I can tell you some of Barack Obama's views on this

I agree that this is a huge issue.  We have the technology to be virtually independent energy wise, but too many crooked politicians have too much money invested in the oil companies and have no interest in seeing alternative energy sources take away any of their profit.  That, in my opinion, is a huge source of our problem.  Below I will post a portion of what Obama plans to do about the energy crisis (from his website - barackobama.com).  He has a much more detailed plan listed on his website.  I'm posting a link if anyone would like to read more.

"Barack Obama believes we have a moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner.

• So, I have a question/concern. - piglet
  • I can tell you some of Barack Obama's views on this - kam
  • I watched Hardball too - DW
    • Not usually an alarmist, but it was a stunner. - piglet
      • "what are we to do?" - eetaylor

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 10/28/2008 7:45:00 AM

Let me begin with what I hope is a credibility enhancer: For daring to write a book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, I was questioned by fellow conservatives, especially for calling Mrs. Clinton a "lifelong, committed Christian." In the final chapter of that book, I included a brief section on the faith of Barack Obama, where, taking him at his word—based on a major June 2006 speech on his faith—I felt confident in reporting, "Obama is a Christian."

I'm not disputing that here. Since then, however, I've taken a careful look at Obama's faith, and there are quite a few things that stand out as historically extremely unusual, and in some cases unprecedented for a potential president. They are worth knowing, especially given the secular media's adoration of the man.

Indeed, journalists are so worshipful of Obama that they are unfazed by his two decades of membership in the church of a ranting, blasphemous preacher who mocked everything from Bill Clinton to America itself—and who married Obama, baptized his children, and whom Obama considers a mentor and the inspiration for the title of his best-selling book. That double standard has struck even the likes of atheist Christopher Hitchens. After eight years of wailing and gnashing of teeth over a Christian Republican president, secular liberals have undergone a Saul-like conversion.

On rare occasions, however, the press has offered constructive analysis of Obama's faith. The most revealing look remains a glowing profile in Newsweek a couple of months ago. The Newsweek offering was remarkably one-sided, even venturing into evangelical phraseology, the shared-language-of-believers style characteristic of Religious Right publications. I counted ten examples of phrases like, "He found Christ," "accept Christ," "Obama went to Jesus."

Nonetheless, even in this unusually un-critical article, much can be mined about Obama's faith. Most salient is this inescapable conclusion: More than any presidential nominee this close to the White House, Barack Obama's faith is a patchwork of divergent beliefs, philosophies, and influences, from what Newsweek called a "Christian-turned-secular mother"—her own views a product of "two lapsed Christian" parents and a Bill Moyers book—to a "Muslim-turned-atheist African father" to a stepfather with a "unique brand of Islam."

As for Obama's personal path, Newsweek noted how Obama, in his younger years, enjoyed, on one hand, Augustine, and then Nietzsche and Graham Greene. Obama hopped and groped his way through Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, asceticism, and eventually settled at the political church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Most interesting is what Newsweek revealed about Obama and his current family: His wife, Michelle, "also didn't go to church regularly as a child." Neither really began regular attendance until they were married. And only then, their choice was Reverend Wright. On that, Newsweek reported approvingly: "The cross under which Obama went to Jesus was at the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ. It was a good fit."

The couple, writes Newsweek, attended "fairly often—two or three times a month." That changed, becoming less frequent, with the birth of their first child. Normally, the arrival of children is the blessed event that drags young couples to church—the Bushes, the Clintons. For the Obamas, however, the hassle of getting the baby out of the house for a packed service was an obstacle. "So," explained Barack, "that would cut back our involvement."

The Obama girls have never attended Sunday school—a definite contrast with most White House children. Even wayward president's kids like Ron Reagan, a proud atheist, was taken to church every Sunday. Obama explains of his daughters' religious education: "I'm a big believer in a faith that is not imposed but taps into what's already there, their curiosity of spirit."

Once Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, he skipped church for months at a time. Now that he publicly parted ways with Reverend Wright, reports Newsweek with a gentle wink, "Obama is a little spiritually rootless again." Newsweek neglected to mention that Obama often appeared in churches in 2007 for strictly political purposes—i.e., to campaign in houses of worship, a practice that launches liberals into fits of screaming rage when done by Republicans.

On the plus side, there are some discernible spiritual practices in Obama's life: family grace at mealtime, daily prayer, Obama "sometimes" reading the Bible in evenings, and inspirational emails zapped to the senator by his "religious outreach team." Yet, even with that nod to something of a religious routine, one senses that Obama is still trying to reconcile, as Newsweek described his early life, "his rational side with his yearning for transcendence."

