Half-assed decision in Amsterdam

No charge in Dutch Muslim incitement


AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The public prosecutor's office says it will not charge right-wing legislator Geert Wilders with inciting hatred for his film denouncing the Quran.

The prosecutor says the film and statements Wilders wrote in Dutch newspapers were hurtful and insulting (The Truth of Islam DOES hurt!) but not criminal.

A statement Monday by the prosecutor said Wilders made his anti-Muslim (again nothing but the facts people!) remarks in the context of a legitimate debate, and he could not be charged for incitement or discrimination.

Wilders told The Associated Press he was not surprised by the decision because he had stayed within the boundaries of the law.

Wilders' film, titled "Fitna," appeared on the Internet in March. It aroused protests around the Muslim world.

CONGRATULATIONS MR. WILDERS - A VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH!!

Terrorist Joke

UPDATE: A bit of Sanity in Britian

Muslims WILL be searched by sniffer dogs despite religious objections, say police, By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:49 AM on 27th June 2008


Questions have been raised over using sniffer dogs to search Muslim passengers at train stations following complaints that it is against their religion.

Some Muslims had raised objections over being searched by the explosive-detecting animals, but British Transport Police have said they will continue to use the specially trained animals.

Dogs are considered to be unclean or impure in Islamic teaching and it is forbidden to keep the animals as pets. (AREN'T NON-MUSLIMS ALSO CONSIDERED UNCLEAN BY MUSLIMS AND THE QUR'AN? and btw, many people consider it unclean to wipe your ass with your (left) hand, but that seems to be the case in many Muslim countries - this is why Muslims are AGAIN insulted if you touch them with your left hand!)
Some Muslims have objected to being searched by sniffer dog due to their religious beliefs

The complaints came after a rail security trial at Brighton station, the Government revealed.

The Muslims reported that it was not permissible for them to have direct contact with dogs due to their religious or cultural beliefs.

In another trial on the Heathrow Express platform at London's Paddington station, there were instances when the body scan was considered unacceptable on religious grounds by female Muslims, the Government report said.

The report - on five rail security trials conducted in 2006 and the public's response to them - also showed:

Some Asians and black people felt they could be selected for tests because of their ethnicity "or because their appearance fell in line with screening staff perceptions of a terrorist".
Being selected for screening was an "embarrassment for Asian respondents in particular". (YOU MAY THANK THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS FOR MAKING THE SNIFFING DOGS NECESSARY!)
Some people were uncomfortable about giving their personal details to BTP officers, as they were not sure why they were needed, or how they would be used.

Some Muslims said they would avoid using a station with sniffer dogs because of their religious beliefs, while some young males, both black and white, said they would also avoid some stations as they feared the dogs would be able to detect drugs as well as explosives.

Asked if the findings would lead to certain measures not being used on certain people, a BTP spokesman said: "The legislation applies to everyone. It's not a case for exemptions.

"Officers will be sensitive where appropriate but obviously there are practical implications."

He added: "These dogs do not have to be clawing and barking up at people. These are highly trained dogs that can pick up scents from distance. There doesn't always have to be physical contact."

My religion prohibits me from cooperating with the Anti-Terrorist Authorities!

SNIFFER DOGS OFFEND MUSLIMS (What will they come up with next?)
Friday June 27,2008, Tom Whitehead


Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers – after complaints that it is against the suspects’ religion.

A report for the Transport Department has raised the prospect that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable”.

In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”. But banning them from touching passengers would severely restrict their ability to do their job. The report follows trials of station security measures in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks. In one trial, some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip.

British Transport Police last night insisted it would still use sniffer dogs – which are trained to detect explosives – with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers would remain aware of “cultural sensitivities”.

Critics said the complaints were just the latest example of minority religions trying to force their rules and morals on British society.

Tory MP Philip Davies said: “As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally.”

News of the security setback came as the Government yesterday admitted that installing 100 per cent airport-style screening at rail and Tube stations was “not feasible”.

Instead extra sniffer dogs and X-ray machines will be used to search passengers.

During the trials, passengers stopped in London had the exterior of their bags checked by dogs.

But in Brighton, dogs patrolled the station concourse and were walked past passengers by their handlers.

The report concluded: “The use of sniffer dogs was generally problematic for Muslim respondents on religious grounds if there was the potential for the dog to make direct contact with them.”

When Muslims have washed for certain forms of worship, they would have to repeat the ritual if they came into contact with a dog.

One young Asian man told researchers: “We are not supposed to have dogs. It is against our religion.”

Another Asian man said: “I don’t mind dogs in the park or walking near me, but sniffer dogs? I don’t think that’s right, on the station, the way they use them.”

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said even dogs touching baggage would be an issue for a Muslim preparing to pray. But he stressed that it should be easy to allow dogs to check passengers without physical contact.

“There is a way of dealing with this and we just need to be sensitive,” he said.

In another trial on the Heathrow Express platform at Paddington station in London, there were instances when the body scan – which creates an image on a monitor – was considered unacceptable by female Muslims, the report said.

One Muslim woman complained: “Sometimes I wear clothing which is not so tight. It will be shown on (the monitor) and somebody is looking at it. It defeats the whole purpose of me covering up.”

The report, on five rail security trials in 2006, also showed that some Asians and black people felt they could be selected for tests because of their ethnicity.

A Transport Department spokesman said the use of sniffer dogs was a matter for the police. But he stressed that the report was only a conclusion of passengers’ views.

A British Transport Police spokesman said sniffer dogs would continue to be used with any passenger but officers would be considerate where appropriate.

He added: “We are obviously aware of, and sensitive to, cultural sensitivities. BTP officers do have the power to stop and search anyone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

“This also covers the use of dog handlers and dogs, which are used to ‘indicate’ any substance they have been trained to detect.

“As a force we obviously look at any or all feedback about how people from all faiths and backgrounds view the use of dogs, and how we can incorporate that into how the dogs and their handlers interact with people.”

Announcing new security measures to screen Tube and mainline rail passengers, the Government said yesterday that surveys had shown the public would be unlikely to accept major delays to journeys.

People also wanted to ensure their personal privacy was protected.

