The Hussein Argument
Ok,
Lately, I have received an enormous amount of flack for my constant use of the word “Hussein” when referring to Barack Hussein Obama (oops, there I go again.) Initially, I concede, I did this out of mere spite. Because I despise everything the man stands for (not “stands for” in the sense of his beliefs or ideas, he has none. Rather “stands for” in the sense of the icon that is Mr. Hussein represents.) For 8 years, I’ve listened to Bush-bashing. I can’t say I’m extremely offended by this, considering Mr. Walker (hehe) didn’t always act like a Republican. Frankly, I’m not sure he is one at all (seeing as I have read the party platform - putting me at least one read up on him, I’m sure.) Just the same, I’ve listened to venom-spewing. So, now it is my turn. Now “they” have “their” “man.” (So many misnomers these days, I find my frequenting the quotation mark keys wearing them away.) So that is the crux of why resort to such horrible tactics as to call a “man” by his name.
Well, the fuss started and people became uncomfortable. They were “particularly bothered by the constant “Hussein” references.” They said to me, “Hussein has an obvious negative connotation. Don’t try and act like you weren’t aware of it!” I began to wonder, “should I not be saying this? Am I wrong for doing so?” Well, truth be told, I felt a smidgen of remorse. Undoubtedly because a great deal of effort has been exerted on, my entire life, in order to make my particular demographic feel some sort of guilt when speaking negatively about another demographic, despite the motive. (Reasons why aren’t lost on me. Rather they belong in another blog on another day, so I shall not delve.) Then, after careful inspection, I realized that, although it is fun to get my shot; to be sarcastic and demeaning, that I needed a more wholesome agenda, a more pure and clear motive for my constant use of this “gentleman’s” “name.”
Ergo, the “Hussein Argument”
1) The Definition:
The boy’s name Hussein \hu(s)-sein\ is pronounced hoo-SAYN. It is of Arabic origin, and its meaning is “small handsome one”.
The name tells us what we already know - that B. Hussein Obama has Arabic relations, and is of Shiite Islamic decent. Moreover, it means “small handsome one.” Excellent! I’m so glad I looked this up. His name is fitting - as are most names. (Google my given name, “Roy” and you’ll see.) The very definition of his name “small, handsome one” sums up the superficial nature that is Mr. Obama. He is, quite simply, a pretty face. He is a “well-mannered young black man” and nothing more. He is void of true substance (especially in his early campaign.) He was elected in spite of what he may believe, rather than because of it simply because he was the better looking, better speaking, well-marketed candidate.
2) The Correlation:
All Muslims aren’t terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim. (speaking in generalities, of course.) B. Hussein Obama (gotta love this one) has known ties with unapologetic terrorists. Though many choose to belittle the fact that he and William Aires have close ties, they do. That is simple fact. For better or worse. Put your blind support of him aside, this much is well known. He wants to negotiate with terrorists, is supported by Hamas and most of the Arab world, has Islamic an Arab relatives, etc. Additionally, I am not saying that Mr. Hussein is a Muslim. I don’t believe that any more than I believe that he is a Christian. (this could be a fun discussion in its self considering that he supposedly never heard any of the messages at his “church.” But I’ll practice restraint, for now.) What I am saying is that his name, being of Islamic orientation symbolizes his known alignment with terrorists, Islamo-fascists, anti-Americans (throw in communists), and his stated intent to defend the Muslim faith against Christian extremists.
3) I Want a Word Too!:
“CHANGE.” I’ve heard it too many times. So loud, so arrogant, so empty - I thought my ears were going to bleed. If Barack Hussein Obama can run for president on a word that is supposed to contain so much meaning that books will undoubtedly be written on it; permit me the same opportunity to use a single word to express so much more than it’s mere definition holds intrinsically. I am only following in the Messiah’s footsteps on this one “peeps.” I trust you can find no fault with that. What I have determined is this: through my descriptions herein, I have defined what his name, this single word, truly embodies. And for sake of not having to constantly repeat all I have said, I shall continue to use his supposed birth name (as we’ve seen no valid birth certificate yet) to refer to him because it says so much more when you look deeply into who he is.
