Monday, June 29, 2009

Zelaya to address UN assembly on Tuesday

From the AP
Two days after his ouster as Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya will appear before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday seeking support among its 192 member nations.

Zelaya plans to address the assembly that serves as a forum for world debate at 11 a.m. (1500 GMT), said Enrique Yeves, a spokesman for Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann...

D'Escoto invited Zelaya to make the address at U.N. headquarters...

President Barack Obama on Monday declared that the United States still considers Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and described the military coup that forced him into exile as "not legal."...
I wonder if Obama will make a special appearance at the UN Tuesday to demonstrate his solidarity with the
corrupt former Honduran president. [and maybe Obama could invite Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to join him]

On Sunday, Mr. Brockmann issued
a press release, accusing Barack Obama of being behind the coup:

"D’Escoto is making a special appeal to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who recently at the summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, announced a new policy towards Latin America. 'Many are now asking if this coup is part of this new policy as it is well known that the army in Honduras has a history of total collaboration with the United States. In order to eliminate any doubt, it is absolutely necessary that President Obama immediately condemns the coup against President Zelaya.'"
I wonder if Mr. Brockmann's press relase had any bearing on Obama's decision to denounce the coup.


Enzi & Hatch request Hearing over Obama's Dismissal of AmeriCorps IG

Sens. Mike Enzi and Orrin Hatch on Monday asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, to conduct a congressional hearing over the recent firing of the National Service Agency's inspector general, Gerald Walpin:
"We have asked for information from the White House counsel and CNCS, but they have not been forthcoming to date nor willing to commit to a time frame," the senators said in a letter to Kennedy.

A Kennedy spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, said the senator's office was reviewing the request.

It is Time for Obama to Admit the Truth

Perhaps some of you were a bit skeptical upon reading a recent statement issued by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary, Sheikh Naim Qassem, indicating that the Obama administration had tried to reach out to Hezbollah. But I was not the least bit skeptical.

Clearly, President Obama has indicated a willingness in the past to talk with the Iranian regime and even to negotiate indirectly with Hamas. Obama unequivocally believes in the merit of talking with rogue regimes and their terrorist beneficiaries. He is, reluctant, though, to talk openly and directly with terrorist leaders until they've become part of an established government in the country in which they reside. Which is why he'll readily admit to reaching out to Iran, but won't admit that he has indirectly communicated with various terrorist organizations.

But several weeks ago, it was not yet clear who would win the elections in Lebanon. There was a strong possibility that Hezbollah could emerge with the majority of votes. Thus, prior to the elections, Obama, in all likelihood, communicated indirectly with Hezbollah, to pave the way for more direct negotiations in the event it would emerge victorious, and perhaps even without that stipulation, since Hezbollah is already officially part of the Lebanese government.

Obama's overtures to Hezbollah should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with his philosophy. In Obama's view, the terrorists are no different than anyone else, consequently, they can be cajoled into joining the civilized world by means of negotiation and by addressing their purported grievances.

For example, if the US were to guarantee the Mullocracy that it would not seek regime change in Iran, the Mullahs would no longer pursue their diabolical agenda of transforming the world into an extremist Islamic caliphate. That is the Obama doctrine in a nutshell. And that is why Obama and his minions have reached out, and may be still reaching out, to Hezbollah at this very moment.

There is only one exception to the president's madness: So far, Obama has shown no indication that he'd be willing to talk with Al Qaeda. Perhaps, because, unlike the other terrorist entities which he is so eager to cavort with, Obama perceives Al Qaeda as unbendable and unmalleable in its evil ideologies. Or, perhaps because Obama realizes that talking with Al Qaeda is the one line that even his Liberal constituents would never let him cross.

Nevertheless, as I've noted on several occasions, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been, and are still intimately connected to the Iranian regime, the very regime which Obama has been cozying up to.

According to the 9/11 commission's findings:
Between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001....

Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000....

Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S....
And then, of course, there is the following caveat from the State Department's annual report on terrorism, released last month:
Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives....