British Transport Police said it was enhancing its existing stop and search capabilities with the use of X-ray equipment for screening bags, along with the deployment of more sniffer dogs. It said a proportion of passengers and their bags would be searched with minimal delay and inconvenience to the public.

Transport Minister Tom Harris said: “We will continue to work with British Transport Police and rail operators to assess the effectiveness and impact of these new measures.

“We will use this evidence, and that from elsewhere in the UK and abroad, to develop further ways of keeping the travelling public secure using proportionate measures.”

IT'S AGAINST MY RELIGION, MY CULTURE, MY RELIGION, MY CULTURE, MY NATURE, MY FEELINGS, MY XENOPHOBIA, MY HATE FOR BRITIAN, MY HATE FOR KAFIRS, BLA, BLA, BLA..........oh cry me a freaking river!

The Bakken Formation

Thanks to Sydelle for this one!

Just poking around the Internet recently, I 'Googled' the search 'Untapped U.S. Oil Reserves,'and the result (like the current price of a gallon of gas. Go ahead, take a minute and see for youself! Never mind, I'll share some of the highlights:

1. Ever heard of the Bakken Formation? GOOGLE it. The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oilmen/women knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ...

check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the
oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, we're looking ata resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizeable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly
referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U.S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago.
However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people!

U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006. Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world and is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. [(???)What
the !??]

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
-8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
-18-times as much oil a s Iraq
-21-times as much oil as Kuwait
-22-times as much oil as Iran
-500-times as much oil as Yemen - and it's all
right here in the Western United States.

[HOW can this BE!? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!? Because we've not DEMANDED Legislation to come out of Washington allowing its extraction, that's why!]

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East - more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. That's more than all the proven
oil reserves of crude oil in the world today,reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'Big Oil' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, and if they can extract it (here) for less, they can afford to sell it
for less - and if they DON'T, others will. It will come down - it has to.

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now,while you're thinking about it and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

3. Take 5-10 minutes and compose an e-mail; fax or good old-fashioned letter to our elected officials in Washington and their respected leaders. We'll start with them, and here's how you can send them your e-mail/fax, DEMANDING the immediate Legislation/an Energy PLAN that calls for tapping into these (OUR OWN!) Reserves, as well as allowing for the offshore drilling for OUR oil, in OUR offshore waters and Inter-continental shelf ... not to mention Alaska.

Technology ain't what it used to be people (ever had arthroscopic surgery?). They can surgically extract OUR oil, and get us on the way to at east some measure of Energy independence.

If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.

The Jihad Candidate

Thanks to friends Roberta and Betty for pointing me to the below.

The Jihad Candidate, by Rich Carroll

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical Wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim Middle East connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barack Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide.

Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.

Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?

Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?

© Rich Carroll 2008

Irena Sendler -VS- Al Gore or Why the Nobel Peace Prize is Meaningless

Spotting Suspicious Activity

The article below is well-worth reading and saving for future reference. It provides guidelines and tips on how to recognize suspicious activity that could be related to terrorist planning. An aware citizenry is an invaluable line of defense in the war on Islamic terrorism.


Nearly a year ago, Congress passed a law, dubbed the “John Doe” amendment, that protects citizens who report suspicious activity from lawsuits filed by those whose suspicious behavior is reported. The catalyst for the law was a lawsuit filed on behalf of some of the Muslim imams who had been removed from a US Airways flight at the Minneapolis airport. The targets of the lawsuit included individuals on the flight who reported the suspicious behavior of the imams.


After Brigitte Gabriel sent an email to our members urging them to call their Member of Congress, we were told that over 100,000 callers contacted Congress in support of the amendment that had been submitted by Rep. Pearce of New Mexico. This powerful grassroots response helped make possible the passage of this vitally important legislation.


Without such a law, every American who reported suspicious behavior could be the target of a liability or defamation lawsuit. Such intimidation would severely cripple an essential “line of defense” against terrorism. As a veteran intelligence officer states in the story below, “50% of the 'dots' that prevent the next 9/11 will come from bottom-up [local] level observation.”


Suspicious Behavior Could Indicate Terror Plotting
by Anthony L. Kimery, Monday, 23 June 2008


http://hstoday.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3932&Itemid=128


' ... being able to distinguish the ordinary from the extraordinary'
Coinciding with concerns among some intelligence services that suspected Hezbollah "sleeper cells" in Canada have been activated, Canadian law enforcement authorities increasingly are training for spotting potentially suspicious activity and behavior that may indicate terrorists are conducting surveillance or other goings-on in preparation for targeting a specific structure or location for attack.


Several years ago, Robert David Steele, an outspoken veteran intelligence officer, told HSToday.us that “50 percent of the ‘dots’ that prevent the next 9/11 will come from bottom-up [local] level observation” and unconventional intelligence from “private sector parties.”


Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and law enforcement in the Washington, DC capital region have actively urged citizens to report “suspicious activity.” Mobile electronic signs urging people to report suspicious activity are routinely placed at strategic locations throughout the metro area for periods of time. The last one of these portable warnings I saw was at the convergence of Key Bridge and George Washington Memorial Parkway on the Virginia-side of the Potomac River just across from Georgetown.


Lynda Howes, a civilian member of the emergency event and management unit of the Calgary (Canada) Police Service, told attendees of the “Tri-lateral Security Conference” in Calgary last week that law enforcement must learn how terrorists operating in order to prevent attacks. She said counterterrorism is only manageable if it is tackled at the grass roots level. She explained that it’s vital that everyone - including the public, the police, government and private industry – recognizes the potential indicators of terrorism and what actions to take if, and when, they are encountered. Howes said terrorists must recruit members, research their targets, procure resources, receive, transfer and conceal money, and provide transportation and communication.


And "each one of those phases represents an activity” that can be identified if a person is trained to know what to be on the look-out for. “Those activities are associated with a behavior. Once we have that behavior, those are things you and I will be witnessing every single day and are things we can pick up on as potential indicators.”


In late 2002, The Air Force's Office of Special Investigations launched “Eagle Eyes,” a program to "deter terrorism by recognizing and reporting pre-attack activities," according an OSI memo.