4) Why Not Change It?:
First of all, we know the guy likes change. We know he is not traditional (he believes that our constitution is fundamentally flawed.) Why didn’t he just change his name? (Perhaps he’d have to prove he’s a citizen to be able to file for name change?) I do not know. But I DO know this: When people convert to Islam they often change their Christian names to Islamic names (i.e. Cashes Clay to Muhammad Ali.) Why then didn’t Mr. Hussein change his “name” when he converted from Islam (stated as his religion when he was a child) to “Christianity?” (Well, the Rev. Wright brand of it, anyway.) I’m not advocating that he should have changed his name or not. I’m simply pointing out that rather than distancing himself, he chose to embrace his heritage - one of fascism, human rights violations, and terrorism. Or maybe there is something bigger at play here. That, I do not know. I can only speculate.
In conclusion, I leave you with this:
His name isn’t what makes him guilty. His guilt is what makes his name relevant!
p.s. if you are going to argue with me, I will absolutely ignore race card playing. Nothing I said refers to his race (which he is as much white as he is black.) I said many things concerning his Nationality. But nationality is not race, and I am not racist. Playing the race card is admitting that you can’t make a sound argument. So, go ahead if you want. Prove that you’re wrong.
Steve Said,
November 7, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
No race card here- I just want to help you form a more concise thesis. Like any good movie, an argument benefits from some editing. A few points:
You’re correct in stating that all Muslims are not terrorists, but you’re wrong in stating that all terrorists are Muslims (to even consider this a possible generalization is ignorant). There have been domestic American terrorists, Irish terrorists, Colombian terrorists, Spanish terrorists, and many others; none of whom acted in the name of Islam or Allah. You could correctly state that all Islamic-terrorists are Muslims, but that’s as redundant as saying all Irish-terrorists are Irish, all Colombian-terrorists are Colombian, or Spanish-terrorists are Spanish. You further contradict your statement by using Bill Ayers as an example in the same paragraph. Either he is not a terrorist because he is not a Muslim, or all terrorist are not, in fact, Muslim due to this exception.
In the definition you provide, the name Hussein is of Arabic origins. It’s key to point out that “Arabic” is not synonymous with “Islamic” any more than “Asian” is synonymous with “Buddhist” or “Hinduist.” Therefore, your fourth point is completely null. In addition, to suggest that his heritage is one of fascism, human-rights violations, and terrorism, is to suggest that the entire Arab world is complicit in those actions.
Okay fine, you’re not a racist. But you’re extremely, and painfully, xenophobic. Pay more attention to what you say, and what your words suggest. You can’t just spew out assumptions, vague-associations, and large generalizations. It’s reckless, and only devalues your influence.
Trey Said,
November 7, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
You know what, Steve… Fair enough.
I asked for a legitimate argument void of race-railing. You delivered.
Like any good argument, it takes time, various points of view and re-evaluation to perfect (or the pursuit of perfection, at least.)
There are several things which you appear to misunderstand, in no small part do to my own failure to fully articulate what I meant. Permit me, then, to tighten up my argument to rather stream-line my belief rather than… spew it.
Obviously using “generally speaking,” didn’t preempt the obvious retort that, in fact, there are terrorists that are not Muslim. You can always point to the few to discredit a generalization, that’s why I stated it was a generalization. So, I’ll revise to the following: “Most of the current terrorism taking place in this world is being carried out by Islamic extremest.” That more socially acceptable for ya? Now, considering Ayers (which I spelled incorrectly.) Let’s assume for a moment that Mr. Ayers wasn’t a co-founder of the Weather Underground. Let’s assume that the Weather Underground’s founding document didn’t call for an alliance with the Black Liberation Theology. And lets also assume that Black Liberation Theology has nothing to do with advancing the agenda of black Muslims. Let’s simply assume that these facts, aren’t in fact, fact. Ignorantly assuming such, I still wouldn’t be contradicting myself. My point wasn’t that Bill Ayers was an Islamic terrorist. My point was that I like to correlate of the inherent Islamic connotation “Hussein” with the the fact that terrorists are overwhelmingly of the Muslim faith. Basically, I like to use it to say. “Hussein plays with terrorists, surprise, surprise.” At this point I’ll draw your attention to my final line which sums up my argument - “His name isn’t what makes him guilty. His guilt is what makes his name relevant!” In layman’s terms: Being a Hussein doesn’t make him a bad man. Being a bad man gives relevance to his name. Shoot, I don’t care if his name was straight up Barack Hussein Osama - if all these things I say weren’t relevant, neither would the name be.