After demonstrating at length that Obama's belief system is an amalgam, unorthodox, and undisciplined, Newsweek wrapped up with a shot at his detractors: "Some on the right say his particular brand of Christianity is a modern amalgam—unorthodox, undisciplined...."

No, Newsweek, that's what you say.

One can see here another reason the secular left embraces Obama: His entire religious life, including the spiritual development of his family, is relativistic—an ever-probing quest, a realization of no single truth. The left likes this Democrat more than, say, a lifelong Baptist like Bill Clinton, a lifelong Roman Catholic like John Kerry, a lifelong Methodist like Hillary Clinton, a "born-again" southerner like Jimmy Carter. Here's a believer secular liberals can accept: a relativist in the most expansive form.

A President Obama would bring to the office the most unconventional religious portfolio of any president in a long time, arguably the history of the American presidency.

But to get there, the freshman senator hopes to win just enough of those moral-religious "values voters" who twice made the difference for George W. Bush. Can Barack Obama do that?

Can Obama win the 'values voter'?
In 2000 and 2004, it was the churchgoing moral-religious "values voters" that made the difference for George W. Bush. Barack Obama hopes to peel off just enough of those voters. What are his chances? From my vantage, Obama faces five primary obstacles:

First, Reverend Jeremiah Wright remains an albatross, even given the media's best efforts to avoid him. The ranting, raving, blaspheming political sermons by an uncorked, unhinged Wright—with the congregation loving every minute—remains a cruise missile at Obama's bid for moderate to conservative churchgoers. Obama was way too close to Wright to politically extricate himself.

Second—brace yourselves, liberals—a sizable number of Americans suspect Obama is lying about Islamic roots. A Newsweek poll in June found that 12 percent of voters are convinced Obama is a Muslim, and one-in-four believe he was raised a Muslim. Such thinking has intensified with Jerome Corsi's bestselling book and with research by Islam observers like Daniel Pipes—who, though he accepts that Obama is today a Christian, says Obama is "lying" when he denies he was never a Muslim. Additional oddities continue to surface, such as a YouTube video in which Moammar Kaddafi is said to describe Obama as a fellow Muslim.

When I recently shared this factor with some liberals, their faces visibly contorted and they began yelling at me. Nonetheless, perceptions matter. This issue might become statistically important in a close election.

Third, conservative Christians are offended by how the secular left has greeted Obama as a messianic figure. The hosannas during Obama's Europe trip were so over-the-top that London Times columnist Gerard Baker ridiculed the senator's visit as akin to Christ's entrance into Jerusalem. The BBC interviewed a worshipful German who described Obama as his "redeemer." Fox found another who exalted his "new messiah." To the question, "Who do you say that I am?" some Europeans made their choice as Obama swept into their presence.

Given the agnostic left's search for salvation in politics, this is not a surprise, especially in post-modern, de-Christianized Europe.

This has only gotten worse. No less than a U.S. congressman, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), said on the House floor on September 10 that, "Barack Obama was a 'community organizer' like Jesus." (He then added, in reference to Governor Sarah Palin, that "Pontius Pilate was a governor.") And now there's YouTube video of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan calling Obama "the Messiah."

This is backfiring on Obama among the values voters he is seeking. To them, this reverence by the secular left is intolerably hypocritical. Liberals went bonkers when a presidential candidate named George W. Bush merely cited Christ as his favorite philosopher. And now they can compare Obama to Christ?

Fourth, "values voters" are skeptical of this appeal to faith by the Democratic nominee. There has been a well-orchestrated, openly admitted campaign, begun just days after the 2004 vote, especially by Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, to get Democrats talking faith as much as possible. Actual Democratic Party working groups and colloquia have been established, employing the Christian left's language of "social justice."

Obama himself picked this up early on. In a June 2006 address to the Call to Renewal convention, Obama appealed to religious voters. He recalled how in his 2004 Senate race, his support of abortion rankled his opponent. Obama protested, arguing there were policy issues that proved his Christianity—issues like supporting daycare subsidies and the estate tax.

Obama can protest all he wants, but values voters consider legislation mandating medical care for abortion survivors more important than legislation mandating estate taxes for the wealthy.

Speaking of which, and fifth, abortion is beyond doubt the overwhelming obstacle for Obama. He is the most extremist pro-choicer ever to get this close to the presidency. His stand-alone votes against bills protecting newborn babies who survive abortions were horrible. He calls abortion a "safety net" and vowed to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 that the "first thing" he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would nationalize abortion policy and overturn all the perfectly reasonable state-level restrictions on abortion by bipartisan legislatures throughout America. Then there are Obama's revealing statements on the stump—such as how he would hate to see his daughters get pregnant out-of-wedlock and "punished with a baby."

