I will return tomorrow

Sorry, but I am feeling a bit under the weather. I hope to return tomorrow. I will leave you with another example from Flopping Aces of Obama’s stupidity. As a reader on the site asked: Why is it okay to meddle with a nation who removes their President via every legal channel, but it’s not okay to meddle with a despotic regime in Iran flagrantly ignoring fair elections and committing human rights abuses on their population? Read the whole thing to see why.

Obama admin meddles, demanding “full restoration of democratic order” in Hondurass

What a difference a day makes. “Meddling” by the Obama admin is now in vogue when it supports extreme leftist leaders, as I posted on Sunday. But the Obama admin is not confining themselves merely to “words”, but is evidently working behind the scenes to get ousted President, Manuel Zelaya, reinstated.

Honduras’ newly appointed leader vowed Monday to resist pressure from across the Americas to reinstate the president ousted in a military coup, as protesters burned tires outside the occupied presidential palace.

Leaders from Hugo Chavez to Barack Obama called for the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya, who was arrested in his pajamas Sunday morning by soldiers who stormed his residence and flew him into exile. Eight leftist countries pulled their ambassadors from Honduras.

Roberto Micheletti, appointed president by Congress, insisted that Zelaya was legally removed by the courts and Congress for violating Honduras’ constitution — allegedly to extend his rule.

~~~

Micheletti said he was sure that “80 to 90 percent of the Honduran population is happy with what happened.”

True or false, the rest of the world certainly was not, and the president of the U.N. General Assembly invited Zelaya to address the world gathering.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. was working for “full restoration of democratic order in Honduras.”

U.S. diplomats said they are trying to ensure Zelaya’s safety and get him restored as president. Clinton signalled, however, the U.S. wasn’t siding fully with Zelaya, who had rejected several Supreme Court decisions before being overthrown.

“There are certain concerns about orders by independent judicial officials that should be followed,” Clinton said. “But the extraordinary step taken of arresting and expelling the president is our first and foremost concern right now.”

She indicated the State Department has not formally declared Zelaya’s ouster to be a coup because U.S. laws would then require cutting aid to the impoverished country.

“We’re considering the implications of it,” she said.

Removal from office for usurping rule of law in Honduras is an “extraordinary step”?? What I find “extraordinary” is the two-faced US President’s foreign policy, as well as his friends in the international community. Also calling for reinstatement is the Organization of American States. And then, of course, there’s the UN… with Ban Ki-moon parroting the usual “condemns” comment.

UPDATE: Were the post-arrest meddling not enough, Sweetness & Light latched on to more than interesting revelations in a WSJ article today, that documents senior Obama officials admitted they worked feverishly to prevent the law-breaking President’s arrest.

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington’s ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president’s office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. “The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message,” said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn’t recognize any other leader.

The U.S. stand was unpopular with Honduran deputies. One congressman, Toribio Aguilera, got prolonged applause from his colleagues when he urged the U.S. ambassador to reconsider. Mr. Aguilera said the U.S. didn’t understand the danger that Mr. Zelaya and his friendships with Mr. Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro posed.

Well… just a slight correction to Mr. Aguilera’s comment: I’d say that many of us understand the dangers posed by such friendships and alliances with the Chavez’s and Castro’s of the world. It’s the leftist patsy occupying the Oval Office that simply doesn’t “get it”, were I to give him the benefit of the doubt of wanting what is best for America as we have known it to be since it’s inception. Perhaps, a more accurate assessment is that Obama *does* get it, and openly lends his support to such leadership and dangerous allies because of his “empathies” that lie strongly with similiar governing ideology. Perhaps, with his popularity with citizenry that seem unconcerned with the US’s march towards the far left, he feels this is his personal mandate in “remaking America”.

END UPDATE

I would so look forward to a viable explanation of why it’s okay to meddle with a nation who removes their President via every legal channel, but it’s not okay to meddle with a despotic regime in Iran flagrantly ignoring fair elections and committing human rights abuses on their population. But I won’t be holding my breath for the big Zero – and his fellow “citizens of the world” – to reconcile their actions…

Then again, how long before the current WH occupant finds himself subject to the same in the US, should his present path to spit on US Constitutional law continue? Eventually someone’s going to have the impetus to haul this arrogant “follower of the free world” before the SCOTUS.

The full story can be found in the Washington Post.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy

Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.

By MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY

Hugo Chávez’s coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation’s constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.
(more…)

from the AP.

Several thousand protesters — some chanting “Where is my vote?” — clashed with riot police in Tehran on Sunday as Iran detained local employees of the British Embassy, escalating the regime’s standoff with the West and earning it a stinging rebuke from the European Union.

Witnesses said riot police used tear gas and clubs to break up a crowd of up to 3,000 protesters who had gathered near north Tehran’s Ghoba Mosque in the country’s first major post-election unrest in four days.

Some described scenes of brutality, telling The Associated Press that some protesters suffered broken bones and alleging that police beat an elderly woman, prompting a screaming match with young demonstrators who then fought back.

The reports could not be independently verified because of tight restrictions imposed on journalists in Iran.

North Tehran is a base of support for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has alleged massive fraud in Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential election and insists he — not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — is the rightful winner.

Sunday’s clashes erupted at a rally that had been planned to coincide with a memorial held each year for Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, who came to be considered a martyr in the Islamic Republic after he was killed in a major anti-regime bombing in 1981.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

Waxman-Markey/cap and trade (to call it by its real name is an affront to the English language) passed the House last night 219-212. Frank Kratovil—who as of Friday afternoon had not read the bill—along with Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, Dutch Ruppersberger all voted aye, leaving Roscoe Bartlett the only Maryland representative voting against this massive energy tax.