On my fourth point. Again, with not letting me generalize. geeze! So, toss out my generalization. The point is still not moot. I was not referring to the Arab relevance of this name, rather the Islamic significance. As I mentioned in point #1; the name “Hussein” is prominent in Shiite Islam. I won’t repeat what I’ve said multiple times about Islam and terrorism, but on the other points (fascism and human-rights violations) the heritage of ISLAM (which is what I was obviously referring to) is absolutely one of such. That is fact. Not hype or postulation - fact. If you ignore this, you are truly that - ignorant. Islam is not a religion of peace - it never has been. Hollywood and the media cannot rewrite history, cannot cover up the truth about these barbarians. I’m sorry if that’s not politically correct.
No. I am not racist. I AM, however nationalist. I believe that this is the greatest nation on the Earth. Not because I live here, or was raised here. Rather, when I look at history, and I see what we’ve been able to accomplish, it is so overwhelming and beautiful, I can’t contain my pride. And we’ve seen this comparatively enormous progress in such a small period of time because of a single trait - Freedom. No other country was created by free men for free men. No other government was given power by the people, rather the people of other nations were empowered (rather suppressed) by their governments. Is it xenophobic to have pride in this? No. If you mean to say that I am intolerant of the invasion of other, failed, countries’ ideas (namely socialism) into the policies of mine, if you are implying that I fear the agenda of a one-world government, if you are speculating that I am stubborn in my inability to cope with the idea of unconstitutionally changing our country into something it was never intended to be, and would never have succeeded as, if your aim is to re-define xenophobia as to include these attributes… then I am absolutely, undeniably, unequivocally guilty, and damn proud of it.
Ts
Steve Said,
November 8, 2008 @ 5:26 am
Good, you’re improving. But again, you need to work on making your argument more consistent. A quick skim of your response would warrant a casual head nod and agreement from someone with your point of view- “okay, he says Muslim, Ayers, Hussein, Islamic terrorists, relevant, relevance….great. good point. Good response” Yet with a close reading, anyone would be hardpressed to find a consistent logic that ties together your argument, especially when tied back to your original post. It’s just sloppy, and doesn’t come to any conclusions regarding the original topic of this conversation: how the name Hussein is inherently linked to the various things you link it to. A title, a blog post, four bulleted points, and a conclusion in bold font don’t validate a statement any more than a lengthy response that ends by diverting to a claim of Patriotism (and yes, you mean Patriotism, not Nationalism. You’d be well-advised to avoid calling yourself a Nationalist- the connotations are horrible). I fully believe you’re Patriotic- I don’t doubt that at all. But being Patriotic and proud of your country does not inherently deflect you from being xenophobic.
Look, we could go back and forth forever. I just wanted to, for a couple of days, delve into the forum your facebook wall has somehow become, despite the fact that we haven’t really seen each other, or talked, in nearly a decade (it’s kind of unbelievable it’s been that long). I’m busy here at architecture school and barely have time to sleep, much less write anything longer than a text message.
I took the time because you have a passion, you have energy, enthusiasm- you clearly care, and feel deeply about America and its future. But you need to harness your energy into something constructive, that adds to the political dialogue. The whole Hussein thing, the Howard Stern audio clips, the non-contextual photos (I’m referring to the one at the top of your blog post as an example) are as constructive as some of the far-left claims that Trig was Bristol’s and not Sarah’s baby. They’re all so unsubstantial and ridiculous, on both sides.
You’re young, you have the responsibility of being a delegate, you have the ability to change things- you need to decide if you going to be become merely a provocateur or someone who is able to put forth methods and ideas that produce progress and discussion (very different from simply producing a reaction). Your status message from a few days ago that said “Answer: repair…etc” is a good example. It’s very relevant and meaningful. It helps cultivate ideas. The next step is to ask, “how?” Rather than trying to incriminate others, take some time to organize and clarify your beliefs. Take some time to explain to others why they should listen to you, rather than why they shouldn’t listen to the other guy. Exercise some prudence and restraint. It will greatly benefit your influence, your relevance, and even the depth of your own conviction.
cassi Said,
January 20, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Hmmmm, yet they are going to use his middle name in the inauguration….