Beck says he chose that date without realizing its significance.

Can I say that if Beck isn't a shameless liar, he's as thick as a bucket of baby poop left out in the sun for a week. Neither option is particularly attractive.

It is astounding how many ill informed people I meet every singe day. As a 27 year old, I am most shocked by the people my own age who spew this nonsense that Beck, Limbaugh and Palin preach. I make excuses for the older generations, but for a 20 something year old to not be informed is downright depressing.

Even worse are the people who chose not to care to find out what’s going on around them. They can’t tell you where we are at war. Or what socialism really is.

Idiocracy is coming true in front of my eyes.

Great to see this argument in black and white. As you say, the insinuations and misinformation gain traction and sway the public. A democracy cannot be run on lies. I believe Obama is the best president the US has had in a long time. He is prepared to stand up for what he believes in and doesn't seem to pander to pressure. He has many enemies who are fighting dirty at every turn. I think that they should have to account for their comments because they mislead the general public.

Why is it that the US People (I'm not calling you "Americans", because everyone in the continent-from Alaska to Argentina-lives in the American continent…Sorry, on in those in Sierra Amerrique, Nicaragua can be called Americans) have a tendency to preserve a conservative profile inside while they export a tolerant, golden paradise overseas? I'm not any "Anti-USA" person, but I know that the damage done to other countries (specially those in Latin America) is very close (in defamation) to Mrs. Palin insinuating that Obama is a Muslim and that he wants to end the "American Whatever-comes-into-the-person's-mind". Furthermore, the people themselves are aware of how everyone has tremendously effective campaigns to plant crazy ideas in people's minds (TV ads, religious fundamentalists, corporative campaigns…) and can't recognize one that's in front of them? Many people from many countries died in 9/11. Yes it was a tragedy beyond human interpretation, yes it destroyed hearts from people all around the world, yes it changed the world. But, it also demonstrated what the US is capable of: seeding so much hate and anger in everyone that it creates massacres. Wasn't it a lesson for understanding that violence (Monroe Doctrine, American Imperialism, support of Military dictatorships in Latin America, Korean War, Vietnam, constant defamation and stereotyping of other cultures and countries…) leads to more hate and anger? No, it wasn't: instead of reacting with the sorrow and peace-of-mind, Mr. Bush launched an entire invasion to the Middle East! Isn't the same seeds-hate and misinformation for private ends-starting to grow there, in a land of "religious tolerance" and a "human melting pot"?

Reply to: Ebert: Beck and Palin speak about "taking back America." The buried message is that they will take it back from Muslims.

I wonder how far down that message could be buried.

I will look for it.

I think there's a more honest message that needs to be... well, discussed.

In 620 AD, a man sent his troops to take over a village. He took somewhere between 600 and 900 prisoners. Let's say 600.

The prisoners said, "Each man will take one camel and we will leave."

Mohammed said, "No, that is not the will of Allah. It is the will of Allah that we cut off your heads."

This was not the usual standard for dealing with Prisoners of War.

The message of Mohammed was, "Even though I routinely kill all the people I take as prisoners, you must understand that the great god Allah approves."

And his followers said, "Well, if Allah approves, then it's okay by us."

In this context, is there any indication that President Obama is a Muslim? Other than the name he uses, not much. For a politicial, changing your birth name has certain risks. In this case, not changing your birth name leaves people confuses about "Hussein."

All of the issues about President Obama being a Muslim can be traced to his decision NOT to file a simple document with a court and legally change his name before he went into politics. Since it was his decision, he deals with the questions by laughing. "Yes, I'm responsbile." So what?

The Qur'an was supposed to be proof that God approved of certain terrorist actions, like flogging women, owning slaves as property, or cutting off the hands of thieves. In the way we define "religion" in the United States, Islam doesn't meet the criteria. People are starting to realize that.

You've got to understand how the process of "conditioning" works. In order to make people close their eyes to certain brutal practices, make them focus on "God wants us to do it this way." ie, God wants us to get down on our knees and prostrate ourselves. God wants to forgive every transgressor who converts to Islam. God wants....

After a while, the constant rhetoric of "God wants..." rings hollow. How can any religion teach that God wants adulterous married women to be stoned?

Reply to: Ebert: The man who was swept into office by a decisive majority is now considered by many citizens to be the enemy.

That's just a side effect of democracy, the two-party system, and holding Presidential elections every 4 years instead of 6. There's a rigid four year timetable for building a Presidential campaign. You always accuse the man from the other party of being Satan, a Muslim, the Antichrist... and then, after the votes are counted, you all sit down for beer and pizza in the Rose Garden.

The problem with coming out saying that Obama is not Muslim is that it implies that it matters. The statement has always to be given in two parts - he is not a Muslim and it should make no difference if he were.

And yet the same amount of people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush and his administration had a hand in that. Does Mr. Ebert believe that is a dangerous belief? Does he condemn the liberals who have allowed that lie to be perpetrated? Will Mr. Ebert call on Obama, Pelosi, the Clintons to issue a joint statement saying that Bush did not have a role in 9/11? I would laugh if Ebert wasn't so sad.

Ebert: I have often said it is absurd to believe Bush or any associate has any thing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I believe they did NOT.

I dismiss those who say so.

Obama, Pelosi and the Clintons have never suggested Bush had any such role, and in fact all three have publicly denied it.

It's worth revising the words of Colin Powell on his endorsement of Obama for President back in '08:

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to [say] such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Wise words.

This country is really beginning to frighten me, with the level of hatred and ignorance spewing from people. It's like the early days of the Nazi party.

Back in 2001, I was proud to be an American. Now I'm ashamed. It's almost enough to make me consider moving up to Canada.

To me,Mr. Ebert's article does not only call to task Republican party members who should have spoken up a long time ago. It also reminds me that those of us who do not buy into the hate mongering that people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are generating need to act with our votes. We cannot be complacent during the November elections. Not voting will be disasterous. And we'll only have ourselves to blame.

I suspect that those who most fear "the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world" are Christian fundamentalists who want to impose Christian law around the world. They have forgotten that this is a secular nation. They insist that this is a Christian nation and that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. They are Christians first, Americans second.

Only by remaining secular can we avoid the kind of conflict we see in the Mideast and elsewhere in the world.

The misinformation is sickening. Republicans try to frame the national debate as a public conversation about the role of government; but how can we have that conversation when a vast part of the nation is simply wrong about basic facts like this?

The most disturbing thing I've read lately is that 26% of those who think Obama is a Muslim actually approve of his job performance. They like their Muslim president! It's ridiculous how much power the media has, and how much they are currently abusing that power. It saddens me that we are heading for an election where Democrats will be voted out of office by people living in a mass hysteria in favor of those who nurtured that hypnosis to better hide their propensity for sabotaging government and hurting people just to line the pockets of the rich. It makes me sick, it really does.

The "birthers"--even though this question has been ASKED AND ANSWERED, as they say in court--are using this dead horse beating as an excuse for their own racism. And that Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin--shame on him.
Those who think Obama a Muslim, likewise. Or woefully ill-informed, as those who think the earth is flat or that we've never been to the moon.
The problem with him and all the other Tea Party people is not their lack of intelligence. Certainly, among their numbers are accomplished, successful individuals. But it seems they all seem to be lacking in one thing--emotional intelligence.
As described in Wikipedia: "Emotional intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived grand ability to identify, assess, manage and control the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups."
These people can't see beyond the perception of their own needs, or, what they are certain ARE their own needs. They are the opposite of Bill Clinton: they can't feel your pain.
So every time I see a gathering of these mostly white, mostly middle class folks, I see a group of people who basically want to hold on to their stuff and certainly want their money back.
They couldn't care less about the starving or homeless person next door to them.
The upcoming collapse of the world stock markets--which IS coming, and soon, regardless of who is president or what policies he or she enacts--will force ALL of us to re-prioritize our "purpose here on the planet."

Beck claimed to not know the significance of the date he chose for his rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and now he claims to have randomly chosen September 11 as the date for his appearance in Alaska? Does he think that a wink or a "Gosh, I didn't know" is fooling people of intelligence? If not, why didn't he change the date of his rally, or why doesn't he hold the Alaska event on another date? The answer is depressingly and horrifyingly simple. He is an arrogant gasbag with a Messiah complex. Unlike Palin, who's a bona fide idiot, Beck, though lightly educated, is unfortunately quite shrewd and knows exactly the significance of what he's doing. He chooses these dates and the things he says carefully, to provoke confrontation with liberals in the hopes of further demonizing them.

Let's put some Glenn Beck logic to this situation:

Glenn Beck is white
The nazis were white
Glenn Beck is a nazi!

This is what he does. Connect seemingly meaningless things to make what appears to be a connection. I saw appears, but I don't think it does.

[i]Beck says he chose that date without realizing its significance.[/i]

He talks about this date every day on every show and the date was a randomly chosen date?

Now that he's boasting genuine political influence, the USA's obsession with Glenn Beck has stopped being a comic eccentricity and has tipped over into a fully depressing, pathological collective wish to be deluded. I find it hard to believe that people honestly believe that Obama-is-a-Muslim rhetoric - professing to believe it is just a convenient get-out for the hard complexities of actual, nuanced political debate. Nobody wants or expects all Americans to agree on everything, but while there are difficulties that need to be overcome, desperately poor people to be fed, educated and medicated, and while the rest of the world crouches in their crossfire, it's utterly disheartening to see so many of them willing to hide behind hysterical, scaremongering demagogues.

I fear this call will fall not on deaf ears, but on ears with fingers in them.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the general message of Mr. Ebert's post, It bothers me that he places so much emphasis on the issue of wether Mr. Obama is a muslim. It is certainly reprehensible that so many public figures see fit to distort the truth. But focusing on the President's religion appears to say that if it were true he were a muslim, this would be somehow proof that he is unfit to be president. I believe wholeheartedly in the concept of freedom of religion, and reject the notion that muslim = evil. The violent attacks of muslim terrorists are caused by a small percentage of fanatics, and horrify the muslim community as a whole. I don't care in the least wether Mr. Obama happens to be a muslim, christian, atheist, or whatever. The issue simply isn't relevant.

Rush Limbaugh has told his listeners he can find "no evidence" that Obama is a Christian.

And I can find "no evidence" that Limbaugh hasn't relapsed and is currently doing his radio show under the influence of illegally obtained prescription drugs. Then again, I'm not actually looking...

Roger, I'm a little disappointed in you. While it's true that we have to combat the lies of those who insist or imply that Obama is a Muslim, we also have to accompany that truth with another, more nuanced truth: That even if Obama were a Muslim, there would be nothing wrong with that, because America is built on a guarantee of religious freedom wherein all religions and creeds are granted equal footing and none is favored above another. To simply refute the allegations without including this reminder does little to combat the bigots who wish to embroil this country in a religious war.

It's not as if, were 100% of Republicans to believe that Obama is a Christian, they would dislike him any less or they would suddenly somehow be amenable to his ideas or miraculously see the light.

We all know that Republicans who think he is a Muslim dislike him a great deal, but so do the other 43% who don't think he is. The problem is not that he's black or that his father was a Muslim. These are just toe holds. The problem, at the bottom of things, is that he's a Democrat and they are Republicans.

This is the reality of the two-party system. G.W. was called the anti-christ and a fascist and a Nazi, and now Obama is. What's new? I mean, any one who pretends to find Obama's situation unique in this respect and in the big picture is being disingenuous.

The only end to this comes from an informed public indeed. One that is aware that the balkanization of American politics is cheerily, if sneakily, encouraged by both major parties and vacuously endorsed by citizen partisans whose stock in the democratic process is beginning to look more like a sports rivalry than anything else.

The red Solo beer cups are a-flyin'. Who's a racist today? Who's a commie? Who's a demagogue? A dummyhead? NoBattahNoBattahNoBattah...Where do people find the flippin' energy? Wears me out.

Anyone who bothers to do a little bit of research knows that President Obama is not a Muslim. To me, however, even having to assure people of this indicates a larger problem. Let me ask, what if he were Muslim? In a country that promises freedom of religion, shouldn't that be his right to be a Muslim.
Moving on to Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners he can find "no evidence" that Obama is a Christian. Well, what if he isn't? Isn't it a violation of the Constitution to obligate the president to follow a particualr religion? I'm telling you Roger, I'm very, very afraid of what I see going on.

Here's my question: Who cares whether Obama is a Muslim or not? I don't happen to think he is, but if I had voted for him (I voted Green Party, and I am Christian) his being a Muslim wouldn't have changed my vote.

That's the worst part: even those who attack the attackers, and assert he is a Christian, are missing something important: by making this an issue, Islam automatically becomes a bad thing. If people defend Obama, it is an implicit indication that being Muslim is a bad thing. And it's not. Muslims are no more guilty of hate crimes than anyone else.

Fortunately, the chances of Beck running for office are slim to none. You must keep in mind that he is a Mormon, and they hold some very controversial beliefs in the eyes of most other "Christians". He may be able to whitewash that theology into some sort of generic pap for his television and DC mall audiences, but even he isnt delusional enough to believe he could do it thru an entire grueling campaign season. And Palin? She's hardly much more prepared for 2012 herself. So I wouldnt worry too much about them announcing a ticket on 9/11.

You have to wonder about the 2% who think he's the antichrist but don't think he wants the terrorists to win. I'm not sure if my failure to take such poll results seriously is a good or a bad thing.

It's a sad state of affairs that a politician's religion, which should be first and foremost be a private matter, is made so important. The right wingers should also be careful about planting wind.

The other point implicit in the "Obama is a Muslim" fear campaign is that being a Muslim is A Bad Thing in and of itself. Islam does NOT equal terrorism, which is the idea that Beck, Palin et al are trying to peddle. They can't quite say "Obama is a terrorist," so they insinuate he's Muslim and that that is the same thing as being a terrorist.

Any way you look at it, the cynical misinformation put out by the extreme right is extremely frightening and depressing.

Where is the current generation's Edward Murrow?

Mr. Ebert clearly and succinctly states the problem. That so many public figures could engage in McCarthy-like tactics and go unchallenged is terrifying.

Where indeed are the principled and loud rebuttals from the highest levels of the right? Where is the constant mainstream media coverage exposing this as the major scandal it should be, and insisting that the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin say outright whether they believe our president is a Muslim, and deliver the proof. And if they can't, make it a huge scandal that they can't.

Why isn't the reaction of Wall Street financiers to regulations a major news story, running constantly? Where is the detailed coverage of legislation that protects Main Street and consumer interests coming under attack by Big Money?

Lots of people in this country are angry, but it seems to me they are angry at all the wrong things. And until the major news sources actually decide to do some investigative reporting for a change, voters are going to end up making decisions about issues they only hear one side of.

We need an Edward Murrow now more than ever.

The entire world of politics has been reduced to hate-mongering, blanket labeling of the other side, and ugly personal attacks. I agree that those on the right allowing this false impression of President Obama to fester and grow is completely wrong. As you say, they need to stop the hate-mongering and come clean with their own belief.

However, I wish you'd stop implying that hatred and underhanded political tactics are the sole domain of the right. You're better than that, Roger. If someone argues against gay marriage, he/she is immediately labeled a homophobe. If someone agrees with the Tea Party platform that spending needs to be cut and the national debt drastically reduced, he/she is now part of a group of racist thugs according to the left. Thus, there is never any actual discussion of the issue of reducing debt. I don't have to listen to you, because I've decided you're a racist. The blanket labeling and language of hate has killed the chances of either side working together with mutual respect. This is why no bi-partisan efforts succeed anymore. The sad thing is, often the best answers to our problems are found in the middle.

The left and right both need to step back and take stock. We need to realize that the people vehemently disagreeing with us also are citizens of this country and love it just as much as we do. We're supposed to be on the same team.

Somehow, I believe, the American educational system should incorporate reviews of the basic tenets of the world's major religions. Of course, such a curriculum runs afoul of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. However, if presented through a historical prism, religious study need not offend the "separation of church and state" doctrine. In my opinion, this religion overview will go far to combat the root of the problem Mr. Ebert presents in this blog - sheer fearful ignorance. Many of us dream of learning unequivocally what the major religions - especially Islam - truly believe. Early mandated religion overview can help fill up the gaps.

On the other hand, this religious debate is somewhat of a deceptive disparagement. The provenance of this debate is really economic anxiety. If the U.S. were prospering right now, I don't think its people would really give a damn about Mr. Obama's religious affiliation. But we are not prospering, so Mr. Obama's ethnicity and sympathies become a distracting, even diverting, exercise. How does the President combat this? More attendance at Christian church picnics? An audience with Pope Benedict? A conference with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople? More Christian Church photo ops? It's a delicate dilemma. It could be worse; Mr. Obama could be a closet Mormon :)

But what can be done to silence these people? It would take lots of money to properly educate people to the point of being immune to such inane chatter, and we ain't paying it. There's a saying, something like: "Keep `em dumb, angry and scared, and you control them." Puppetmasters, all of them.

The economic crisis started with Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac garbage that can clearly be seen on YouTube that democrats wanted no overhaul, called republicans racists for even suggesting there were problems with it and yelled just like Beck at anyone that disagreed with them.

As long as each side, conservatives and liberals, are filled with extremist nut jobs that believe they're absolutely right and perfect and the other side is evil incarnate, we will get nowhere as a nation.

The comments here so far are typical; one-sided, blind-faith following of President Obama, and of course more it's all Bush's fault ramblings.

Now, how many responses to my comment here before I'm called a Nazi?

It's to late, this group of people will believe what they believe. If a republican stands up and says, "Obama is not a muslim, can we now have a serious discussion about (insert issue here)!" he will be voted out of office and replaced by someone who will say what the people want to here.

I have another theory about this. I strongly suspect that quite a number of Republicans tell pollsters they believe President Obama is a Muslim (or favors terrorists or is the Antichrist) not because they know this to be true. Instead they say this to goad and taunt Democrats. Our political discourse has become so polarized over the past couple of decades that we have moved well beyond logic and reason. It has degenerated into name-calling and demonizing rather than discussion of legitimate facts and debatable opinions. It began sometime in the early '90s with Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, and it has been taken up by a host of imitators, of whom Glenn Beck is only the latest. Sadly, some Democrats have adopted the same tactics. We're now at the point where many people voice expressions they know not to be true just for the sake of angering the opposition.

They call him a Muslim -- or just imply that he is -- because they can't call him a nigger ... in public.

Beck is still a rodeo clown at heart. He's just gotten to the big leagues now, protecting corporatists by distracting the anger of those they steal from.

A Beck/Palin administration - talk about a nightmare scenario. I hope, from the depths of my heart, that we as a people are smarter than that...

And then I read today that some conservatives are going after Einstein's Theory of Relativity as a liberal plot.

God help us from stupid people....

GLENN BECK FOR PRESIDENT!!

One thing that constantly bugs me: even if Obama was a Muslim, why would that be such a bad thing?

Ebert: It wouldn't be a bad thing, and I should have stated that in my entry. A great many readers have pointed that out.

I thought it was funny you lumped Taft, Nixon, Reagan, Buckley, and Goldwater together. I don't think Goldwater would be for federal taxes for public schools. I think you blur together conservatives way too much in your blog. Very few modern day conservatives are for cutting federal funding of schools these days. Reagan ran on abolishing the Department of Education, but failed to do so. Ron Paul would definitely cut off federal funding, but few others would. The majority of Republicans are just stupid politicians. They say they are against the new healthcare plan because it’s not constitutional, but they are for Medicare and Medicaid.