Unfortunately eight Republicans were bought off and crossed over providing the decisive margin. Followers of Maryland state politics are familiar with spineless Republicans. Two examples being: Delegate Marie Antoinette (Page Elmore), who literally sold his vote for cake, and James Milquetoast King, who in his explanation of his vote for slots—enabling Martin O’Malley’s tax increases—tried to tell us two plus two equals five.

Friday afternoon, C-SPAN was actually an interesting channel to watch. Representatives were literally making deals on the House floor, see the video below of a representative asking for “clarification” of exactly what goodies he’s getting in return for his vote.

Should the bill become law, Frank Kratovil just handed Andy Harris the 2010 congressional election.

Why?

Well despite the cooked-book CBO report many Dems waved in the air like canon law, Waxman-Markey in reality would:

·Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion;
·Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
·Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
·Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;·Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
·Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500; and
·Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

All for a meaningless one nine-hundredth of a degree change in average global temperature.

Memo to Frank Frank Kratovil: Not a good idea to follow the Martin O’Malley energy strategy: Promise lower energy costs, then do everything in your power to increase them.

Oh and don’t bother to ask about the scientific report—suppressed for political reasons by Obama’s EPA—that debunked the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, because you know our leader told us that science no longer takes a back seat to ideology. The only government report Obama wants criticized is the CBO report that laid out the true, staggering price tag of his health care bill.
(more…)

By Barry Rubin

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian counterpart, Salam Fayyad. Fayyad’s June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis.

Fayyad is prime minister for one reason only: to please Western governments and financial donors. Lacking political skill, ideological influence, or strong support base, Fayyad does keep the money flowing since he’s relatively honest, moderate, and professional on economic issues.

But his own people don’t listen to him. Most PA politicians want him out. International pressure keeps him in.

So here’s the Fayyad paradox. If he really represented Palestinian stances and thinking, there’d be some hope for peace. Since he’s so out of tune with colleagues, though, Fayyad sounds sharply different from them. And even he’s highly restricted by what’s permissible in PA politics, limits which ensure the PA’s failure, absence of peace, and non-existence of a Palestinian state.

His first problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA’s overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. Make no mistake: this is a mutually exclusive choice. If Hamas merged with the PA the resulting would be far too radical to negotiate a solution, not to mention being en route to becoming dominated by Tehran-allied radical Islamism.

Moreover, to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can’t come closer to making a deal with Israel. But that’s not all. In veiled—an appropriate word here–language, Fayyad says Palestinians must avoid “politicizing” the Gaza issue so that any sanctions continue against the Hamas regime there.

By not opposing the suicide bombers, Fayyad follows suicidal policies. By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip and so doesn’t need to accept PA leadership. By supporting Hamas’s ability to attack Israel without costs, the PA ensures its Islamist rival can appear to be the more effective fighter against Israel, thus undermining the appeal of PA leadership or of any peaceful solution. (more…)

By Dick Morris

In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out clearly how Obama has disarmed us in the war on terror and excoriate him for giving Hamas almost $1 billion in foreign aid funneled through the United Nations relief agency in Gaza that takes orders from Hamas. But now, the Administration’s weakness in supporting human rights in Iran writes a sad chapter in the history of our foreign policy.

For her part, Hillary Clinton is really playing hardball with Iran! Faced with its outrageous conduct in killing its own citizens to cow them into silence, she has disinvited Iranian diplomats from the hot dog festival commemorating July 4th. That’ll show ‘em.

But, in Catastrophe, we propose stronger action. One specific step that could send just the right message to Iran is to cut back its gasoline supplies. Despite having the world’s second largest reserves of oil, Iran must import 40% of its gasoline because of a lack of refining capacity. Most of its refined gasoline comes from the Jamnagar Refinery, operated and owned by Reliance Industries, an Indian company. And guess who has guaranteed a $500 million loan to expand this refinery? You did. The American taxpayer, through the Export-Import Bank provided the loan guarantees as part of a $900 million package to Reliance.

We urge Congress to pass the Sherman-Kirk Amendment, which just cleared a House Appropriation s Subcommittee with bi-partisan support. The amendment, co-sponsored by Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, would cutoff Export-Import bank financing for any firm that exports gasoline to Iran or helps it to develop new refining capacity.

Orde Kittre, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies calls Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline its “Achilles’ Heel.” So let’s learn a lesson from OPEC and turn the tables, cutting gasoline imports to Iran.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Vote was 219 For 219 Against (Roll Call). 8 Republicans voted For and 2 Did not vote. Enough to have made the difference.

Republicans who voted For:

• Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
• Mike Castle, DE
• Mark Steven Kirk, IL-10
• Leonard Lance, NJ-7
• Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
• John McHugh, NY-23
• Dave Reichert, WA-8
• Chris Smit, NJ-4

If you are a constituent of any of the above, you may wish to express your displeasure at their voting for a bill that will do nothing to prevent climate change but will saddle American’s with thousands more in tax increases and job losses. Contact links for each member are available on their web page linked above.

Not Voting were:

• Jeff Flake, AZ-6
• John Sullivan OK-1

Constitutents of Jeff Flake may wish to inquire why he was not able to vote today. Cong. Sullivan was on one month’s leave for treatment of an alcohol addiction. It’s interesting to note that Cong. Patrick Kennedy (D-MA) was taken out of alcohol rehab for the purposes of voting. Dems apparently felt passing this bill was more important, or perhaps more doable, than sobering up a Kennedy.

300 Page Amendment to 1200 Page Bill Added at 3:09AM

House GOP Leader John Boehner (OH) describes the rush Democrats imposed on consideration of this bill so that few would have the chance to read it and object:

Dems had 30 years to write this bill, but left only hours to read it or debate it.

Graphic from House Leader Boehner’s blog shows complexity of Democrat bill:

Also:

Congressional ACORN Corruption Probe Disbanded by “Powers that Be”

If you are a friend of President Obama you need have no fear of a corruption probe!

Here’s another in what is fast becoming a series of moves designed to further shield Obama allies from any accountability before the law:

Conyers backs off probe of ACORN
Says ‘powers that be’ ended plans for hearings on group
By S.A. Miller
Washington Times
June 26, 2009