"Every terrorist act is preceded by observable planning activities," according to the OSI memo. "When troops and citizens know what to look for and how to report suspicious activity, terrorist acts can be prevented."


Department of Defense personnel have routinely been advised to report suspicious reconnoitering of military facilities, people asking detailed information about specific sites, and any other activity which could indicate a "dry run” attack.
DHS says “knowing what to look for and being able to distinguish the ordinary from the extraordinary are the key elements to successful surveillance detection.”
“A persistent stream of reported suspicious incidents requires an understanding of the purpose of terrorist surveillance, to know what terrorists look for, and how they conduct surveillance operations,” DHS’s advice states.


DHS states “terrorists conduct surveillance to determine a target's suitability for attack by assessing the capabilities of existing security and discerning weaknesses in the facility. After identifying weaknesses, they plan their attack at the point of greatest vulnerability.”


“Because terrorists must conduct surveillance-often over a period of weeks, months, or years-detection of their activities is possible,” DHS continued, noting, “regardless of their level of expertise, terrorists invariably make mistakes. The emphasis of surveillance detection is to key in on indicators of terrorist surveillance activities."


DHS states “successful surveillance detection efforts require immediate reporting of incidents similar to the following:

Multiple sightings of the same suspicious person, vehicle, or activity, separated by time, distance, or direction;


Individuals who stay at bus or train stops for extended periods while buses and trains come and go;


Individuals who carry on long conversations on pay or cellular telephones;


Individuals who order food at a restaurant and leave before the food arrives or who order without eating;


Joggers who stand and stretch for an inordinate amount of time;


Individuals sitting in a parked car for an extended period of time;


Individuals who don't fit into the surrounding environment because they are wearing improper attire for the location or season;


Individuals drawing pictures or taking notes in an area not normally of interest to a tourist or showing unusual interest in or photographing security cameras, guard locations, or watching security reaction drills and procedures; and


Individuals who exhibit suspicious behavior, such as staring or quickly looking away from individuals or vehicles as they enter or leave facilities or parking areas.


Other activity which should cause a heightened sense of suspicion include:


Suspicious or unusual interest;


Surveillance (suspicious in nature);


Inappropriate photographs or videos;


Note-taking;


Drawing of diagrams;


Annotating maps; and


Using binoculars or night vision devices

“Terrorists may also employ aggressive surveillance techniques, such as making false phone threats, approaching security checkpoints to ask for directions, or ‘innocently’ attempting to smuggle nonlethal contraband through checkpoints,” DHS’s advice states.

“The terrorists intend to determine firsthand the effectiveness of search procedures and to gauge the alertness and reaction of security personnel.”


Karen Morley, senior director of TerraGo Technologies, Atlanta, Ga., who began her career in the geospatial industry in the US Air Force as a target intelligence specialist, told HSToday.us that terrorists need to conduct careful surveillance of a potential target in order to be confident that they can pull off a successful attack.


In 2004, RAND developed the book, “Mapping the Risks: Assessing Homeland Security Implications of Publicly Available Geospatial Information,” for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, determined that “potential attackers, such as terrorist groups or hostile governments, are more likely to [utilize] reliable and timely information … such as through direct access or observation. In addition, many types of attacks, such as those by ground parties, are likely to require detailed information for attack planning purposes (depending on the target type and mode of attack). This type of information, which mostly comes from such nongeospatial sources as engineering textbooks or human expertise on the operations of a particular type of industrial complex, is essential for attackers to have a high confidence in their plan.”


But according to John Bumgarner, an 18-year veteran of special operations who has worked with most of the three-letter intelligence agencies at one time or another and is now research director for security technology at the US Cyber Consequences Unit, a non-profit research institute, because of training like that promoted by Howes it has become more and more difficult for terrorists to physically recon targets, especially in the US.


“To actually start planning very detailed reconnaissance of a building, and all the streets that go into it, and all the alleyways and everything else, that could require a lot of physical reconnaissance on the ground - it’s not something that you can actually just easily do anymore,” Bumgarner stressed, especially in the post-9/11 environment where conspicuous photographing, videoing and other apparent physical surveillance can, and has - repeatedly across the nation - caused people to be detained and questioned about their activities.


“In other words,” said Bumgarner, “it’s gotten a whole lot harder for a terrorist to conduct the kind of conspicuous physical surveillance of a target that’s necessary for conducting a large-scale or mass casualty attack.”


Consequently, more sophisticated terrorists are utilizing easily accessible geospatial information, which was examined in the April HSToday cover report, “Every Eye a Spy.”

Wake Up People of Colorado!! Jihad by Stealth in Your State House

The well-known but rarely mentioned islamic program to undermine the
USA with stealth jihad is alive and operating in Colorado!

A self-styled Republican is running in order to ensure that Allah's
so-called "religion" is made victorious over all religions in the USA. Check out the next-to-last paragraph carefully!

Israel-Hating, Arafat-Loving Republican
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/23/2008


Forty-eight-year-old Rima Barakat-Sinclair has been a resident of Denver since 1987. Never having held political office before, she is currently running as a Republican for a State House seat in Colorado's Sixth District, which is heavily Democratic and features the largest per capita Jewish population in the state. With the self-identified aim of working "for better understanding among peoples of different backgrounds," Barakat-Sinclair has participated in numerous "interfaith dialogues" to promote "more tolerance" and create "a stronger united America." She pledges undying allegiance to such ideals as "upholding the Constitution," defending "individual freedom," promoting "small government," enacting "prudent tax and spending policies," "investing in our children," guaranteeing "freedom of religion," and recognizing "the sanctity of human life."

Oh, and by the way, she is a Muslim activist who considers Israel to be a nation of bloodthirsty monsters who indiscriminately murder innocent Palestinian women and children for no reason other than to satisfy their own beastly compulsions.

