's amiss is the misappropriation of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to support concepts never envisioned by Jefferson, and which both his actions and other words he wrote and spoke do not support.

This distortion has grown so extreme that people singing Chrismas carols near any of the moments in Washington D.C. are directed by the Park Service to stop (I know, as I was once so directed). Apparently, they've been told that allowing it would be "respecting an establishment of religion," despite the fact that the Park Service is neither Congress, nor do they make laws.

Should Sharia law ever be allowed to creep into U.S. law, that would most certainly be a gross violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Al68]

Polk? Grant? Harding? Buchanan? Pierce? Surely any person with a reasonable understanding of US history would say that Obama couldn't *possibly* be the worst president.

What did any of those Presidents do that was so significant as to qualify them for consideration as the "worst" President? According to my "reasonable understanding of US history", none of them stand out as important enough to be considered one of the worst (or best) by anyone's standards.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What did any of those Presidents do that was so significant as to qualify them for consideration as the "worst" President? According to my "reasonable understanding of US history", none of them stand out as important enough to be considered one of the worst (or best) by anyone's standards.

Let me turn that around (as I'm presently too tired to coherently answer your difficult question): who would you list as candidates for worst (and best)?

 

[Al68]

Let me turn that around (as I'm presently too tired to coherently answer your difficult question): who would you list as candidates for worst (and best)?

Candidates for both this century would be FDR and Reagan. Which is which depends on whether you agreed with or opposed what they did. Both did significant things that many people loved while many others hated.

Polk, Grant, Harding, Buchanan and Pierce sound more like candidates for "most mediocre" than either best or worst. Just my humble opinion.

 

[mheslep]

Candidates for both this century would be FDR and Reagan. Which is which depends on whether you agreed with or opposed what they did. Both did significant things that many people loved while many others hated.

Polk, Grant, Harding, Buchanan and Pierce sound more like candidates for "most mediocre" than either best or worst. Just my humble opinion.

Worst is FDR? Not Wilson or Richard "wage and price controls, exploded regulation, exploded SS and Medicare spending, I am not a crook" Nixon?

 

[Char. Limit]

Worst is FDR? Not Wilson or Richard "wage and price controls, exploded regulation, exploded SS and Medicare spending, I am not a crook" Nixon?

What's wrong with Wilson? He kept us out of war until there was no other option.

 

[mheslep]

What's wrong with Wilson? He kept us out of war until there was no other option.

Horrendous, 18th century style bigot and wannabe totalitarian dictator.

E.g.:
The film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation" was released during Wilson's term; it glorified the Klan, it demeaned blacks and incited gang violence them. After Wilson watched the Birth of Nation at the Whitehouse,

with members of his cabinet, and their families. Wilson was reported to have commented of the film that "it is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.

 

[Char. Limit]

Horrendous, 18th century style bigot and wannabe totalitarian dictator.

Source? I'd like to see some proof that he was a "wannabe totalitarian dictator".