It is an audio report (not very long) that discusses the controversy.
The important thing to realize is that it was originally a LIBERAL website - The Huffington Post ( I refuse to link to them so search there on your own) - which first showed a photo of the ring online back in 2010. That is the photo that Jerome Corsi utilized in his story. However, there is another photo now going around (and being used by one or more of the usual so-called fact "debunking" sites - which are all basically liberal and loyal supporters of Obama) that shows the ring altered.
During the audio report, Mr. Klein and Mr. Corsi discuss the fact that Obama's ring was "in for repair" . Is it just a coincidence that the Huffingtom Post article appeared in March, 2010 and then Obama has his ring "in for repair" in September, 2010?
What kind of repair, I wonder? From the looks of the Snopes photo, the so-called "repair" job looks more like jewelry repair disaster! Doesn't it look damaged here?? (again...scroll down to photo.)
Hmmm....
From the beginning, this has been a "Talk Wisdom Reports...You Decide" issue. If it turns out that I and these reporters were wrong, I will admit it. But I am still trying to follow the evidence - wherever it leads. I don't read or speak Arabic, but those who do have pointed out the Arabic writing contained in the ring. The photos can be seen HERE. Scroll down the page to view them.
Update: Here are the photos for comparison.
Obama Ring Extreme Closeup from Huffington Post Ring Article, March, 2010
Supposedly "repaired" ring from Snopes.com
Klein Online and all other links.
P.S. You can get to the Huffington Post 2010 article via WND: Obama's "Allah" Ring Stirs Debate. {Note: Comments at the end of the article are interesting and informative, too.}
Posts
10 comments:
So...where's the Arabic inscription?
I don't see any Arabic inscription.
I've heard that proper Muslims aren't to adorn themselves with gold, anyway; and isn't anything to do with the left hand considered "unclean" in Islam? (It's considered to be the hand used to wipe yourself, you see.)
But I've looked and I've looked and I've looked and and I've looked and I still don't see any Arabic inscription.
I'll look again.
This must be one of those "you have to believe it before you can see it" arguments you're so famous for.
Come on Christine! That picture of a ring "repair" is on Snopes? Geez you can see gold "flakes" on the skin of whoever that is. Snopes is a joke. Yet we have people like GMpilot and others that will actually provide links to Snopes to back up their lame support of Obama.
I looked at the World Net Daily photograph and I couldn't match it up with the Arabic that World Net Daily supplied. Why is that? It is because the writer makes claims and doesn't expect us to think.
The photograph supplied by World Net Daily was grainy and it was hard to make out.
In this age of photoshop, I can't necessarily trust someone that I don't know and the article lacks two or three witnesses.
I have to go by the facts instead of information that can't be validated, verified and substantiated and it is not much better than "he said / she said".
I have an inexpensive ring I bought at Wallmart with the Lord's prayer on it and someone might conclude that I'm Catholic because I wear it but I'm not and I wear it because it is a nice prayer and I was looking for a replacement wedding ring that wasn't expensive.
I plan to vote Republican so I am not one of these liberal whiners but I am a person who thinks so therefore I must exist.
Christians should be known for their love for one another and I feel that politics has become a "us vs them" kind of mentality so nobody likes us when we feel superior and I feel that much of the fighting is ammo.
I've come to conclude that many people who can't get their way politically tend to make stuff up and if I ran with it I would constantly be embarassed and it is inevitable that someone is going to counter with "snopes" which again makes this something that the average person doesn't have time or energy to defend because it is undefendable. Rather than live a defeated life, I'd rather move on.
If the Republican party was a Christian party, where is the love for the poor? The focus is mainly on abortion so should the focus be on a ring or the homeless in the street? Should the focus be on things we can and cannot prove or should it be about helping people?
I know people on the University level who are going to put you on the spot and ask you why the republicans are going to support John McCain when he left his wife and why the republicans are going to talk about character when their own doesn't have it.
Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?
Matthew 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?
Matthew 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.