Even though I am totally against democrats, I do think they actually believe what they say much more than republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/lawrence-odonnell-exposes_n_260177.html

Also, we're not a democracy because the founders knew the general public would not be informed. This is why Senators were originally selected by the states and not the general public. The 17th amendment in 1913 changed Senate seats to be forcibly voted by the public. As you know though, having the local government Blago send someone to congress can also be bad.

The current and emerging Republican leadership, bereft of new ideas about how to solve today's problems, instead align themselves with a teeming, volatile mob. If any conservative or Republican politician remains silent, then I take that as a declaration that their constituency is the ignorant, the misinformed, and those stupidly blinded by hate and fear.

I enjoyed reading about your opinion and this article could not come at a better time. We all have a responsibility as citizens to criticize and inform; I feel by writing this piece you have done such with admirable prose and evidence. Keep up the good work, Mr. Ebert.

"People willingly believe what they wish" Julius Caesar.

In all this time people haven't changed much.
It appears critical thinking is not a high priority to many folks. I read one of your archived essays recently about 10 rules to discredit/destroy the opposition. Looks like its working.

"I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." - Jay Gould, 1886.

If you look over at Yahoo News, in the comments for any topic, you will see tens of thousands of nasty messages, virtually all of them having some degree of dishonesty. Unfortunately, "big money" interests have a lot of money, and they are more than willing to pay people to fight for their interests. I know a very right-wing pilot who has repeatedly attacked his own interests. He's been successful. Wages and benefits for almost all pilots have been decimated. And he continues to attack his own interests. How can I get him to stop punching himself in the face?

I'm glad you noted that Bush 1 & 2 and McCain have already said Obama is not a Muslim.

McCain denied Obama is a Muslim during the campaign. Kristen Whig even spoofed the "crazy lady" who asked McCain about it on SNL. McCain could get a whole lot of his "maverick" cred back by doing so again.

This is as bad as my friends on the left who claim Bush planned 9/11.

Verrrry interesting, about Beck booking the arena in Anchorage for 9/11. One of the oft-repeated falsehoods about the Manhattan community center is that they planned to open it, or still plan to break ground, or something, on 9/11/10. I first heard this when I got into a debate on Facebook with a former classmate. Minimal Googling got me this page showing that Fox News is the only media outlet that's reported this claim, and they've apparently repeated it over and over with no attribution. I asked my classmate for any non-Fox News source backing it up and she gave me an opinion piece from the CNN website, written by a Republican candidate for governor of New York. ARGGGGGHHHH.

So anyway, after the organizers of Park51 don't break ground on 9/11 (because they were never going to in the first place), what are the odds Beck and Palin get up on that stage and tell Real America that they and their cronies personally stopped it from happening?

Who is the closet Muslim?

Did you know that "Sarah Palin" is an anagram for "Sharia Plan"?

I keep wondering this about the people who say they believe President Obama is "a Muslim" in response to polls: do you (anybody) think ALL of them really believe this, or do you think some/most of them are saying they believe this in the hope that they will convince other (needless-to-say-prejudiced) people to believe this?

I have run into this kind of discussion/primitive propaganda attempts a few times in person on these kinds of ugly political topics. Worth saying I guess that the "leaders" we are talking about here definitely provide a role model of this corrupt kind of behavior - Palin et al surely know that Obama is not "a Muslim."

Hey, Roger. President Bush was demonized for 8 years, called things a lot worse than "Muslim."

Where was your outrage then?

Ebert: I was outraged that he led us into battle by citing evidence his administration knew was false. Was I wrong to be outraged?

Roger, I find a nit to pick in your otherwise excellent essay:

"The conservatism they prefer is not the traditional conservatism of such figures as Taft, Nixon, Reagan, Buckley or Goldwater."

I'm sorry, but Nixon a "traditional conservative?" How quickly we forget that once upon a time, there was a liberal wing to the GOP, just as there once were conservative Democrats (and I don't just mean the Dixiecrats either.) Nixon started the EPA, instituted price controls, lowered the speed limit on interstates, and normalized relations with Chairman Mao, among other things which had the conservative wing (led by Goldwater) tearing their hair out. Nixon, Ford, Bush the Elder, Rockafeller... all are now referred to as "Republicans in Name Only" by the people now running things on the Right.

Except Nixon, who gets a pass, because he's considered a martyr, and because the Right loves the idea of the president being able to do whatever he damn well pleases without consequence. Which, in turn, is why they have such a phobia of a Democratic president: if a liberal like Obama is allowed to do whatever he wants, he just might pull the sky down on all of us.

While Obama is obviously not Muslim, the more important question to me is: so what if he was? Last time I checked, there's no requirement in the Constitution that Presidents have to be Christian, or religious at all.

There are fanatics on both sides.

A disturbing number of Republicans are unsure of Obama’s faith. An even greater number of Democrats believe 9-11 may have been an inside job.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

Here is the salient point from the 2007 Rasmussen poll cited in the link above:

“Only 39 percent of Democrats believed W. Bush did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while 26 percent said they were unsure and slightly more than one third of Democrats believed W. Bush knew his country was going to be attacked.”

Got that? 61% of Democrats believe Bush had advanced knowledge of 9-11 or are unsure if he had advanced knowledge. That is bat shit C-R-A-Z-Y.

So let’s “put up or shut up” right now. I typically vote Republican and I don’t think Obama is a Muslim. A terrible President? -- Yes. But a Muslim? -- no.

How about you Roger, will you put up or shut up? I’ve read your screeds about Bush, Cheney and “neocons” (whoever they are) being responsible for everything from the housing collapse to the BP oil spill. Will you say categorically that the Bush administration did not know about 9-11 before it happened?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a followup blog entry citing how important an informed electorate is and how terrified you are of the stupid opinions Democrats hold about Bush.

@Jose Gabriel Leon
Basically, it's simple: US-Americans, by and large, don't (seem to me to) care about anything beyond their borders.
That's why they regard the US as synonymous with "America", that's why the offensive wars that are being fought in the name of 9/11 don't factor into their view on their political leaders, that's why Sarah Palin thinks she should be the most powerful person in the world (because she can see Russia from her house) and why even well informed people like John Stewart think that Germany is still run by the Nazis.

Watch. Listen. Think... Check out this powerful song/video about the Ground Zero "mosque" controversy:

HEY AMERICAN on YouTube

by NYC songwriter David Ippolito - a voice for PEACE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-dGCVwZdu4

Then share with your family and friends.

Roger, my friend. There are two simple facts in play:

1. The longer President Obama is in office – frequently visible to the American people, the higher the percentage of people who think that he is a Muslim grows.

2. This is a result of the President’s own words and actions, not because of a conservative media drumbeat.

Let’s look at Obama’s words and actions regarding Islam and Christianity that lead people to this confusion on his faith.

You do not have to ask Obama if he is a Muslim to get him to extol the virtues of, and historical contributions of, Islam. He does it often, almost every other time he is in front of a microphone. Since day one, when his first press interview went to an Arabic language media. From his Cairo speech, to his 18 month administration wide outreach to the “Muslim world”, to his frequent statements such as “America is the largest Muslim nation” and his direction to NASA’s director that his principle mission was outreach to the Muslim world. All the way through to his very public Iftar dinner for Ramadan at the White House.

By contrast, you do have to poke him with a stick to get him to say anything positive about Christianity. Interviewers have to ask him directly “are you a Christian” to get a yes. Any other time he either ignores Christianity (have you seen a White House dinner for Christian leaders?) or denigrates it (“America is not a Christian nation”). He can’t go to church, because he doesn’t want to bother the other parishoners, but he can certainly bother other golfers in 42 rounds of golf in 18 months. Did he go to a Christian church during his vacation on Martha’s vineyard? No. Did he play several rounds of golf? Yes.

America is a religious nation. Americans have plenty of personal experience weighing and judging their friends and neighbors professions of faith vs. their words and actions. As American watch Obama live a very public life they see a man whose words and actions do not match his professions. It is as simple as that.

Deal with that fact: the longer he is in public, the higher the number of people who believe that he is a Muslim. And it is because of his words and actions, not the evil influence of media or billionaires.

The GOP in my beloved home state of Florida recently elected Rick Scott to be their candidate for Governor. During the primary, I laughed my ass off that this pig would even have a chance of winning. If you don't want to research his history, let me just say he was the CEO of a hospital in Naples which perpetuated a multi-billion dollar medicare fraud. He claimed ignorance and innocence. He either is a fraudster or, at best, an incompetent executive. Pick your poison.

His campaign had a catch phrase, used the recent conservative* approach of tax promises which are economically unsound, blamed the status quo, and essentially ran a by-the-book campaign.

He won by a slim margin. This fact makes me terrified for a Palin or Beck (or both) campaign. Prior to Rick Scott, I would not have worried. But, apparently, Roger, people like pandering. And people are angry (on all points of the political continuum).

*Roger, conservatism has been hijacked, and it is a tragedy that it has become a party of nuts. Can we come up with a new term to separate those in the past and the few in the present who have valiantly carried principles which actually are economically sound and socially responsible, from the loudest and richest from the past decade who have driven the sensible constituents away from the party?

I get the impression sometimes that if I were to call in to a radio talk show - hosted by one of these Obamaphobes - and I told them that I'd found Obama's original birth certificate which proved beyond any doubt that he was born on a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, they (and their diehard listeners) would believe it hook, line, and sinker.

Because they've made it clear that they don't think he fits the definition of an American, and they would love to be told that he isn't even a human being. Conservatives often talk about "returning to the values of the past." Sadly, xenophobia is one of those values.

Of course, xenophobia is commonplace in any backward society.

Can it be anything other than willful ignorance?

I've held some pretty out there beliefs at points in my life, in my teenage years I bought into the left-wing beliefs that Western media is bought and sold by corporations and that all U.S. wars are based on imperialism and hegemony. This had an appeal at the time, the thrill of the conspiracy, but my desire in all of this was to uncover truth. My interest in politics remained, and eventually my beliefs were tested; faced with the common sense evidence that my views were wrong, I reformulated my opinions and came closer to something like the truth.

I wonder how these people don't find their beliefs tested, or find a willingness to have their beliefs tested, or don't see logic when it stares them in the face. Worse, some people seem to be proud of their ignorance, and find some contrarian pride in being opposed to all rational argument; you see it with climate change, with birthers and Islamophobia, and on the left with the 9/11 conspiracies. That's the worrying theme that underlies the Beck and Palin stump speeches, that "real America" is anti-science, anti-government, militarily Christian and validated in being ignorant and bigoted, as though the blue-collar salt of the Earth America is incompatible with thoughtfulness, liberalism (in the classical sense) and rationality.

Apparently Craig R thinks equating Glenn Beck to a bucket of baby poop is an acceptable alternative to responsibly debating the issues of the day. I hear many references to hate in responses from the left and all of them directed at conservatives and Republicans. I heard a clip from the Ed Show recently; he wanted to pound Fox News into the ground and then pee on them. Now I know where the anger comes from. The left has gone so far over the top in demeaning their opposition, it no longer has any effect.

Yes let’s denounce this growing strategy by the super-rich to create doubt about Obama’s heritage. Not that it’s going to change the direction this country’s heading which is economic failure. I, like other concerned citizens lay awake replaying the latest news articles describing the current failures of our leaders to do anything other than pass half-ass laws that are so obviously crafted by lobbyists to maintain status quo so the rich stay rich. My latest fantasy is that someone such as Ed Shultz who has a podium to lead the charge in a new way. I’m talking about an extreme shaming strategy. Spend an hour calling out all the senators by name along with any personal information available and with extreme prejudice embarrass the hell out of them. The inevitable “out of bounds” call should be ignored and any senator should have an open invitation to appear and defend themselves and be welcomed with the facts of there corruption. Call them out for the liars and deceivers that they are directly and to their face. Make the case that the only terrorists we should be fighting are the ones in congress. They are the ones bringing us down by there in-action. Make it personal and keep it personal and maybe some of them will act in a more morally correct manor. I’m sure there are many people reading this who think this is a naive idea but isn’t this where we’re heading anyway? Obviously all the calls to become more aware citizens and to write your congressman is a waste of time. Talk about naïve. Name them, their spouse, their kids, the car they drive, anything to piss them off. Save your two wrongs speech for your kids. We’re sinking people.

The 9/11 highjackers and terrorists are winning if we allow ourselves to have such hatred for Muslims as the terrorists have for thier own people who believe differently then they do. They rejoice in tearing down our laws and the rights we have through democracy. It's that same democracy that we are trying to impart into their world. The very thing we are fighting a war over.
They want their version of religion to rule, they deny rights to those who do not have their religious beliefs, and go so far as to spread hatred and fear among those they consider lesser peoples. Now replace the words religion and religious with politics and political,now doesn't that sound familiar? Terrorists deny and kill in the name of their religion, how far will we go?
If we fight each other over our differences we are no better than those we are at war with. We are at war with terrorists, not a nation of people, not an entire faith, and certainly not fellow Americans.

Look, I've been living in China for four years now, and I've finally decided to quit the country permanently and go home to America, and now I see this.

And no the problem is not "well is he a Muslim or not?" the problem is "what on earth is the problem if he is a Muslim?"

My girlfriend is Muslim. I have Muslim friends. You telling me they aren't American because their religion is different from WASPs? That they can't be President of the United States because they share the same religion as 19 bigots? This is something Colin Powell pointed out two years ago, and we still ignore it.

This stupidity has gone to heights far more absurd than the stupidity that I encounter day by day in the People's Republic. And day by day, Chinese industry manages to surpass American industry in ways both legitimate and dishonest.

Meanwhile I tune into American news, and I see that a movement has managed to gain momentum by appealing to the same Nativism that pops up every 30-50 years in American history. "No, we're not against black people -- see, we pay lip service to MLK; but hey those BROWN PEOPLE AREN'T LIKE US. LET'S DEMONIZE THEM."

The honest-to-god truth is that I see China making the same mistakes America has made, and I see America making the same mistakes China has made. And no one is making strides towards solutions that would benefit... well, ordinary people.

I understand that there will always be Glenn Beck demagogues and there will always be Koch Brothers profiteers, but can the rest of us please at least cooperate?

Roger, get real.
In this article you explore every possible reason for people believing Obama to be Muslim - from conspiracy to demagoguery - except for the strongest, most compelling and easily observable reasons: Obama's words and behavior.
That being said, I'm not convinced he's a Muslim but he certainly may be and it's entirely reasonable to think that's the case. I KNOW he's a follower of the Black Liberation Theology of Jeremiah Wright fame. However, anyone who understands what that is, knows that it is not necessarily exclusive from Islam. Both share the world view that America and Western Civilization are the greatest cancers to mankind and must be purged and remolded into something else. Obama clearly DOES have this worldview, and at the very least is more sympathetic and supportive of Islam than traditional American government and culture. His words and actions repeatedly show this.

Dear Roger;

Remember the sixth grade? That's the comprehension level of the average American. Marketing and Advertising companies understand this. Republicans understand this. The White House does not. On the campaign trail candidate Obama moved many voters to tears with his inspiring rhetoric. President Obama speaks to the country like an Ivy League professor. His considerable actions are not speaking louder than his dispassionate words. The opposition is doing and saying anything they want without consequence. President Obama better find a way to reconnect with the electorate or he will spend the last two years of the Presidency as a lame duck.

More thoughts:

- Great picture of Sarah Palin. Thank you for that.

- An alarming number of Americans and a majority of Republicans are misinformed.

No, we are not. We are informed by the President’s own words and actions.

- you would not have learned from Beck that the father, who Obama met only once, was not a practicing Muslim in any sense.

Which father? Again, willfully, you ignore that Barack Obama had two fathers formally and three if you count his grandfather who raised him in Hawaii through high school.

The most consequential Obama father was Lolo Soetoro, the second Muslim man that his mother Stanley Ann married. Lolo adopted Barack, renamed him Barry Soetoro, and moved him to Indonesia to live as a Muslim during the highly impressionable years 6 through 10. Those years shaped him significantly.

If you are going to raise the question of the influence on the question of Obama’s faith – and call a large percentage of Americans stupid in the process – then why do you (and all liberal pundits) omit the very complicated life history of Barack Obama / Barry Soetoro and downplay the influence of Islam in his life? It is willfully misleading that you do that.

Barack Obama is certainly the most Muslim-influenced President America has ever had. It comes out in his words and actions. You have to see that, and be more charitable toward your fellow citizens who factor that in to a very complicated question. It is not as simple as you pose it:

Is Obama a Christian or a Muslim. Well, he is influenced by both. The first President in our history who is.

It is a frightening new radical fringe movement, financed by such as the newly notorious billionaire Koch brothers.

Please. This is a meaningless Huffington Post-generated controversy. It’s not like the Democrats have billionaires backing them, right? Oh wait, they have plenty. Start with George Soros who has nefarious goals and who backs all of the left-wing media (Media Matters) and action groups (Tides Foundation). Throw in Gates and Buffett. Add all of Hollywood millionaires. Add in all of the network media – 88% of whose employees donated to Obama or the Democrats. Please, this is nonsense. Rich people back candidates, and have for a very long time.

Nor does it take special insight to connect that date with Palin's many statements about the "Ground Zero Mosque" and the even more pointed "9/11 Mosque."

The GZ mosque organizers planned to dedicate the center on 9/11/2011. The tenth anniversary of 9/11. That makes it a “9/11 mosque”.

We cannot afford to allow the next election to proceed under a cloud of falsehood and delusion.

No one is deluded. But conservatives are energized to stop the “fundamental transformation” of America. Team Obama / Pelosi / Reid pushed too far in too wrong a direction and offended too many people by calling us racists and bigots and stupid in the process. There are going to be electoral consequences for that.

Beck’s rally, and Joe Miller’s defeat of Murkowski in Alaska, are bellweathers of what’s coming in November. The left is panicked, and you are casting around for reasons why Democrats will be shown the door. The Tea Party is successful – taking down Republican incumbents in the primaries and Democrat incumbents in November – and you won’t understand why. It must be all of the stupid people, led around by Palin and Beck.

Roger, wake up!

It is important to understand what is being done here by many in the media. I don't really see 'a lie' in a way that can be easily explained.

Here is how it works. I have heard Limbaugh and John Stossel use the same basic argument. It goes like this:
The US is in danger of losing out business and jobs because those idiotic environmentalist are forcing regulations that hurt business. But are things really so bad environmentally? They talk about trees and forest land, but did you know that the USA has more forest land now than it did when the constitution was signed? (Stossel used 1920)
http://www.cfact.org/a/366/Americas-Forests-In-danger-of-vanishing

Sounds odd? Can that possibly be true?
Well, it is...
Of course, what is left out is that when the Constitution was signed the USA consisted of states on the NE seaboard and was tiny compared to today. The 1950 date leaves out the statehood of Alaska, which is huge and has tremendous forest lands. Either way, the argument is technically true, but misleading.

I saw this again during the BP spill. There was a lot of talk about the Jones Act (Actually, The Merchant Marine Act of 1920) "Why do you suppose Obama has not waived the Jones Act? Could it be because he is supporting the unions that gave him money?" Of course, the Jones Act had nothing to do with the cleanup...but never was that mentioned.

Misdirection, out of context, omission of detail...that is all a sign of bad reporting. But the worst case is from the general public.

There was a recent story on Newsweek about "Dumb things American's believe". It talked about the Obama is a Muslim issue, evolution, that 20% of the respondents of a poll did not get the question right about the earth revolving around the sun. The article did not even get into stuff like climate change and religion. Many of the comments criticized the article were interesting because they stated 'facts' that were wrong. Like the infamous 'evolution is only a theory' one.

