Speak Out for Freedom, Mr. President
Meanwhile, Obama — instead of wading in boldly on the side of liberty — informs us he’s “deeply troubled” and continues to seek “engagement” with Iran’s oppressors. What a leader! With the philosophical distance between the two, it’s a wonder that the party of Jack Kennedy can stomach Barack Obama at all.
There’s one other example that comes to mind. When faced with a government crackdown on the democracy movement in then-communist Poland, Ronald Reagan made no bones about what his position was on the matter.
He backed freedom.
Americans have always backed freedom. Americanism itself is the belief that freedom is the answer for the human condition. From the beginning, Reagan warned the Soviets against taking action against the Polish people, even going so far as to threaten harsh actions against the Soviets. They backed down, and freedom won the day.
None of that for Barack Obama, however. Rather than speak up for liberty and use the political weight and capital behind the office of president of the United States to full effect against the oppression in Iran (which would help the Iranians and the rest of the world — a point on which both ends of the political spectrum seem uncharacteristically to agree), the president’s rhetoric was wilting.
Mr. Obama could and should have spoken up at once, telling Iran’s current leadership that the way it treats its opponents will determine its place in the world going forward. But no, that calls for a real leader. What we have instead is Obama, who now withholds comment, plays it safe, and hopes apparently to win the day with his winning smile and a few shovelfuls of manure. But win what, exactly?
Obama’s cooperative silence might get a brief bit of peace or at least the absence of war (and no, they’re not the same thing), but the freedom on which Reagan and JFK placed so high a value? Apparently not.
It seems Obama’s words and actions about Iran are indicative of where we’re headed, too. Frankly, Americans should be frightened. America needs a leader who will speak unequivocally about freedom.
What we have instead is Barack Obama.
I, and many others heard those words of John Kennedy and they inspired a generation of Americans to work for their country, some in active duty positions, some in peace corps type positions and other ways and means. Obambi doesn’t inspire anyone, he criticizes our country in front of European and Muslim audiences and pretty much tells us that we suck and we are not exceptional. Great leader.
jeez eric, obozo is speaking out strongly for freedom, you are not listening. he is speaking out for free health care, free education, free lunches, and freedom from your own stupidity if you can’t handle yer own life’s finances. what good is freedom with no free lunch. yeah man, that’s it, after all the Iranian prez is handing out free potatoes, have you not been following the news. of course he is a winner…. ask hillary. gag gag, spit.
According to the New York Times: Obama is keeping quiet in order to pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
The one opportunity to perhaps peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is being shunned because this stupid narcissist arrogantly believes he can sweet talk the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions.
This is madness.
And to suggest as some Obamatons have done that the people of Iran are rising up against the Islamic theocracy because Obama said some nice, historically inaccurate things about Islam is stupidity heaped upon madness.
Stephen Hayes of the weekly Standard references an interview with a Mousavi spokesman whether it would hurt the struggle of the people of Iran for democracy If obama supported them:
In an interview with the Washington Post’s Foreign Policy blog, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, described as Mir Hussein Mousavi’s “external spokesman,” had some sharp words for President Barack Obama’s recent comments about the demonstrations in Tehran. But Makhmalbaf also said some things that could make it even more difficult for Obama to maintain his passive, pro-stability approach to the ongoing struggle for power in Iran.
FP: There has been growing criticism here in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama hasn’t said or done enough to support those demonstrating in the streets of Iran. Do you think Obama is being too careful? Or even that he is helping Ahmadinejad by being cautious?
MM: Obama has said that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Does he like it himself [when someone is] saying that there is no difference between Obama and [George W.] Bush? Ahmadinejad is the Bush of Iran. And Mousavi is the Obama of Iran.
We have the banality of terror in the White House:
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/06/18/fiddling-as-tehran-burns/
“With this is mind, why are we so shocked and amazed when he refuses to stand up for freedom for the people of Iran?”
Who is this “we”? I warned long before the election that Barack Obama is a self-hating American who primarily blames America for most of the evils in the world. He had major issues with white people. This was especially crystal clear after he threw his own white grandmother under the bus. Obama perceives Iranians as dark skinned victims of white imperialism. America will only makes things worse if it gets involved. Moreover, the insane Iranian leadership is merely the result of our past shenanigans. Criticizing these thugs would essentially be “blaming the victim.”