The Republicans want lower taxes so there is no room to help the poor and the churches are reluctant and overwhelmed as to whom they help. Instead the Republican party isn't operating any better than the Democrats who at least in theory care about the poor and those who don't have. Aren't the Repubicans thinking any better? The answer is "no" because of selfishness and it is trivial because you could trim 2.5 Trillian Dollars of pet projects out of the budget if you wanted a Christian party.
-by the user once known as Sosthenes and "no" I have no reason to return and most Christian message boards are run by workers of Satan which is why I don't have much to do on message boards anymore.
Sosthenes,
Welcome back. Of course you are entitled to your opinion on this issue as well as any other debatable topic. You have included a lot of other issues that seem to be bothering you (i.e. "the support of McCain when he left his wife" (first wife?) and your opinion that "most Christian message boards are run by workers of Satan.")
In all of this, you appear to be forgetting that we are all sinners in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ. When one is born again, we still have free will to choose between good or evil at every turn. The "good" that we do in this life is as "filty rags" see Isaiah 64:6) compared to the holiness and righteousness of God. So what do we do? We do the best we can in all circumstances.
Back to this topic. Perhaps you didn't visit the link over at American Thinker entitled What Not To Wear to a Presidential Debate. The title doesn't necessary appeal to most people, but what I found out there was quite interesting. Note this portion:
Quote:
The mainstream media have yet to explore this WND revelation. Some commenters insist that the marks on the ring are nothing more than decorative squiggles. Similar-looking swirled markings on ice cream lids distributed by Burger King stirred up quite a controversy in 2005 in the U.K. In this interview, the offended Muslim stated:
"The fear of God, the love of God, the love of not letting anyone disrespect God. Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I'm not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I'm going to bring this country down".
Wow. Burger King formally apologized, recalled the product, and redesigned the lid. One can only wonder if similar swiggles on an American president's ring could ignite as volatile a reaction as a chocolate ice cream fast-food container. Let's hope not. Recall that it was Obama himself who recently said: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." So...does he or doesn't he? Is Obama intentionally wearing a Shahada ring, or is he perhaps unintentionally offending Muslims?
The Blaze, while still including corroboration of WND's claims with an unnamed Duke professor, appeared to bend over as far backwards (to write off the ring as inconsequential) as Obama bent forward to bow before the Saudi King. The Blaze article included quotations from another "expert" who said "So what?" and "that would mean is the president is a monotheist" and that "Obama may actually be making a Christian proposition and exhibiting his personal faith in Christ by wearing the ring." But the article neglected to mention Obama's own claims that he did not become a Christian until the early '90s. And why a "Christian proposition" would be inscribed in Arabic and in the same wording as the Shahada was not discussed./unquote
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/what_not_to_wear_presidential_edition.html#ixzz29ZRAbo8W
con't next comment
You must go to the site to read the additional links within the text.
I looked up "swiggles" in the dictionary and the term wasn't there at Dictionary.com. Perhaps the writer meant to write "squiggles" (as he did at the beginning of the quote above) or "squiggly"?
Anyway, I thought that the "offense" that the Muslim who complained about the Burger King cup top in the U.K. was enlightening. It demonstrates that what we, as Americans, could easily write off as meaningless squiggles could mean (or be perceived as) something else entirely in the Arabic language.
This is a trivial subject only to those who would want it dismissed in the minds of Americans as such. On the other hand, it could be considered as another proof that Obama is (or could be) a secret Muslim.
Sosthenes wrote:
"If the Republican party was a Christian party, where is the love for the poor? The focus is mainly on abortion so should the focus be on a ring or the homeless in the street? Should the focus be on things we can and cannot prove or should it be about helping people?"
Perhaps you have been bombarded with ads by the Obama campaign that lies and claims that Republicans "don't care about the poor." BTW, not all Republicans are (or ever could be) only Christians.
I could sit here and list all of the charities I, or any other Republican, supports by listing the donations given, the time spent through church outreaches, the money sent to food banks etc. as "proof" that Christian Republicans care about the poor. But that is not what God wants believers to do.