One more example: Email.
My wife has some cousins who send her email daily...stuff like 'Obama admitted he wants to disarm the US' and 'doctors are hiding a 98% effective cure for cancer'. Oh, how about 'cancer is a fungus, and can be cured with baking soda'. Yes, that is a real email.

What gets me about all of this stuff is that the information is out there. Usually, with less than 1 minute of research I can determine if the story in the email is true or not. Usually, they are not true.

So why do these emails circulate? Why do propaganda mills on tv survive?
Easy.
We are lazy. People don't know to, or know how, to do research. It is too easy to believe what you already believe, and so you don't follow up on things. And there are experts at misdirection who are willing to feed stories to the public for political gain and/or personal power.

And it is our fault.

" We know, because they've said so publicly, that George W. Bush, his father and Sen. John McCain do not believe Obama is a Muslim. This is the time -- now, not later -- for them to repeat that belief in a joint statement."

Roger, I suggest you watch Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama on YouTube. He talks of the insinuations that Obama is a muslim, and responds, "so what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? Is there something wrong with a muslim boy or girl dreaming of becoming president? Of course not! That's not America!"

Roger, the implication of your suggestion of Bush and co. denouncing their belief that he is a muslim is to suggest that there's something wrong with being one in the first place.

I notice you didn't provide a link to these (alleged) Harris poll results. I find these findings to be very hard to believe, so much so that I wonder if you've fallen victim to a hoax. Pls provide some confirmation if you can. Thnx.

Ebert: It was easy as pie to find several dozen links:

http://j.mp/cg6zb6

An informed electorate is an illusion. NOVA did a piece on the Shroud of Turin last night. Was completely debunked, in every possible way, and yet lots of folks still think there's magic behind it. We believe what we want to believe, plain and simple.

I'm starting to think it's not worth the time to try to explain the truth to folks who don't want to open their eyes. For any issue, there are those who agree with you, those who disagree, and those who are undecided. The Hegelian dialectic, in theory, should encourage us to talk to those who disagree, in the hope of forging a synthesis of both sides into a new and better idea. But we are so divided now that these efforts rarely pay off. Instead, if you want to make the best use of your advertising or campaigning dollar, simply ignoring the opposition and focusing on the moderates seems to be the only reasonable course of action.

Right on, Roger.

If Beck and Palin do indeed at some point announce their candidacy, I won't know whether to laugh, or to weep for the future of this country if they should by some grave misfortune win.

What about all the "relentless process of insinuation, strategic silence and cynical misinformation" the MSM perpetuated to "sweep" him into office to begin with Ebert? Where was your outrage then? 2 books and the AP didn't investigate. Palin writes on and 14 investigators fact checked it cover to cover.

No Ebert, first of all, you career is over. You are old now. Remember all the ageism that was sent McCain's way during the MSM selection of Obama? Now you it comes your way.

Second, you reap what you sow. The MSM refused to report about all of Obama's socialist friends and folks like you sat and did and said nothing.

What comes around goes around dear. Now you might begin to understand why we are angry. Oh and I would have voted for Hillary.

And so well-proclaimed liberal movie-critic is 100% correct and all of these other awful people are 100% wrong! Really? Yeah, I don't think so! The fun thing to do would be to take Ebert's opinion apart line-by-line, but the ABSOLUTE funniest thing he says is that President Bush should come to Obama's defense, re: the Muslim thing! Really? WHY? Obama NEVER misses a chance to be rude and mean-spirited to Mr. Bush, and now Ebert thinks Mr. Bush should defend this guy? I don't think so!!!! Mr. Obama does NOT act like a believing Christian, and if he is it is up to HIM to walk the talk. I would far prefer Obama be honest with the American people and admit what he is - WHATEVER that is, rather than hide behind the curtain of feigned Christianity. One more lie he is foisting upon the American public. Tragic for this country - - -counting the days 'til he is GONE!!!

Ebert: I am unaware of a single example of Obama and Bush being rude and mean-spirited to one another.

How does Obama not act like a believing Christian?

The question is, are people on the whole more uninformed than in the past, or is being uninformed that much more glaring in an age when so much information is available?

This is a point that has been made repeatedly in the Wall St. Journal, The Financial Times, Investor’s Business Daily and in Michael Lewis’ bestseller “The Big Short”: The economy didn't collapse and people didn't lose their homes because of Wall Street or credit default swaps.

People lost their homes because they stopped making their payments. They stopped making payments because they couldn't afford the payments. They couldn't afford the payments because government programs underwritten by GSEs like Fannie and Freddie encouraged the fantasy among citizens and lenders that everyone should own a home -- regardless of income levels or credit worthiness.

Only after individual consumers stopped paying banks the money they owed those banks does Wall St. become culpable. The massive securitization of CDOs, the incompetent bond ratings by Moody's, Fitch's, etc. of those CDOs and the unconscionable risk in the credit default swaps greatly exacerbated a serious problem. A problem initially created by Uncle Sam.

Fannie and Freddie have requested more money to bail them out than Wall St. received. The financial reform bill that Republicans correctly voted against did not address the root cause of the economic collapse -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, government policy requiring relaxed lending standards (sub prime loans anyone?), government underwriting that creates moral hazard, and tax policy that incentivizes mortgage debt. A better question than how could Republicans vote against this bill is: How could Democrats vote for this joke of a "reform".

The Democrats passed a financial reform bill that requires fire extinguishers to be installed in every home. Meanwhile, the houses are filled with stacks of newspaper and barrels of kerosene while red-hot cinders smolder in the basement.

"US People"? Whatever. There is only ONE America. I have never heard one of my south american friends call themselves Americans. I have heard them take offense to it however, just like you. Ecuadorans dont' call themselves Americans. You only agitate us and cause us to reject your ideas by making such claims.

I think you fulminations against demonizing political opponents might carry more weight if you hadn't compared Sarah Palin to Adolf Hitler last week.

Before I go further, Mark O' Connor's comment is laughable: the "best" President we've had in awhile? Yeesh, man. Your bar is set low or your grasp of history is tenuous at best.

Roger-

When did you get so political? The worst part about your posts of late is that you speak from a perch of superiority - as if you have seen the light and the rest of us, mainly Republicans, wallow in Plato's cave of darkened ignorance.

Any politician is a mastermind of half-truths and distortions. To suggest the Republicans have a monopoly on this is a willing misadventure. Not to mention this: how are you sure you haven't been carefully infected by your own ideological architects? Would you even be aware of it? My point: you're so far to the Left that, to pontificate about adhering to the Truth, is premised on a slanted apprehension of reality to begin with.

Know thyself, Roger.

-Adam

Bravo Mr. Ebert, Bravo. It is time we all "put up". There was a majority of us who voted him in, I think we have all sat by silently, long enough.

Thank-you for having the courage to say what needs to be said.

How are such lies and scaremongering allowed to be perpetuated without derision and condemnation from the mainstream media?

I'm afraid the true story here is that the American press has been failing its audience for years resulting in a terrorised, ignorant and manipulated population.

Burke said that "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Thank-you, Mr Ebert, for doing something; for having the courage to speak out when those in whom we assign the duty to do so, our news media, do nothing.

Mark O'Connor - "I believe Obama is the best president the US has had in a long time"

Based upon WHAT, exactly? His accomplishments? If so, WHAT accomplishments? The guy hasn't even been in office for two years. He certainly hasn't withdrawn our troops from Iraq or Afghanastan as most hoped he would (and as he implied he would during his campaign). He jammed through a wildly unpopular healthcare bill that is still in danger of never being implemented. Millions upon millions of Americans are still looking for jobs. The economy is a long way from recovering.

Oh but he's been on TV a lot. Maybe that qualifies him as the "best president the US has had in a long time." You know, because we see him so much. And because he does a lot of talk shows and prime time press conferences and the like.

Geesh. Thank you Mr O'Conner for showing us that there are TWO sides to this coin. The far right who irrationally demonize Obama, and the far left idealogues who think this man can do no wrong, and have deluded themselves into believing he's done this sensational job. The fact is he's done very little thus far but talk. Talk is cheap. None of the issues he inherited have gone away. Have you even noticed that? Or are you too busy swooning to pay attention?

As the famous football coach Bill Parcells once said - "Lets not get out the anointing oil just yet fellas"

What I would like to hear from those leaders who don't believe Obama is Muslim is "And it shouldn't matter if he WERE Muslim."

Remember when people were freaking out about JFK being Catholic and zOMG, he's going to take orders from The Vatican? Yeah.

We've got 9.5% unemployment, deficits that are 3 times of Obama's predecessor, and debt piling up at record rates. What Ebert is doing here is engaging in he same demonization of the opposition he claims to abhor. The left would rather talk about this nonsense than discusse their economic record. There are crazy people all accross the political spectrum. Perhaps they should poll who thinks 9-11 was an inside job and what percentage of those are Democrats. You shouldn't buy into these pundits like Ebert who traffic in this nonsense. It stiffle's all meaninful political discussion. Most people just want the economy to improve.

I ventured upon Mr. Ebert's blog after reading an article in the New York Times about his new cookbook. I should have known that just by the article's very existence in the NY Times that anything related to Mr. Ebert would be liberal. What I find fascinating is how liberals espouse acceptance of all yet in this very blog, Mr. Ebert is encouraging, dare I say demanding, that prominent conservatives acknowledge whether they believe Mr. Obama is a Muslim, as if, by making the statement will certify them as "fringe radicals". Is your hope that if Rush said "Yes, I believe he's a Muslim" that he will lose supporters? Democrats like to demonize those that disagree with their point of view. If conservatives disagree with the liberal President's policies, we are called racists because he is a bi-racial man. The "hate" from the left is so astonishing! From calling President Bush, "Hitler" to referring to General Petraeus as "General BetrayUs". The list goes on. How sad that our country can no longer have intelligent, two-sided discussions for the betterment of all. What I see, in participating in the 8/28 Rally in Washington and then listening to the hate spewed by Howard Deen and the entire leftist media, is conservatives are peace loving, God fearing Americans who want personal responsibility regardless of who and what you are.

In regards to Obama's religion: Most people are CONFUSED about Obama's religion because his actions speak louder than his words. Obama's father demanded he go to a Muslim school in Indonesia; his religion was declared on paper as Muslim; he made the statement to the world that we are no longer a "Christian nation" ; he did not participate in the "National Day of Prayer" but hosts a dinner at the start of Ramadan at OUR White House ; he bowed to the Muslim Saudi King. All these actions and more that I do not have the time to write about, speak louder than words. It appears to me and most conservatives that he has made it his mission this year to pander to the Muslim religion and has done nothing for the Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists etc. Politicans lie. Our best chance of seeing who the real person is will be by their actions.

Most conservatives I know could care less about which religion he does or does not practice. Really, if we were to look at his actions, it appears as if his religion seems to be worshipping a large and encompassing government. Conservatives are more concerned about the damage he is doing to this country than whether he celebrates Christmas or not.

Well said.
Double-Speak has infected huge swaths of our culture, and for my money this political iteration is just the latest (and most virulent) manifestation.
It should be simple: say what you mean, mean what you say and have the guts to stand by it. Plain and simple.

Honestly ...

I fear your challenge will go unheeded. Those who would "put-up" need not and "shutting up" is not financially viable. Something new bestrides the land.

The New Yorker article investigating Koch Industries gives us insight into the parts that make this new thing. The ninth richest man in America, running the privately-held second largest Corporation in America, accountable to no share-holder or citizen, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create a new monopoly.

To be clear, this is not some billionaire throwing cash willy-nilly at candidates and organizations he happens to think are pretty. This is a coordinated effort to create a balanced vertical integrated monopoly on policy, ideas, and propoganda generation through private funding of think tanks; selection and finance of candidates to promote those policies, ideas and propoganda in government; the actual creation of a political party to vote for those policies, ideas and propoganda; and the new piece - saturation of those policies, ideas and propoganda to the marketplace through a powerful and willing media partner.

It should come as no surprise that in an information-driven economy, this monopolistic model would be applied.

Obscenely wealthy men funding think-tanks and contributing money to campaigns is nothing new in and of itself. Even the deliberate shadow-funding and creation of the Tea-Party while novel is not necessarily new (for a little glimpse at how that shadow-funding occurs see the Vanity Fair article on Sarah Palin and note how websites are used to pay her fees and avoid naming those doing the paying). We have always had the 20 percenters (the "know-nothings" who succeeded in temporarily shutting down the construction of the Washington monument in the 1800's, among other things, are an example). They are the 20% of Americans who believe in alien abductions, the existence of witches and the sun revolving around the earth. Now they have been convinced Obama is a muslim, was born in Kenya, and hates white people.

They are also disproportionately powerful in our democracy because of the extreme polarization that has split the country. This polarization has been made possible by the actual new thing in the equation - a powerful and willing media partner.

I am 49 years old. When I was a teen-ager we were without a TV for 3 years. When we had one, I remember having to get up to change the channel and fiddle with the coat-hanger. There were 4 channels; ABC, CBS, NBC and Public television. Phones were rotary dial and you only had one. In college, a friend of mine bought an Apple computer - an unattractive white-grey boxy thing with a built-in 9 inch black and white screen. This was a mere 30 years ago.

A political party couldn't co-opt a media outlet because there just weren't that many lying around. Television was tightly regulated. There was a time, long ago, when equal time was the rule for political discourse on television and that rule was enforced. It is no coincidence that right-wing talk found its home on radio. There are more than 4 channels on a radio. Now media outlets of all shapes and sizes litter the land to be picked up, pocketed and used by wealthy men whose one and only goal is to improve their own profit margins, no matter the cost we pay.

Should Palin announce her candidacy for President on 9/11, her's will be a new campaign launched and fought on her terms; behind the walls of Facebook and Twitter, on the radio programs of friendly commentators, and in the television studios from which she draws a paycheck. The "lamestream media" will be denied access. If she debates on a national stage, it will be under the tightest control she can muster and will happen only once or twice. From this platform she will whip up the 20 percenters. Those who wish her to run because they think she guarantees a Democratic victory miscalculate at the nation's peril.

I do not propose a conspiracy here - merely a confluence of events that has wrought a new storm. A storm given energy by a simplistic rationalization which says as long as it's mostly legal it is morally right. A storm financed by a few of the obscenely wealthy who seek to circumvent "one man, one vote." A storm which can and will remain deaf to clarion calls to "put up or shut up." A storm which can engulf the Ship of State Obama alluded to in his speech.

Something new bestrides the land. Exhortations for it to do what is right are useless when its conception of what is right is defined by numbers on a balance sheet; where it's concept of a just society is "richest man wins."

Something else will be required.

Suggestions, anyone?

Roger, at first I found your argument very powerful. But I don't know. Is it really the right thing to do to get into this whole discussion of "is he a Muslim or is he not a Muslim"?

The point, as Colin Powell (!) pointed out before Obama's election, is that it should not matter whether or not he is a Muslim.

By insisting that they abdicate and say he is not a Muslim, do you not already subscribe to the hateful terms they have set by pushing this debate? Have they already won?

I am from the UK, and it is simply incredible to us outsiders that at your next election, you may be passing back partial control of your legislature to the lunatics who landed you (and the rest of the world) in the mess we are in now, who in the last two years, are even less in touch with reality than they were.

Roger is right. The flood of poisonous lies, hatred and fear from the right wing media, and their fake grassroots organisations can be countered, but only by a real grassroots reaction, if all men of goodwill, and that includes me and you, refuse to let anyone pass unchallenged who repeats these vile slurs. It can be done. See here:- http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/29/897297/-I-got-Obamas-Back-at-Starbucks-this-Morning

Otherwise we are in the world of W. B. Yeats's Second Coming where "things fall apart; the centre cannot hold" and "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity", and America's democracy is knocked down to the highest bidder.

Why don't you all read what the editor of London Daily Telegraph wrote this past Sunday?

He is not listening to Beck or Limbaugh or Palin.

Obama obviously isn't a Muslim, but it's not a coincidence or a conspiracy if 31 % have reached the conclusion that he probably sympathizes with Islam. Having a President who sympathizes with Islam is a bit of a problem since the US -- and the rest of the Western world -- is at war with Islam. It would have been equally alarming if there had been a pro-Communist President during the Cold War.

Roger, though I agree with your characterizations of Beck, there are many on the left who also prey on the ignorance of the typical American. Yesterday President Obama gave us all permission to forget about the Iraq war by pretending that the U.S. combat role had ended, when in fact there are 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and many more will probably die as that war continues. We want the war to be over so he claims that it is over to placate us--a devious lie that does disservice to the troops still risking their lives in Iraq.

Thank you, you beautiful man. Sing it from the mountain tops. I no longer feel alone or like I've stumbled into an alternate universe.

I hope that republicans who are intelligent, with sound minds, and who genuinely care about the health and welfare of our country will speak up.

I know my republican friends are horrified and look like deer in headlights but its time for them to snap out of it. This is really happening, they can't continue to ignore it. They've become enablers.

I completely agree with every negative assessment you can make of Beck and his ilk, but they are not the sole reason Americans have formed a negative view of Obama. Actually, Obama himself bears at least some of the blame. Despite what he has said about such controversial topics as illegal immigration, statements from this administration and even some of Obama's own actions indicate that he has no intention of leading this nation in the direction many of its people want it to go. That's one big reason that his approval rating has dropped. I believe he has a Socialist agenda, but even if I am wrong, he ACTS as if he does. His defenders' main argument is, "Would that be so bad?" Statements he makes about controversial issues are vague and impossible to pin down. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DISSUADE NEGATIVE BELIEFS! And if he's already something undesirable (a Socialist), it's easier to believe he's something else undesirable (a terrorist sympathizer). Yes, Beck et al are subhuman scum painting Obama as anti-American, but Obama has given them a Serwin-Williams gift card. (And btw, the Democrats have done their fair share of demonizing the Republicans. Just because you share their beliefs, that doesn't make them any better than the GOP.)

I become a little bit more terrified of Glenn Beck every time he opens his mouth, because quite obviously to me he is a a crazy person and I don't understand why so many people don't realize this.

As for the various prominent Republicans you've stated making a joint statement about Obama's religion; you know that will never happen unless they have some political advantage in speaking out against the obvious falsehood. Keep in mind that it was Hillary Clinton's camp that first propagated the rumor, and John McCain didn't do very much to stop it when he was at bat in 2008.

I don't believe Beck for one moment when he claims that he wasn't aware of the significance of August 28th.

Unless maybe he couldn't find his chalkboard that day.

Of course Rush doesn't believe that President Obama is a Muslim. But the thing that you (and a lot of people) don't get about Rush is that half his show is about getting under liberal skin. As he has said so many times, he exposes the absurd by being absurd. "Imam Obama" is the cheese and you snapped the trap. Whatever cheese he puts out for liberals, they'll take it every time. He knows how to do this.

Does he play it too close to the red line sometimes? Yeah, I think so. I prefer Medved. But it is amazing how he "lives rent free in your mind."

For the record, I'm a conservative Republican and I know Obama is not a Muslim. And he is an American.

It is so unfortunate that a word like "Muslim" has become an accusation instead of a mere description.

These self-proclaimed "pro-Americans" who hold popularity rallies and ignorance celebrations in the name of freedom, are pushing Islam and many other ideologies into a corner of rejection.

As usual, you hit it right on the head. It saddens me that Republicans would sink this low. While I didn't like many things about McCain, I have to give him respect for sticking up for Obama.