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying “powers that be” put the kibosh on the idea.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style “protection” racket.

“The powers that be decided against it,” Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.

The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.

Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers’ explanation for his change of heart.

“If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?” she said. “Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is ‘the power’?”
…

Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama’s campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.

The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.

ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.
…

Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN’s Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat’s maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.

ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the “muscle for the money” program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush’s administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN.

The culture of corruption within the Democrat Party is alive and well and there is no check and balance that can stop it!

Finally:

Plus: New bombshell EPA report, doubting science, censored!

Today, we learn that an EPA official with extensive knowledge of the science of global warming was being censored for speaking out.

Here’s the gist of the story:

Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management
By Thomas Fuller
San Francisco Examiner
June 25, 2009
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces
He Doesn’t Listen
He talked for 45 minutes during ABC’s “Health Care” infomercial!

It’s clear to anyone who has ever dozed through an Obama speech that the man likes the sound of his own voice. He’s known for rambling, long winded speechifying even in press conferences.

ABC’s all Obama all day long extravaganza Wednesday was no different. Obama answered one question from the handpicked crew of supporters attending the Town Hall style event on health care with a vague monologue that went on for four minutes and thirty three seconds. No doubt leaving many viewers scrambling for the remote or praying for a commercial break.

It’s also noteworthy that nowhere in what was billed as a “dialogue” on health care did Obama face any Republican critics. Even critical advertising was banned.

Obama possesses the rare gift of being able to say so much and so little all at the same time. The only question is: when will voters decide they’ve heard too much?

Also:

Obama Health Care Plan Not the Gold Standard He Promised in Campaign?

If not, then why does the current bill exempt Members of Congress?

“If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance Members of Congress get for themselves.”
–Barack Obama, “Closing Argument” speech, Canton, Ohio, October 26, 2008

In a rare moment during last night’s Democrat Party health care infomercial on ABC, President Obama was challenged by Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center. Dr. Devinsky asked if Obama’s wife or one of his daughters was sick and the plan the President proposed limited tests and treatments, would Obama “potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions, or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family?”

The short answer (something that is difficult for Obama) is no. He would do whatever it takes.

But the question itself stems from a faulty premise. Neither Obama, nor members of Congress will have to face the difficult choices of Obama-Care. Page 114, line 22 of the Kennedy-Dodd “Affordable Health Choices Act” bill (PDF) clearly exempts members of congress and federal employees and their families. They will continue to be covered by what many regard as the Gold Standard for health care at your expense.
Will YOUR Member of Congress Join Obama Care?

Thursday, Rush Limbaugh started a new campaign directed at those members of congress pushing health care reform. He invited his listeners to call or write their Representative and Senators and ask “will you be giving up your federal benefit and joining Obama Care?” If not, then why foist this monstrosity on us?

Unions Exempt from Health Care Taxes

Readers may recall how candidate Obama pounced on John McCain in the presidential election wrongly claiming he would tax health care benefits. Well guess what? Obama may soon be taxing health care benefits. But the bill Democrats are working on exempts Unions, whose health care plans are among the most generous of all (otherwise GM and Chrysler would still be making money).
(more…)

From Red Maryland

I usually leave the larger issues of media criticism to Professor Vatz, as his mustache can slay a rabid grizzly bear, or at least a Baltimore Sun editorial page editor. However I felt the need to jump in on one issue in particular.

My friend Ron Smith is an admirer of Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald. I am not.

Ron admires Greenwald’s dogged criticism of the “establishment press,” especially their alleged journalistic failure to hold the Bush administration accountable during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. To be fair, some of Greenwald’s criticism is occasionally on point. However, Greenwald’s modis operandi is to gun his engine into the fifth gear of high dudgeon and shriek like a harpy. Case in point his foot stamping over the Washington Post firing Dan Froomkin. Whatever the merits or demerits of canning Froomkin, the case illustrates Greenwald’s schtick: Preen as a paragon of all that is right and good in the world, lather up spittle-flecked rage chock full of charges of mendacity and/or hypocrisy—without explanation—against those he who he disagrees with. In the end, Greenwald’s posts are essentially long worded variations of “Hulk smash.”

You see, in Greenwald’s world, “dishonest” has no meaning other than a conservative who is winning an argument. See Jonah Goldberg and Jim Henke beat Greenwald like a rented mule on this issue.
(more…)

Regina Sztajer

President Barack Obama is a weak kneed excuse for a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world. Instead of being tough on Iran and North Korea he intimidates his Republican competition with the help of the slobbering liberal media and his Chicago political hooligans who are his comrades in destroying America. Does he really believe we American’s are going to be sheep led to the slaughter while he goes abroad and kisses up to every Muslim who want to destroy us? “Hail Obama ” who has replaced Caesar!!! In five months this man has taken advantage of an economic crisis to take over our banking and the auto industry to mention a few and is on his way to try and ram national health care down our throats.

Beware this man is not wishy washy when it comes to destroying the Constitution and the very fabric of this great nation of ours. True we do need affordable, high -quality health care in America that is responsible. But government control over our health and the treatment we need is not the business of the government. Do we want some government no- nothing to make a decision if we are worth the price of keeping us alive. Beware my fellow senior citizens we will be considered a waste of government money and you best wake up to that reality and speak up before the word grandparent becomes no more.

Our Congress is going to vote on a public plan for health care on a government- run system and were is the public outcry? In Canada and Europe they have long lines and rationed care that are a failure. Canadians come to America to get life saving treatment. If Obama has his way where will American’s go to save their lives? Obama wants 119 million Americans with private insurances pushed into a government run-plan. The American Medical Association opposes Obama’s plan that will destroy our freedoms and health at what cost?