While working as a contract translator for CNN in 2003, Mrs. Barakat-Sinclair was part of an interfaith delegation of Christians and Muslims who paid a friendly visit to Yasser Arafat at his Ramallah headquarters, where, since December 2001, Israeli troops had been keeping him under virtual house arrest in an effort to derail his terrorist activities. Favorably impressed by the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolf Hitler, Barakat-Sinclair would later reflect: "I know the accusations about him [Arafat] supporting terror, but he was so confined and surrounded that to me it seemed more like visiting a tourist attraction than visiting a head of state. It was very, very weird." Arafat's main message to his visitors, she expanded, was that he felt "robbed of his legacy" because "the peace process had not gone forward." Added the star-struck woman, "He [Arafat] flirted [with me] a bit, in a very nice way, you know, saying, 'I like your hair, your long braids.'"

Barakat-Sinclair was a key participant in an October 2005 conference sponsored by Sabeel, a Jerusalem-based organization that supports a "one-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict, where Israel would continue to exist, but not as a Jewish state. Barakat-Sinclair led a workshop on the topic of the so-called "Right of Return" of those Palestinian refugees who (for the most part) voluntarily had left the region during the 1948 Arab invasion of Israel. At that time, the refugees sought out safe haven during what they anticipated would be a brief war that the Arab allies undoubtedly would win, and they fully expected to return to their homes within a few weeks -- once the fighting had stopped and the Jews had been crushed. Instead, the Arab armies were defeated. Barakat-Sinclair now calls for the re-admittance not only of the relatively few surviving people who were among those 725,000 original refugees, but also for the admittance of several millions of their descendants, a move that would transform Israel overnight into an Arab-majority state dominated by Muslims sympathetic to the aims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In a July 2006 interview with CBS television, Barakat-Sinclair stood truth on its head when she condemned Israel's "imprisonment of five million Palestinians" who, for their part, were "trying to resolve this conflict peacefully." Israel had responded to those peace efforts, she said, by engaging in "more and more land-grabbing," by erecting a wall "literally imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people," and by incarcerating more than "ten thousand prisoners," including women and children, "for no reason." "Israeli soldiers now are known to be just bombing and killing babies," she added for good measure. (Click here for video of this interview.)

Four months later, Barakat-Sinclair charged that a "depraved" Israel routinely carried out "massacres" by means of "the regular use of disproportionate firepower against a trapped population in Gaza" -- thereby demonstrating "the level of contempt with which the Israel government views Palestinian lives." She told tales of sadistic Israeli soldiers beating handicapped people, gunning down women and babies, opening fire on crowds of beachgoers, breaking into homes at night and murdering entire families in their beds, and riddling children with bullets while the youngsters were merely harvesting strawberries. Likening Israel's "mass slaughter" of Palestinians to the horrors that existed under "slavery, [South African] apartheid and Nazi concentration camps," Barakat-Sinclair said that Israel "has turned back the clock to the time of the barbarians" by engaging in "the systematic indiscriminate murder of civilians and the illegal collective imprisonment of a whole nation."

"As Americans we must understand that the world sees the United States as a collaborator in this endless carnage," says Barakat-Sinclair. "The F-16s that drop Israeli death decrees upon the Palestinians were 'Made in the USA.' We finance and enable the perpetrators to commit these crimes with impunity and in violation of our own laws."

Just as Barakat-Sinclair places no limits on the lies she is willing to tell about Israel, so is she prepared to go to any lengths to avoid criticizing Islamic terrorists. Indeed she has claimed on the air that the Hamas Charter does not in any way call for Israel's destruction. Yet that document decrees plainly, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The Charter further contains numerous calls for violent jihad to counter "the Jews' usurpation of Palestine."

Barakat-Sinclair also has defended Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi against his critics, calling him "a renowned Muslim scholar." A disciple of the Muslim Brotherhood -- which Islam expert Robert Spencer describes as "the parent organization of Hamas and al-Qaeda" -- Qaradawi is a supporter of Palestinian terrorism who has been barred from entering the United States since 1999.

Barakat-Sinclair is a member of the Steering Committee of Muslims Intent on Learning and Action (MILA), an organization that seeks to increase Muslims' involvement in the American political process. Her own current candidacy is a reflection of that mission.

To pass herself off as a conservative Republican, Barakat-Sinclair has had to resort to considerable deception. For instance, she falsely represented herself at the District Assembly as a pro-life opponent of abortion. Her duplicity on this issue eventually would come to light, however, when a researcher tracked down a quote where Barakat-Sinclair had told the Rocky Mountain News on August 14, 2004: "I would like to have a president who is pro-choice."

Barakat-Sinclair's opponent in the upcoming Republican primary (slated for August 12th) will be Joshua Sharf, a contract web developer whose professional career also has included work as a talk radio host, a financial analyst, and a defense and intelligence consultant for such projects as satellite systems and missile defense. In 2004 and 2005, Sharf served as an election judge, and in 2006 he was a delegate to the Colorado Republican state assembly. A blogger at his own View From a Height website and at Brent Bozell's Newsbusters, Sharf is running as a traditional conservative Republican, and not, despite the overwhelmingly Democratic makeup of the district, as an identity candidate.
Sharf has accurately characterized Barakat-Sinclair as "a terror apologist, and an avowed enemy of Israel, with no credible conservative credentials." "When engaged in anti-Israel propaganda," Sharf observes, she usually goes by [the name] Rima Barakat. When engaged in broader political work, she goes by Rima Sinclair.…"

Taking a page directly out of the leftist playbook, Barakat-Sinclair has cast herself as a victim, dismissing Sharf's criticisms of her affinity for Islamic extremism as evidence of her opponent's Islamophobic bigotry. Complaining that "these attacks on me have intense emotions of hate and militancy behind them," she laments that her detractors "hate my religion, my very being."

In an effort to gain favorable press coverage for her political campaign, Barakat-Sinclair has turned to the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, a project of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). CNI's stated mission is "to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of a foreign country, namely Israel." Specifically, the organization calls for: "total withdrawal of Israel from all occupied territory"; "an end to all acts of aggression, provocation, and retaliation by Israel"; "American recognition of a totally independent state of Palestine"; and "an elimination of all unaudited US. aid to Israel." In short, CNI is no friend of Israel.

Barakat-Sinclair's case is vitally important because it offers a vivid illustration of how a Muslim radical can effectively wage bloodless jihad against the West by infiltrating the government and gaining a platform from which to infect the entire body politic. Her strategy is wholly consistent with the plans that were laid out in a secret 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum on "the General Strategic Goal…in North America." Explaining that the Brotherhood's mission was to establish "an effective and...stable Islamic Movement" on the continent, this document outlines a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" for achieving that objective. It states that Muslims "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands...so that...Allah's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all religions.'"