I am a high school teacher in California though I am currently spending the summer in Europe. In my opinion, the reason people like this are so popular is that we no longer value education. I have lived in four other countries and traveled to 17 so far and I am coming to the point that I would rather live in the EU than in America because I am sick of the absolute hypocrisy of the right. If you ask Palin or Beck what commmunism actually is, they couldn't tell you. If you ask one of their followers what socialism is, they couldn't begin to explain what it is. Yet they can be rapidly against it. At 26 years old, I think we are headed for some dark times in America.

Your efforts are appreciated, but truly there's no future for this country; as someone who's grown up in the millennial generation, I know that

Jose Gabriel Leon
US People (I'm not calling you "Americans"...)

That's fine. But we prefer "Sub-Canadians."

Roger, your outrage strikes me as blatantly selective. If the electorate are "thoughtless" and "uninformed" because they believe Obama is a Muslim, what do you call the MUCH HIGHER percentage of people who believed:

Bush stole the 2000 election;
Bush deliberately delayed Katrina aid because he doesn't care about black people;
Bush had a secret plan to reinstitute the draft;
Bush was in on the 9-11 attacks;
Bush manipulated the price of gas throughout his term;
Bush is a radical Christian who believes the Iraq War was a necessary step in bringing about the "End Times";
etc.

Roger, just stop letting it bother you. It doesn't matter. Neither of us are old enough to remember WWII, but we've certainly seen the movies. "Evil Japs," John Wayne and every soldier a hero - the whole bit.

Then in the 60s we had Vietnam, and I know you remember The Green Berets, and the derision it met with. We couldn't be gung-ho anymore as a populace.

Then 9/11 happened, and everyone wore flags...for awhile. Now you see them occasionally, but it's not like we can use them as a symbol of national unity. Not on Cinco de Mayo, at least. And the President doesn't try to whip up war fervor anymore, like his predecessor did. Of course, the war is wrong, isn't it? That's what the media says. Some of it. So is it wrong to back the war?

If you don't back the war, if you don't try to whip up fervor, does that mean you're against it? Does it mean you favor Islamic fundamentalism? If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem, right?

As I said, forget it. I don't trust Obama, but, then, I don't have any reason to. Oh, sure, national health care, but did he make sure we can afford it? Don't answer, no one knows, there are no budget figures solid enough to draw conclusions from.

Which is my whole point. People don't know what to believe or who to trust. And I think they're right not to.

Don't tell me the "neocons," whatever they are, are wrong in what they say. Of course they are. No, I should turn to the party of "I did not have sex with that woman" and "I invented the internet."

Then again, maybe not.

I'm not convinced Beck and Palin plan to announce a campaign (especially not this soon), but I hope they do, because I suspect Beck can do a lot more damage (of the kind he's been doing) while continuing to hold himself "above politics" than he could if he subjected himself to the machinery of an actual political campaign. (I'm also not convinced the November elections are going to be the '94-style landslide over which the Tea Party is preemptively crowing.)

'It is a frightening new radical fringe movement, financed by such as the newly notorious billionaire Koch brothers, whose hatred of government extends even to opposition to tax funding for public schools.'

This 'hatred of government' baloney is a straw man created by those who don't understand or simply don't like the concept of a limited constitutional republic.

Roger, you are the one spreading ignorance and hate.

Recently I found myself wondering why terrorists bother with physical violence anyway, when hey could just hire Palin & Beck, clearly they're both adept at psychological warfare and like any good mercenaries, they are both for sale. They'd have these two things in common also, they all hate America and they're all religious fanatics, or so they all claim anyway. In fact, now that I come to think of it, they're both employed by an organisation whose second biggest shareholder is an Arab, now, isn't *that* food for thought?

How does the so called "average Joe/sephine" American relate to these nincompoops anyway? How many Americans made $13 million in the last couple of years. Decent, hard-working Americans have allowed themselves to be hustled so much, that one finds it difficult to imagine a future in which either them, or any of their forthcoming political progeny will be anything but hapless lemmings as their forebears of the present clearly are. With citizens and public figures like these...Good luck America. You need it. Badly.

Indian Idiot (H.W.)

As a Canadian political junkie watching the U.S. sphere with growing dismay, I think you have absolutely nailed the situation. Unfortunately, a large portion the American public has become so tied to the questionable information being spread through television, talk radio. etc. that they have lost the ability to think independently. Beck and Palin are taking advantage of and focusing the hivemind mentality that comes with closed-minded political inflexibility, combining it with the ingrained prejudices that continue to be a part of American culture, and spinning it into what they and their ilk call 'patriotism.' If someone is against what they believe in, then that person is obviously unpatriotic. Big Wall Street bonuses and huge profits for the rich are the American Way, we're told; anyone who feels that the rich are perhaps too rich while the people who make them rich get poorer is called a socialist and boy, is that a bad thing to them.
I hope there is enough of the American public that can see through the smoke screen being put up in front of them. If the Republicans return to power and undoes the various fixes being put in place now, I don't think anyone's going to like what the economy does then.

This criticism comes with the job of being President. Are the charges being hurled at President Obama more unfair that those hurled at President Bush?

Lets review a few for context:
Bush stole the election, he was an illegitimate President.

Bush knew in advance about 9/11.

Bush had the lowest IQ of any US President in the last 50 years.

All of these charges were just as unfounded as the Obama is a Muslim charge, yet I didn't see many columns from you, Mr. Ebert, on the dangerous nature of these charges.

I can't stand Beck he's a clown, but I also can't stand hypocrites either. You sat on your hands during the Bush era when fresh charges were hurled his way on a daily basis. You saw nothing dangerous in that because you didn't like him. It's much different when it's your ox being gored. Put up or shut up Mr. Ebert.

It's really amazing how we have access to more information than ever before, and yet we are misinformed as ever. As far as the whole is Obama Muslim or not thing goes... I find that whole debate insulting. The fact is that he is Christian but beside that point, so what if he were Muslim? We're still locked into this mindset that all Muslims are terrorists. No religion, or any segment of society should be held responsible for the extreme actions of a few. I would like to see the moderate Muslims come out more so we can hopefully get past this.

I love you, Mr E, but you're asking for some shred of decency or integrity from men like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. That's like asking a dog to eat with a knife and fork. Ain't gonna happen.

These well-paid millionaires trade in lies, misleading half-truths, and sneering insinuation, and it's been very lucrative for them. If any of them ever come clean with their consciences, it'll be when it's too late to matter, like Lee Atwater and Ken Mehlman. Until then, if you're asking for integrity you're asking them to speak a language they've never known.

Hello liberal echo chamber. Roger I am disappointed, but not surprised, in your lack of political and economic insight. Clearly Obama is not Muslim, but it is equally clear that he is a Muslim sympathizer, and probably worse a jihadist enabler. Just look at his administrations' policies; starting with his pathetic apology speech in Cairo, his ridiculously hard stance on Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons while Obama's delusional sanctions charade allows this nefarious pursuit by the Mullah's virtually unabated and countless other examples. Further, the Dept. of Justice as led by Eric Holder is blatantly pro-jihadist. Last Obama's economic policies are abysmal, his answer to this issue is grow the public sector at the expense of a dwindling private sector, and burden the private sector with ever increasing taxes and regulations.

I find it unbearably sad that so many of my fellow Americans are so utterly, irredeemably stupid. And hateful. And willing to march in lockstep with their venal, self-aggrandizing leaders back into the Dark Ages. But they are, so I guess I'll just have to get used to it and forget all those pathetic platitudes I learned as a child about liberty and justice for all, the land of the free and the home of the brave, we the people, etc., etc., etc. They no longer even begin to apply.

I swear, the world of Cormac McCarthy's The Road begins to seem like a more and more appealing place to live.

If you really want to be terrified about the state of our body politic, look at these interviews with "real" Americans attending the Beck rally. Note that these are people who are not apathetic but are interested and involved enough in political "discourse" to travel and spend a Saturday at a political event.

http://youtu.be/ht8PmEjxUfg

These are "likely voters" people motivated enough to vote regularly.

If that weren't scary enough, read this by Noam Chomsky, who describes his early childhood in the Great Depression surrounded by working class people looking out for one another's interests, aware of the rise of European fascism:

Reading Joe Stack's Manifesto, and a great deal more like it, I find myself recovering childhood memories, and much more that I did not then understand. The Weimar Republic was the peak of western civilization in the sciences and the arts, also regarded as a model of democracy. Through the 1920s the traditional liberal and conservative parties entered into inexorable decline, well before the process was intensified by the Great Depression. The coalition that elected General Hindenburg in 1925 was not very different from the mass base that swept Hitler into office 8 years later, compelling the aristocratic Hindenburg to select as Chancellor the "little corporal" he despised. As late as 1928 the Nazis had less than 3% of the vote. Two years later the most respectable Berlin press was lamenting the sight of the many millions in this "highly civilized country" who had "given their vote to the commonest, hollowest and crudest charlatanism." The public was becoming disgusted with the incessant wrangling of Weimar politics, the service of the traditional parties to powerful interests and their failure to deal with popular grievances. They were drawn to forces dedicated to upholding the greatness of the nation and defending it against invented threats in a revitalized, armed and unified state, marching to a glorious future, led by the charismatic figure who was carrying out "the will of eternal Providence, the Creator of the universe," as he orated to the mesmerized masses. By May 1933 the Nazis had largely destroyed not only the traditional ruling parties but even the huge working class parties, the Social Democrats and Communists, along with their very powerful associations. The Nazis declared May Day 1933 to be a workers holiday, something the left parties had never been able to achieve. Many working people took part in the enormous patriotic demonstrations, with more than a million people at the heart of Red Berlin, joining farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, paramilitary forces, Christian organizations, athletic and riflery clubs, and the rest of the coalition that was taking shape as the center collapsed. By the onset of the war perhaps 90% of Germans were marching with the brownshirts.

As I mentioned, I am just old enough to remember those chilling and ominous days of Germany's descent from decency to Nazi barbarism, to borrow the words of the distinguished scholar of German history Fritz Stern. He tells us that he has the future of the United States in mind when he reviews "a historic process in which resentment against a disenchanted secular world found deliverance in the ecstatic escape of unreason."

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100408.htm

A political/economic system designed in the interests of a privileged elite which ignores the needs of the vast majority of the population is, as we've seen, unsustainable. Unless we have a rational alternative to offer, right wing demagogues are ready with their default cocktail of hate and blame for the "other" and seductive appeal to religious sectarianism.

I've come to the sad realization that most who beleive this do not wish to be swayed otherwise. They do not care to listen to fact or to opinions other than those being preached by these hatemongers and aristrocrats.

Our country was brought to the edge of ruin by politicians and their patrons who believe there can be a sustainable upper class with only the poor, unemployed below. They believe in unsustainable fuel, unsustainable economy, and unsustainable war. They are short sighted and only see the benefit for the them and the benefit for the now. Unfortunately plenty of people who are being harmed by the above are going along with them because they've been swayed by their hate speech and misinformation.

I truly believe that one of the only ways to protect our democrocy against the evils of this anti-fact, anti-education platform is to disallow outlets like Fox News to advertise themselves as news. Tell it like it is "Fox Entertainment and Opinion". It should be law that if you call yourself news, you must have verifiable fact within your medium, and a pattern of misinformation be punishable.

Further Fox News in particular should be reclassified as a PAC for the republican party.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with Tim Ley's comment above.

For starters, freedom is not a "gift from God" and to say so is an insult to the millions of Americans who have fought and died for it.

And while one can point to a couple of vague references to a Creator as evidence that America was founded on Christian principles, you have to balance that with the rest of the founding documents' contents, which are astonishingly atheistic. Even more astonishing is that nobody seems to notice how diametrically opposed to Christian principles the Constitution and Declaration really are.

"Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people," it says; a defiant rebuttal of the notion of rule by the divine right of kings. Where Christianity teaches a notion of authority deriving from the top down, democracy is based on the opposite: all authority ultimately derives from us, not from God.

Christiantity, as a worldview, is ultimately about submission. America, by contrast, is ultimately about liberty. The whole idea behind America is that we are free to govern our lives, that we own our own selves, and we pursue our own destinies. Yet most Americans see no contradiction between that, and the idea that God has a plan for all of us, and it is our duty to follow what He has laid out for us.

The entire notion of human rights is itself at odds with Christianity, which holds that humans have no rights at all, beyond eternal damnation. God does not love us because we have value, or because we deserve it. Rather, the fact that God loves us is merely evidence of God's infinite capacity for love. Suggest to a Christian that we DESERVE God's love, or anything else for that matter, and they will strongly disagree. No Christian would ever suggest that a human being has the right to not be given cancer by his God.

I do not wish to argue that one cannot be a Christian and and American -- obviously, one can. What I will say is that one cannot simultaneously be a GOOD Christian and a GOOD American.

That's RIGHT. Where's Obama's BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATE and why can't we see a copy!!!

Not that I don't wonder how come we don't see a copy of his birth certificate from Hawaii after all this fuss and millions of bucks keeping the original from view. "They still wouldn't believe us" is no kind of answer. What was posted was a "certification," meaning said infant was indeed born, but not necessarily in Hawaii. You incurious types bug me, and scoff-and-spittle is no kind of answer either.

(I mean, who noticed the fine-print news item that Hillary Clinton sponsored a bit of fine-print legislation letting John McCain off the hook for having been born in Panama, which, naturally, would also apply to Obama? No thoughts? Just more of that indeterminate roar? That "dull spark of non-comprehension" as my 14-year-old brother coined it?)

The other day a Tweeter pegged me as a Catholic, since she was one too -- an ex-Catholic, that is. Often ex-Catholics recognize each other, mainly because it took some good introspection to shed all that stuff. (One recognizable characteristic, I may as well admit, is that we tend to ask more QUESTIONS, god dammit.)

It's like recognizing the Jimmy Cagney, John Bull, Maurice Chevalier, Jimmy Durante, Chief Dan George, Otto von Bismarck, Frederick Douglass, Confucious or Buddha, etc. in a fellow American. It's a fun thing and we need it if we're going to be Americans (including down past Chile, thank you.)

We need it if we're going to stay sane, not trying to be counterfeit copies of Anita Bryant and Pat Boone. (Don't know what Anita's up to these days, but if you chance upon her, do NOT, not EVER ask her "do you swallow?")

So if there's some Islam recognizable in this Obama character, I say fine. There's some very fine qualities to it, if not used to true capacity. And don't forget, our own Omer Mozaffar suggested that if 'bama IS Muslim, "he's not a very good one."

If this IS America, then you're responsible for your own bad self. No amount of preaching or legislating or media profit-motive hysteria is going to either promote or prevent that. Stop wrapping your lives around the newsmedia.

Finally watched "Born on the Fourth of July" last night; Tom Cruise as Ron Kovic, Oliver Stone got an academy award for it. A bit slow for me, but it did tweak a nerve here and there. 3 of my brothers were in 'nam and came back with the same conclusions it took Ron Kovic too long to recognize, both in the movie and reality.

In the script was a phrase we really need to revive these days (in addition to "smartin' off"): "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."

If you've got nothing better to do than to get riled up over paranoid scenarios like these, you're certainly not part of the solution. Maybe y'all deserve counterfeit bugbears eating away at your taxes.

Ebert: Actually Tom, Sen. McCain was born of U. S. parents in the Canal Zone under U. S. control, and was fully qualified to run for President.

http://j.mp/cE6QXg

Our form of government is inherently anti-hierarchical, and in some circumstances that comes back to bite us. This is one of them. We live in a period in which leadership and our elites have been discredited. The process began with Vietnam, continued through Watergate and Iran-Contra, picked up new steam with the Clinton impeachment and reached its current heights thanks to the Bush Administration and its shameless performance leading up to the war in Iraq and the corporate failures that led to the housing and dot-com bubbles and the current economic problems. Plus, one might also mention the continuing inability/unwillingness of our political leadership to deal in a meaningful way with the long-term problems of the deficit, Medicare and Social Security. And let's not forget Rod Blogojevich.

In this environment, suspicions have been liberated. No one can vouch for the truth because all sources are suspect. The Internet offers a universe of different "truths." People can and do choose to live in their own reality. Until our leaders demonstrate their competence in major ways, there may be no escape from this situation. We need to abandon our issue-driven political culture and pursue one that builds consensus and does its best to seriously address our nation's real structural issues, rather than getting bogged down in debates about Islamic Centers or who ratted out Valerie Plame. It will be better to agree on imperfect solutions than to continue the fruitless finger pointing that now surrounds us.

As is frequent Mr. Ebert, your thoughts echo many of my own. It is so disturbing that so many Americans, including close relatives and friends of mine, fall for such blatant tactical misinformation.

I saw a comment on Facebook the other day commenting on how Beck was "out of his mind." I thought to myself, no he isn't. He's as smart as McCarthy. He and his ilk simultaneously feed off of and propagate the ignorance, gullibility, paranoia and outright hatred of many Americans, and he has made a hell of a lot of money doing it. Damn the man, he's a brilliant tactician.

So, how do we translate this into responsible action?

Great article Roger. It sickens me that so many in the republican party stay silent, as the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin, spew their lies and hate. I pray that democrates will flock to the polls in November or this nation is in deep trouble.

I think the fact that being a "Muslim" in America is like a racial slur says a lot about our society. I don't believe that Obama is Muslim - but the question really should be Does it matter? It's shameful that our country is returning to the suspicious days of McCarthyism. It's disgusting. Good article Mr. Ebert - but I think it would have been important to address why it's a crime to be a Muslim as well.

You make a good argument, but when it comes to putting up or shutting up, somehow I doubt any of the pundits and politicans you called out in this piece will do either.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. It's the people who buy in to these tactics that scare me, but at the same time, I also know that people believe what they want to, and no amount of sound, reasoned discourse will change a mind that is closed. With percentages in the double digits, this is pretty telling. I think your idea of having the people in power go on record saying what they believe about Obama in no uncertain terms is an excellent one. Thing is, how does one get people to do something that works against their own agenda? Seems "the right thing to do" doesn't count for as much as it once did. People aren't driven by a sense of personal character as much as by their personal brand.

It's really depressing.

Roger Ebert you are just making assumptions than are based on your personal theory of their level of relevance, as is Glenn and Rush, you are both misleading and annoying as far as I am concerned. You do write great movie reviews though.

Also, maybe I don't remember clearly but did'nt Beck say at 8/28 this Saturday for a fact that he was not running for office??

Roger, you say that an "alarming number of Americans are misinformed". That's truly not the issue. Look at the folks on Fox News: it's not "misinformation" that contributes to a lot of the bias that leads to unsubstantiated claims about him from those like Glen Beck. There's simply an unwillingness to be objective and rational. Unfortunately, that is also what that "alarming number of Americans" have.

Have you seen the photo making the Facebook rounds of the banner outside Heartsong Church in Memphis welcoming the Memphis Islamic Center to the neighborhood? Makes one feel a little, little bit better. I Googled them and they appear to be quite legit, www.heartsongchurch.net.

A few days before the 2009 Presidential election my mother came to the conclusion that Barack Obama was a "socialist". I tried to point out that Obama had raised millions of dollars from Wall Street and that even Warren Buffet (that noted Bolshevik) had endorsed him for president. These factors failed to make a dent in her belief. Now my mom is not a stupid person, nursing degree, makes a good middle class salary, but her sudden irrationality quite honestly scared me.
Do some people think that Obama is a literally a Muslim? Yes, most certainly. But, I also think that many people are using the term "Muslim" as a catch-all for everything that they happen to find objectionable, exotic, dangerous, disturbing and frightening. In psychological terms it is called projection. Not a rational act by any stretch but I do believe that even the people who claim that he is a muslim don't actually believe that he is a muslim. But I ask you, what is worse? Not being in possession of basic facts or demonizing an entire group of people based on the actions of a few?