Dire threats are being made against America by rogue nations and what is Obama doing, appointing Tsars. Russia got rid of their Tsars because they were tyrants. Give the president a history book!!! The Russians must be having a laugh a day on us. If he thinks it could help him politically he send out the troops but otherwise international affairs to Obama is just another chance to make a speech. His use of power in foreign affairs is an area where he seems to be governing alone but he can’t do that in domestic policy. He has set a picture of his personality as a wimp by waiting days before speaking up about the false elections in Iran that has put a dictator back into power. (more…)

By Barry Rubin

The Iranian crisis is being fought out on three fronts.

The first, and the one properly receiving the most attention, is inside Iran itself. Commentators have now found the perfect phrase for describing the outcome there: As a result of the stolen election, demonstrations, and repression, Iran will be changed forever.

OK. But changed how? If the regime puts down the demonstrations, it will be ruling lots of deeply dissatisfied citizens. Yet overall, not much will change within the country. Presumably, there will periodically other such upheavals until the day the regime is overthrown altogether. But how long will that take? None can say.

More can be said about the other two fronts. The one changing the least is the regional aspect. Events in Iran will not change minds in the Middle East.

On one side are the radical Islamists. These include pro-Iranian forces–Hamas and Hizballah; the Syrian regime, and many in Iraq–won’t have their minds changed by the post-election upheaval. They will go on being radical Islamists and believe that these demonstrations are creations of American intelligence (whether President Obama praises them or not will have no effect) and that the marches represent only a tiny minority of malcontents.

The same conclusion, however, will be reached by the anti-Iran Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the much smaller base of al-Qaida. They and their supporters will go on seeking Islamist regimes in their countries, notably Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. They won’t be affected either.

But there is another factor regarding the Islamist side. In thirty years I have literally never heard an Islamist say—in contrast to how Communists used to speak about the USSR, or China, or Cuba—that they want an Islamist state modeled on Iran. Obviously, Sunni Islamists (including Hamas) want to downplay any such desire to clone Iran because its Shia republic is alien to their traditions. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Photo from the International Space Station!

Full size image here.

One giant belch likely emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the cars on earth do in one year!

More photos and full story here.

Also:

Western media abandons Iranian revolt news as widespread violence decreases, and regime steps up oppression

The fickle and tunnel-visioned western media apparently has had it’s fill. For days the nation watched mesmerized as Iranian demonstrators, under physical and police assault, smuggled out news via the New Age Internet media even professional journalists couldn’t match.

Yesterday and today… sans any shocking bloody videos to show… US news has turned it’s eye away from Iran and the citizens fight for fair elections and the right of free speech.

Just because the media’s eye isn’t focused, doesn’t mean Iran is quiet and banking on the Ayatollah’s five day election review extension. In fact, since they certified Ahmadinejad as the winner and vowed no retreat only the day before. They are set to swear him into office early August… which means, of course, that the five day complaint review of the election is merely for show.

Yet despite the media’s distracted eye elsewhere, Iran was not without it’s clashes in the yesterday, or today.

Hundreds of protesters clashed with waves of riot police and paramilitary militia in Tehran on Wednesday, witnesses said, as Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that the authorities would not yield to pressure from opponents demanding a new election following allegations of electoral fraud.

It was impossible to confirm the extent of the new violence in the capital because of draconian new press restrictions on coverage of the post-election mayhem. But the witnesses reached by telephone said the confrontation, in the streets near the national Parliament building, was bloody, with police using live ammunition.

Defying government warnings, hundreds, if not thousands of protesters, had attempted to gather in front of the parliament on Baharestan Square, witnesses said. They were met with riot police and paramilitary militia, who struck at them with truncheons, tear gas and guns. One witness said he saw a 19-year-old woman shot in the neck. Others said the police had shot in the air, not directly at demonstrators.

WaPo also has more in street clashes today, along with more on a defiant Ayatollah.

Iran’s supreme leader told a group of lawmakers Wednesday that “neither the system nor the people will submit to bullying” over the results of the disputed presidential election, and riot police backed by militiamen later forcibly broke up a demonstration at the parliament building in support of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

“Everyone should respect the law. Once lawlessness becomes a norm, things will be complicated and the interests of people will be undermined,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate authority over political and religious life in Iran. “We will not step an inch beyond the law: our law, our country’s law, the Islamic Republic’s law.”

Hours later, witnesses said, large numbers of security forces, some riding motorcycles, used baton charges, beatings, tear gas and arrests to disperse several thousand demonstrators protesting the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The demonstrators were trying to gather in front of the parliament building to show support for Mousavi, who says that massive fraud in the June 12 election cheated him of victory.

Security forces — including regular police from all over Tehran, helmeted riot police officers and members of a force known as “Robocops” for their full body armor and special equipment — converged on Baharestan Square to prevent a demonstration from taking shape. They were supported by members of the pro-government Basij militia and plainclothes agents who infiltrated the protesters, witnesses said.

“Robocops” riding motorcycles fired large handguns into the air as they charged up and down Republic Street and other nearby avenues, one witness said. A helicopter circled overhead. Some of the police carried paintball guns, which have been used in recent demonstrations to mark protesters for arrest.

“When people started to gather, the [security forces] chased them into alleys and arrested anybody they could,” he said. In one alley, police caught up with three men and started beating them, then attacked bystanders who tried to intervene, he said.

In one confrontation between protesters and Basij members, a middle-aged woman wearing a light-blue headscarf and a black coat angrily refused orders to leave. “I’m going to stay here and see how many people you kill today,” she told the Basij. A plainclothes agent emerged from the crowd, swore at the woman and took out a pair of handcuffs to arrest her. Other people tried to stop the agent, but Basij members rushed them and beat them with clubs, the witness said.