Rima Barakat-Sinclair is the living embodiment of that strategy. Those who oppose this strategy must place their principles above party identification.

Mordechai Kedar Makes a Fool Out of Al-Jazeera Reporter

Great Video! This reporter for Al-Jazeera hasn't a clue to what he talking about when he says that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Qur'an! Listen carefully as he makes a bigger and bigger fool of himself!

Dhimmi of the Day - Individual Category: Clayton Swisher

All American LOOKING Clayton Swisher, reporter for Al Jeezra our Dhimmi of the Day Awardee for June 18, 2008


















It seems, Mr. Swisher is happily reporting for Al Jeezra and "waging peace" for the "Palestinians". While his credentials, like many Islamists seem credible, if you research this dhimmi further, you will see him for what he really is: a pawn for those who would first castrate him, torture and then kill him for the crime of being a infidel OR has Mr. Swisher taken the leap from dhimmi dummy to full conversion and is happily taqiyying his way through his very own "peace process"? Mr. Swisher reminds me of the ISO dupes who work to subvert all that is decent in America under the guise of "justice", typical leftists whose M.O. is to call the opposition racist or some sort of phobes and tell lies about them as if there are facts. IMHO, Mr. Swisher represents a whole lot of what is wrong with the world these days. Two blind to see that they are participating in their own demise and taking the rest of us down with them for the sake of their own ego.


The following is a small excerpt from a reply to Clayton Swisher's rather silly book The Truth About Camp David as just one example of his genius http://www.peacewithrealism.org/pdc/swisher.htm

Clayton Swisher's rather silly book The Truth About Camp David(1) does not merit much attention, except that it appears to be well documented and has attracted some publicity on pro-Palestinain sites. Swisher's one-sided portrayal of events is so obvious as to deserve clear dismissal; yet Palestinian advocates quote it in response to Ross, and so we treat it briefly here.

Swisher does not even put up a pretense of objectivity. He promotes without question a number of Palestinian fabrications:

Even though they have nothing to do with Camp David, Swisher includes the "before" and "after" Rachel Corrie bulldozer photos, with the caption: "Even Americans expressing nonviolent opposition to the Occupation are not immune to Israeli lethal force." Corrie's death was not intentional, it was due to her own recklessness, and the photos are a known fabrication. Swisher's recent date of publication leaves him no excuse for not knowing this.


Swisher says without qualification that 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah was "shot by the IDF" (p. 385). The evidence indicates otherwise. Swisher's recent date of publication leaves him no excuse for not knowing this.


Swisher blames Israel for resisting a United Nations investigation of its operations in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield (p. 394), giving tacit support to the Palestinian claim of a massacre. This claim has been ,shown to be a lie. Swisher's recent date of publication leaves him no excuse for not knowing this.


Swisher follows the Palestinian line, incorrectly stating that U.N. Resolution 242 "applied to all occupied territories, not just the Gaza Strip but the entire West Bank" (p. 269), while it is well known that the resolution does not contain the word "all."
Thus Swisher shows no compunctions about bending the truth to put Israel in a bad light. Not surprisingly, he exhibits this tendency also in his discussion of the peace process and Camp David. While Ross discusses both Palestinian and Israeli failures to live up to their commitments, Swisher hardly mentions the former and exaggerates the latter. For example, he places great emphasis on Israel's failure to fulfill its Wye obligations, while giving slight mention to Palestinian violations. In fact, Palestinian violations of Wye and Oslo are extensive and well documented.(2)

Swisher believes he has identified the true villain of the piece, and that is - Dennis Ross! Swisher's animosity toward Ross seems almost personal. He never misses an opportunity to take a swipe at Ross. He speaks of "Ross's shrewd nurturing of connections" (p. 39) and "the raw display of arrogance by Ross" (p. 199). To document Ross's "eye-rolling arrogance" (p. 228) he cites a "State Department political appointee," whose identity and motives are unknown. He captions one photo of Dennis Ross smiling with President Clinton and Madeleine Albright, "Ross, Albright, and Clinton have the last laugh just before announcing the collapse of the Camp David summit," as if to say Ross wanted the talks to fail and that was the reason he was smiling.

Swisher seizes on one particular incident, misrepresenting it and blowing up its importance practically to suggest that Ross himself was responsible for the failure of the talks. Here is what happened.

For more info on this dhimmi reporter for Al-Jeezra just google his name.

A God Complex and the Lame-Stream Media

Geez, LUeezeeeeeeee - where to begin? Headline:
Obama rebukes McCain camp on terrorism criticism

REBUKE: reprimand, warning, scolding, reproof, chastise, lecture, chide, castigate, admonish, criticize, chew out

Who does this dimwit JUNIOR senator think he is? And who is pulling the strings of the media?

WASHINGTON - A defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain's aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.


"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse." DOES HE MEAN HE WILL EMBRACE THE TERRORISTS? FEAR MONGERING??? OMG! This freak is an Islamist plant people! Wake up,damnit!

To read the rest of this digusting display of "I am God, how dare ANYONE critize me OR tell the TRUTH about me, anyone who DARES to talk about my wife, bla, bla, bla, bla http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_obama


This IDIOT who could be president because of IDIOT voters reminds me of a 3rd grade bully or that fat ugly high schooler whose mother and father told him he was Adonis and that anyone who said differently NEEDED to be, not only called names, but had to be silenced, because if the real truth got to the ears of the rest of the kids, HE would get the crap beat out of him, OR worse: Be ignored.

Barry Boy with the middle name of HUSSEIN, is a jerk and an elistist, a racist and a liar. Can you imagine that he can not stand a real discussion or debate or a difference of opinion now while he is just a junior senator backed by terrorists? What will happen when he has the audacity to change America, which, mark my words, will NOT be for the better except for his terrorist friends and other America-Haters, taqiyya spewing Muslims, racists, and Ophrah.

