Ever since he took office, lies have swirled that President Obama is a “crypto-Muslim.” While it wouldn’t matter even if he was (it technically would, since a Muslim president would be an earthshaking event, but the Consitution says it doesn’t), President Obama is not a Muslim.
That hasn’t stopped right-wingers like actor Scott Baio from speculating on it, though. The Trump supporter even went so far as to suggest that the President’s response to the Orlando shooting shows that he’s a “Muslim sympathizer” who’s possibly out to destroy Western “civilization.”
“Totally eliminate the United States”
According to Scott Baio, Obama’s response to Orlando shows “he’s dumb, he’s Muslim, or he’s a Muslim sympathizer.”
“And,” Baio added, “I don’t think he’s dumb.”
So what’s the endgame here? Baio wondered that aloud after accusing Obama of being a Muslim sympathizer because he wasn’t stronger on Islamic terrorism:
Is it to totally eliminate the United States as it was created and founded and the way it is now?
Baio claimed the only time the Democrats get angry or passionate are situations that involve gun control or Republicans, but not Islamic terrorism.
If I wanted to attack a straw man, I could invert that, and claim the only time Republicans get angry or passionate is Islamic terrorism, but never about mass shootings of kindergarten-age children or Christians who are so full of their self-righteous indignation that they can’t hear you over their self-crucifixion.
President Obama isn’t a Muslim. He is very likely a “Muslim sympathizer,” but what does that mean? That you sympathize with Muslims? Hell, I’m a Muslim sympathizer by that definition and I’m proud of it. I enjoy being empathetic and helping people who need it.
I am not personally a Muslim. My religious outlook is purely philosophical; if you called me an agnostic, you wouldn’t be too far from the truth. But I can still sympathize with Muslims, just like I can sympathize with Christians, Jewish people, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, atheists, and anyone else who is human.
I’m also really interested in what he means by “totally eliminate the United States as it was created and founded and the way it is now,” because the United States of today is a completely different country from how it was when it was founded.
It was far more libertarian when it was founded, but libertarianism failed, and so we had to reject the Articles of Confederation in favor of the more centralized federalist system that’s encoded in the Constitution.
The country changed again during the American War of Secession/War of Southern Treason. Then it changed again during the Great Depression, and it changed once more after 9/11. You could argue that the country has changed 17 times — that’s the number of amendments passed to the U.S. Constitution since 1789.
What it comes right down to is this: what does the United States mean to you? Is it based on respecting and promoting a common ethnic heritage bound together by a common language, yoked under a common identity, religion, and ideology promoting sameness and rigid categorization, identified, unified, and enforced by the state? Or is it an idea, a concept, that posits that everyone can and should have equal opportunity to improve their standing in life regardless who they are, what language they speak, what gods they may worship, what color their skin may be, who they love, or how their gender is expressed, without having to sacrifice who they are or their identity?
Because those two things are fundamentally, absolutely, mutually exclusive.
When Scott Baio and other Republicans talk about “destroying America,” I get the sinking suspicion that they’re talking about the first choice, not the second one.
Watch the video below:[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ2DB8jrdl0&w=535&h=360]
Feature image via screen capture