SLANDER or ASTUTE ANALYSIS ?

I consider it to be astute analysis. As far as anyone denying rights to Muslims, it should be remembered that Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less then Muslims, and have no rights. That sentence could mean exactly what it says. I think this article ties a lot of things together about Obama, as do the many other articles I have seen about him.

**if there ever should arise a movement of mass discrimination or denying of rights to Muslims, just because they are Muslims, he would stand with the Muslims to oppose the injustice.** Oh Please...two Muslimahs (Muslim women) were taken out of his photo. They would not allow them to be in the photo. He was right there when they were refused. He loves to talk. He loves to apologize. He hits you with his actions or words and then says, sorry! Over and over. He loves one group if it helps him. Then he loves another, if it helps him. Then he hurts this group, if it helps him...and then he will apologize.

Yeah, he really "stood" with the two Muslim women he had taken out from behind him when he made that speech didn't he? And now he's all sorry about it. I have a feeling that move might have lost him some Muslim votes. I have to agree though that the article is unfair.

I tend to interpret the article in the way I think "should the winds toward Muslims shift in an ugly direction, I will stand with them." as meaning he will stand with Muslims rather than others. Why would the winds shift without a catalyst (e.g. them trying to blow up the US or Israel.) The comment is disturbing to me, knowing that he already stood up for Muslims after the attack on 9/11. Not all Muslims were guilty of 9/11 but the fact that he would stand with them to the exclusion of so many others whose relatives and friends were buried under the rubble is disconcerting. I think his ties to Louis Farakhan led him in that direction at the time and will continue to do so. That being said, I think he is wrong for America. Muslims deserve rights, but not more rights than others.

Yeah i agree with you, his cause is okay to stand for. But i have said it before and say it again, may be he is lying, well who can blame him? all is done for power! But if he is, he would be the target of extreme islam too.Well i donno much about politics, but as ur my freind, i respond to your discussions.

This is not an analysis by an unbiased journalist. This is not even a real article. This is another example of sh*t you can find on the internet, that people will pretend is news. You don't believe this is a credible piece of journalism anymore than I do, r,y,bdog. Your little troupe of followers, of course will tell you, and have told you it is an astute analysis. Just keep pedaling the crap, you guys, if you have nothing better to do with your time.

Squeamish Marxist Democrats avert your eyes. I am about to swat you on the nose with a rolled-up Che Guevara poster. Boy if that is not astute analysis I do not know what astute analysis is! I like how they decided drop the Hussein name in there four times that I can count. I really do not care if cry baby Baracky Husseiny Obamoronic and his worshipers think about it, I liked it. True I have heard all of this once or twice. True something like this will probably do nothing to change anyones mind on Baracky Husseiny Obamoronic. Either you want him to be your master or you want to drop him into a ocean(does not matter which one). I hope that in the future someone will change their mind(Yeah Obama I can work change, future, and hope into a sentence too).

The original of that sentence didn't even have the word "Muslims" in it - it says "them". Although he was speaking of Arabs and Muslims who were citizens fearing retribution after 9/11, he also reminded us of the roundup of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor - none of them was a participant in that attack, but most lost everything simply because of their heritage. He didn't want that to happen again - besides, not all Arabs are Muslim. Many Lebanese are Christian (doesn't anyone remember Danny Thomas??), but anyone from that region was lumped together with the rest. Again, doesn't anyone remember the Indian Sikhs being shot at gas stations simply because their religion wears turbans? They are neither Arab nor Muslim. So, he was saying we shouldn't fall into that mindset again - we had already hopefully learned from the first time. If we can't live up to the standards we promote, how can we expect others to find them desirable?

I always say, look at the source first. In this case read some of this writers other "informative" writing and then determine where he stands. Astute? No I don't think so. Slander, bordering on it.