Iran continues to rely primarily on its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force to clandestinely cultivate and support terrorist and Islamic militant groups abroad... The Qods Force continued to provide lethal support to select Iraqi militant groups that target U.S., Iraqi and Coalition forces. Iranian weapons transfers to select Taliban members in Afghanistan in 2008 continued to threaten Afghan and NATO troops operating under UN mandate and undermine stabilization efforts in that country....
And today there is more evidence coming out of Azerbaijan that Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are all intimately connected:
The Court of Grave Crimes has today held hearing on the case of Lebanese and Azerbaijani citizens, who are accused of having links to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps of Iran (IRGC) and attempting to commit terror attacks in Azerbaijan, APA reports...

According to the indictment, leaders of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah gave instructions to the citizens of Lebanon Karaki Ali Mahammad, Nejmeddin Ali Huseyn and sent them to Azerbaijan. They were ordered to commit terror attacks in Azerbaijan...
Thus, the question arises: When will Obama finally concede [to what George W. Bush had been trying to knock into his head the past 8 years] that Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and other terrorist off-shoots are all intmately connected with one another and are all one and the same?

Sadly - knowing Obama - he probably never will concede!

Iraqis Concerned about their future, despite Obama's assurance that Iran will protect them

President Obama's decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq is not sitting well with many Iraqis, who are concerned about their country's future, despite Obama's pledge to enlist the help of the Iranian regime to stabilize Iraq.

Sitting in his small room in northern Baghdad, a pistol nearby and assault rifles stacked under the bed, Khalil Ibrahim is worried over Iraq's future.

Six years after the U.S. invasion, Iraqis are contemplating the reality of life after a major milestone -- Tuesday's withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from urban centers.

Glancing at his seven-year-old son playing a war game on a computer in the corner, Ibrahim, a chain-smoking former military intelligence officer, [expressed his concerns].

"Iran has good relations with our political parties. They run militias. If the U.S. troops complete their withdrawal, Iran will do whatever it wants in Iraq," he said, scowling.

Shi'ite-ruled Iran is often accused of arming and funding Shi'ite militias who have killed Sunnis...
Needless to say, I'm a bit surprised at Mr. Ibrahim - for two reasons:

First of all, he should respect the Islamic Republic's sovereignty and refrain from meddling in Iran's external affairs.

Secondly, if President Obama believes that Iran has an important role to play in bringing stability to Iraq, who is Mr. Ibrahim to say otherwise?

Bear in mind that the Iranian government is doing a remarkable job in securing its own future by cracking down on the protesters who are trying to destabilize the brutal regime. Thus, I think Obama is correct in assuming that the Mullocracy is also quite capable of securing and stabilizing Iraq.

And, finally, who is better equipped to make decisions regarding the fate and security of Iraq? Mr. Ibrahim, a mere military intelligence officer? Or, Barack Obama, who has years of community organizing under his belt?

Don't even bother answering that one, it's a no-brainer!

Friday, June 26, 2009

Hezbollah working with Iranian Regime in post-election crackdown

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday told reporters that invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies around the world. However, after receiving heavy criticism over the matter, the Obama administration, on Wednesday, finally decided to rescind the invitation.

Yesterday, the AFP quoted the Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General as saying that the US officials close to the Obama administration had asked to speak with Hezbollah.

However, according to recent reports coming out of Iran, Hezbollah operatives are currently assisting the Iranian regime in its brutal suppression of Iranian protesters. Thus, the question arises: Will the Obama administration rescind its offer to meet with Hezbollah, or will it continue to reach out to the terrorist organization, and perhaps, even treat the thugs to a July 4 barbecue?

From UK reporter, Robert Tait:
The man, who has come from a small town in the eastern province of Khorasan and has never been in Tehran before, says he is being paid 2m rial (£122) to assault protesters with a heavy wooden stave. He says the money is the main incentive as it will enable him to get married and may even enable him to afford more than one wife.

Leadership of the volunteers has been provided by a man known only as "Hajji", who has instructed his men to "beat the counter-revolutionaries so hard that they won't be able to stand up".