Well, it’s not just the Muslim audiences… most of them are going to be a hard sell, anyway, given the centuries of anti-American rhetoric coming from their leaders. Of larger concern, though is the remainder of the world. Why should anyone else believe in freedom if WE, ostensibly the biggest freedom backers on the planet, don’t?
Don’t misunderstand… I have no doubt in my mind that Iran, eventually, will get their government back under the control of the people. Revolution will happen, change will come, and there will be freedom in Iran. There’s nothing that will stop that now. It’s simply a matter of time. Perhaps, decades. That ball was started rolling by George W. Bush with the first domino being Iraq. Obama’s choice to remain near silent in all of this will cost a lot of Iranian lives on the way to that freedom, however. Thus the question for us as a nation, is how we will be remembered by the Iranian people and indeed the rest of the world, once that shift to freedom takes place. As it stands now, I can’t see it being the world’s perception of us not supporting freedom in this case, being a good one. They’ll remember an entire generation of Iranian freedom fighters getting washed away by these thugs… while, under what passes for leadership by Obama, we stood by and refused to help.
…”we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend…”
Kennedy and Obama are both fine speakers. But talk is cheap. Kennedy and Obama are and were equally poor chief executives.
Two loyal and longstanding friends of the United States who Kennedy didn’t support, indeed cruelly betrayed, were Trujillo and Diem. Kennedy gave the nod for the assassination of both.
Kennedy didn’t pass a single piece of legislation during his entire time in office. Kennedy took the nation into Vietnam. Kennedy got cold feet and pulled the plug on loyal, American trained and armed Cubans along with their American advisers at the Bay of Pigs.
Kennedy negotiated the Cuban missile crisis high on amphetamines. Kennedy did everything he could to slow the march of civil rights and signed off on the wiretapping of MLK.
Catholic educators teach that Kennedy was among the greatest of American Presidents and compare him to FDR, Lincoln and Washington. The rest of us know better. Or should.
Why wring hands over this matter, since about one year ago when the Russians invaded Georgia Obama showed the same awful cowardice and disposition for encouraging and appeassing aggressors?
Still:
1) Pathetic as Obama’s response is in this matter, it also has a sinister quality to it – again an invitation to all who’ve gotten a problem with the US to act brazenly because the One’s response to it will be tame. We’ll live through this, rest assured.
2) Odious as this situation is, the American media’s obsequoious description of Obama’s reaction is even more repulsive – “wisdom”, moderation”, “common sense”, etc. Other circumstances, same gooey liberal sycophancy –
3) And now, imagine, just imagine what would be media’s reaction towards this situation if McCain would be in the White House!
And these being said, do we still need more evidence to see how deeply anti-American Obama is, and how his entire political career is simply a “personal growth” adventure enabled by a horde of destructive liberals on the background of a nation in cultural meltdown? And how, when real challenges surround this country, he becomes vacillating and accommodating? “Oh, lord, give me my old-time teleprompter, I will speak now about race relationship!”
O tempora, o mores – and unfortunately, well deserved leaders.
When Obama works up more emotion over an abortion doctor getting murdered than he does for an entire country in agony and on the verge of a democratic revolution it doesn’t say much about his intelligence or his character (of course I’m assuming he actually EVER had those characteristics in the first place).
Someone who tweets needs to let the Iranians know we’re sorry we elected a _________ for President. Hopefully the next one will be more compassionate to the cause of Democracy throughout the world and not so worried about his polling numbers at home. Sad times.
Has this tele-prompter messiah shown any passion for anything?
OK, get this. PRESENT!!!!!
Gee – these are the same bozos who said we would be welcomed by cheering crowds in Iraq. We are all on the side of the moderates in Iran. But the President will have to deal with whomever comes out on top and will have to try to stop them from getting the bomb. He is right to be cautious
“Kennedy and Obama are and were equally poor chief executives.”
Obama is a wanker, but he’s got a long way to go before he’s as bad as Kennedy was.
I believe (tho’ I am unable to isten to Obama expostulate & pontificate long enough to count) that the words “freedom” and “liberty” don’t crop up much in his speech, whether refering to the aspirations of the people of Iran or American citizens closer to home.