~~~

In Twitter feeds, people who said they witnessed the crackdown described protesters with broken limbs and cracked heads, saying there was “blood everywhere” from the beatings. One said many people had been arrested. Another said people were being beaten “like animals.”

As the numbers in the streets, up for facing another day or mortality with the regimes policy bullies, declined, the oppressive crackdown, randoms searches and raids, arrests increased. NY’s International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has names of at least 240 detainees, but say that number may be as high as 2000 via some human rights activists in Iran. The Iraninian state media reports 645 arrests.

Among them are people arrested in a Monday night raid of a campaign office for Mr. Moussavi in Tehran, Press TV, state television’s English-language satellite broadcaster, reported Wednesday. The government said the office was being used as “a headquarters for psychological war against the country’s security,” and claimed that evidence had been found of “the role of foreign elements in planning post-election unrest.”

Also detained are 102 political figures, 23 journalists, 79 university students and 7 university faculty, the human rights organization said. By official reckonings, at least 17 demonstrators have been killed.

Wapo’s article yesterday outlines how the Ayatollah plans to make an example of the demonstrators, including setting up a separate court just “make an example” of the protestors, while making more arrests and launching a campaign to publicly vilify those calling for a new election.

On a day of relative calm after security forces broke up protests Monday, the government vowed to make an example of detained “rioters” and teach them a lesson. Hundreds of Iranians have been arrested in the past 10 days since the Interior Ministry declared that Ahmadinejad outpolled his nearest rival, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, by nearly 2 to 1. Mousavi has vowed to continue protesting despite a government ban on demonstrations and a public warning from Khamenei.

~~~

A senior official of Iran’s judiciary, which is controlled by the ruling Shiite Muslim clerics, said Tuesday that a special court would try detained protesters, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.

“Those arrested in recent events will be dealt with in a way that will teach them a lesson,” the official, Ibrahim Raisi, was quoted as saying. “The rioters should be dealt with in an exemplary way, and the judiciary will do that.” Raisi did not elaborate.

Iran Updates at the Tehran Bureau does continue to publish comments of the opposition, documenting ways to continue their dissent via strikes, and noting the government’s assault on communication, and arrests of those carrying laptops, cell phones and cameras.

From Tehran, 24 June 2009

Just to let you all know, R. was arrested last night in Tehran; I’m not sure where and why. I got a call from his phone by the police who wanted me to confirm details. I had to tell them how long we’d lived in [here], how we met, what he and I do for work, where I work, my nationality, about his family and also where I live. He was carrying his laptop, external HD and camera so I’m guessing he’s having that looked though. They told me he’d be released any minute now last night. I doubt that.

Tehran resident, 23 June 2009

[Translated] I access Facebook through Yahoo! Mexico. But everyone says that’s a trap set by authorities to identify us!!!!!

[X] quarrels with me all the time. He keeps imploring me not to go on the internet. They even say the phones are monitored!!!

I’m so frightened I changed my [online] name today.

I don’t know why. Other than vote for Mousavi I’ve never engaged in a political activity in my entire life. But this is no comfort because [X]’s poor colleague was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet while driving through Vanak Square. After two operations, he’s blind in one eye!!!!!!!!

They picked up someone else too. Two days after his disappearance they released him near Shahreh Rey with his eyes blindfolded and his mouth gagged.

Neither guy attended demonstrations! Plus, they say those who come to these protests are MKO members [terrorists]!!!!! Not to mention 100 other insults!

What had this poor woman Neda done that they wouldn’t allow any mosque to hold ceremonies for her — come on, wasn’t she Muslim?

Anyway, things here are REALLY bad here. We’re all scared to death.

Something has to change. We can’t go living like this.

The most recent comment update on the site addresses their confusion of Obama’s press conference. This relates specifically to Huffpo’s proxy question by Nico Pitney that I posted on yesterday. That question was:

Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards.

I caught Pitney on Charlie Rose last night. While he, like other liberals, believe Obama is handling this “just right”, he also stated that Obama “dodged” the question.

The commenter’s post, as translated from Farsi, reiterated the same confusion at his tepid support for the demonstrators, and their adamance that any recognition of Ahmadinejad was indeed, a betrayal.

From Tehran, 24 June 2009 [10 am Eastern US]

[Translated from Farsi] What kind of speech was that from Obama? Why did he talk like that?

“What should he do?” I ask.

The only thing Obama can do is refuse to recognize this man as the president of Iran. The big issue for the hard-liners here, the thing they keep telling everyone here is that they are the ones who can solve our issues with the United States. They want to be in complete power — at any cost — when negotiations take place. So Ahmadinejad likes to maintain that he is the man who can get the job done [he can deliver Washington].

Right from the beginning of this, Ahmadinejad said that he was going to the UN to speak. He said in his speech that he was going to go to the United Nations to defend the rights of the Iranian people — you know along the lines of all the inane things he says. The United States cannot aid him in this respect by recognizing this man, by putting a seal of approval on this charade by giving him a visa to come to New York.

There’s supposed to be another gathering today in Baharestaan in from of the Majlis (parliament building). I didn’t go because they murder people at these gatherings.

Obama is an intelligent politician. He keeps harping on the fact that this is a domestic issue. OK, that’s fine. I understand. I accept this from him as long as he then doesn’t turn around and recognize Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran. He’s calling himself president after an election drenched in blood. He wants to say he’s president by staging a coup d’etat. It’s like the United States recognizing the Pinochet government.

They [Iranian officials] played with people here. That’s why we’re so upset. It’s true: leading up to the election they opened things up. A positive environment was created. People were in the streets joyously chanting until 5 in the morning. All that is good and true. I even personally know people who had never voted in their lives who decided to participate for the first time. They of course voted for Mir Hossein Mousavi. Why, because there seemed to be some openness in the air for the first time in Iran. It’s true, whatever the figure is in terms of turnout — 39 million or 42 million people did turn out to vote. But what happened next? This is what got people angry. It’s not because Mousavi lost, but because they believe they were tricked. Sure they’re upset about the fact that Mousavi didn’t win, but that’s not the issue. That’s not why they’re protesting. They’re protesting because the government thought it could make fools of them. All this was a play, it was a movie. It wasn’t real. It was a charade. People are hopeless and depressed because they were played with, not because Mousavi lost.

I also read in one of the various and voluminous updates today that the Ayatollah had decided to bolt town for a personal retreat, but not before issuing orders that the crackdown be intensified, and focus on Americans, Britains. But since I can’t find that paragraph to cite the exact language… take it with some caveats.

Melanie Phillips has an interesting column in The Spectator today with various links as to what is going on behind the scenes in the regime.