The volunteers, most of them from far-flung provinces such as Khuzestan, Arak and Mazandaran, are being kept in hostel accommodation, reportedly in east Tehran. Other volunteers, he says, have been brought from Lebanon, where the Iranian regime has strong allies in the Hezbollah movement. They are said to be more highly-paid than their Iranian counterparts and are put up in hotels. The last piece of information seems to confirm the suspicion of many Iranians that foreign security personnel are being used to suppress the demonstrators....

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama Administration Reaching out to Hezbollah? - Hezbollah insists it won't meddle in Iran's Internal Affairs

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem revealed on Thursday that US officials close to the Obama administration have reached out to Hezbollah and have sought to initiate a dialog with the terrorist organization.

"Several US officials at different levels and more or less close to the administration have asked to speak with [us], but we have refused," he said. "It is useless to have any dialog with the Americans since they regard us as terrorists."

The Washington Times on Wednesday revealed that the Obama administration had recently "sent a letter to [Iran's] supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, calling for an improvement in relations." But apparently, the administration is also seeking to forge a more amiable relationship with Hezbollah.

Mr. Qassem also denied that Hezbollah was taking sides in the current conflict in Iran.

Perhaps, taking his cue from President Obama, who recently said that the US "respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs," Mr Qassem declared: "Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's internal affairs... We don't side with anyone. This is an internal Iranian issue." - Ahem

George W. Bush, Standing up for the People of Iran

Oh, how the Iranian people must be yearning for the days of old, when George W. Bush was president.

Excerpted from President Bush's address to the American Legion - Feruary 24, 2006:
Across the world freedom is on the march, and we will not rest until the promise of freedom reaches people everywhere across the globe...

It is, in large part, because people in the Middle East have been denied legitimate means to express dissent that radical extremism has flourished. And it's only by giving people in the Middle East the freedom to express their opinions and choose their leaders that we will be able to defeat radical extremism...

The international community is... speaking with one voice to the radical regime in Tehran. Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights...

We're also reaching out to the Iranian people to support their desire to be free; to build a free, democratic, and transparent society.

To support the Iranian people's efforts to win their own freedom, my administration is requesting $75 million in emergency funds to support democracy in Iran... These new funds will allow us to expand radio and television broadcasts into Iran. They will support reformers and dissidents and human rights activists..., so Iranians can organize and challenge the repressive policies of the clerical regime...

By supporting democratic change in Iran, we will hasten the day when the people of Iran can determine their own future and be free to choose their own leaders. Freedom in the Middle East requires freedom for the Iranian people, and America looks forward to the day when our nation can be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.....

The advance of liberty still faces determined enemies. [They] know the stakes in the struggle... And so they'll continue to fight freedom's progress...[They] know that the only way they can defeat us is to break our will and force our retreat. And that's not going to happen so long as I'm the President of the United States...

We'll continue to stand with people of the Middle East as they step forward to claim their freedom. We can be confident in our cause because we have seen freedom conquer tyranny and secure the peace before... And now the hope of freedom is stirring in the Middle East, and no one should bet against it.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

‘Democracy’, a dirty word for Obama?

Excerpt from the Boston Globe:

According to the AP, Egypt’s ambassador to the United States [recently] expressed satisfaction “that ties are on the mend and that Washington has dropped conditions for better relations, including demands for ‘human rights, democracy and religious and general freedoms'.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

What?! You didn't know Mousavi was a thug?!

Ed Morrissey cites a post in CQ Politics which quotes several former US officials linking then-Prime Minister of Iran, Mir Hossein Mousavi, to the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US marines.

From CQ Politics:
"The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a 'spectacular action' against the Marines," said [retired Navy Admiral James "Ace"] Lyons.

In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon."He was prime minister [in the 1980'S]," Lyons said of Mousavi, "so he didn't get down to the details at the lowest levels. "But he was in a principal position and had to be aware of what was going on."...

But [Bob] Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer whose exploits were dramatized in the George Clooney movie "Syriana," places Mousavi even closer to the Beirut bombings.