The driving ethos of the man comes across as control, i.e., the antithesis of freedom & liberty enshrined in our founding documents.
It would seem that Leftists, today’s democrats, don’t believe in an individual’s freedom to make wise choices for himself in an atmosphere of liberty and that they want a neat, tidy lockstep society, where all decisions about your life rest in their hands.
I look at the crowd in DC (from Dodd, to Barney F, Maxine Waters, Hillary, Nancy P, Harry R, Schumer, Durbin (got stocks ?) Biden, Teddy K, on and on and, I wonder, which of these, uh, somewhat limited individuals, is capable of making decisions for my life better than I ?
“With this (the openin paragraphs) in mind, why are we so shocked and amazed when he refuses to stand up for freedom for the people of Iran?”
Who’s shocked and amazed? I’m not and never have been.
Every time he’s rolls out a new iteration of choosing government/himself over freedom, it just gets added to the list of “Yup. That’s our Bambam.”
He does not like liberty (especially for others).
He does not like America.
He does not like our Constitution.
He does not like people who believe in the Bible. (Ok, he doesn’t like Christians.)
He doesn’t like people who don’t like abortion (including those who are not Christians).
He does not like people spending their own money. He doesn’t like people KEEPING their own money.
So,….no. I am definitely not shocked and amazed when he, once again, does not speak up for liberty. He has no reason to, absolutely no reason to.
He doesn’t believe in liberty. He’s in a place of power where he can implement that belief. So why would he speak for personal liberty?
And our witless congressmen and women do not see it as their constitutional duty to stop him. Such a deal(for him).
President Obama does not possess the leadership skills to speak out without a script; the Iranian uprising is an unscripted moment that has caught the One by surprise. Instead on encouraging freedom & liberty, he is waiting for the time to see who wins & take the winner’s place as his own. Furthermore, his new ideas for the USA has more in common with the oppressive Mullahs as he seeks to limit our freedom & liberty as he consolidates his executive power. President Obama has more in common with the Mullahs than the enslaved Iranians seeking freedom & liberty.
PersianKiwi has posted the YouTube of Mousavi now with English subtitles. It’s in YouTube and I blogged it up, too.
He looks like a college professor.
Obama is doing the right thing. Let Iran people decide to choose what democracy they want! Our democracy can be hell for other No 2 country can look at democracy the same way let Iran choose NOT AMERICAN FOR IRAN! Butt out from internal fight for freedom.
President Obama has more in common with the Mullahs than the enslaved Iranians seeking freedom & liberty.
I’ll second that, social control is the guiding principle for both.
And, it would seem, more in common with Izz-LAM than with his professed allegiance to Christianity, even Rev. GD America’s twisted, black liberation version of Christianity.
(btw, based on Khamenei’s comments at Friday prayers, the old boy is going hardline and denying any funny business in last Friday’s election and that the results will simply stand. Well, who’s surprised about that ?)
“Of the people, by the people, and for the people” does not translate well into “of the government, by the government, and for the government”. This is especially unconstitutional when the government is elite, isolated, mono-idelogical, imbalanced in checks and balances, unrestrained in the ability to tax, overly regulated, and whose primary interest is in re-election over the best interests of the nation. The original revolution was waged to overcome the arrogance of aristocracy and to promote the rights/priviledges/responsibilities of self governance by the people. Freedom!
Kennedy and Obama actually have a great deal in common, first and foremost that each is a presidential first,one for his religion and the other for the color of his skin.
No accident that Obama consciously imitates Keneddy’s poses and mannerisms. This vain, preening fool is concerned first and foremost with his image.
As Kennedy was made an icon,so will Obama. The nation may go to hell under his administration but he will be remembered of a great American president.
Obama doesn’t speak out in support of the freedom demonstrators in Iran because he opposes them and supports the mullahs.
Obama is a shallow naif. The mullahs wear long flowing white robes and cool turbbans. The freedom demonstrators look Western.
The mullahs are traditional and third world. The look sound and dress ethnic. Authentic. Organic. Indigenous. Part of the larger underdeveloped world of which Obama imagines himself president.