Secular liberals cannot begin to imagine the opposition to Obama strictly on abortion. I've received an email several times, titled, "10 Reasons Christians Shouldn't Vote for Obama." Among the ten, seven are on abortion.

The unprecedented outcry from the religious community is further evidence. The reaction of the Catholic bishops is extraordinary. I've never witnessed them so exercised and committed to leading the flock, and doing so carefully and eloquently, especially among traditional Catholics who still think their party is run by Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy, and literally don't even know Obama is pro-choice.

A poll last week by Investor's Business Daily showed a swing of 20 points for John McCain among Catholics, from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead. If McCain wins Catholics, he wins the election.

It all adds up to the reality that Barack Obama will have difficulty picking up values voters. His hope that they are not energized by McCain has dissipated with the Sarah Palin pick and the steady emergence of information on his abortion fanaticism.

A summer Pew poll showed McCain leading Obama among evangelicals by 61 to 25 percent, comparable to the margin enjoyed by Bush over AL Gore in 2000. More recently, the respected scholar Dr. John Green released a study finding that evangelicals favor McCain 57.2 percent to 19.9 percent, very similar to Bush's 60.4 percent to 19.6 percent over John Kerry at the same point in 2004.

It remains to be seen where, exactly, this will finish next Tuesday. As in 2000 and 2004, however, the values voters could make the difference.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

President-elect Obama's acceptance speech.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/barack-obama.html

Obama lists his favorite music as Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Johann Sebastian Bach (cello suites), and The Fugees.

Personally, I love the song SuperFreak!

Q: How many Obamunists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None.  It's enough to hope that it gets changed.

  I'm waiting to be called a racist.  I'm sure somewhere in that those jokes, some Obamunist will find racism.

That's what makes America so great.  The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise).  And I would certainly fight to the death for your freedom of speech to say whatever you believe.

I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose as much as I firmly DON'T believe in partial birth abortions.  That's my opinion.  That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong.  It just makes it my opinion.

As such, I don't feel I have the right to force my opinion on someone who might feel differently.  I believe this is a privacy issue, based on an individual's religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof if that is the case) and not an issue that should be overturned because one Supreme Court Judge believes her religious views should be imposed on an entire nation.  Harriet Miers answered a questionnaire (I believe) in 1989, wherein not only did she say she's against Roe v. Wade, but she also promised to use the *influence* of her elected office to ban abortion.  If she has, in the past, promised to use the influence of her elected office to effect such a ban, why wouldn't she do the same with an appointed office?  The only solid *qualification* she has is her anti-choice religious views, which happen to coincide with those of Bush's *base.*  America has a lot of brilliant legal scholars and attorneys and judges who have devoted their entire careers specializing on Constitutional issues.  Why wasn't one of THOSE people considered for this appointment?

Regarding euthanasia, I can promise you right now that if I am ever terminally ill with an incurable disease and my pain progresses to the point where I just want to die with some dignity and not endure agonizing pain any longer, I certainly will not permit a bunch of people who have never met me to claim they know what's best for me and force me to obey THEIR religious beliefs and die on THEIR terms.  This notion is so arrogant on its face, it's even hard to write about.  I would hope my physician would be caring and compassionate and assist me in ending my suffering if I were to reach that level of agony.  Why do we show more kindness and compassion to our pets than we do to our humans?  My own spiritual beliefs would not preclude me from doing that, and I refuse to be forced to obey YOUR religious beliefs.  If forced to do so, then MY freedom of religion ceases to exist.

These are definitely privacy issues that, in my opinion, should be left to individuals.  What if the *right* religious belief in this country doesn't believe in contraceptives?  Will they be outlawed, as well?  That's not as far-fetched as it sounds. 

As far as dwindling morals in this country, I agree there are more heinous crimes being committed, particularly against children, than I can ever recall, and I'm outraged that our children are allowed to be raped and murdered, with the perpetrators of those crimes receiving what seem to be minimal prison sentences. 

I also think it's clearly immoral that our ability to live or die is directly related to the number of dollars we have in our wallet.  Healthcare in this country has become a very immoral commodity, along with legal care.  I find it disgustingly immoral that American children are starving to death every day.

Morality has to come from someone's heart.  It can't be forced, and it can't be legislated.  Each of us has our own conscience, our own soul, and our own *creator.*  Mine might not be the same as yours.  It doesn't mean one is right or one is wrong.  Just different.  That's the beauty of America:  Freedom of religion for all.

I can only end this as I started it, by saying that's what makes America so great.  The freedom of all people to have different views, based on different principles (religious or otherwise). 

Thanks for posting.  I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a debate with someone who is friendly and respectful and doesn't resort to calling names.  And I do respect your opinion and especially your right to say it, even though I respectfully disagree. 