The Iran expert Michael Ledeen says he has no idea what’s going to happen. But there are signs that the regime is preparing for an all-out assault; and that they are panicking and the ayatollahs are at odds amongst themselves; and that, most interestingly of all, this:

…that there are cracks in the regime’s edifice, ranging from declarations of small groups of Revolutionary Guards calling on their brothers to defect to “the people,” to a phenomenon that is just beginning to be discussed here and there, mostly on the Net but originally in an Arab newspaper. Steve Schippert posted on it and did a first-class analysis. Steve starts with a report from al Arabiya that says senior ayatollahs have been meeting secretly in Qom to discuss significant changes in the structure of the Iranian state. In addition to the Iranian clerics, there was a foreigner: Jawad al-Shahristani, the supreme representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the foremost Shiite leader in Iraq.

If this is true, it is, as Steve says, huge. Because it means that senior religious leaders in Iran are talking to the representative of an Iraqi Imam who believes, as most Shi’ites did before Khomeini’s heresy, that the proper role of religious leaders is to guide their people from the mosque, not from the political capital. In other words, they are talking about the most serious form of regime change.

What may be interesting to see is if this rift between the religious leaders develops into substantive reform, or if they too can be beaten down by the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad’s military might.

Phillips’ also follow my line of thinking that Obama’s so called leadership is “disgraceful”, and that the demonstrators are well aware he is leaving them on their own.

As Ledeen also says, however, the protesters know they are on their own facing the thugs of the basiji. Despite Obama’s belated condemnation today of the brutality being meted out, his remarks were far too little, far too late and still far too inadequate. As Mladen Andrijasevic notes, his strategy of engaging the regime remains, regardless of how many protesters have been killed, tortured or jailed — and will remain, it would appear, even if worse happens in the days to come. And as Joseph Ashby devastatingly notes :

Obama believes, on some significant level, the propaganda promoted by America’s enemies that the United States is the main instigator and perpetrator of international unrest. So shockingly, amazingly, unbelievably, Obama is saying that Iran may very well use America as a propaganda tool, but at least this time they won’t be right.

What a disgrace that this man is leader of the free world; and at such a point in history. If he had put America stoutly behind the protesters and championed them against the regime, by now they might have toppled it. There are signs today that even the fawning American media is appalled.

That additional “fawning media” to which Phillips refers is Joshua Muravchik at Commentary magazine, who states that Obama has totally abandoned the long-time American tradition of supporting democracy and human rights… the same thing I’ve been saying since I’ve managed to find time to reappear in the blog world since the Iranian revolt.

The most surprising thing about the first half-year of Barack Obama’s presidency, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy. No administration has ever made these its primary, much less its exclusive, goals overseas. But ever since Jimmy Carter spoke about human rights in his 1977 inaugural address and created a new infrastructure to give bureaucratic meaning to his words, the advancement of human rights has been one of the consistent objectives of America’s diplomats and an occasional one of its soldiers.

This tradition has been ruptured by the Obama administration. The new president signaled his intent on the eve of his inauguration, when he told editors of the Washington Post that democracy was less important than “freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people aren’t secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, in opening testimony at her Senate confirmation hearings. As summed up by the Post’s Fred Hiatt, Clinton “invoked just about every conceivable goal but democracy promotion. Building alliances, fighting terror, stopping disease, promoting women’s rights, nurturing prosperity—but hardly a peep about elections, human rights, freedom, liberty or self-rule.”

A few days after being sworn in, President Obama pointedly gave his first foreign press interview to the Saudi-owned Arabic-language satellite network, Al-Arabiya. The interview was devoted entirely to U.S. relations with the Middle East and the broader Muslim world, and through it all Obama never mentioned democracy or human rights.

A month later, announcing his plan and timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, the president said he sought the “achievable goal” of “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant,” and he spoke of “a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.” On democracy, one of the prime goals of America’s invasion of Iraq, and one toward which impressive progress had been demonstrated, he was again silent.

While drawing down in Iraq, Obama ordered more troops sent to Afghanistan, where America was fighting a war he had long characterized as more necessary and justifiable than the one in Iraq. But at the same time, he spoke of the need to “refocus on Al Qaeda” in Afghanistan, at least implying that this meant washing our hands of the project of democratization there. The Washington Post reported that “suggestions by senior administration officials . . . that the United States should set aside the goal of democracy in Afghanistan” had prompted that country’s foreign minister to make “an impassioned appeal for continued U.S. support for an elected government.”

Obama’s adamance to be the antithesis to Bush… a stalwart supporter of the quest for freedom… does not require his obvious disdain for democracy and insistance that human rights abuses are, in his notion, “meddling” or “interfering”. Muravchik has a fascinating set of speeches, quotes and circumstances that document Obama’s step away from standing up for American values, while he simultaneously delivers lip service that belie his actions.

Obama seems to believe that democracy is overrated, or at least overvalued. When asked about the subject in his pre-inaugural interview with the Washington Post, Obama said that he is more concerned with “actually delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.” He elaborated on this thought during his April visit to Strasbourg, France:

We spend so much time talking about democracy—and obviously we should be promoting democracy everywhere we can. But democracy, a well-functioning society that promotes liberty and equality and fraternity, does not just depend on going to the ballot box. It also means that you’re not going to be shaken down by police because the police aren’t getting properly paid. It also means that if you want to start a business, you don’t have to pay a bribe. I mean, there are a whole host of other factors that people need . . . to recognize in building a civil society that allows a country to be successful.

Whether or not the President was aware of it, he was echoing a theme first propounded long ago by Soviet propagandists and later sung in many variations by all manner of Third World dictators, Left to Right. It has long since been discredited by a welter of research showing that democracies perform better in fostering economic and social well being, keeping the peace, and averting catastrophes. Never mind that it is untoward for a President of the United States to speak of democracy as a mere “form,” less important than substance.

Needless to say, the Commentary piece is a “must read”.

So the battle for Iranian government reform continues by those brave enough to risk all by hitting the streets. And, in the glaring void of notable support by either the UN, or the US, they wonder… who in the free world will do commit more than lip service to help them? And will they doom them with the ultimate slap by accepting Ahmadinejad as the legitimate President, despite the blood on the regime’s hands?

Finally:

Obama’s Waffling Continues

The demonstrations continue on in Iran but the crowds are getting smaller as the Basij thugs are becoming more and more brutal:

Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, two witnesses said.

One witness said security forces beat people like “animals.”