Obama’s ideology isn’t deep But the scars it will leave on the nation, as with Kennedy, will be lasting.
Since Obama refuses to show his birth certificate we have no way of knowing if he was a street rat they picked out of the gutter, cleaned and polished up. Then they give him a teleprompter so he won’t screw up and say look at how smart he is. He capitulates to our ememies because he is a coward. He wouldn’t stand up to Iran if his life depended on it.
I wasn’t born when Kennedy was president so I only have history to go on. From what I have viewed and read he wasn’t worth much either.
Obama will equivocate and procrastinate until the last revolutionary reaches room temperature (probably as the result of stoning or beheading – gotta love those “quaint local customs”). Then he will reach out and shake whatever bloody hand the mullahs have authorized and appointed.
I feel sorry for the Iranian people, so much Hope, with little prospect of Change.
I stipulate to all of that, David, but it is beside the point of the piece. Notice, please, that in both cases, I focused on the verbal reaction of Kennedy, Reagan and Obama. Even at stipulating to what you say about Kennedy, he at least responded with the correct words and intentions to the challanges to freedom, of his day, as Reagan did, in his.
Obama can’t even bring himself that far.
David, JFK was made into an icon because he died a premature death; if he lived, his administration would be as tainted as Clinton & Obama. President Obama will not be so lucky to remain an icon as the corruption continues to rot from within his administration.
But the President will have to deal with whomever comes out on top and will have to try to stop them from getting the bomb. He is right to be cautious
Deal with them? what do thye have to fear from this vain feckless coward who on the one hand suggests he inspired this uprising with his Cairo speech and on the other hand won’t even lend verbal support to people fighting for democracy. Even the Egyptians are now cricizing Obama.
In its June 18, 2009 editorial, the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram criticized the international community’s cautious stance on the unfolding events in Iran. According to the editorial, this caution gives the Iranian regime the impression that the international community will overlook the crackdown on opposition protests so as not to adversely affect talks on the nuclear issue.
Following is a translation of the editorial in full:
“Events in Iran have followed in close succession since the announcement that fundamentalist candidate Ahmadinejad was elected to a second term in the presidential elections. Between the mass demonstrations [of the reformists] decrying electoral fraud, and the counter-demonstrations accusing the reformists of allegiance to the West, the international community has stood confused about what position to take towards this democratic outpouring in a country that is on the threshold of acquiring nuclear capabilities, something all international and regional actors consider an unwelcome development.
—
Anybody, including Obama, who thinks there’s the slightest chance he can talk the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions is a fool.
Terry Gain – Sounds like you never matured from a 13 year old who like to taunt other kids in the playground
@27. The Shadow:
You have proof of Obama boldly standing up for freedom? I haven’t seen any of that out of him. Not much of anything but a temporizer, always willing to be “deeply concerned” (aka voting Present) but never willing to DO something.
Heaven forbid he comes across somebody drowning in a pool, he would be “deeply concerned” and “hopeful of a speedy resolution” but it would be beyond him to jump in and lend a hand.
Let’s not be too quick to judge. 0bama is proving what a ‘macho’ leader he is. Haven’t you heard by now? Doh-Boy killed [yes, KILLED] a house-fly! He was so proud of himself he even asked for a close-up of his hand swatted Brundle Fly.
We must have a moment of silence for our brave leader who [at the very least] can kill Marty McFly.
The charmer-in-chief has long ago fallen in the trap of a cynical view of the world, i.e., “We will deal with whomever prevails in the popular struggle in Iran”. This Chicago-like ranking of values requires a belief in the power of the governement (a.k.a. the potential tyrant) over that of the citizen (a.k.a. the potential subject), the very negation of the spirit of the US constitution, which clearly stipulates the rights of the individual (both citizen and state) above those of the central government.
He is effectively captive of the victimology syndrome, the notion that the small guy is to be pulled up by big brother instead of the power of his own aspirations. According to this world view, if the people of Iran will ever be freed, their freedom will come from the supreme leader exercising his suprime wisdom.
Good luck!
He would have to shake his own shackles before advocating the liberation of anyone else. This kind of detoxification is possible, as seen in the inspiring cases of self-liberation from substance dependency, but it generally takes a dramatic change of heart, and persistent effort for more than 4 years to take its course.