Watch as Free Speech is outlawed and those concentration camps that are built and waiting to be filled are opened up and Americans like you and I are shipped there. IF you are really paying attention to the jerk's actions and words you can guess what will happen IF he becomes President. You might as well bend over and kiss your tush goodbye, because with the help of the lame-stream media and this fraud's goals, we will be living in a world gone stark (and I'm not talking about Congressjerk, Pete Stark) raving mad and we will be much more than REBUKED by the likes of this junior senator.


Check out Global Poverty Tax or The Dhimmi Tax that The Abomination has proposed....google it and weep.

Arabic to English Transliteration Glossary - U, W, Y, and Z

U
Ulama- Plural- Religious scholars, leaders, and experts.
Alim - Singular
The ulama in Saudi Arabia are the community of recognized Islamic scholars, including the grand mufti, judges, imams of masjids, and teachers in religious universities and schools.

Ummah - Community, specifically the community of Muslims.

Umrah* - Lesser pilgrimage to Makkah at any time of the year. Unlike the Hajj which takes place during the twelfth month of the Islamic lunar calendar.


W
Wahhabi - One who follows Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab’sIslamic creed, who established his Islamic creedin eighteenth century Arabia; Wahhabi movements have militantly reasserted the monotheistic roots of Islam. Wahhabism is the title given by those outside of the movement. Al-Muwahhidun or Abd al-Taubid “The asserters of the divine unity”

Walimah* - A traditional dinner feast provided to wedding guests by the groom’s family after a marriage ceremony. Providing a walimah was highly recommended by the Prophet, whether it be a grand or humble affair.

Waqf* - Term designating the giving of material property by will or by gift for pious works or for the public good. Properties with waqf status, such as schools or hospitals, remain so perpetually, providing endless benefit to the community and endless Heavenly blessings to the donor.

Wudu - Ritual washing or purification.


Y
Yathrib* - The former name of Madinah.

Yawm ad-Deen* - “Day of Faith”, one of several Arabic terms for Judgement Day.


Z
Zabur* - Arabic name for the holy scripture revealed to Prophet David thousands of years ago. Analogous to the Christian Psalms, a precursor to the Qur’an, jas as David was a predecessor of Muhammad.

Zakah*- “purification” refers to the almsgiving tax, roughly 2.5% of one’s accumulated wealth, that eligible Muslims pay annually, Zakah is one of the “five pillars” of Islam and is usually collected by local masjids or charitable organizations. The funds are distributed to poor and need persons .

Zakat - Offering

Zam Zam*- Sacred well discovery by Hajar

Zina - Illegal sexual intercourse including fornication, adultery, rape and prostitution.


*Also includes zakat in Shariah finance
Zakat is also used to fund jihad, hence this explanation is yet another example of taqiyya or kitman.


Sources:
Approaching the Qur’an, the Early Revelations, Introduced and Translated by Michael Sells, White Cloud Press, Ashland, Oregon

Islam, Opposing Viewpoints, Jennifer A. Hurley, Book Editor, Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA

Hatred’s Kingdom, How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Dore Gold, Regnery Publishing, Inc

The Koran, A Very Short Introduction, Michael Cook, Oxford University Press

*Teaching About Islam & Muslims in the Public School Classroom, A Handbook for Educators, 3rd edition, CAIR ISBN 1-93109-00-8
It is clearly seen that all derogatory terminology to non-Muslims is absent from the CAIR publication. Another example of taqiyya and kitman.

Mad for Madrassas - Saudi funding teaches it's OK to kill non-Muslims

Mad For Madrassas
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Islamofascism: Saudi money buys a lot in Washington, even an extension of a lease to an Islamic school that graduates terrorists and teaches its students it's OK to kill non-Muslims.

The texts used at its main campus, located just across the Potomac in Alexandria, Va., contain passages that vilify Jews and proclaim killing non-Muslims is sometimes permissible.

Despite the failing grade, local government officials renewed the private school's lease in an old public high school building. The Democrat county supervisor in charge of the lease doesn't see any problem with the school or its texts.

In fact, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly reportedly dismissed critics of the Saudi academy as "bigots" as he accepted a check from the Saudi Embassy for another $2.2 million to extend its lease. Perhaps not coincidentally, Connolly is running as a Democrat for Congress. He hopes to fill the local seat of retiring Republican Tom Davis, whose district includes one of the fastest-growing Muslim populations in the country.

The commission that looked at the Saudi texts has turned to the State Department to close the academy. State can do this because as part of the Saudi government, the school is subject to the Foreign Missions Act. But the Washington Times says State plans to let the madrassa continue to operate. Why? The Saudis "told us they would revise the textbooks by the 2008 school year," a spokesman said.

How foolish. The Saudis have been promising to reform their violent texts every year since 9/11. Yet they just pump more petrodollars into spreading their hateful Wahhabi propaganda here.

Within months of the attacks by 15 Saudi hijackers, the Washington Post reported the Saudi academy's 11th-grade textbooks, for example, say one sign of the Day of Judgment will be that Muslims will fight and kill Jews, who will hide behind trees.

The Post went on to quote several students who say they are taught in Islamic studies that "it is better to shun and even to dislike Christians, Jews and Shiite Muslims." One teen told the paper he's taught by academy teachers that it's OK for Muslims to hurt or steal from such "kafirs."

This was the steady diet of hate the Saudi academy fed Ahmed Abu Ali, who joined al-Qaida after graduating and plotted to kill President Bush. Lest anyone think Ali was a misfit loner, he graduated valedictorian and was voted as the "Most Likely to Be a Martyr."

As we've warned repeatedly on these pages, the Islamic Saudi Academy is a breeding ground for terrorists, operating just across the Potomac from the White House and Capitol. Who has the nerve to disregard Saudi money and influence and shut it down?


PLEASE FOLLOW LINK to listen to Audio and Podcast comments

The Death of Real Marriage in California today

Mourning reason and the perverted success of "same-sex" "marriage" Another abomination and insult to decency.



"Liberalism is a mental disorder" Dr. Michael Savage

Egyptian "student" in the US to Kill you

TO THE EGYPTIAN COLLEGE STUDENT NAMED BELOW: ahmed abdellatif sherif mohamed: I reach out and touch your dirty face with my LEFT HAND.