What frustrates me so much, even about articles like yours is the insinuation that even IF President Obama WERE a Muslim, that that would automatically make him somehow unfit for office, or would be a strike against him. This insidious idea that Muslim = Terrorist that Beck, Palin, and the rest of the radical right is pedaling is downright dangerous in and of itself. Surprisingly you can be a Muslim and a good person. You can also be a Christian and be a complete and utter horror of a person. Whether Obama is or is not a Muslim SHOULDN'T even be an issue.

What are his policies? How effective is his administration in getting things done? How has America's image improved in the eyes of the world? These are the questions that we should ask of our President. Everything else is just distractions, which is EXACTLY what the Glen Becks and Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs want. They want to create all these little fires to distract people from the important work that needs to be done and unfortunately they are being successful. I genuinely hope they do run for President as it will force them to speak honestly and openly about their vision for America and to put their money with their mouth is.

The follow up question to "Do you believe President Obama is a muslim?" should be "Why do you care?"

Nothing could be less relevant in mind as to whether or not a person should be president.

Ursula, don't make excuses for the old people. I am one of them, so I know they have fewer excuses than the young. They have lived longer and seen more. They know exactly what is going on with the self centered views of these tea bag politicians and radio jockeys. Most of these old people would have a fit if their Medicare or Social Security was taken away, but choose to vilify others for trying to look out for the well being of all. These people throw up a smoke screen of religion and their view of the constitution, but it all boils down to pure selfishness. It just makes me sick.

Thank you for this.

You are correct, and what is more, this is what happens when we receive our societal thoughts, opinions and would-be mores from celebrity mouthpieces. We receive our thoughts and "opinions" rather than form them ourselves. What should I think about this issue? Whatever So-and-so thinks. How should I act? However that person acts. It's shameful the way we surrender our will and allow our minds to run to flab because we allow ourselves to simply be receivers of the babble transmitted from whichever side of the dial we think we generally agree with. I have said in this forum before that I am generally conservative, but God forgive me if I ever adopt an opinion on an issue which is not my own and not the result of careful thought. I agree with you in this not because you said it, and not because you are by definition correct. I agree because I have thought about it for myself and we have reached similar conclusions.

I think Hitchens got it right. White America is attracted to this kind of talk out of the insecurities that it may soon be a minority.

http://www.slate.com/id/2265515/

Roger Ebert. Put up or shut up. In your review of Green Zone you asked the question: "Is it true?" Your answer: "I'm not here to say"

I've long ago reached the conclusion that most of American political "debate" these days just consists of yelling, screaming, and calling your opponent names, and I include both Republicans and Democrats in this.

Calling Obama a Muslim may be stupid, but it isn't really any more reprehensible than it was to call Bush a moron, for example. Certainly he seemed like a moron to the people who called him that, but I expect the people who think Obama is a secret Muslim think he acts like a Muslim, and after all he does have a "foreign name."

I don't think it is sufficient for those prominent Republicans to simply "subscribe to the statement" that they do not believe Obama is not a Muslim. It leaves way too much room to still play these types of dirty games. "I personally don't believe that he is..." "I take the president at his word when he says that he is a Christian..." The subtext is "but others are entitled to their opinion".

The statement they need to subscribe to is something like "we renounce the politics of xenophobia and anyone who plays to people's fears by trying to tie President Obama to Islam and Islam to terrorism". Anything short of that is not sufficiently intolerant of this garbage, in my opinion.

Sadly you can lead a fool to information, but you cannot make them think. We've come to a place where willful ignorance and denial has taken the place of common sense and reason, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.

It boggles the mind that Fox News can legally wrangle the right to feed its audience false information, and yet people still cling to whatever they say as gospel truth.

Even when their integrity (?) is compromised by those pesky little facts that always become known... but in today's America they can be just as cherry-picked as those Biblical scriptures which suit particular agendas.

Take for instance the "Ground Zero Mosque". By now it's no secret that the second largest shareholder for Fox News - a Muslim - contributed over $300,000 to the group funding the Cordoba Initiative (which is the "Ground Zero Mosque" for those who know better). Yet in their "expose" to prove that the Imam in question was a bad man, tried to use the "follow the money" argument to imply that he had ties with scary organizations.

They didn't actually provide proof, mind you - just alluded to "what if". If they'd have provided facts, their own connection to that which they want their audience to fear would have been there in black and white.

But facts become variables to this group. Even Beck and Rush have their ol' "entertainment" fallback so that they can escape any and all accountability for what they say.

That people need to cleave to these folks and believe their fairy tales is disheartening and even scary. And frankly, it leaves me quite flummoxed.

Well, this just shows another terrible failure on Obama's part: he can't even be a good Anti-Christ. The beast is supposed to be worshipped by all who dwell on the earth, and there is minimal love for Obama from those who, if the Revelation is to be believed, should be getting deceived. But no, he can't even do that right. First he goes and gives all that TARP money to the banks, and then invades Afghanistan, its like, when does his violence and greed stop? Revelation said everyone on Earth would follow him. Does Palinism exist on Earth? Yes. Ergo, the followers of it should be getting hoodwinked by ol' Sparky on this one. The fact that Obama can't even be a good Anti-Christ worries me. Sure, he speaks with authority, but is it with the voice of a dragon? Hardly. I've seen Dragonslayer, I've been to the zoo. I know Komodo dragons. Lazy creatures living off the efforts of hard working American animals who work for their daily bread, like wolverines and kittens.
There is the possibility that he isn't the Anti-Christ though. What if he's a sign of a more Swedenborgian apocalyptic writing, and not something more ancient? This might account for his Mohammadan like behaviors, like being black. They are a very mystical people, you know. I hope this clears things up for you.

I completely agree with you on this one. From your posts, I think I know you well enough to know that you really want the truth to be heard, but you also want your party to do well. I would never expect the opposing party to do a favor for the other and its unrealistic to ask them to do so. However, it is in Republicans' best interest to do so.

Right now, they are being perpetually exposed as the less reasonable of the two major parties. We can count on Republicans to pull every string, make every cheap shot, and, moreover, LIE through their teeth. Bold, fat, obvious lies, told with unabashed vigor. Among independents, Republicans are becoming known as lying sleazebags. If the Republican leaders such as Gingrich, McCain and the Bushes don't dissociate themselves from the extreme right, they will do even more damage to their party, and it can't take much more. I believe the Democrats made the same mistake in 2004 by embracing Michael Moore. Democrats however, figured out rather quickly that they should dissociate themselves with people that make unfounded accusations.

Spreading rumors on TV that indicate Obama wants terrorism to win is borderline treasonous. I have not seen that done, but people like Glenn Beck are just a hop, skip and a jump away.

I don't care about helping Republicans or Democrats, but I think more people want honesty and rational arguments. Swing voters will abandon their Republican sentiments if this easily refuted and even comical attack keeps up. The one-fifth of the population that believes the President is Muslim, is unforgivably idiotic, and if the Republicans continue to pander to them, they will continue down a self-destructive path.

I'm looking forward to Randy's view on this, because I see the splintering of the Republican party withing a very narrow group of people. I wonder if he agrees. My father, the stalwart and lifelong Republican actually said, "That's the craziest I've seen Limbaugh act."

Not to rain on your parade, Jose, but it would appear that more people from South America find the United States referable to staying where they are than the other way around. There aren't too many places that can honestly claim to have more tolerance than here. I'll be straight with you--a South American immigrant will be far better off in Arizona than in Mexico. Those of us who are not happy with the Arizona policies do so because we don't want to be as repressive as our South American neighbors. So you can remove the scare quotes.

Thanks, Roger, for totally ruining my day. All I will be able to think about now, because it is such an incredibly sickening stomach dropping idea, is the idea of a Palin Beck candidacy. I had not even allowed myself to consider that particular duo. It is too terrifying, mainly because there are people out there (please god, hopefully not enough) that would support such a ticket.

Thank you though, for your continued commitment to articulate, rational discussions on very important issues.

"Our political immune system has only one antibody, and that is the truth."

Thank you. It's nice to see the truth so beautifully phrased.

We the People Voted in a Muslim as president so how the hell can the same people be against a Mosque on ground zero? we don't Blame Obama so why or how can anyone blame these People ?

Don't American's say they fight for freedom ?Well leave these people be .judge them for what they do not for what a different group of people in this religion has done.

These men and women of NY are not openly supporting bombing the USA so what the hell is the problem ?

Ban the freaks of the Hells angels from the USA .

The hells angels openly support their child porn convict leader Dave Burgess he is on their big house crew. NO guessing these freaks openly support their freaks busted with child porn and sex offenders.

Picking on people because of their Religion is UN American and everyone should be ashamed.

lets talk about the Holy wars through out history and the Spanish Inquisition.

Do we give Catholics another chance? Jews ?

Muslims have many different sectors just like people that believe in the same bible have many forms of different religions based on the same Best seller.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bellmore-ny/TMLJFK4IJK7MTD3B0

Lets remove the out of shape pathetic freaks of the hells angels while their is only less then 230 of them left in the USA. Lets not give these freaks a chance to mate with other freaky men and reproduce .

Look at what some biker events have turned into in states that have a handful of hells angels . We get a few hundred men from those freaks hells angel support clubs running around wearing their 81 crap to show they date and support hells angels.

These freaks are not ashamed to tell the public they support child porn convicts and sex offenders of the hells angels.

We do not need these foul freaks putting out money that goes to support a club that supports leaders busted for child porn and other despicable crimes against women and children all over the USA

Currently, the political Christian movement is intolerant towards Muslims, and the left is sympathetic towards any religion not Christian. While I am as terrified as the next rational atheist listening to the rhetoric and fear mongering of Beck and company, I can’t help but think our line of thinking is simply distancing us from reconciling with our fellow conservative Americans. Religion always uses rhetoric and fear to manipulate its followers, and our fear is now they’re straying outside those bounds (as they fear about radical Islam). But in reality, Christians are mostly good folk (like Muslims) when they don’t feel backed into a corner, and as often as they persecute one person for not believing what they do, they change their god to be fairer towards general consensus. The trick would be to convince them they are not backed into a corner and the country isn’t being stolen by a Muslim, Marxist, and Antichrist by agreeing with them… somehow. A fight never solved a problem, and instead of pointing out the hypocritical Christians for not loving their neighbor, we should endeavor to appeal to them through love. As a former missionary and Christian, I know how hard that is.

This is the face of both sides Roger, not just Republicans. Democratic Underground is a great site to understand the lefts equivalent to the rights misinformed. I've seen people wishing for death of republicans, allude that all of them have affairs (yes, some of them do, but not all), dismiss any legitimate criticism as "OH YOU'RE JUST ALL RICH FAT CATS" and "OH YOU'RE JUST ALL RED NECKS." (I still have yet to understand how ALL of us can manage to be both these things) And I guarantee you that there are just as many people who voted for Obama because he was black, as people who voted against Obama because he was black. The point? There are crazies on both sides.

In terms of using 9/11 as a political move? Why do you think we're seeing all these Katrina stories? I understand doing something nice for the 5th year anniversary, and talking about it a lot more than usually, but every story on every show on MSNBC for the week? It almost like they're.....using this for the midterm elections. You see buddy, lefties are just as capable of playing this game. (That incidentally I wished no body played) Also, you're forgetting those famous words of Rham Emanuel "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

It's already too late when you've reach those poll numbers.

Republicans chose the tactic they could benefit the most from: demonizing a popular president. It took them some time, but dividing the country will continue to benefit them and the corrupted system of paid bribes and lobbyists that they all enjoy.

I shudder to think of what we as an electorate will have to deal with during the next presidential election. Lies and excuses from both parties will cloud any hope of logical discussion and only serve to continue the downward spiral of America (we call it America here, without meaning offense to any South Americans) as any rationale people gaze in horror at what's happening around us.

We see it now on a daily basis, with countless errors piling up and not a soul in DC doing anything to address them. Corporations and lobbyists are freely allowed to pour in previously untold amounts of pure cash into the pockets of elected officials, we're trapped in continual and ungrounded wars as our poverty levels skyrocket and we abandon the poor, sick and uneducated for sake of temporary budgetary cutbacks.

The sickening reality of the current state of affairs in this country is hidden underneath bitter-tasting patriotism driven by the anger of the fringe conservatives you mentioned and an ever-growing cloud of disappointment towards those in power who continue to lie about change and progress between desperately fighting off personal attacks that hold no relevance to the issues at hand.

America will go on, but our citizens will never be the same as long we have no voice in this demoralizing landscape of 24-hour news cycles and addictive temporary distractions.

Hear, hear!

To listen to Ebert, you'd think that opposition to Cordoba House is the hobgoblin of a few small minds on the right. Racists, fascists, Islamophobes, neanderthals-- the whole Star Wars cantina of boogeymen and cranks stand opposed to innocent Imam Rauf. *sob*

Left out of this fairly naked effort to demonize the vast majority of Americans is the simple fact that Cordoba House support has tanked in the polls for weeks.

Super-majorities (70%) of American (every party, region and age) give a thumbs-down to the Cordoba House Mosque being built near the Ground Zero site.

Thus, Ebert's silly demonization campaign should be accepted for what it is-- delusional and disconnected.

Meanwhile, anti-jihadists have consistently denounced Bloomberg's orchestrated demonization campaign.

When will Bloomberg (and his Quisling toadies in the media) publicly apologize to the secular Muslim NY Cabbie and his family for inciting the pro-jihad mosque vigilantee (Michael Enright) to moby violence?

It's now past time to take a little ownership for Bloomberg's orchestrated Islamo-supremacist advocacy campaign.

What gets lost in all Bloomberg's recent demogoguery is that the Muslim cabbie victim is himself a hateful hater, bigot, inauthentic, xenophobic, neanderthal-- at least, if you go by the criterion set out by Bloomberg (and his Quisling toadies in the media): Opposing the mosque is "Islamophobia"-- period. Right?

As an anti-jihadist, however, I’m inclined to observe that the Muslim cabbie’s pretty much consonant in his opinion of the Cordoba mosque with a super majority (70%) of his fellow Americans.

That Bloomberg's proteges (in the media and elsewhere) will be disappointed to discover the opinion of this Muslim cabbie apostate tells you all you need to know about the two "sides" of this debate.

Still waiting for that apology, Quislings for Islamo-supremacism.

Roger, your intentions are great, but I suspect all your targets will exercise their First Amendment rights (and their Fifth Amendment rights) and either laugh in your face or spin what you say into an accusation of bullying or ignore you. And the people--they voted for Bush Sr. largely because transparently racist, transparently unfair campaign ads made Michael Dukakis out to be soft on criminals, soft on national defense, and soft-headed.

In the movie Gandhi, the mahatma declares himself a Muslim--AND a Hindu AND a Christian AND a Jew. He denounced the flag-waving Us&Themmers. He showed a Hindu baby-killer a way out of Hell--by raising an orphan as a Muslim.

President Obama seems to know we need that sort of leader, and I repeat: I was never prouder an American as when he indicated that his Administration intended to be inclusive of all believers AND nonbelievers. Alas, Gandhiji was assassinated--and our President is being racistly and unfairly and constantly character-assassinated.

Examine Ebert's Quisling “demonization” charges in light of these sentiments;

“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”
“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”
“How perverse are Muslims!”
“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”
“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”
“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”

Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to me; but a knowledgeable Muslim would have to disagree.

Why would Cordoba House Muslims NOT consider this to be hate speech? How is it that I can post these quotes with full certainty that Imam Rauf won’t be contacting SunTimes Editors (or Congress) with wild-eyed accusations of Islamophobia?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

Don’t be a Quilsing apologist for Islamo-supremacism, Ebert.

People believe Obama is Muslim because he was a practicing Muslim. This matters because Obama is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion-- who (under sharia law) is subject to the most severe penalties. Obama's apostate status clearly has enormous implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.

Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam
http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam

In sum: The cited evidence demonstrates that Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates the assertion that Obama for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father.

Therefore, what Quislings consider a media falsehood is in fact confirmed by evidence as truthful and accurate. The fact that so few understand this about Obama is a testimony to the Obamedia puppets disinformation and denial campaigns.

Denying Obama's Muslim heritage is in itself a falsehood.

So what if he's Muslim? If I'm not mistaken, in your country there is freedom of religion, right?

The thing is, politicians have taken advantage of the masses' ignorance since forever. And just like you said, somebody has to give a step ahead and make people see the reality. One quick look at universal story will show how the things can end.

By the way, I'm also from America, but not from the United States. Not a complaint or an attack, but that's clearly a sign that the pride of the country is too self-absorbed.

Hi Roger,

Glenn Beck doesn't really scare me. It's just an act. A charade. He's a circus clown wrapped in the colors of the American flag, and he's good at it. A magazine put his income last year at $30 million dollars. That's the kind of income that only entertainers and CEO's attain. Now would he attain level of wealth if he sat in front of a desk and calmly discussed political nuance? Not likely. That doesn't pull in the ratings. It's easier to be bombastic, and declare Obama and his followers the enemy, leading towards a socialist state. Sarah Palin likely saw this money train as well, and happily jumped on board.

What frightens me is how so many people consider him sincere. That could partially explain the shocking poll numbers as well, where 18% of the country believe Obama is a Muslim. Why wouldn't Glenn Beck stand in front of a camera and debunk this? Because his fringe viewers would turn him off, or wait for Sean Hannity to come on.

Beck keeps pitching vague slogans of God and Unity. If Beck was a true pariah, he wouldn't charge six figures to show up at a Right Wing convention. He will be at the Sears Center in a few weeks, where you can shake his hand and get an autographed copy of his book, for $1700. In contrast, you can walk into a Catholic church and gain confession for free.

It would be nice people chuckle a bit as his words, and then move on to the real issues at hand, but we don't. People choose to believe what their own fears and prejudices tell them to. As long as they do, that money train continues to roll, with the Glenn Becks of the world at the controls.

Roger must have amnesia.

Bush bashing was the #1 sport of liberals for 8 years.

Now here comes the alien prez who says things like Pahk eee stahn. Who attended a church for 20 years that preached the hate of white people. Who spent 3 million to protect his college records and birth cert.

What are we supposed to believe.

Please with the sympathy.

The corporate press is mostly responsible for stifling open debate, and in general keeping full disclosure on a tight leash. Fox News is not all to blame. Progressive of view are rarely heard on the networks. The majority of officials and experts are corporate representatives that have special interest at heart. Why else in the run up to the invasion of Iraq did the majority of Americans buy the WMD story? If the press wasn't aggressively pushing the idea, it was allowing the idea to prevail via silence. Does anyone remember how many Pentagon talking heads were on NPR in the run up to the Invasion? They totally saturated the airwaves turning the debate from whether or not there were WMDs to how impressive our military technology was. Since then, the press has consolidated into less owners, masses of reporters and support staff have been downsized. Most papers have a majority of copy-paste articles from the AP or Reuters. There is virtually no investigative reporting done unless it involves a celebrity or a brand name that will attract viewers/readers. So our situation is that a huge segment of our people are I'll-informed because the hands that control the flow of information don't want them to be informed. Just think about the crappy health care debate. The press did nothing but confuse everyone by not calling out the liars and special interest advocates. It was a disgrace. Then the BP oil spill is another example. All we saw was the close up shots of the well gushing. It had to be an executive decision not to allow us to see anything from a topographical perspective. How big did the spill get when you look at the gulf as a whole? Where were the high tech computer graphics? We live in a time much like our perception of Russia in the 80's. We are only allowed access to certain information and the rest of the world can see the whole picture, behind the corporate curtain. There, I've said my piece.