Can we hope that the burden of the executive office will cause a dramatic internal change inside the locomotive?
Interesting piece from Jonathan Chait:
“Robert Kagan emails to contest one element of my critique of his column. I wrote:
Kagan begins with the premise that the Bush administration pursued an idealistic policy of supporting the Iranian opposition, which Obama has abandoned in the name of realism:
The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government’s opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a “realist” departure from the Bush administration’s quixotic and counterproductive idealism.
Exactly what support did the Bush administration give to Iran’s opposition? Kagan does not say at all. Moreover, if the Bush administration was frenetically aiding the Iranian opposition, and Obama has turned its back on them, Kagan might want to explain why the opposition languished for eight years and has sprung to life only after Bush departed the scene.That’s not dispositive, but it is the sort of complicating wrinkle Kagan might want to address. Alas, he does not.
Kagan emailed to say, “I do not in the op-ed suggest that Bush was helping the Iranian oppositon.” I replied that the passage clearly suggested otherwise, especially the phrases “departure” and “no longer.” He then emailed to clarify:
let’s be clear: in his Nowruz statement, Obama did deliberately depart from Bush’s practice of addressing only the Iranian people, not their rulers. and this was an intentional part of his policy to reassure the rulers that he considered them legitimate. this was widely discussed at the time and is not disputed. and I’m not even saying that it was a mistake. Bush, on the other hand, occupied a policy no-man’s land: not being willing to endorse the legitimacy of the regime AND not helping the opposition. my point is that Obama had moved to a policy of accepting the legitimacy of the regime, in keeping with the grand bargain approach, and that the continuation of that approach would eventually be to promise the regime that the US would undertake no actions that would in any way be destabilizing to it. (I realize now that the wording implied that we HAD been helping the opposition). then the political crisis came, unexpectedly, which has complicated this approach. Obama, I would argue, is still reluctant to question the legitimacy of the regime because to do that would depart from the grand bargain approach.
as I said, I am prepared to be proved wrong, and, in fact, want to be wrong. but I am not yet persuaded.
So, there you have it. It’s also worth pointing out that Kagan–while still, I think, wrong about Obama’s motivation toward Iran–has hardly been a knee-jerk critic of Obama.
Eric Florack:
We have no argument re intention. Unfortunately, good intentions are nothing without execution. Kennedy’s behavior was mercurial, possibly the effect of all the speed he was doing.
The Invasion of the Bay of Pigs and the aftermath of the Trujillo assassination were black comedies. Tragic farces produced by an inexperienced president trying to prove himself and lacking the necessary resolve. Kennedy was plenty pugnacious but when the chips were down, he just didn’t have the cojones.
Kennedy, like Obama had loyal supporters from his old hood. Hard-nosed, limp-dicked and impeccably preppy anti-communist ideologues and policy wonks determined not to be humiliated by Krushy and the Commies.
Supporting Kennedy’s tough-talking, pipe smoking cronies, were that elite cabal who journalists style Wise Men. The eunuchs of Foggy Bottom who the Founding Fathers would have tarred and feathered and run across the Canadian border on a rail.
At one point during the instability following Trujillo’s assassination, gunbout diplomacy was decided on and a considerable fleet assembled, including helicopter and winged aircraft carriers and troop carriers full of marines
The State Department insisted that the ships steam no closer than 100 miles from the Dominican shore. The admiral protested that a fleet that couldn’t be seen was hardly intimidating to those on shore. So after some back and forth, State relented and allowed the fleet to stand only 50 miles offshore.
Circumstances in the Island of Hispaniola proceeded of their own momentum and this farce ended with waves of American fighters screaming over Dominican rooftops.
Were the Dominicans properly intimidated? No such thing. Dominicans like their long time leader Rafael Trujillo love America. Sweet, innocent folk, they stood out in the open and waived delightedly at the American jets treating them to the air show, shouting, “Viva la Imperialistas.”
Funny stuff except that Trujillo was butchered as were, in their turn his six assassins. And all because Kennedy and company along with the eunuchs at State were panicked by the success of Castro.
25. Sebastian Shaw:
Lincoln was assassinated, too. That is not why he is an icon.