(This, of course, pertained to CLINTON.  You can break the law, fake reasons to start a war and illegally spy on Americans, but don't you DARE have sex!!!!  I wonder how many of these holier-than-thou people have the courage or ethics to repeat these words today, pertaining to BUSH.)

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):
And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):
How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):
How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.

Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.

This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):
When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.

Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.):
Many have asked why we are even here in these impeachment proceedings. They have asked why we can't just rebuke the president and move on. That's a reasonable question. And I certainly understand the emotions behind that question. I want to move on. Every member of this committee wants to move on. We all agree with that.

But the critical question is this: Do we move on under the Constitution, or do we move on by turning aside from the Constitution? Do we move on in faithfulness to our own oath to support and defend the Constitution, or do we go outside the Constitution because it seems more convenient and expedient?

Why are we here? We are here because we have a system of government based on the rule of law, a system of government in which no one -- no one -- is above the law. We are here because we have a constitution.

A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power.

Rep. Bob Ingliss (R-S.C.):
I think is important to point out here is that we have a constitutional obligation, a constitutional obligation to act. And there are lots of folks who would counsel, Listen, let's just move along. It's sort of the Clinton so-what defense. So what? I committed perjury. So what? I broke the law. Let's just move along. I believe we've got a constitutional obligation to act.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):

Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.):
You know, there are people out all across America every day that help define the nation's character, and they exercise common-sense virtues, whether it's honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, loyalty, respect, accountability, they pursue excellence, they exercise self-discipline. There is honor in a hard day's work. There's duty to country. Those are things that we take very seriously.

So those are things that the founders also took seriously. Yet every time I reflect upon the wisdom of the founding fathers, I think their wisdom was truly amazing. They pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to escape the tyranny of a king. They understood the nature of the human heart struggles between good and evil.

So the founders created a system of checks and balances and accountability. If corruption invaded the political system, a means was available to address it. The founders felt impeachment was so important it was included in six different places in the Constitution. The founders set the standard for impeachment of the president and other civil officers as treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The House of Representatives must use this standard in circumstances and facts of the president's conduct to determine if the occupant of the Oval Office is fit to continue holding the highest executive office of this great country.

Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.):
In the next few days I will cast some of the most important votes of my career. Some believe these votes could result in a backlash and have serious political repercussions. They may be right. But I will leave the analysis to others. My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.

Our nation has survived the failings of its leaders before, but it cannot survive exceptions to the rule of law in our system of equal justice for all. There will always be differences between the powerful and the powerless. But imagine a country where a Congress agrees the strong are treated differently than the weak, where mercy is the only refuge for the powerless, where the power of our positions govern all of our decisions. Such a country cannot long endure. God help us to do what is right, not just for today, but for the future of this nation and for those generations that must succeed us.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):

I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.

The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door. It challenges abuse of authority. It's a shame Darkness at Noon is forgotten, or The Gulag Archipelago, but there is such a thing lurking out in the world called abuse of authority, and the rule of law is what protects you from it. And so it's a matter of considerable concern to me when our legal system is assaulted by our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the only person obliged to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST: 

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.):
I believe that this nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law.

Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

Shall we follow the rule of law and do our constitutional duty no matter unpleasant, or shall we follow the path of least resistance, close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking, forgive and forget, move on and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system? No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

presidential candidate do you think MAY do something more about it.  I am sure a lot of you realize we have illegal immigrants (mostly in large number Mexican immigrants) who have swarmed into the country illegally. 

I have an Mexian illegal immigrant who lives near me.  She is nice enough.  She doesn't speak really good english.  I know she got pregnant and was actually able to go to our neighboring state and apply for Medicaid to pay for her prenatal care and the child after it was born.  And do you know she got Medicaid and I know for a fact she is an illegal immigrant because she told me herself.  I asked and she told me.  When it is possible for someone who is not even in our country legally to obtain government assistance, that is just insane.  What is wrong with our country? 

We don't have to keep it in our homes or our churches.  Freedom of religion covers that too!

I read a very interesting article regarding Barak Obama’s name:

Barack is a Semetic word and it means “to bless” (verb), or “blessing” (noun).  The Hebrew form is Barak which is found throughout the Bible.

Hussein is a Semetic word meaning “good”.

To quote a couple highlights of an article written by Juan Cole who is President of the Global Americana Institute…..

”I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama's name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!

Barack Obama's middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America's most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel, The Kite Runner, is Khaled Hosseini.

So, anyway, Obama's first two names mean "Blessing, the Good." If we are lucky enough to get him for president, we can only hope that his names are prophetic for us.”

With Oprah and George Soros behind Obama, he is going to be a strong contender. He has ample time to prove his leadership ability in the months ahead. Better dig out my shades, the future looks bright.