The number of Americans who identify with either the Republican or Democratic parties has been steadily dropping in recent years to the point where independent voters now regularly constitute a percentage of the population roughly equal to either big party. I grew up in a staunchly liberal Democrat household and thought along those lines for many years. Now you can count me among the independents. My disgust with both big parties has reached the point where I want no part of either one. And it seems clear from the numbers that I'm not alone.

Articles like this one have something to do with that. Mr. Ebert, I mean no disrespect. I have been a huge fan of your work as a critic since I was quite young and I consider it a great thrill to have met you at the Virginia Film Festival one year. But your political articles make my teeth itch. And it is not something that is specific to you.

It seems most political discourse these days is in the same vein. Partisans screeching bile filled tirades back and forth over perceived insults or side issues that are used to inflame people's sensibilities before an election and then fade away to insignificance after.

I don't care about these things. What I do care about is substantive discussion about issues that can actually help the country over all. Arguing about the pointless is like wrestling with a pig. Win or lose, you're going to walk away looking filthy.

The dominance of one party over another is what American politics has become. Unfortunately, running the country in a reasonable effective manner without demonizing those who disagree with you has gone out the window. And that's why I now refuse to vote for any candidate from either the Republican or Democratic parties. I'll vote for the third party candidate or lacking that option, write someone in. It's a tiny rejection of the status quo but it is one that let's me sleep well at night. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

"Our political immune system has only one antibody, and that is the truth."....what a well-written, much needed post!

My stomach turns from the disgusting way in which the "trusted" leaders in this country operate. The ethical and moral issues of this kind of propaganda are what Nietzsche warned about "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster"...

I as a Republican who is not crazy despair at the thought of a Palin/Beck ticket. Low taxes, good small government, good, second ammendment rights, good. Xenopobia, religious intolerance and fear mongering are quite unacceptable in my mind.

WARNING

Message #4 from Tim Ley above...

I checked out the linked site.

When I tried to sign off, my computer screen was flooded with screens. At least 74.

I pulled the plug before they had a chance to load.

The site has a photo of Thomas Jefferson and tries to argue that he was a Christian. Might be a disguised ad for marijuana.

Makes no difference to me if he's a Muslim. If he were, he wouldn't be doing things any differently.

If we, as Americans, believe in the Constitution and the principle of the separation of church and state, then why does Obama's religion matter? I'm a Christian, but would I rather have a Muslim as President if he had better policies than a Christian candidate? Yes. I recently had a discussion with friends about tolerance and I think that while I disagree with the religion of Islam, that doesn't mean that as people, their opinions aren't worth hearing. It's high time for Christians to practice what they believe and respect authority, love those of differing beliefs, and pray for our enemies.

Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin are in it strictly for the money, being that their personal lives give lie to their words. But in essence this is a concerted Republican Party attempt to reclaim the power that they recklessly squandered, all along hoping that the American people vote under the spell of amnesia. Should the morally bankrupt GOP be rewarded for this chicanery in November, it will only embolden them to employ worse tactics in the future, and the country be damned.

A Palin/Beck presidential campaign would be invaluable as an illustration of Machiavelli's advice in "The Prince": be single-minded and resolute, think always on war, avoid virtue when it interferes with victory, be judiciously generous to those from whom you will profit, instill fear but avoid hatred--and most of all lie--better yet, SEEM to be honest, "because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on."

The problem is, Machiavelli wrote his how-to in the first decade of the 16th century--when Italy was 400 years from unification. Machiavellian programs work only under such conditions of fragmentation and contention--which is why Palin/Beck/Limbaugh say the things they do: to instill disunion, to un-unite the United States.

Then again, they're as funny as monkeys at High Tea. Might as well fiddle while Main St. burns.

By the way, Roger, your call for truth-telling reminds me, as too much these days unfortunately does, of Yeats' "The Second Coming": "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." Seems like it's Ground Zero just about anywhere we turn.

I love how everyone keeps pointing out that it's not a bad thing to be muslim as if Ebert is saying it is.

Of course religion shouldn't matter when it comes to who is president. Bu to pretend that being a muslim isn't a HUGE POLITICAL LIABILITY at this point is very naive. Progressive people know it shouldn't matter; realistic people know it does.

I'm reminded of Sarah Palin's comments when asked about the appropriateness of questioning Barack Obama's citizenship, when she said she didn't have a problem with it because of what was said about her baby Trig, that she pretended Trig was hers to cover for her daughter, whose baby, according to the gossip, it really was, implying that anyone questioning a fact, even if it was insincere or a deliberate lie, didn't matter because it was directed at a political opponent and since it happened to her, everyone else was fair game.

To me, it's an issue of trust. I don't have a single news source (newspaper, TV, radio, internet, etc.) that I trust. They all seem to have an agenda - not necessarily liberal or conservative (although there are plenty that take on political agendas), but for earning as much money as possible. They all seem all too willing to fan the flames of made up controversies, mislead, fabricate, obfuscate, or worse in the name of attracting eyeballs.

I hadn't even considered the possibility that there could be a Vice President Beck. (Or would he strive for the top spot?) Part of me thinks that a Palin-Beck presidential ticket would make an Obama/Democratic win in the next election a slam dunk. I maintain this belief because I think Palin and Beck are both bat-guano crazy, and I optimistically think a majority of rational people feel the same way. Now, having read this, I'm worried about there being a dearth of rational voters come November 2012.

Well said, Mr Ebert - you have summed it up rather well. Clarity to some of us will, I'm afraid, remain opacity to others. As for me, I'm heading over to Steak n' Shake, in your honor.

To Hanky Panky: you write

And yet the same amount of people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bush and his administration had a hand in that. Does Mr. Ebert believe that is a dangerous belief? Does he condemn the liberals who have allowed that lie to be perpetrated? Will Mr. Ebert call on Obama, Pelosi, the Clintons to issue a joint statement saying that Bush did not have a role in 9/11? I would laugh if Ebert wasn't so sad.

Your attempt to draw a comparison between the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim and the people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job (generally referred to by themselves as "9/11 Truthers") fails on multiple levels. For one, belief that 9/11 was an inside job is not nearly as prevalent, nor is it repeated by anyone even remotely respectable in the mainstream media, as the inane belief that Obama is a Muslim. They don't have the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sarah Palins that endlessly repeat their prattle to the public.

More to the point, 9/11 Truthers do not skew particularly liberal. Liberal commentators routinely and loudly dismiss them as fringe lunatics when the subject comes up (Bill Maher famously went into the audience to toss some Truther hecklers off of his show - the clip's on YouTube). In the 2008 presidential elections, the majority of organized Truthers put their support behind Ron Paul, a Republican (though Paul explicitly repudiated their position).

Truthers' claims seem to stem more from anti-government paranoia than any particular grievance against Bush himself. The point of 9/11 conspiracy theories is not and was never directly to slander President Bush; their target was always much more vast, and to the degree to which they did target him was more in the spirit of collateral damage. General statements tend not to apply to Truthers (we're dealing with wingnuts here, and wingnuttery knows no bounds) but I suspect that the majority of Truthers would argue that Bush was complicit in their alleged conspiracy, but that he was manipulated by the shadow forces behind his presidency, or whatever.

In contrast, the repeated claims or insinuations that Obama is a Muslim are intended as a very specific slander (it's not a slander to sufficiently evolved people to call someone a Muslim, but its target audience is not sufficiently evolved) with Obama and Obama alone as the target.

@By Robert on September 1, 2010 10:07 AM

The truth is President Obama has accomplished a great deal during his time in office. It's actually quite astounding how much he's got done, with the filibuster threat looming over everything. Google "Obama’s accomplishments" to get to the sources, but here is a quick and partial list:

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6 Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21 The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

Roger, Tracy's comment at September 1, 2010 10:23 AM has got it nailed. We are CONFUSED about Obama's because his actions speak louder than his words.

I see no evidence that there is no "big money" about the idea that Americans are confused about Obama's religion. All you have to do is look at Obama's actions -- and lack of actions.

If you think there is some big-money conspiracy, it's up to you to show that.
Show us how Obama's ACTIONS clearly demonstrate his religion. As the smartest person in the room recently said, put up or shut up. Sadly, I don't really expect that you will do either.

A shadow is falling over the flag of freedom which all citizens, informed or uninformed, hold dear- though perhaps with a bit more complacency than actual pride. It has been a long while since that freedom was genuinely threatened on American soil.

Many will point to the attacks of September 11, 2001 or as it now popularly and polarizingly referred to as "Nine-Eleven", as one such genuine threat- but this is not the case. The fanatic and desperate attacks carried out by a few humans from the other side of the planet, against a few buildings is no true threat to the concept and security of freedom which the United States of America was founded upon. While the loss of life on that day is tragic and what followed certainly was disheartening, the actions taken that day by people- who in their hearts believed they were doing the right thing- were no more a threat than the common house-fly is to a Sports Utility Vehicle traveling down an interstate highway.

A true threat to freedom can only take the form of something which could potentially destabilize the country or dissolve this tenuous union, this idea of a United States of America. The last true form this has taken was that of the first American Civil War. Economic disparity, and despair itself, drove the confederate states to succession under the guise of patriotism and idealism.

Now, we once again are witnessing our country being driven in twain to serve those same ideas. To give our freedoms up has been deemed patriotic, but it was the original and true patriots who rallied, fought and died to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all American citizens. It is the true enemies of freedom who are both pushing and riding this wave of fear and hatred to what will be its inevitable and horrible crest.

Our time of stability, our long and hard-won national peace, is drawing to a close. While many will reference the wars our country has become embattled in on foreign soil as breaks to this peace, we have not fought battles, save for Pearl Harbor, upon this sacred soil. When is the last time a foreign power actively invaded our country, or the last time we saw our soldiers fighting in our streets?

Now, I fear we are heading towards a new secessionist nation, which has the power and the potential to threaten liberty and freedom for all in this great country. Make no mistake, unless we stand and take action against the perpetrators of this great upheaval, this country will devolve into a second American Civil War.

This is why I'm agnostic. People all hung up over religion and missing what's going on around them.

Actually, 'put up or shut up' might be a good request of Obama. Despite two autobiographies, he is the least documented president we have ever had.

The fact that there is so much doubt about his origins reflect more on Obama, his followers and the liberal media than his detractors.

I get the impression by reading liberal blogs that anything negative said about Obama is tantamount to hate speech.

Roger, my 3rd take on your questions in your article:

1. To simplify further, on the question of is Barack Obama a Christian or a Muslim:

He influenced by both, but not demonstrably a practicing adherent of either. IMHO.

2. In that vein, your title applies also to President Obama. If you are going to make demands on public officials to take a stand, make the same demand on President Obama.

Mr. President, if you profess Christianity as your faith then put up or shut up. What distinguishes you from a secular liberal social justice adherent?

Do you belong to a church? No.

Do you attend a church? Not regularly, and not where we can see it.

Do you, as the head of a Christian household, take your family to church????

Do you perform any lay-ministerial role in any faith community? Teach, serve, anything?

I'm not the world's best Christian, by far, but I meet those basic criteria.

Roger, before you make demands on President Bush et al on the question of President Obama's faith, make the demand first of President Obama. Put up, or...

Typically I've found that "evidence" of Christianity usually turns out to be bullshit.

It's amazing to me how "Christian" folks can watch George Bush make mistake after mistake and respond with "We just need to pray for him. It's a difficult job." Anything Obama does is met with hate and anger. It saddens me.

If Obama saved a child from oncoming traffic the GOP would find something wrong with it. It's time for the GOP to stop being assholes.

The truly sad thing is, it shouldn't matter even if Obama was a Muslim. The implied (and not so implied) hatred for an entire religion being expressed by the idea that if he was Muslim, that would somehow be a terrible thing, is in some ways worse than the ignorant Republican 57%.

Have you read A QUIBBLE by Mark Slouka? He wrote it for Harper's in early 2009; I highly recommend it. You can read the entire article here (about half-way down).

An excerpt:

"What we need to talk about, what someone needs to talk about, particularly now, is our ever-deepening ignorance (of politics, of foreign languages, of history, of science, of current affairs, of pretty much everything) and not just our ignorance but our complacency in the face of it, our growing fondness for it. A generation ago the proof of our foolishness, held up to our faces, might still have elicited some redeeming twinge of shame—no longer. Today, across vast swaths of the republic, it amuses and comforts us. We're deeply loyal to it. Ignorance gives us a sense of community; it confers citizenship; our representatives either share it or bow down to it or risk our wrath.

[...]

Wherever it may have resided before, the brain in America has migrated to the region of the belt—not below it, which might at least be diverting, but only as far as the gut—where it has come to a stop. The gut tells us things. It tells us what's right and what's wrong, who to hate and what to believe and who to vote for. Increasingly, it's where American politics is done. All we have to do is listen to it and the answer appears in the little window of the eight ball: "Don't trust him. Don't know. Undecided. Just because, that's why." We know because we feel, as if truth were a matter of personal taste, or something to be divined in the human heart, like love.

I was raised to be ashamed of my ignorance, and to try to do something about it if at all possible. I carry that burden to this day, and have successfully passed it on to my children. I don't believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing—a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don't believe in it. Worse still (or more amusing, depending on the day) are those who *can* tell you, and then offer up a stew of New Age blather, right-wing rant, and bloggers' speculation that's so divorced from actual, demonstrable fact, that's so not true, as the kids would say, that the mind goes numb with wonder. 'Way I see it is,' a man in the Tulsa Motel 6 swimming pool told me last summer, 'if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us.'"

Here is my question. What if Obama was Muslim? Why is that such a huge problem? Extremist were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Any religion when taken to an extreme can become violent. Take Christianity-The Crusades were extremely violent-does that mean all Christians/Catholics are violent? In the name of Christianity people have behaved in bigoted, exclusionary ways. So frankly, I don't care what religion president Obama practices. While I don't agree with everything he has done, he sure is doing a better job than George W. Bush. In fact, Obama is currently still cleaning up the mess that Bush/Cheney made.

The last time I checked we have freedom of religion in this country. So Obama can worship at his Christian Church (I actually know people from his congregation in Chicago), a Muslim Mossque, Jewish Synagogue, practice Wicca, santeria, or whatever he wants to practice. I honestly don't care. What I care about is being able to live in a country where I have the freedom to exist, purchase my home, have decent and affordable childcare and health insurance. I want a president that won't embarrass me when he talks to people from other countries (Bush did, and the thought of Palin makes me want to renounce my US citizenship). Most importantly, I don't want right wing conservatives shoving their version of Christianity down my throat.

Also-BTW, the Ku Klux Klan used Christianity to recruit people back in the 1920's. Makes you think huh........

Personally, I love how Ebert cherry-picks which comments to reply to, and brushes off any questions that imply a shred of blame for the Left.

One user asks; "Bush was demonized for 8 years and called much worse than Muslim. Where was your outrage?"

Ebert replies: "He led us into battle with information his administration knew to be false. I was outraged, wasn't I right to be outraged?"

Notice that he cites a common conspiracy theory without a shred of proof to back it up, to deflect from the question, on a blog where he chastises a common conspiracy theory for not having a shred of proof to back it up!

You're not just jawless, Ebert. You're spineless.

Ebert: Here are two of many sources leading me to the conclusion that Bush led us into battle with information his administration knew to be false:

http://j.mp/aPKHBL

http://j.mp/aK8UjS

This s far from being a "conspiracy theory."

Beck and Palin are no better than the two bit TV preachers who demand money to people in order to save themselves from the flames of Hades. They play on people's fears in the worst way. Actually, I think they are worse. TV preachers make people fear hell. They are making people fear innocent people and the consequences are going to be disastrous. People who take lightly the defaming of other people in order to discredit them to 'win' some supposed battle are the dregs of the earth.

You can see the liberal narrative developing. When Obama does not get re-elected it won't be due to the economy and failing polcies it will be because Americans are anti-muslim bigots. The libbies who traffic in this nonsense are full of vitriolic hatred of anyone who does share in their views.

Those commenting with demands that Roger write a piece on the dangers of the "stupid things" dems believe about Bush need to reread the first couple of paragraphs of this piece, specifically the poll statistics cited. (57% of Repubs!)
I do not believe that the twin towers were demo-ed by the secret service and I doubt that more than half of Dems do either.
There is a difference between criticism/dissent and knowingly propagating blatant mis-information. The real danger that roger is warning of is not that some person might mistakenly believe our president is a muslim (gasp!) but that our populace is devolving into a mass of fear-driven spoon fed "news" consumers with a mob mentality.

A blessing on your head.

This whole thing reminded me of the "not that there's anything wrong with [being gay]" episode of "Seinfeld." And I thought about waxing eloquently on the topic. But someone above quoted Colin Powell's "really right" answer, and I consider that enough said.

Please don't call it a Mosque. The building that is proposed for the site of the current Burlington Warehouse on Park Place is a Community Center. There is a huge difference. That is why the fear mongers started calling it by the wrong name. I BEG YOU to stop playing into it. It doesn't matter what you say around the word "mosque" - and what you say is EXCELLENT. If you call it a mosque the fear will continue to spread.

One of the fundamental problems with our political discourse today (and I realize the rantings of Beck, Limbaugh, Palin et al shouldn't be dignified with a word like 'discourse'), is that more than 24% of Americans don't understand the difference between an argument and an assertion. Anyone, even Sarah Palin, can make an assertion. I, for example, can assert thet Glenn Beck spent his teen years as a fire-eater in a traveling circus. That doesn't make it so. An argument requires factual evidence, which the loony right doesn't have, so they assert, assert, assert, and a gullible populace believes them...Will there be a price to pay when the working class right wakes up and realizes it has been gulled? Probably not. Their sleep is deep.

The most interesting part of the poll you cited is that only 34% of the respondents believe that Obama is telling the truth when he claims to be a Christian. I am not one of the 34%.

Obama supports abortion rights and, as an Illinois Senator, voted for a bill that many Christians found beyond the pale: one that refused medical attentions for babies that survived a botched abortion:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Obama can thank himself and his media advisers for the fact that some people perceive him as a Muslim. He has not joined a congregation while in Washington. During a visit to the Blue Mosque in Turkey, he removed his shoes and made women in his entourage cover their heads, in accordance with religious custom:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x293124

We are told this was done merely out of respect for his hosts. However, when Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University, White House officials instructed school officials to cover up a monogram spelling "INS" (symbolizing Jesus' name).

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html

None of this proves that Obama is a Muslim, but it looks bad to many Americans. Frankly, I'm surprised that Obama's handlers, who were so media-savvy during the election, have been such failures now that their man is in office.

Finally, many evangelicals believe that it is part of their religious duty to support the state of Israel. They feel that Obama's policies are anti-Israel, another reason why they distrust him.

Personally, I believe that Obama is neither a Christian nor a Muslim. I believe that he worships at the altar of Big Government.

I don't think this is asking too much. When the John Birch Society called President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles communist agents, responsible Republican leaders not only denounced these idiotic charges, but also refused to campaign alongside or aide candidates who were JBS members who didn't similarly denounce the lunacy.

From Nixon's memoirs:

"Members of the ultra right-wing John Birch Society had infiltrated a considerable number of Republican organizations. One of the costliest and most difficult decisions I made was to disavow support for or from any Republican candidate who was a member of the John Birch Society and who would not repudiate the extremist statements of the society's founder, Robert Welch, namely that President Eisenhower was 'a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,' and that Foster Dulles was 'a Communist agent.'