FYI to all of you conservatives: You have no credibility!! You had control for 8 years…what happened? A failed presidency. You had your chance last November…what happened? The American voter sent a very strong message that the GOP can’t seem to understand.
America doesn’t want the failed policies and idealogies of conervatives. Period.
Why can’t you get it?
Martin;
You’re the one who doesn’t ‘get it’.
Here’s a concept you won’t be able to get your mind around;
The Revolution currently happening in Iran wouldn’t be possible but for George W Bush going into Iraq.
It was that act of ousting Saddam, which started this desire for democracy on the part of the people in the middle east, in Iraq certainly… but now Iran, as well. Do not make the mistake of thinking the two situations so isolated from each other. Being neighboring countries with less than well-protected borders, news of what’s changed for the better in Iraq has doubtless started filtering across the border, person to person.
Consider the changing and rather ironic dynamics here.
For all the animosity built up on the Iran- Iraq war and before, the degree of social isolation in Iraq because of Saddam, was actually a boon… a protectant against the influence of the rest of the world, from the point of view of the Iranian regime. Similarly, Afghanistan, run as it was by the thugs, also provided Iran with Isolation they couldn’t have purchased with any price of arms or money.
That’s important for this reason: Have you ever seen a dictatorship where isolation from free people wasn’t part of the mixture that made it possible? That isolation is increasingly disappearing.
I’ve suggested in the past that this was part of the reason for going into Iraq in the first place; to start that ball rolling. The momentum of history has changed as a result of that act of Bush in Iraq. It has spread to Iran, now, and best the Iranian regime can hope for is to delay it for a while, regardless of how this situation works out in the shorter term. The genie is out of the bottle, now.
Word about what is possible under a greater degree of individual freedom is hardly information that will be passed between the Iran Iraq and Afghanistan that existed as little as a decade ago. It can now, though, and we see the result. Islamic Extremeism is no longer flousihing, there.
Pakistan, now finds itself in a fight for it’s life with the extremists, but it does seem one they’ll win. Syria, is now isolated from other extremist states,Hamas driven by Syria and ruling Lebenon until recently through Hamas has been removed form power in Lebenon and so Syria will be increasingly unable to aid the cause of the extremists in any significant way. Eventually the pressure there will build to the point where it has in Iran, and freedom will take root there, as well. You think this a failure? I don’t.
Meanwhile, Obama won’t speak up, even denying moral support to the freedom seekers in Iran.
I’d call THAT a failed presidency, but then again, that’s me And about 70% of the rest of the country too. If you don’t understand any of that, may I suggest you address your questions to WSB’s morning man?
David Levavi:
Again, no argument. I think, though, you misread MY intent. Notice that in both the case of JFK and the case of Reagan, we didn’t go to war. Indeed, other than speaking out, not much else was required in those cases; speaking up for liberty was enough. Speaking the truth is enough. Moral support if you will.
Obama can’t bring himself to do that even in the defesnse of liberty. Understand, I’m not holding JFK up as an icon by any means, though I’m sure some of my readers, here will… Martin for example leaps to mind. But that I hold him as low as I do, furthers, not lessens my point… even he knew what was what, enough to speak the truth. Obama doesn’t.
Obidiot has the greatest opportunity here to affect ‘change’ and open doors for purposeful discussion regards issues in Middle East and also of Iran’s nuclear weapon aspirations. Sitting by idly with his thumb up his boney arse, thinking he has ‘wisdom’… is feckless ignorance. Then our state run propaganda arm just continues it’s totally irresponsible and blinkered, cowardly, bullshit fawning… Americans are in no better shape than the Iranian protesters… We just haven;t taken to the streets screaming… …yet!
He feels no passion for freedom. His silence speaks volumes. Probably sides with the mullahs. I am of the mind that an American president should verbalize support and solidarity for oppressed people seeking freedom and a better life. Isn’t that what we are all about here? He does not need to send tanks and guns. Just a few “we are with you ” words would be appropriate. He is no champion of liberty. He is too busy trying to erode it here on the homefront. I hope the Iranians can get the idea via the internet that we the people here are watching with interest and are championing for them. I would love to see them overthrow their government and establish a democracy. Obama should look at the streets of Tehran and get a little nervous. If he keeps up what he is doing the streets of DC will look similar.