Student agrees to plead to terror support charge
An Egyptian college student who videotaped himself showing how to turn remote-controlled cars into bomb detonators has agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge of providing material support to terrorists, according to a plea agreement filed Friday.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, one of two students arrested after a traffic stop in South Carolina in August, will enter the plea at a hearing next week in federal court in Tampa, said his attorney Linda Moreno.

Deputies said they found explosives in the trunk of the car Mohamed was driving, but defense attorneys have claimed they were merely ingredients for homemade fireworks.

FOR THE REST OF THIS COPYRIGHTED STORY IF YOU CARE TO READ ABOUT THIS PIG: http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTE1NzI4Mg==

The Obama Bros and Baraq's Taqiyya

Malik Obama confirms his half-brother Barack grew up a Muslim




Apparently the Obamas of Kenya have been reading those scurrilous emails to which Barack likes to refer, because they have no doubt -- contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign, that the presidential candidate was raised a Moslem. They take that as a given.

As the Jerusalem Post reports, "Barack Obama's half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background. In an interview with Army Radio he expressed a special salutation from the Obamas of Kenya."

The Obama brothers' father, a senior economist for the Kenyan government who studied at Harvard University, died in car crash in 1982. He left six sons and a daughter. All of his children - except Malik -- live in Britain or the United States. Malik and Barack met in 1985.

In a remarkable denial issued last November that still stands on the official campaign website: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php#obama-not-muslim" Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a statement explaining that "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

Apparently Malik Obama, himself a Muslim, had not read the press release.

Melanie Phillips is the most recent commentator to draw attention to the massive body of evidence that leaves no doubt that Barak Hussein Obama was born a Muslim (Islam is patrilineal) and raised a Muslim (so registered in school, acknowledging attending Islamic classes, reported accompanying his step-father to the mosque, and able to recite the Koran in the original Arabic).

Reuven Koret, Aaron Klein and Daniel Pipes have previously pointed to the attempts by Obama and his campaign to conceal the candidate's Muslim background. The well documented evidence draws upon the on-the-ground interviews by researchers in Indonesia and Kenya, published quotations of Obama's childhood friends and his school records, as well as the candidate's own autobiography.

It is not clear whether Barack Obama will now disown his half-brother Malik, or throw him under the campaign bus, for acknowledging that shared family background. In any case, some one should notify "Fight the Smear" tout de suite. Perhaps they can get him with the program.

Baraq Hussein Obama's May 31, 2008 Speech

The below is from an email from my articulate, unnamed friend.

****************************************************************

I have just listened to Obama's speech in which he declares he is now leaving Trinity United Church. And now I make my own confessional statement as well - this is the first time I have listened to a speech of Obama's from beginning to end. Up until this moment, I have only heard sound bites of the man speaking a few words here and there - and of course I have read his printed speeches (which I was not impressed with). But this is the first time I have actually heard him speak at length - actually witnessed his voice patterns, his inflection, his syntax and delivery - in short, I have finally witnessed first hand an example of the vaunted 'brilliant speaker' which his followers and the media claim Obama to be.

Wooo. Much ado about nothing. I'll tell you, this 6 min. 35 sec. speech revealed two things clearly. Obama is not a great speaker (he is, in fact, lousy). Secondly, Obama is immoral.

To begin with - this man comments the cardinal error of a bad speaker - instead of a smooth, eloquent delivery, Obama instead stumbles, fumbles and trips in his speech. The most glaring is his constant stammer - nearly every sentence contains a fumbling, clumsy 'uh', 'uh', 'uh', etc. Stammers are not the mark of a great speaker. Secondly, he flails in his speech. Obama is incapable of speaking in smooth, uninterrupted sentences. Instead, his sentences constantly fracture a few words in to thrash off in a different direction, which itself then fractures to go off on yet another tangent which often enough was itself not completed either. Such a disjointed, disoriented speech pattern makes it impossible for the speaker's intent, his meaning to be gotten across. A great speaker must have a smooth rhythm to their words, a rhythm which flows effortlessly from beginning to end - a river of speech which picks the listener up and carries him along in a sure steady stream towards the ultimate meaning, the purpose of the speech.

In semantic terms, Obama's 'river' of speech has rocks in it. Like a raft on a choppy river crashes up against rocks and eddies, so a listener bumps up against Obama's stammers, his confusion, his disjointed speech - as a result, like the raft, the listener is thrown off course. Neither is carried through safely to the end as both are meant to.

Another sign of the lack of his eloquence is the lack of his wit. A great speaker always has wit - case in point, the wit of such titanic speakers as Winston Churchill or John F. Kennedy. Wit is the proof of one's command of the language. (Example is Churchill's witty response to Nancy Astor's snide comment "if you were my husband, I'd feed you poison". Churchill's instant reply? "If you were my wife, I'd drink it.") Alas, however, Obama has no wit. That is a telltale sign refuting his follower's insistence that he is a 'great' speaker. Another bad sign was the sheer banality of Obama's words. For instance, afterwards I could not remember any particular line or phrase he'd uttered (indeed, I had trouble remembering what he had said at all and instead had to peer at the typed portions of his speech on CNN in order to recall them). Inability to recall a speaker's words means they made no impact. Eloquence always makes an impact. Ergo, Obama is not eloquent.

But beyond syntax or phrasing, the most damning part of Obama's speech of May 31, 2008 was that it revealed he has no moral code.

That is a stunning revelation given that the very purpose, the very reason for this speech was morality - namely, the immorality of Trinity Church's racism. For months this nation has been appalled by the rantings of Trinity's Rev. Wright as he's hurled racist invectives at white America. The nation has been forced also to watch Trinity's entire congregation cheer and applaud these racist rantings. But most loathsome of all has been witnessing Obama's stubborn refusal to be upset by any of that. To the contrary, instead of blaming his minister (his 'uncle') for racism, Obama has instead blamed the world. It is the world, Obama claims, who is actually racist instead of Rev. Wright whom the world accuses of being such.