Mat 6:3 "But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, Mat 6:4 "that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
What most Republicans believe politically is that government should not try to solve every need or "spread the wealth around" because it usually ends up destroying our Constitutional Republic and leads to socialism/communism/dictatorships that end up spreading the poverty around while the small group of elitists hold onto the wealth, freedoms, liberty, and justice by "lording it over" the masses below them. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the picture.
Christine,
Some of the Christian Message boards are run by non-Christians and you wouldn't know that until you start asking questions and interacting with people and those boards are full of people who don't know what is going on or if they do, they don't care. The other half are modernists who don't believe they have to listen to the Bible or what the Lord commanded.
People believe they can better themselves by either (1) saving and not spending money or (2) spending money. The Democrats fall into camp #2 and the Republicans fall into camp #1 with the idea to keep taxes low.
The poor identify with Democrats because of the welfare system, health care, social security, benefits, etc. The poor don't better themselves and go to the dentist by saving money that isn't there because it hasn't been provided. There are employers who lease a new $60K car every two years and travel the world at least seven or more times a year and don't have money to pay their employees a decent wage.
Employers don't pay any tax in the sense that they just pass the cost of their taxes onto consumers in the form of higher prices so it is just money being shuffled around or what they would call an adjustment.
Being against sharing the wealth is also against the Bible:
James 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
James 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
I know places that won't even help believers. Government should help so that the church isn't burdened to get the gospel out.
from the user who use to be known as Sosthenes
Forgive these Grace inhibiters Father, for they know not what they do. They use Your Love and Your Grace as a means to deny others or to label another not worthy. May they one day see the True Face of Christ on their journey to Damascus, and may Your Grace break through their perceptions of fear.
Be Still and Know I Am is all that is necessary for the salvation of All
Anonymous of November 15, 2012 10:49:00 PM PST,
Are you the same person who posted a comment today on the post entitled, "You Own It"?
If so, see that reply.
To think that God allows only good leaders to rise to power is quite naive. Jesus told us that "in this world you will have trouble. But take heart! For I have overcome the world."
Jesus has overcome sin, evil and death at the Cross of Calvary. The only way to get to the Father is through the Son. Any other religion won't suffice. Obama's faux Christianity won't get him to heaven; nor will Islam. That's the facts, jack, and someone who hasn't confessed their sins, repented, and accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will not spend eternity with God.
Anyone can quote a Bible verse. It matters whether or not they truly believe it, follow it as best they can in this world filled with sin, evil, and death, and follow Christ after being born again.
Readers, please see Becoming a Christian
Sothenes,
I noticed that I neglected to answer your last comment here.
"Spreading the wealth around" is something that people in a Constitutional Republic believe should be done by employment (based on skill, knowledge, and education of the employee), selling goods, creating things that create more jobs etc. and by voluntary charitable giving. The socialist idea of "spreading the wealth around" via government always leads to trouble - for the recipient and the nation. Just look at past history and you will know this. What the government gives...the government can take away isn't just a quote...it is reality. Just look at the riots going on over in Europe due to the governments there (Spain, Italy) needing to impose austerity measures in order to keep the government from collapsing under their huge amount of debt. America is now headed in the same terrible direction and it won't end well.
There used to be a time in this nation when people would need a hand up - but not necessarily depend on a hand out for their entire lives. But now, with the terrible harm that BHO has done to destroy jobs, more people are on food stamps than ever before in the history of this nation! This is good???
BTW, I don't see anything within the James verses that says government should do those things.
When people become beholden to government for their needs, they actually lose their freedoms as a result. Many people who voted in BHO for a second term were afraid to lose their benefits. However, many more ran out of unemployment benefits and then had to go on food stamps. That's not freedom...it's dependency to the government dole and such fears, sadly, end up enslaving people. When a government leader is evil - as BHO and his ilk are - it is by design that this is happening.
Post a Comment