~~~

At least two sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.

“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.

Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said. (more…)

From Red Maryland

We will restore science to its rightful place…

Barack Obama, January 20, 2008

…Unless, of course, it interferes with his policy agenda.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has unearthed emails, which show Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency suppressing an internal scientific analysis of climate change for political reasons. The analysis punched holes in the administration’s policy position of regulating carbon dioxide.

CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment
was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons…

1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;

2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its
inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);

3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added); (more…)

By Barry Rubin

Ironically, three of President Barack Obama’s ideas in dealing with foreign policy, so visible in his Iran policy, have had more impact on his relationship with Israel.

The first of these is that he held back on condemning the Iranian regime’s stealing an election and repressing its people for fear that this might provoke a patriotic reaction against him. In fact, he has united Israel’s citizens to view him as hostile.

Secondly, he suggested that the United States should not meddle in Iran’s affairs, implying that Iranians knew best what their country needed. This has not stopped the president and members of his administration, however, from telling Israel—on the basis of both ignorance regarding the facts on the ground and a poor understanding of the country’s situation—what’s best for its interests.

And finally, Obama’s cultural relativism—everything’s really the same in its differentness—which led him to equate the Iranian regime and opposition has made him equate democratic Israel and a Palestinian movement which has still not reconciled itself to a two-state solution.

While it should be stressed that so far the Obama administration has restricted itself to somewhat harsh words where Israel is concerned, the results have been remarkable. They also show that his mismanagement of relations with Israel is so most counterproductive for Obama’s own policy ambitions.

A recent public opinion survey by Israel’s most reliable polling company shows that only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the administration to be pro-Israel. Israelis certainly gave Obama a chance. His personal popularity was sky-high at the time of his election and as late as May 17, Israelis viewed Obama’s administration to be pro-Israel rather than pro-Palestinian by a 31 to 14 margin, with 40 percent saying it was neutral.

It should be stressed that for 40 percent of Israelis to say the U.S. government is neutral between the two sides is not a vote of confidence or a sign of happiness with Washington.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

If only President Obama were a third as tough on Iran and North Korea as he is on Republicans, he’d be making progress in containing the dire threats to our national security these rogue nations represent. As it is, the president is letting the perception of weakness cloud his image. Once that particular miasma enshrouds a presidency, it is hard to dissipate.

If foreign policy issues actually involve war and the commitment of troops, they can be politically potent. But otherwise, the impact of international affairs on presidential image is largely metaphoric. Since foreign policy is the only area in which the president can govern virtually alone, it provides a window on his personality and use of power that domestic policy cannot.

When President Clinton, for example, dithered as Bosnia burned, he acquired a reputation for weakness that dragged down his ratings. It was only after he moved decisively to bomb and then disarm the Serbs that he shed that image. It took President George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq to set to rest concerns that he was a “wimp.” Jimmy Carter never recovered from the lasting damage to his reputation that his inability to stand up to Iran during the hostage crisis precipitated.

So now, as North Korea defies international sanctions and sends arms to Myanmar and Iran slaughters its citizens in the streets, President Obama looks helpless and hapless. He comes across as not having a clue how to handle the crises.

And as North Korea prepares to launch a missile on a Hail Mary pass aimed at Hawaii, the Democrats slash 19 missile interceptors from the Defense Department budget.

The transparent appeasement of Iran’s government — and its obvious lack of reciprocation — makes Obama look ridiculous. Long after the mullahs have suppressed what limited democracy they once allowed, Obama’s image problems will persist. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Wow….now this is some decisive leadership eh? (h/t Weasel Zippers)

The Obama administration might reevaluate its stance toward Iran if the violent crackdowns on dissidents were to escalate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

“Well, obviously, we are watching the events each and every day here at the White House,” Gibbs said during his appearance on Fox News.

The White House spokesman said that if an escalation were to take place along the lines of China’s Tiananmen Square Massacre — an event to which Republicans critical of President Obama have compared the Iranian protests — then the administration would take another look at their stance.

“Obviously, if a tremendous escalation happened — if tanks happened — obviously, we would evaluate that immediately,” Gibbs said.

During Poland Ronald Reagan went on nationally televised and gave a speech that ended with this:

“I want to emphatically state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease we cannot, and will not, conduct business as usual with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them”
- Ronald Reagan

What do we get from Obama? Outings with his family and a bunch of hemming and hawing. “Well if it REALLY REALLY escalates then we will do something.”

The Iranian youth have risen up, as we had hoped they would do for decades now, and our President waffled. His backers made the excuse up that if he was to get involved it would cause more mayhem. But mayhem happened anyway….as Mataharley noted in her most excellent comment here:

As time has revealed, and as I predicted (or as you put it, in my “defense”), all of the above comes to fruition *without* Obama demonstrating any balls in leadership. Therefore your crystal ball is filled with sewage, and your quick agreement to ignore our values and remain diplomatically neutral has been proven to be an exercise in naivety.The “tragic” happens despite his tiptoeing around a stand for our values of freedoms. But compounding the “tragic” is Iranians in the streets, putting their lives on the line, waiting and “hoping” day after day for a measure of support – only to find the American President is a diplomatic eunuch, and refuses to pick a side that is reflective of the values of this nation. Frankly, the Iranians are demonstrating more American values than our POTUS.

I miss George Bush, dang it all. That man didn’t sit on the fence when it came to freedom and basic human rights in these nations.

The Bush admin had Democracy Program Initiative, as we discussed above. This was to nurture exactly what is happening now… a nation that speaks up for regime change. (Altho those like Larry W seem to think this magically appeared because of Obama in Cairo… sigh…)

You seemed to assume Obama would continue that program.

Courtesy of Missy, tho we see no formal accounts in other media, Obama has abandoned that as well.

Suzanne Maloney, a Brookings mouthpiece, has been against this program, saying the Iranians need to fight it out themselves. How interesting… we rescue other nation’s citizens when they are being oppressed (Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Korea, Vietnam, WWI and II etal), but helping Iranians is out of the question? What are these people to do against Ahmadinejad’s military might and the Ayatollah’s oppressive power? You think Iran’s leadership will cave to the protestors without the help of the free world?

The supporters of the Iranian initiative blame people like Maloney for “blunting the intent” of the program. As is usual, the special interest lobby types manage to control foreign policy somehow.

What to do? Again, I ask you… we can come to the rescue of the Slavic nations and that’s okay, but we can’t come to the rescue of the Iranians? Why is that, triz. Because you see defeat before we begin? From your statements INRE Russia, that’s obviously your armchair general’s opinion. If that’s anything like your sewage-filled crystal ball gazing, forgive me if I discard your strategic observations as nothing more than pacifist mutterings.

Well fear not. *This* POTUS won’t lift a finger to help anyone else escape oppression. He won’t even give them verbal support and a well warranted “atta boy”. That probably falls in line with an impotent and corrupt UN… who will also do nothing but issue white washed lip service and token “tut tut’s”.

Obama, that selfish and stupid bastard, will do nothing but focus the American military on his campaign promise of bringing Osama bin Laden “to justice” (i.e. relocation to Bermuda or some other island?). All well and good but, in reality, that won’t do whit in the world of the “overseas contingency operations”. But won’t the big Zero strut about like a peacock, proclaiming his big success?