"He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah," who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was "the man largely held responsible for both attacks," Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.
Morrissey concludes:
"Yes, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I won’t do. I’d trust that he’s telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong."
Ed! What is there to question?

Last week I cited several sources that indicate just how much of a thug Mousavi really is. He was put in charge of Hezbollah operations by the late Ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini. Is there any reason not to believe Mousavi wasn't involved in the 1983 Hezbollah operation? Let me rephrase that question: Is is it even possible that Mr. Mousavi wasn't involved in the 1983 Hezbollah attack?

Let's recap what I wrote last week:

In an interview with the New York Times in 1981 Mir Hossein Mousavi defended the taking of American hostages from the US Embassy in 1979, saying “it was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution, it was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity."

Mousavi was also one of the founders of Hezbollah. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put him on the Hezbollah leadership council when the group was created in 1982-1983.

Mousavi coordinated the financing of Hezbollah and set up a scheme so that Hezbollah would get a share of Iranian oil sales.

Mousavi was also prime minister at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 when tens of thousands of political prisoners were murdered in cold blood on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Yes, Ed, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of all those sources that I've cited, which I won’t do, because I'm sure I can find a dozen other sources saying the exact same thing.

Ed! Mir Hossein Mousavi was in charge of Hezbollah and all its terrorist operations! The man is a thug and he was responsible for the attack that killed more than 240 US marines. Period!

Nevertheless, Morrissey hits the nail right on the head with the following paragraph:
Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as I’ve written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office — perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. They’ve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power...
And, that's the point! It's not about Mousavi, it's about toppling the Mullocracy, the regime, the miscreants that Obama insists on cozying up to. It's about standing up for the Iranian people, who yearn for freedom and Democracy, the very ideals that Obama scorns and refuses to propagate. It's about "Change", the very slogan that is slowly, but surely, wreaking havoc upon the entire free world.

Ed, I'm sorry about the hostile tone. I'm just a little bit piqued right now. No, you are not to blame. It's Obama.

I'm sorry.

Bush's Statement on the 2005 Iranian Presidential Elections

On the eve of the 2005 Iranian presidential elections, President Bush issued a statement calling the elections a sham and saying the elections were designed to keep power in the hands of rulers whom he said, suppress liberty at home and deny the Iranian people their basic human rights.

From VOA via Global Security - June 16, 2005:
President Bush says Friday's election in Iran is, in his words, "sadly consistent with the oppressive record of an unelected few, who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy."

In a written statement, Mr. Bush said Iran's rulers have prevented more than a thousand candidates from running in this election, including popular reformers and women, who, the president says, have done much for the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran...

[Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has campaigned in part on improving relations with the United States, is leading most opinion polls...]

In his statement, President Bush said the Iranian people deserve a truly free and democratic system, in which elections are honest...

Mr. Bush says Iranians deserve a free economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity and economic independence from the state. He says they also deserve an independent judiciary that will guarantee the rule of law and ensure equal justice for all people.

President Bush says the regime in Tehran denies all these rights. He says it shuts down independent newspapers and Web sites, and jails those who dare to challenge what he calls a corrupt system.

Mr. Bush says Americans believe in the right of the Iranian people to make their own decisions and determine their own future...
Bear in mind, that in the 2005 Iranian elections - which Bush condemned - although there were allegations of fraud, it was nothing compared to this year's allegations.

Maziar Bahari - the Newsweek reporter who was arrested by Iranian authorities earlier this week - wrote just a day before the June 12, 2009 election as follows:
According to recent... polls seen by NEWSWEEK, some 16 million to 18 million Iranians say they plan to vote for... Mir Hossein Mousavi, on June 12—compared with just 6 million to 8 million for Ahmadinejad...
Ahmadinejad ended up winning the election with nearly 63 percent of the vote.

However, to be fair with Obama, he did come out a little bit stronger against the Iranian regime in his news conference on Tuesday. But unlike Mr. Bush, he wouldn't dare come out with a full-fledged condemnation of the regime and its corrupt ways. For indeed, that would be asking too much of him.