"Congressmen John Rousselot and Edgar Hiestand were two of my closest personal and political friends. But both were members of the John Birch Society. Whether or not they personally believed any or all of Welch's accusations, neither would repudiate them. Thus I lost not only their support but the support of their friends in two heavily Republican districts. Politically it was a no-win proposition, but as a matter of conscience I had no choice."

I don't think asking for today's GOP to show even a Nixonian level of conscience is too great a request.

If you want to see the America that Beck is urging on, you need only read his followers’ comments on this site http://wp.me/pNmlT-mI which is critical of Beck and his rally. They are cult like in their blind adherence to the Beck doctrine, and this despite the fact that for some, like the Tea Party, Beck's worldview contradicts their core belief in the Constitution and the separation of church and state! It is sobering to read and provides a warning we all need to heed.

Rodge? The Democrats spent eight years attempting to delegitimize Mr. Obama's predecessor while that party's supporters called Mr. Bush the most vile names in the book or insinuated(or said directly) that he was comparable to some of the most evil figures in human history. Mr. Bush owes the Democrats exactly nothing. Suck on that.

This article is absolutely ridiculous and disingenuous.

Prior to 2005, at least 64% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had strong ties to 9/11. Bush's eventual response: "I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

Thing is, you don't have to come right out and say something. All you have to do is pave the road, and people will travel it on their own. Skilled rhetoricians (e.g. politicians and television pundits) know that better than anybody else.

Hi Bill Pierce

It has degenerated into name-calling and demonizing rather than discussion of legitimate facts and debatable opinions. It began sometime in the early '90s with Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich..

You mean when Rush was demonized at every turn by every liberal for the last 20 years?

Or, do you mean when Newt was pilloried by the Washinton press corps as "the Gingrich who Stole Christmas" and every other kind of name he could be called.

Or do you mean before that, when the Democrats in the Senate tore apart good men like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas and started all of this bitter divide?

Surely you mean that's when it began, right? :)

Roger, you said you where outraged that Bush led us to to battle with evidence his administration knew was false. Did they know it was false or did they get it wrong?

Ebert: What do you think?

http://j.mp/aPKHBL

I have no reason to believe that Obama is a practicing Muslim, even if the Koran technically defines him as one through lineage. In fact, I have no evidence in deed (as opposed to mere words) he is religious at all. A lot of his actual actions and political beliefs (e.g., support for homosexuality and for the ongoing societal mass-murder of pre-born humans) run intensely counter to the holy texts of BOTH Islam and Christianity! The evidence at hand, based on his actions, is that he is both anti-Muslim and anti-Christian. Radical atheists should love this guy.

Ebert is wrong to ask Bush, Bush Sr. and McCain to state that Obama is no Muslim. They already have. Saying so twice is wasteful, inefficient and redundant. It's not their personal concern anyway, so they've actually displayed remarkable benevolence already by going out on that limb on Obama's behalf!

Otherwise, this column makes some sense as far as it goes, but suffers terribly from the dishonesty of omission. When he equally condemns the idiotic ideas proffered by radical leftists and conspiracy wackos that Bush somehow was "behind" 9/11, I'll allow Ebert some credibility in the argument. Meanwhile, he's just another inconsequential voice among millions in the overblown debate about Obama's religion. Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

Hey Bill Hays

Maybe before you disparage Islam as a horrible institution founded on violence, you should crack your bible and see how the good ol Midianites fared when God commanded his followers to destroy them. Killed all the men and the boys among the children and babies, all the 32,000 women and girls not touched by man were to be split among them as booty along with all the animals. To burn the towns and leave "nothing that breatheth".

Or "And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel."

All this stuff is from the bible, which is always quoted in defense of hate against people or to defend socially right positions. There are countless more episodes of stonings, murders, rape, genocide or any type of barbarism you have a hankering for.

Congratulations on reading a pamphlet on Islam. I am an Atheist and own the King James Bible, the Quran and the 5 books of Moses. Of all of them I find the Quran the best written, you should give it a read sometime.

And the conquering Muslims treated all "people of the book" (Jews and the Christian sects) reasonably, unlike the Christian conquerors of the Crusades, who committed some of the greatest atrocities in the history of man, not the least being the sacking and rape of Constantinople (their coreligionists) during the fourth crusade and taught the Muslims much about cruelty.

Roger, when are you going to quit the reviewing business and go full time as the conscience of America?

Bravo! .. great article.

But you ask too much: Misinformation of an ignorant majority is their only weapon for victory; truth would destroy the Republican party & Fox news as we know it. Unfortunately, secular morals prevent the Left from taking up a similar strategy of corralling the ignorant for mere political gains as it requires inflaming their misplaced fears (though I admit the left do so to some degree as well). When attempting to spread truth the Left end up looking superior and elitist (know-it-alls), one sees such behavior everyday outside of politics. Labeling ignorance (as I did) certainly angers them and makes them more stubborn. Ignorance is just a temporary state, one we are all afflicted with quite often.

I hope that most of those polled who say they think Obama is a Muslim are doing so out of pure spite, and not because they actually believe it. This hope is how I manage to sleep at night.

Ebert's paper-thin interpretation of the economic recession is proof positive that the right doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance.

This theme of innuendo and blatant lies is best described by Joseph Heller in Chapter 11 ("Captain Black") of "Catch-22", a truly timeless story.

A sample:

"What makes you so sure Major Major is a Communist?"

"You never heard him denying it until we began accusing him, did you? And you don't see him signing any of our loyalty oaths."

"You aren't letting him sign any."

"Of course not," Captain Black explained. "That would defeat the whole purpose of our crusade."

he made the statement to the world that we are no longer a "Christian nation"

We were never a Christian nation, as neither Christ nor Christianity are mentioned in the Constitution nor do we have a State Church. We have historically been a secular nation populated mostly by Christians. The confusion comes from the deliberate conflating of "secular" with "atheist".

he did not participate in the "National Day of Prayer" but hosts a dinner at the start of Ramadan at OUR White House

You know who else had Ramadan dinner at the White House? Thomas Jefferson, our first Muslim President apparently. The "National Day of Prayer" is a relic of the Cold War (gotta show those godless Russkies, you know) that Congress saw fit to put in place in 1952. As for your reference to OUR White House, you are correct. It belongs to all Americans - Hindus, Muslims, Jews as well as Christians, non-believers, Mormons, etc.

he bowed to the Muslim Saudi King.
and he also bowed to Emperor Akihito! Turns out he's Japanese as well!!!

The problem is, when you survey the absurd lengths to which some people will go to insist that Obama must be, someway, somehow "alien" that causes many of us to have suspicions about their motivations.

What is bugging me is that even those who purport to support the view that Obama is Christian usually state it by saying they "believe" he is a Christian. This still slyly leaves the door of doubt open in my opinion. He's a Christian! It's a fact derived from years of evidence! End of story. Those who want to support Obama as a Christian shouldn't pick up on the doubters' framing of this issue, and state the view more directly.

Anyone who thinks a politician honestly gives a flying fark about "the American people" deserves what they get. These days, it's all about stumping for the next election, trying to make sure "your people" get in. Both sides. No exceptions. Who raises the most money, who can dig up the most dirt on the opponent, who gives the better sound bite. The winner basks in glory, the loser disappears ... and in a few months it starts all over again. I voted for Obama, but I in no way thought he would be America's savior. I hoped that as an obviously intelligent human being he would get other intelligent human beings to help out with this mess. I still hold that hope. However, I must echo Bearpaw's comment--they call him a Muslim or just imply that he is because they can't call him a nigger in public. Five words--fear of a brown president. Sure, Michael Steele is the current RNC chairman but he knows that philosophy too--look how fast he went running to apologize to Rush Limbaugh and call him "an important conservative leader" when he rightfully criticized Limbaugh as being an "entertainer." Last time I checked Rush Limbaugh has not and never has held any sort of government office. He is a salesman, but instead of the advertising he used to sell for the Kansas City Royals, he sells fear. Same as Glenn Beck, a failed Howard Stern/"morning zoo" DJ wannabe who figures if he yells loudly enough people will pay attention--and they do, because he's making a bunch of people a whole lot of money.

I think like a lot of Americans I'm just ... tired. I don't watch any news channels anymore, with their endless hours of talking about nothing. I don't bother getting upset about Limbaugh or Beck or Hannity and don't really care about Olbermann or Maddow or Huffington. They're two sides of the same coin. I've seen both sides of the economic spectrum. The majority of people haven't and that's why no one can deal. From a song that even twenty-plus years later still rings true, "the rich control the government, the media the law."

Roger,
Returning to Beck, Sarah Palin, and other pundits believing their own hype and perhaps pressing their influence too far... have you considered doing a write-up on Elia Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd"? It would be easy enough to draw parallels between Andy Griffith's Lonesome Rhodes--a con-man who, like these other pundits, gains power and influence because of his appeal to the "average Joe", and more importantly, his ability to sell products. I saw this film months ago and I can't shake its prophetic message. I'd like to strap Limbaugh to a chair A Clockwork Orange style and make him watch it until he saw the inevitability of his false power. What would be the use though? Maybe it's too obvious,or maybe you think this is one of Kazan's lesser works, but I think other people should see it. If for no other reason than to see Andy Griffith in a role that shows chops way beyond Matlock.

As good an op-ed as anything in the NYTimes. Maybe it's time to ask for your own political column?

I don't equate the Muslim religion with terrorist activities anymore then I would cite Waco Texas as an example of Christianity.

If we are really concerned about our elected officials being scheming, deceitful, misguided fools, during the next election we need to get up off our lazy butts and campaign for good political candidates.
How many of us "progressives" sit around during an election blogging on liberal blogs about how stooopid the candidates are (usually republicans), while doing absolutely nothing of consequence.
I've always admired the grass roots movements and energy of the republican party campaigners. It's something that is generally lacking with the the Democrats.

If you disagree with Obama's policies, that's perfectly fine. I'm a liberal, and I disagree with many of his policies (I suspect we would disagree with different policies for very different reasons, and that is how we are supposed to work).

However, a serious problem arises when we corrupt our national discourse to the point that people feel it is worth valuable time to argue about whether Obama is a Muslim. Let's settle this now. Is Obama a Muslim? The only correct answer is this: No, and who cares if he was Muslim? Is Obama a fascist communist? No. Is he the Antichrist? No.

Conservatives were angry when liberals accused Bush of being going AWOL and claimed that Bristol's baby was actually Sarah's. You had a right to be angry about those rumors, because they were baseless, mean, and stupid. I'm calling on you now to be adults and not repeat these same mistakes.

Let's move past the easy invectives and actually get to the real policy issues, the ones that matter, because that's the only way we're going to prosper as a society. Let's discuss the proper levels of taxes, the correct level of social support for the poor, the right balance between economic growth and environmental protection, the ways in which increasing life spans intersect with Social Security and labor pensions.

If, however, we instead allow ourselves to devolve into a people split in half who perceive absolutely no common ground with each other, who look at those in the other party as dire enemies to be met only with hatred, scorn, and lies, then the great American experiment may be drawing to a close.

This is a scary situation. I do think that Beck has aspirations for high office... and a Palin presidency would be one of the worst things to ever happen to this country.

Scary.

I've come to notice a change recently, and I can't put my finger on it.

Would you agree that the conservative voice has been stronger, more reasoned, and more eloquent in your comments sections recently? And the opposite has happened to the liberal voice? For the longest time, you couldn't find an intelligent conservative response in your blog for anything. Before, I'd come away feeling like a true Blue after reading a post and perusing the comments. For at least the last couple of blogs, I've been pretty impressed with the thoughts shared by the representative Republican readers.

I'm not trying to be an instigator, and I'm curious to see if you've noticed the same thing, and if you could do a better job pinpointing the cause of the shift. Is it election season, maybe? Conservatives are more energized, and liberals are more worried? Or is it something else?

Ebert: I don't agree with you about the liberals on these treads, but I do agree about the conservatives, and I welcome that. Discussions among those in agreement teach us nothing.

By Robert H on September 1, 2010 9:19 AM

There are fanatics on both sides.

So let’s “put up or shut up” right now. I typically vote Republican and I don’t think Obama is a Muslim. A terrible President? -- Yes. But a Muslim? -- no.

You are right by the way. It's true that Bush did not know anything about 9/11. But, if I'm not mistaken, he did know about the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Also, and I really want to know, why do you say that Obama is a bad president?

Makes me wonder who would headline the ticket. I cant imagine after all the groundwork Ms Palin has put in in two years she'd want to play 2nd fiddle to a Glen Beck candidacy, but then again her internal pollsters must know that a Palin presidential bid would be hopeless.

Ebert: Is the nation ready to elect a woman as president? Just askin'

It's the same tribalistic Victim rhetoric over and over again.

"They hate us for our freedoms" = "We are victims of their tyranny, therefore we should obliterate them and anyone who looks like them."

"Liberal Media" = "We are victims of their tyranny, therefore we should consider everything they say to be false and listen to our own snake oil salesmen."

"Obama is a Muslim" = "He has a hidden agenda to exploit and hurt us."

"We are taking this country back" = "What belongs to us has been taken away by outsiders."

"Ground Zero Mosque is monument of Victory." = "We have been victimized by *them* Muslims once and it is happening again."

It is nothing new.

The televangelists in the Right Wing are all preaching Victimhood onto their followers. The result is that we rarely hear anything but the same talking points recycled again and again, while these televangelist pundits cash in.

Victimhood is also a powerful tool to distract a population from real issues and to disempower a population into cattle unable to see the humanity of those who disagree. So, when claiming that Obama is a Muslim, it is akin to saying Obama is vermin or that Obama has a disease that has passed down through his father, step-father, reverend, etc..

The framing is one of sickness and contagious disease. The result is a call to quarantine.

Omer M

You, the competent and rational citizens, are the ones who the nation needs most to be participating in the national conversation. Calm, clear thinking is a vital national resource, and it is irresponsible to sit in the stands complaining about the game when you should be out on the field.

If you wish to help, then meet with members of organizations who have opposing political viewpoints. The opposing party is always less scary when spoken to individually. Liberals can easily find Tea-Party members, and conservatives can still find Obama supporters. May I suggest using Google to help find local oppositional organizations? Research your opinions, AND those of the opposing party, and then go engage them in a formal debate. It's fun.

Adjacently; liberals talking about the fear and hate exuded by conservatives may not realize that that viewpoint in turn teaches other liberals to fear and hate conservatives for their (in the eyes of liberals) hateful opinions. What a dangerous loop. Soon both sides will be so scared of each other that real debate is impossible. My advice; go talk (face-to-face!) to a person with an opposing political viewpoint before you become too afraid to.

P.S. Thank you as always for the thought provoking article Mr. Ebert!

I thought Obama was a racist Christian...isn't that what we learned during the Jeremiah Wright controversy? I guess when that lie didn't work, the right decided to go with a bigger one.

in re: memes

Here's one that ought to be resurrected: "Public Enemy"

Ebert: I was outraged that he led us into battle by citing evidence his administration knew was false. Was I wrong to be outraged?

That didn't quite answer his question. He was asking ( I presume ) about why you weren't outraged with the "Bush is Satan" "Bush Is Hitler" etc. Remarks. But see, you ignored that and alluded that you don't care because of his actions. Well, then do I have a right to say the same about Obama because I don't care much for his actions? Of course, personally, I wouldn't do that. I thought it was wrong to say about Bush, and as much as dislike Obamas policies, I think its wrong to say about Obama. Color me more mature...

Look if Donald Rumsfeld can be a Muslim, then so can Barack Obama. I saw those photos of Rummy and Saadamn. They were pretty chummy. Has Rumsfeld come out to deny this? Rush Limba is also a Muslim. He has never been to my church.
By the way, if you attend a church, and even if its Black Liberation Theology, how could you possibly in any way be a Muslim?

Liberal Democrats days are numbered. All signs point to the Dems losing big in this year's elections. So I guess Sarah Palin and Beck are doing something right. And of course, Tea Party victories will carry over to 2012.

For a "fringe" group, the Tea Party is winning the hearts and minds of the American people.

Every single poll, conducted by conservatives AND liberals, show Obama's approval ratings in the dump.

Here's our man-child president saying the Iraq surge would fail...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ

When has Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and the rest of the usual gang of idiots been right on ANYTHING???

Most LIBERAL city in America?? D.E.T.R.O.I.T.

Where is this panacea the libs promised us if we elected Obama???

Maybe this woman knows...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Go ahead Democrats. Govern against the will of the American people. Build the Islamic Victory Center on Ground Zero.

Don't tread on me.

Roger, your columns, books and blog have been an inspiration to me for years, and I agree with your views, but I fear the political discussions on here are counter-productive. The arguments are unresolvable, because politics in the US have more to do with *FEELINGS* than thought.
- I *feel* that our country is on the wrong track, or
- I *feel* like Obama is a Muslim, or
- I *feel* like I am powerless against a corporate money-machine.

It's useless to argue with these political feelings. The only thing that happens when you descend into this morass of partisan politics is you get muddy.

I know you can't stop writing about politics, because you're intelligent and ethical and it HURTS to see the truth distorted, but I urge you to remember that your views on film and aesthetics and your wonderful personal history are your great legacy, and will be last longer than this politics stuff. Sometimes we need to look away, toward something beautiful...

Roger, your columns, books and blog have been an inspiration to me for years, and I agree with your views, but I fear the political discussions on here are counter-productive. The arguments are unresolvable, because politics in the US have more to do with *FEELINGS* than thought.
- I *feel* that our country is on the wrong track, or
- I *feel* like Obama is a Muslim, or
- I *feel* like I am powerless against a corporate money-machine.

It's useless to argue with these political feelings. The only thing that happens when you descend into this morass of partisan politics is you get muddy.

I know you can't stop writing about politics, because you're intelligent and ethical and it HURTS to see the truth distorted, but I urge you to remember that your views on film and aesthetics and your wonderful personal history are your great legacy, and will be last longer than this politics stuff. Sometimes we need to look away, toward something beautiful...

How many times does Beck have to say "I'm not running" for you to believe it?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/30/nation/la-na-beck-20100830

Ebert: Once more on 9/12 should do it.

Roger, your blog is quickly becoming one of my favorites. I look forward to it every week. Keep 'em coming!

Now that I think about it, it's funny how there is no real parallel on the left. In fact, I defy anyone to name a single issue on which large percentages of liberal voters consistently hold demonstrably false views.

If Beck and Palin announce their candidacy, I have a suspicion they'll do it as a publicity stunt for their bank accounts, rather than with aspirations of creating a better U.S. And really, what have they got to lose? There's always the old saying "Bad publicity is good publicity". I know a lot of republicans and all of them consider Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc a joke. I think the growth of the libertarian movement (you know, the other right meat?) is encouraged by people fleeing from these jokesters. If and when they run for presidency, is it our obligation of citizenry to take them seriously? That's what I can't fathom.

By Greg Strangis on September 1, 2010 9:13 AM

Hey, Roger. President Bush was demonized for 8 years, called things a lot worse than "Muslim."

Where was your outrage then?!

Ebert: I was outraged that he led us into battle by citing evidence his administration knew was false. Was I wrong to be outraged?

Of course not. But I think what Greg was trying to point out is that fear-mongering smear campaigns are not exclusive to the right wing. Just as conservative commentators try to paint Obama as a Muslim terrorist, there have been many liberal commentators trying to convince people that Bush was a traitor to the USA and had something to do with 9/11. In other words, if your hatred for your opponent is strong enough, you will do just about anything to convince others that he/she is evil. It's a sad part of human nature, not just the conservatives.