In the meantime, an opportunity for Iran to make major advances in becoming a Muslim democracy, because their own people are demanding a “change”, will fall by the wayside by a cowardly and naive POTUS who is “touched” by their efforts, afraid to take a side. Why? Because he thinks if we stand passively aside, Iran’s regime will be easier to negotiate with.

Right… and I’m winning the lottery tomorrow.

Frankly, I’m glad work has swamped me of late, limiting my post contributions and comments. I never thought I’d say it, but I am utterly ashamed to be an American under a President Obama. I don’t recognize my own country anymore. The values I treasure, and those of my parents and generations before, are being tossed aside as expendable under this POTUS. Our dedication to those around the world that also seek freedom is too expensive and inconvenient for this President, as it may hurt his poll numbers and find himself as despised as Bush. Not good for this self-consumed stage politician.

Obama’s “remaking of America”, our values, culture of entrepreneurialship, and overt power grabs that everyone chooses to ignore as they gaze lovingly at the big Zero does not sit well with me. And I suspect other old farts that think like me, and don’t want to be a ward of Obama’s State, will be growing in numbers over the years. Guess all you O’faithful out there will just have to wait until we die off before you achieve your utopian dream of a Euro-social America with a stepford/complacent population

Uh…..what she said.

Can’t put it any better myself.

Also:

Obama Press Conference: He’s Waiting to See How Iran Crisis “Plays Out”

A leader leads. Obama is a follower!

From today’s press conference:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran’s leaders remains open. Can you say if that’s still so even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won’t cross where that offer will be shut off?

OBAMA: Well, obviously what’s happened in Iran is profound, and we’re still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we’ve been saying over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal.

We don’t know how they’re going to respond yet, and that’s what we’re waiting to see.

QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what’s happened so far?

OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what’s taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran’s future, but also its relationship to other countries.

Basically, what he is saying with the repeated statement of seeing “how this plays out” is that he is neutral in the battle between good and evil being waged in the streets of Tehran and he’ll work with whomever wins. The best opportunity to replace the evil regime that is directly responsible for much of the terrorism and bloodshed the world has experienced in the last 3o years is floating slowly past us as we watch the horror on the streets of Tehran go unchallenged by the President of the United States.

American leadership at critical moments has achieved great progress in human history. Unfortunately, the world now sees a President who does not share the vision of American exceptionalism which led to so many advances in world peace and prosperity in earlier years.

Meanwhile, Obama’s State Department has invited Iranian diplomats to 4th of July parties at our embassies worldwide for the first time in many years!

I hereby apologize to the world, and especially to the Iranian people for the weak and passive response by this President of the United States! You are on your own. Obama doesn’t care!

Finally:

Iranian Father Told He Must Pay for the Bullet That Killed His Son

Such is the evil of a regime Obama seems reluctant to denounce!

Son’s Death Has Iranian Family Asking Why
By FARNAZ FASSIHI
Wall Street Journal
JUNE 23, 2009

TEHRAN—The family, clad in black, stood at the curb of the road sobbing. A middle-aged mother slapped her cheeks, letting out piercing wails. The father, a frail man who worked as a doorman at a clinic in central Tehran, wept quietly with his head bowed.

Minutes before, an ambulance had arrived from Tehran’s morgue carrying the body of their only son, 19-year-old Kaveh Alipour.

On Saturday, amid the most violent clashes between security forces and protesters, Mr. Alipour was shot in the head as he stood at an intersection in downtown Tehran. He was returning from acting class and a week shy of becoming a groom, his family said.

The details of his death remain unclear. He had been alone. Neighbors and relatives think that he got trapped in the crossfire. He wasn’t politically active and hadn’t taken part in the turmoil that has rocked Iran for over a week, they said.

“He was a very polite, shy young man,” said Mohamad, a neighbor who has known him since childhood.

When Mr. Alipour didn’t return home that night, his parents began to worry. All day, they had heard gunshots ringing in the distance. His father, Yousef, first called his fiancée and friends. No one had heard from him.

At the crack of dawn, his father began searching at police stations, then hospitals and then the morgue.

Upon learning of his son’s death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a “bullet fee”—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.

(more…)

From Red Maryland

“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish…all forms of human life.” John F. Kennedy Inaugural, 1961

This was not the only time the first American president of 1960’s warned of the danger of nuclear weapons, and he exaggerated, thank God, the speed of nuclear proliferation, predicting in 1963 that there could be over 20 nuclear states within a decade. Unfortunately, underestimating in 1963 the time required for a proliferation catastrophe brings little solace to those concerned in 2009.

What is unconsciously, or in a minority of cases, consciously, behind the stress and hope America feels regarding the protests against Iran’s Islamic rulers? Are Americans primarily concerned with the undemocratic theocracy and the loss of political rights by the people of Iran? No. Are they (we) primarily concerned that there is a danger that the politics of oil could redound to the detriment of the West? No.

Now that we haven’t answered those questions, let me pose an easier one: what is the overriding dread Americans have regarding North Korea’s nuclear program, missile program, and unpredictability in general.

The single overriding concern of Americans, simply put, is that nuclear weapons may likely be used as weapons or commerce by the North Koreans, especially since their willingness to threaten other countries (per a low threshold of provocation) with their newfound weapons is unprecedented.

And regarding Iran, make no mistake about it: the hidden fear pertaining to the Iranian unrest has as its root the question of which Iranian polity will be intent on attaining nuclear weapons: the current one or the reformists or both? (more…)

Are you mad as hell? … don’t want to take it anymore? Then turn out for the Baltimore Tea Party on July 2nd. Our country is at risk!

From: Jessica Ryan [mailto:oceaninview@gmail.com]

Good Evening,

Forward this message and spread the word. We want Washington and Annapolis to hear our message loud and clear.

You will also find a list of talking points should you choose to speak or are questioned by a member of the press. If you choose to speak, please contact myself or Michael Esteve (mpesteve@loyola.edu), we need you to be the voice of the movement.

Finally, some of you have expressed an interest in helping to finalize all the plans for the event or assisting in some other way. We will be meeting on Tuesday, June 30 in Baltimore at 6:30 pm. If you would like to attend this meeting, please send me a reply and I will provide you with the location.
(more…)

Submitted by Brujo Blanco

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

Brujo says: I was going to write some more about this but what else is there to say? (more…)