TO: Eric Florack, et al.
RE: Obama Cannot Speak….
….strongly in support of the protesters.
Why?
Because he may be facing such protests on the streets of America come the 2010 election.
Think about it…..
….why have the Democrats been so strong on electronic voting machines?
In my personal opinion, it’s because you can fake a ballot on those. Whereas a paper ballot turned in by a person properly identified as being eligible to vote is much more difficult to fake.
The Democrats and Obama cannot afford to lose the 2010 election of Congress. And in light of all the damage Obama has done to the country in just the first six months of his ‘administration’….and the likelihood that the damage will be even worse by the next election….Congress will most likely change hands from Democrats to conservatives. Republican or not makes no difference to me.
Therefore, I give it a high probability that they will make every effort to ‘steal’ the election. Just like the mullahs have done in Iran in order to maintain THEIR control of the country. In which case, we’ll see such civil disorders taking place in Tehran on the streets of America.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Be Prepared -- motto of the Boy Scouts of America]
34. Eric Florack:
This is a great deal of back and forth for two people basically in agreement.
Obama is a third world leader. He is guided by popular political fashion and that fashion is leftist. He is a shallow internationalist who doesn’t appreciate what makes the nation he presides over special. Worst of all he imagines himself morally and intellectually superior to the citizens he serves.
Obama spiritually vapid and far too sophisticated to be religious himself he is deeply reverent of Islam. So much cooler and funkier a faith than Christianity. So ethnic and indigenous. So angry and in-your-face. Great costumes, too. Aleikem Salaaam, brutha.
Obama doesn’t speak out for freedom or democracy because he has no reverence for freedom or democracy. Otherwise, he wouldn’t grovel before the Saudi king or call the decrepit religious dictator holding the Iranian people hostage Iran’s “Supreme Leader.”
Our president belongs to the Democratic Party but he is not generically a democrat. He is a constitutional lawyer but has no appreciation of the brilliance and towering moral spirit of the Founding Fathers. In his guts, Obama is rooting for the ayatollahs.
34. Eric Florack:
Just got back from a weekend camping trip without media. The underlying point of my last comment is articulated more clearly by Victor Davis Hanson in the second of his reasons why Obama hasn’t spoken out for the dissidents in Iran.
I’m sorry if this sounds patently racist but I sincerely believe that there are a set of clearly identifiable prejudices held in common by African Americans of every economic and social stratum. Moreover that these prejudices are shame-based and rooted mainly in ignorance–often willful–of true history.
The belief that Europeans are more broadly and more cruelly racists than Orientals is merely one of these. The related absurdity that black people flourished under Islam is another.
For Barack Obama, as for many other African Americans, there is not much daylight between Christianity and Islam. No more than there is between the Reverend Wright and the Reverend Farrakhan.
Obama’s fresh new approach toward Islam requires a large show of respect for Islamic tradition. The mullahs and the ayatollahs in their turbans and flowing robes represent that tradition. The dissidents do not. They’re just pro Western same old, same old. Insufficiently ethnic and funky.
In his heart of hearts, Obama favors the authoritarian and traditional Muslim clerics. And for the shallowest of reasons.
David:
(shrug) Good conversation goes that way, sometimes.
I’ll assume the small d on democrat is by intent, in which case, I’ll agree with you. If, on the other hand the lack of capitalization is an oversight on your part, I will stoutly disagree. I will suggest to you that the reason that he is so popular among democrats even after the last six months, is that what he is is what the majority of the Democrat party has become.
Chuck:
Actually the thought occurs to me that given his reaction to Iran, and the number of enemies in this country he’s made over that sorry response he’s just about assured himself mobs of angry protesters com 2010, and 2012.
It’s interesting that you should mention that. I was just now working on a piece with regards to ACORN. The implication there should be rather obvious.
TO: All
RE: Heh
I just read a collection of bumper-stickers sent me by one of my comrades-in-arms.
It’s got a bunch of ‘keepers’, but I like this one the best….
Don’t blame me. I voted for the American.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[But soft, what light through yonder bumper sticker breaks?]