You are correct to point out the BS. We just need to be fair about it. That's all.

I do not believe President Obama is a Christian. I believe he is an atheist. Several factors lead me to this conclusion.

First, your last (excellent) post discussed how odd it is that he opposes gay marriage. I do not believe for a second that he actually opposes it. What law professor at the U of C actually opposes gay marriage? How many academics, in any sense, actually oppose it? He espoused that belief because he believed it would get him elected. This was probably true, but it establishes willingness.

Second, he does not regularly attend church. When he did, it was at a Chicago church attended by those looking to network. Surely President Obama did not choose that church because of its pastor, mission, or teachings. Everything the man does leads me to believe he is far more temperate than that. How many middle-aged men have you known who only go to church because their wives want them to? This is common. This is not necessarily the sign of atheism, to be sure, but suggests half-hearted deism at best.

Third, going along with point one, I just don't see someone who made it that far in academia being a strong Christian. I hate to stereotype, but the academy, in particular its top-tier law schools, is dominated by atheists. See this wonderful article for how the academy reacts to even very well-qualified believers: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/06/100906fa_fact_boyer?currentPage=all.

There are other factors, but I'll leave it at this: when he says he's a Christian, I don't buy it. He is at least exaggerating his devotion.

I say this because the same deductions lead some on the right to believe he is Muslim. It is not ignorance of the "facts" the leads to that belief. It is, rather, an informed disbelief in his religious sincerity. The people in those polls are all aware that he claims to be Christian, but they don't buy it. Do I think it's logical to take the step from there to him being Muslim? Heck no. But give people some credit. I know you'll roll your eyes at this, but far right-wingers can be very sharp, very informed people. Very few of them are racist homophobes.

The person above who pointed out that Sarah Palin was an anagram for Sharia Plan got me thinking about other anagrams...

Has Iran Pal
Has Anal Rip
La Piranhas
Anal Parish

Roger,

You personally need to "put up or shut up". Do you think 9-11 was an inside job?

You are calling out Republicans to say where they stand on Obama being a Muslim. That's fair. Where do you stand on Bush knowing about 9-11?

Here is the salient point from the 2007 Rasmussen poll cited in the link below (I previously posted this link but cut part of it off):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

“Only 39 percent of Democrats believed W. Bush did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while 26 percent said they were unsure and slightly more than one third of Democrats believed W. Bush knew his country was going to be attacked.”

Got that? 61% of Democrats believe Bush may have known or knew about 9-11 before the attack. You identify as a Democrat. Do you think Bush knew about 9-11 in advance?

Ebert: I've said repeatedly, even under this entry, that I believe Bush was NOT involved in 9/11 and find the supposition absurd.

61%? Here are some figures I found:

http://j.mp/a6YKkX

Well, for the sane rest of us, such as myself, even if he were a Muslim, I wouldn't mind because I've talked to one or two and I know they are good people; One guy in high school I asked him about the Koran he was carrying around and he told me he memorized it and it took him two years to do and you couldn't think of a more harmless person: he was bony, had buck teeth with a gap in them, dressed dorky: like an AMERICAN dork (although, I mean dork in the best possible way here).

As far as Wall Street, you know I don't think they caused the financial crisis, because it's happening and happened all around the world at exactly the same time. Yes, the whole world. The oil prices skyrocketed to way unprecedented heights. Before OPEC came together and kicked out the seven sisters (the American oil companies who owned most of the world's oil reserves) oil was 2$ a barrel, with demand increasing much faster than the supply was growing; the price stayed flat. Then when OPEC came in and did the oil embargo, prices shoot up to 15$ dollars a barrel: which sent the WORLD in a recession. Then with the Iranian revolution, the prices shot up again to 40$ dollars a barrel. Yep, the world went into a global recession again in the 1980's.

Then the price hovered at the 20$ a barrel level (still 10 times higher than before OPEC got a hold of it) for the next 20 years or so (it was 11$ a barrel in 1999!)until 2008, when the prices rose 147$ a barrel! This is about 400% greater than any price the world has ever seen: and which caused global recessions before a couple of times. Hence, the global recessions around the world today. Probably even depressions coming if we don't do something about it.

To sum up, I don't care if he is a Muslim and I don't see why anyone else should (what's wrong with being a Muslim?) and the global recessions were caused by OPEC jacking up the prices of oil as they have been doing for the past 40 years and NOT because of the lack of regulations on Wall Street, which you have to admit you are biased here because you've probably wanted the regulations PRIOR to the recession as are probably many others who reported on it--who by the way never say it with certainty that they caused it--although there was a New York Times piece featuring many economists who said that the high oil prices were like the biggest tax hike in American history--a 40% tax increase on the nation!

It's not like anyone's going to change his or her mind about this nutty issue - the truth, unfortunately, doesn't have the impact it should - but at the risk of wasting my time, Hanky Panky, your reasoning is foolish to nonexistent. Yes, a number of oddballs believe that 9/11 was an inside job (though I doubt that the numbers who believe that and who believe Obama is a Muslim is "similar" - you'll have to show me some poll results). I have yet to see a single newspaper or magazine cover, let alone the cover of a major source like Newsweek, that's even mentioned the "9/11 was an inside job" theory. On the other hand, the "Obama is a Muslim" theory shows up on those pages all the time. And *Ebert* is "sad"?

Hanky panky, indeed.

A lot of valid points here in the comments section, but no one has yet mentioned: Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh, and Mrs. Palin...none of them are currently serving in a capacity in which voters elected them. The idea that Glenn Beck is going to run for President on a ticket with Sarah Palin is two steps beyond absurd. Beck and Limbaugh are ENTERTAINERS. They are paid to build their audiences by saying and doing OUTLANDISH things. If you don't like them (and I don't), don't um, vote for them, if they ever choose to run for anything? Just a thought.

I don't find them entertaining. I don't enjoy their brand of hate. As a small-government independent, I cringe when I hear people lump all conservatives in with them. They don't speak for me. I didn't vote for them. They aren't running for office. They're rabble-rousers, and the rabble is roused.

Want to get them? Want to really get them? Ignore them.

By Art
"Roger, the implication of your suggestion of Bush and co. denouncing their belief that he is a Muslim is to suggest that there's something wrong with being one in the first place."

I couldn't agree more, but sadly a large percentage of Americans think like Roger, with out realizing these implications...it's very sad and too reminiscent of the cold war propaganda days.

ROGER, please fix your post, so all your readers can see that you are not against a Muslim president, otherwise, we will think you are against Muslims and hence UN-AMERICAN.

"so what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?"
Colin Powell

I think the bigger questions are not being asked, Mr. Ebert. Like, the media's role in the entire establishment of Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. I live in Richmond, Virginia and see conservative influence around me everyday; political banners and billboards, etc. It was also apparent growing up as a child; the emphasis placed on the fact that we live in the South and should "act" as such, however "acting as such" was defined at that moment. I also work in construction around the rural towns with people (mostly men) who grew up and/or live in those towns. I, my family, the people I work with, and my other friends had never heard of Glen Beck until he was put on the cover of Time magazine. No one I knew had ever watched his show or knew any of his rhetoric. It wasn't until the media (Richmond Times Dispatch, local news, etc.) started to do stories about him and his show that WE began to accknowledge him. It wasn't until "liberal pundits" (John Stewart, Bill Maher, Rachael Maddow, etc.) began lampooning him that *I* began to become enraged by his actions. It was a similar scenario with Sarah Palin. The MEDIA acknowledged these people before me, my family, co-workers, or friends. Now, like most of America, the people I know believe Palin and Beck ARE as important as the media coverage of them entails. And I believe this is not Beck or Palin's fault. Or the fault of the Republicans. I believe its OUR fault for allowing ourselves to be riled up by false reality, and the fault of the media. That includes journalists. My question to them is, and I think this relates to your entry Mr. Ebert, why are they not pointing out reality? Why aren't THEY putting up the facts? Why don't THEY just come out and write "President Obama is not, and has never been a Muslim" instead of writing "Many sources have pointed out the fallacy of the claims hurled at President Obama about his nationality..."? Where are the journalists calling out their co-workers for NOT rocking the boat? Not questioning what's going on in newspapers, magazines, and the media in general when it comes to reporting politics? Its always done in the third person, always from a "source", not from the writer themselves. How about reporting the similarity between political media coverage and celebrity media coverage today? And I don't mean things like tabloid stuff like who's sleeping with who. I'm refering to how celebrities (politicans) are plastered in the media, not because they truly are relevant but because the people representing them work for an agency that also represents certain media outlets and makes deals with them to run stories about their client in exchange for something else. Where are the stories about who is representing Beck and Palin (who are their agents, publicists, etc.) and who do THOSE people work for? Do they work for the same agency that represents Fox News? Any other newspapers or magazines? General Electric? Viacom? Where are the journalists who just flat out refuse to write stories about Beck or Palin to begin with? Have there been journalists who have done so? Were they fired for it? If so, then why aren't other journalists doing stories about THEM? My newspaper, The Richmond Times Dispatch, has bsically become a newsletter for the Tea Party over the last couple of years. Almost every op-ed story and front page article is devoted to some writer kissing up to the "brave and strong" members of an "underappreciated and misunderstood" revolution or a story detailing the "thousands" showing up to a rally. And this is not done for the search of truth or importance. Its done in hopes of upping circulation. In pandering to sympathizers of the "movement". Everything being written or talked about on television about Beck, Palin, and the Tea Party is just as thoughtless as Beck, Palin, and Tea Party members themselves. This is my generation's McCarthyism. The American people back then didn't really give him or his rhetoric much thought because it only seemed to effect movie stars and other people who worked in Hollywood. Today, the American people aren't giving much thought to Beck or Palin or the Tea Party because it only seems to be effecting politicans and politcial parties. It wasn't until journalists stepped in, specifically Murrow going on television, and began, not criticising McCarthy and his stances, but merely comparing and contrasting his statements with facts, did the American people become aware. We need journalists to do the same now. Stop being silent. Stop lampooning and start reporting facts. Start writing in the first-person, not the second or third. Stating a fact is NOT the same as stating an opinion. No more poll numbers. What some Americans are SUPPOSEDLY thinking is NOT as important as what some Americans are actually doing. And none of this means giving the Liberals a free pass either. THEY are to blame for the Tea Party ignorance as much as anyone. Why? Because at least the Tea Party members vote. The only time I've ever seen or heard about Liberals getting just as organized as the Tea Party members did this Martin Luthor King Day is for anti-war rallys. And I'm willing to bet all my money that the majority of the people at those rallys were not and still not registered to vote. Journalists need to report how lazy and complacent the Liberals are compared to the "crazy" Tea Baggers. In Virginia alone, I don't know how many thousands of people got on chartered buses, drove all the way up to Washington D.C., and stood hours in the hot sun, just to LISTEN to Beck and Palin's ignorant rants. I have a horrible feeling that not even one-forth that amount of Liberals are going to show up at the polls in November or 2012. Journalist's and our own thoughtlessness is to blame for people like Beck and Palin and groups like the Tea Party. Its time we both took responsibility for our actions.

If I was asked by a pollster the ludicrous question as to whether I believed the President of the United States was the Antichrist, I would probably say yes.
The question itself is anathema to statistics, imparting an incredibly strong pre-judgment before the person can ever hope to answer.
Imagine election polls were run on the basis of questions like will you vote for the commonly-labelled antichrist Democrat or the right-and-proper Republican.
Or a poll on public safety began with after a 50 per cent rise in murders, do you fell more or less safe?
If you ask a stupid question, you will almost certainly get a stupid answer.
When you want the answer to the question of what faith President Obama subscribes to, you do not say is Mr Obama Muslim, you ask what religion is he?
Mr Ebert, if you can not see the flaws in this nonsensical logic, then I despair.

Tracy -
Well-reasoned opposing arguments are never acknowledged by Mr. Ebert; his blog exists only to preach to the converted, who inevitably respond with "another brilliant commentary" or "you hit the nail right on the head," etc. In the past I have tried as you just have to counter his propaganda, but no response was forthcoming. That, of course, is his right. And I think from now on I'll limit my time on Mr. Ebert's website to reading his movie reviews, which has retained the insight, humor and excellence that I first discovered in them in my high school days. For political insight, or any sort of exchange of ideas, it is best to look elsewhere.

Hi Mr Ebert. It's a very pertinent article, but I can't help but feel that it's a case of preaching to the choir. In the USA, it seems that that is the only audience that any commentator of opinion can preach to. I am referring to the way you have incredibly politicised channels, so that republicans and democrats can watch people agree with them. Yes, they have guests from the opposite party, but they will be discredited during, before after the debate anyway when no defence is presented. Because of this, the people aren't challenged it seems, but entertained by a kind of pantomime.

I'm from the UK, where, although I've actually only started appreciating it after reading your entry, having our main broadcaster, the BBC, as apolitical, it a great blessing. This stance is often questioned by its critics, but it shows restraint, which is simply not there with American broadcasters. They have gotten more ridiculous by reacting to the opposing broadcaster, whereas the average american citizens want watch both sides. Therefore, his/her base of information is distorted because it is not anchored to reality because they are not exposed to a different point of view.

A lot of readers have pointed out that being a Muslim is not a bad thing at all, and you have agreed with them. I think you must have phrased you entry to cater to the republican (what word can I use that doesn't make it party political) idea to try and win them over (if many even read this blog) with reasoned logic that works within their understanding of words such as 'Muslim', 'socialist' etc. The scary thing is that, as you are in that country and always working with these differently weighted words, it is near impossible to stand back and look objectively.

I hope what I've written makes some sort of sense, and thank you for reading it. You are incredibly influential, and I do hope something can be done with that, as something seems to be happening with America that is above party politics and potentially quite scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ThAbpQ2kEo

I think it's possible to be many religions at the same time and believe in one God, so when anyone says that someone might be a Muslim, or have Muslim tendencies or is a little Muslim and mostly Christian or a little bit of this one and that one, or even none of them, I say "Great!"

Ebert: I was outraged that he led us into battle by citing evidence his administration knew was false. Was I wrong to be outraged?

Roger, you keep saying that the administration knew various things. Were you in the administration? Or are you a mind-reader?

If neither, then all I can say is you've taken certain facts and interpreted them in a way that demonizes that administration. Well, I suppose you can call the kettle black if you want to. I don't see much difference between pots and kettles myself, so your arguments don't move me any more than the other side's do.

Politics, pfui.

Mr. Ebert:

There will be no Palin-Beck ticket in 2012. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant of just how such tickets come together or is simply getting carried away with themselves to an embarrassing degree.

Thank you.

When your talking about the debt accumulated under Obama, please remember to remark that he is paying for wars started by his predecessor, he is paying for the bailouts pushed through by his predecessor, he is paying for the tax cuts signed into law by his predecessor, the tax cuts the republicans are trying to renew that will add billions and billions to the deficit, he is also paying for the huge increase in the size of the government that was created by his predecessor. I know it's fun to argue things from a position that facts do not support, but it's quite dishonest. Tracy, it's nice to sound sweet as pie, but you devolve into stereotypical rhetoric halfway through.

Bush was vilified because of his actions, you guys vilify this man who is our president through lies and innuendo. Also we are not a Christian Nation, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states it, it was a treaty Jefferson and Adams were quite proud of, but I know facts and the real nature of our government are of little concern to you.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2, 1776-1818, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 365. From George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45. According to Paul F. Boller [George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 87-88] the treaty was written by Joel Barlow, negotiated during Washington's administration, concluded on November 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate in June, 1797, and signed [see below] by John Adams [2nd U.S. President] on June 10, 1797. Boller concluded that "Very likely Washington shared Barlow's view, though there is no record of his opinion about the treaty ..." [p.88]. Jefferson was Secretary of State in Washington's first administration but had resigned when the treaty was written. Jefferson was Vice-President when the treaty was ratified and signed. Barlow, identified in The American Heritage Dictionary as an American "poet and diplomat," 1754-1812, knew and corresponded extensively with Jefferson. Among many letters Jefferson wrote Barlow was one written on March 14, 1801, just ten days after Jefferson's first inauguration as President.)

Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. ("Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2. 1776-1818. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 383; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 45.)

In some ways, and God forgive me for writing this, I think that a Palin/Beck presidency would be the best thing for the US right now. Sometimes a machine has to break down completely before you can fix it. Besides, if there are this many idiots in the US, it's probably what we deserve.

The people we elect work for us, so they should be caring about what religion WE are and not the other way around.

Hanky Panky, why don't you tell me how many 9/11 "truthers" have any kind of political power. Both ends of the political spectrum have their nuts, but only on the right/Republican side do the nuts hold power.

Roger, you ask why no prominent elected Republican refutes these notions regarding Obama. It simple. They saw what happened to Sen. Bennett of Utah, Rep. Inglis of SC, and Sen. Murkowski of Alaska when they were perceived to be amicable to working with the Obama Administration and Democrats in general. All three were defeated in primaries by true believers. No Republican officeholder is going to risk his job over this. They've seen the power of the mob. As for the Bushes and other prominent non office holding Republican. It's a case of Party over the Truth.

Sarah Palin = Leni Riefenstahl?

Roger, I agree with almost everything you say here, and I share your disgust at the blatant dissemination of lies and innuendo by the right. They know damn well what they are doing. If any of the Republican leaders you mention had a shred of honor they would denounce it. But we all know they won't - if they had any intention of doing so they would have done it already. The power brokers and the powerful are content to sit back and let the lies flow, for they hope that the end result will be an increase in their own power and wealth.
However, I think you are getting a little paranoid when you suggest Palin and Beck might announce their ticket for the White House. I still believe that the majority of Americans are intelligent enough to see thru their lies and hype to the emptiness that lies within. In a way, tho, I hope your prediction comes to pass - so far they have had only to be accountable to their rabid base, who question nothing that they say. If they were to attempt to take a significant place on the national stage they would come under far more scrutiny, from the media and the majority of Americans who do not share their frighteningly radical views. I do not think they would survive for very long before being revealed as the frauds they are.

In the beginning there was a human who broke free from the pack and then there was a thing called religion invented that was invented to make it universal for all of the rest of humanity to join him or her into becoming like one of these rare special people.

This is what democracy and science is about.

But, alas, there are just as many rare special people back then as there are now.

There's a standard and since time immemorial only a few have lived up to it: Jesus is the standard, remember.

So, as there always seems to be a lot of fearful people out there, scared of death and life, they can be manipulated to join an Earthly team.

Hence, we have team Beck etc.

I hope they piss their pants.

@Tracy

We're not talking about beliefs that people disagree with, we're talking about cold hard facts. You can have your own beliefs, but you can't have your own facts.

Fact: Obama is not a Muslim.
Fact: If you support the constitution, the religion of a President is completely irrelevant.

Fact: Conservatives who seem to care a lot about "the size of government" only started caring after Obama was elected. They did not care when a Republican President was in office.

It's not that anyone cares if you disagree with the President's policies, it's the arguments you use to disagree with them that are completely nonsensical, hypocritical and outright false that is the problem. I am not demonizing someone when I call out their blatant lies and distortions of demonstrable facts.

I'm a 17 year old who's honestly scared of what people are thinking of when they think about government. In a year, I'll be able to vote and it really does scare me for the reasons why people vote for politicians or presidential candidates. I wouldn't have voted for Obama, but mainly because of his position on certain issues. What other people may not have voted for him was because he was a Democrat. In this new political era, people are simpl