The President on Tuesday also stated as follows:
"I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs."
Mr. President, thank you for refreshing our memories and reminding us once again about your non-meddling ways. We had almost forgotten about that, and about the utmost 'respect' you have for the Iranian regime.


President 'Hot Dog' and the art of diplomacy

The Obama administration declared earlier this month that, for the first time in nearly 30 years, it would ask US embassies around the world to invite Iranian diplomats to their July 4 barbecue celebrations, "which generally feature speeches about American values, fireworks, and, of course, hot dogs and hamburgers."

As I noted in my previous post, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters on Monday that the invitation was still standing, despite the recent crackdown on Iranian protesters. And, apparently the president's "barbecue" diplomacy seems to be having the desired effect.

Here's proof:
Iran's security forces have arrested five European spies, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Monday.

"According to the dispatched reports, two German, one British and two French spies have been arrested during the unrest in Tehran on Saturday," the Iranian Fars news agency said without elaborating on the details...

Spy accusations is a tactic routinely used by the Iranian regime when it wants to intimidate and to silence its critics.

Nevertheless, there's been no reports of any Americans being arrested on charges of espionage [since Roxana Saberi's arrest], which means the president's "barbecue" diplomacy is indeed working.

But sadly, I must confess that any glimmer of hope I had once had about the eventual collapse of the Iranian regime [including the fake, phony Mir Hussein Mousavi] has slowly dissipated.

I suppose it was a bit naive of me to even contemplate that the Iranian people would somehow manage to overthrow this ruthless regime, especially when the leader of the free world has shown that he is unwilling to throw his support behind them.

In truth, President Obama has repeatedly said that "democracy building" is not one of his major priorities. And that position was clearly evident when he refused to support the Iranian protesters.

Hence, I now believe that the Mullocracy is here to stay and that the Obama administration and the Iranian regime will be eating hot dogs together for quite some time to come.......

Monday, June 22, 2009

US says Hot Dog diplomacy still on with Iran

From the AFP:
The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

"We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran," Kelly said. "We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

But he said it was not clear if Iranian diplomats had accepted the invitations.

The State Department has said that the invitations are largely a symbolic gesture of goodwill [toward the benevolent Iranian regime]......

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Newsweek Reporter, Maziar Bahari, Detained in Iran

From Newsweek:
Among the dozens of people arrested overnight in Tehran was NEWSWEEK reporter Maziar Bahari, who has covered Iran for the magazine for over a decade. Bahari was home asleep at 7 a.m. when several security officers showed up at his Tehran apartment.

According to his mother, who lives with the 41-year-old reporter and documentary filmmaker, the men did not identify themselves. They seized Bahari's laptop and several videotapes. Assuring her that he would be their guest, they then left with Bahari. He has not been heard from since... Bahari is a dual Canadian-Iranian citizen....
It might have been Bahari's June 11th blogpost, which ticked off the Iranian regime. Here's a few excerpts from the aforementioned post:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—Holocaust denier, nuclear aspirant and the West's favorite bugbear—may soon become the ex-president of Iran. According to recent government-funded polls seen by NEWSWEEK, some 16 million to 18 million Iranians say they plan to vote for his main rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, on June 12—compared with just 6 million to 8 million for Ahmadinejad...

Perhaps they shouldn't be so surprised. Ahmadinejad's recent antics have dismayed Iranians from all walks of life. His government has responded to the global recession by hiking salaries for state employees and doling out cash to those who attend his speeches, fueling inflation and creating resentment...

Alarmed by the poll, Ahmadinejad has gone into a crouch... In the past few weeks the president's campaign has become secretive and withdrawn. His usually media-friendly advisers have turned off their cell phones and barred staffers from talking to reporters...
That might have been the post that got under their skin.

Incidentally, American journalist, Roxana Saberi had been detained in an Iranian jail cell for several months before she was finally released, despite the fact that Barack Obama had been extremely cordial with the Mullahs. But unlike President Obama, the Canadian government has been harshly critical of the Iranian regime over it's post election thuggery, which means, Mr. Bahari could end up being incarcerated even longer than Roxana Saberi.