This adroit turning of the tables on the world, putting the world on defensive appeared to silence the furor - to dam up the waters of dismay at racism, so to speak, and thereby still them. But, as the English author John Morley warned 'You have not converted a man because you have silenced him'. And the silence of America to Obama's speech on Trinity and Wright was not the conversion Obama had assumed it was. It's ironic that the dam of silence was kicked in by none other than 'uncle' Wright himself with his frothing tirade before the National Press Club. Not to be outdone, of course, Trinity's new pastor - Moss - delivered his own swift kick as well, screaming from his pulpit that biblical prophet Abraham was 'a pimp'. And of course let us not deprive Trinity's cheering, whooping, applauding congregation of their blame in all this either. Their actions burst the dam of silence - and the flood waters that poured forth were not sweet but sewage. As a result, and just as Morley warned, the 'silenced man' of America revolted at the stench to reveal he was not a convert to Obama's dismissal of Wright's and Trinity's racism. The polls dropped, the press began to question Obama and, worse, the Super delegates began to sway away from him towards Hillary.

As a result, on May 31, 2008, Obama was forced to make a 6 min and 35 sec speech repudiating Trinity's racism.

Except - Obama didn't.

He danced about the issue, he shadow boxed with it, he came close, alluded to it - but he never made a clear, strong repudiation of Trinity's racism. And that is deadly. When a man does not make a stand on his morals, it is for only one reason - he has none to stand on. Morals exist for the very purpose of that.

I listened to that speech of Obama's and I kept waiting, cocking my head to bring my ear closer to the screen, I frowned, I listened - but not once, not a single instance did I hear Obama say something strong like - 'this racism of Trinity disgusts me'. Or "I hate this racism, it is evil, it is wrong and I won't stand for it'. But that never happened. Instead of strength of position, Obama gave no position at all.

A leader leads by virtue of his strength. People trust him, depend on him, rely on him. But there is nothing strong about Obama - he dances, he skates to one side and then another. You are left clawing in midair. If you clung to Obama, you'd both fall down. And falling down is not what a leader is supposed to do. He's supposed to uphold you. And of course that can only be accomplished by a possessing strong moral stand.

A towering example of a strong moral stand is that of the mighty leader of the Protestant Reformation - Martin Luther. Luther's stand on the corruption of the Catholic Church, the mendacity of its selling of indulgences was strong. But it should be noted that his was not the only one who felt this way - hundreds of thousands of unhappy Catholics also felt the same way. And so did countless other priests. Many priests were as deeply upset by the Church's greed, its corruption, its selling of indulgences as Luther. So why did the unhappy people flock to Luther instead of to these other priests? What was it about Luther that served as the magnet that attracted the followers to him by the hundreds of thousands? Answer - Luther's strong unmistakable moral stance.

Unlike the other priests who muttered dissent under their breath or even timidly preached it with a few dissenting words at Mass, Luther stormed up the steps of the Cathedral at Wittenberg and with a hammer pounded his 95 thesis to the door for the world to read. Nothing wishy washy about that! That took strength. Steel of purpose, firmness of resolve. So also was his adamant, unbending refusal to recant those 95 thesis to the Diet. He wouldn't. As Luther put it - "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God."

"Here I stand." Martin Luther stood for what he believed. He planted his feet firmly on the bedrock of his morals and that rock supported him. The rock of his morality was why he could stand and did.

But not Obama. Not once in Obama's vague, meandering, miasma of words was there ever the slightest hint of a rock solid belief. In fact, he appeared to have no belief at all. Not once did Obama boldly state 'here I stand. I cannot do otherwise'. Never.

The clearest approximation to a moral stand that Obama took was to make it clear that the reason he was leaving Trinity was because the church's controversy hurt his chances to become President of the United States. But that is not a moral stand - that is mendacity.

Of course, Obama wished to have the world perceive his speech as taking a moral stance - but his own words revealed the hypocrisy of that again and again. For instance, when Obama spoke of the harm caused by Wright's racist rants, Obama spoke only the harm to himself (i.e., potential voters would 'impute' Wright's racism onto Obama). But not a word did Obama utter of the harm those rants imputed to anyone else. Nor once did Obama acknowledge the staggering harm Wright's racism imputed to whites, to Jews, to American soldiers, to the American government, etc. By his silence, Obama revealed his contempt for their suffering - they weren't even worth words. It was all about Obama.

Obama's absence of a moral stand was revealed also with his treatment of Father Phleger's rants at the Trinity pulpit. Obama spoke that he was "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric". Good lord, a minister sneers that white Americans are racist pigs who must pay and pay and pay for a slavery which not a single one of them ever practiced and the only emotional reaction Obama can summon is to say he's 'deeply disappointed'. Come on, I'm deeply disappointed if I have a run in my nylons, if my store runs out of arugula - but for me to only be 'disappointed' when I hear myself spat at and denounced from the pulpit reveals me as spineless at best, masochistic at worst. And Obama's weak 'disappointment' gets even weaker when he reveals that it's not actually Pfleger that 'disappoints' him but everyone else's displeasure at Pfleger. The classic 'what will people think?' when they hear Pfleger's tirade. Well - that's not the point of what other people think. Obama's speech was supposed to say what HE thought. What was his stance on Pfleger's awful rants, what was Obama's stance on Trinity's racism, on Wright's? Obama refuses to say. He will not make a moral stand. And a man who refuses to stand on his morals does so for only one reason - he possesses none to stand on.

The end of Obama's speech reveals that lack of morals. Because his speech was about morality, Obama had to made a stand on it. Which meant he had to demand that Trinity stop its racism. He had been forced to acknowledge that his Presidential campaign has shown a 'spotlight' on that dirty, filthy racism of Trinity - but what was Obama's solution? Take the spotlight elsewhere.

In other words, leave the dirt and filth of Trinity's racism untouched, uncleansed, unchanged, still reeking in its excrement of hate and self-pity. That's just fine with Obama. Of course, Obama is perfectly willing to demand white America clean up its racism, but Obama's moral broom sweeps in one direction only. Away from Trinity's racism. As Obama orders, the grimy offal of Trinity's racism remains untouched. In a bitter refutation of Martin Luther, Obama will make no stand, so help his ambition.

Thus is my take on this speech. And on the man who gave it.