As of yet, I haven't heard of any American journalists being detained since the election results were announced.

Nevertheless, all US journalists in Iran should be forewarned:

Barack Obama isn't the "meddling" type and he certainly doesn't want "to be seen as meddling" in Iran's internal affairs. So, if you rile up the Mullahs and get incarcerated, you're on your own, my friends!

Obama: Iranian Protests vs. the Civil Rights Protests

"I'm [often] reminded of this image. It's the image of young Americans - teenagers and college kids not much older than you... watching the Civil Rights Movement unfold before them on their television sets. I imagine... they... probably saw... the footage of innocent people being beaten within an inch of their lives...

"Instinctively, they knew that it was safer... to watch the movement from afar. But somewhere in their hearts, they also understood... that what was happening was wrong; and that they had an obligation to make it right. And so when the buses pulled up for a Freedom Ride down South, they got on. And they rode... And they changed the world...

"As Robert F. Kennedy once told a crowd of South Africans no older than you, "The world demands... a predominance of courage over timidity..."
Barack Obama discussing the Civil Rights protests at the Campus Progress Annual Conference - July 12, 2006

"It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."
Barack Obama discussing the rigged election results in Iran and the ensuing protests in which scores of Iranians have been beaten and killed - June 16, 2009

"I imagine... they... probably saw... the footage of innocent people being beaten within an inch of their lives... Instinctively, they knew that it was safer... to watch the movement from afar. But somewhere in their hearts, they also understood... that what was happening was wrong; and that they had an obligation to make it right......."

Obama Fiddling with Iran?

Photoshop courtesy of, Slublog, via Ace of Spades.

David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton official, once likened Barack Obama's political ideology and his method of choosing cabinet members to a violin player:

“This is the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right," he explained.

Sadly, Mr. Rothkopf's analogy with regards to the President's political ideology and his cabinet appointees is completely off the mark. But the analogy does seem to fit in well with the way Obama's been handling the recent crisis in Iran, as you can see from the photo above.


Jimmy Carter: the true father of the Islamic Revolution

Debka is reporting that a recent foiled assassination plot against former president Jimmy Carter - during his visit to Gaza last week- was perpetrated by a Palestinian al Qaeda cell.
DEBKAfile's military sources confirm that the Army of Islam, the Palestinian al Qaeda cell in Gaza tried to assassinate former US president Jimmy Carter by planting a 200-kilo bomb in the path of his exit through the Erez crossing after he held sympathetic talks with its Hamas rulers.

Hamas sappers defused the device but later denied it was there.

Carter promises to urge President Barack Obama to remove the Palestinian extremist organization [Hamas] from the US list of designated terrorists.

Our sources note that US citizens are forbidden to enter the Gaza Strip and West Bank for fear Hamas or other Palestinian groups, including those linked to al Qaeda, will take them hostage. Carter got around the ban by entering with a UN escort.
It should also be noted, that it was Jimmy Carter who laid the groundwork for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's take over of Iran in 1979.

Excerpted from the Canada Free Press:

While [former president, Jimmy] Carter was visiting his favorite terrorists [last week], all hell was breaking loose on the streets of Tehran. This seemed a fitting background to his meeting Middle East shenanigans, since Jimmy is really the father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the rule of the nutcase mullahs.

Let’s remember Jimmy’s record in the White House. As soon as Carter assumed the oath of office, the White House became peopled with characters out of Li’l Abner’s Dog-patch..., including his beer-guzzling brother Billy, who came to receive a mysterious payment of $2.5 million from the Libyan government...

Before Jimmy entered the White House, America’s closest friend and ally in the Muslim world was Iran’s Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ascended to the Peacock Throne as shah (the Persian word for king) in 1941.

The shah modernized Iran by launching the so-called “white revolution,” a massive attempt to Westernize the Persian country through the construction of roads, railways, airports..., public health, education, and welfare programs...

By the 1960s, Iran’s back-alley bazaars became transformed into Fifth Avenue shops. Rock ‘n roll blared from the radio stations. Movie theaters showed the latest Hollywood flicks, and programs...

But not all Iranians were pleased with the changes. The Shi’ite clerics viewed the democratic changes as diabolic. The straw that broke the camel’s back came with the shah’s democratic ruling that Iranian officials were free to take their oath of office on whatever holy scripture they preferred.. The mullahs under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rose to condemn the shah in mosques and seminaries and to demand his removal from the throne.

Enter Jimmy Carter. Instead of supporting America’s ally, Jimmy, true to his form as a turncoat, supported the Ayatollah as a “fellow man of religion.” Andrew Young, Carter’s ambassador to the UN, went so far as to call Khomeini, who sanctioned sex with cows and camels, a “misunderstood saint.”

When Khomeini launched his evil revolution, Carter refused to provide the shah with any kind of military assistance despite the pleading of the shah. Instead, Jimmy demanded that he release from prison all the murderous mullahs and militant radicals who were bound and determined to overthrow the government and to impose an intransigent interpretation of shariah (Muslim law) on every Iranian. The shah acquiesced to this demand and the rest is history.

The Ayatollah - - Carter’s misunderstood saint - - came to power and launched a bloodbath that resulted in the deaths of twenty-thousand pro-Western Iranians. Churches and synagogues were razed, cemeteries desecrated, and shrines vandalized and demolished.... To top things off, the Muslim militants overran the U.S. embassy in Tehran and seized sixty Americans as hostages.

Good ole Jimmy responded by his infamous “malaise speech” of July 15, 1979 in which the former peanut former expressed his belief that America had lost its guts and remained in a state of near senility. The shah was treated by the Carter White House as a pariah...

The Islamic Revolution in Iran fanned the flames of jihad throughout the world and gave birth to al Qaeda [the organization that reportedly tried to bump off Mr. Carter in Gaza last week] and hundreds of other Muslim terror groups.

In recent years, the former peanut farmer has been cultivating friendships with such rabid anti-American dictators as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il.

Sound familiar?
And now Jimmy, ever true to form, is demanding that we embrace Hamas and Hezbollah as our friends - - just as he embraced the crazed Khomeini and the mad mullahs.

Thanks, Jimmy, but no thanks.
Read the full article

Meanwhile, President Obama refuses to "meddle" in the Iranian Mullah's internal affairs. What's more, he thinks "it's a disgrace" that the US has refused to talk with the Iranian regime.

'Birds of a feather', indeed!

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Ahmadinejad linked to 1989 Kurdish killings in Austria

Peter Pilz, the Austrian Green party's spokesman on security, recently accused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of taking part in the July 12, 1989 assassinations of Mr. Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou -- the Secretary- General of the Iranian Kurdish Democratic Party -- and two of his colleagues in Vienna, Austria.

"I have no doubt he was involved", said Pilz, adding that Ahmadinejad may have pulled the trigger on one of the guns used to kill the men:

Pilz said new eye-witnesses had come forward who had identified Ahmadinejad as being involved in the assassination of Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran chief Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, his deputy Abdullah Ghaderi-Azar and Austria-born Fadel Rasoul on 13 July 1989.

He said a German weapons dealer had told Austrian investigators there had been a meeting in the Iranian embassy in Vienna during the first week of July 1989 at which a certain "Mohamed" who later became president of Iran had been present.The dealer said the purpose of the embassy meeting had been to discuss illegal arms deliveries.

Pilz claimed there had been two Iranian teams involved in the assassinations - a negotiations team and an execution team. Pilz said Ahmadinejad had been responsible for gathering and preparing the weapons used and had been a member of the execution team. Pilz said he had passed on documents on the case that had been translated into German to the interior ministry and the state prosecutor’s office.

Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr has also claimed Ahmadinejad had belonged to the execution team in Vienna, and a number of media reports implicated him in the murder of the three Kurds.

The Iranians suspected of having killed the Kurds took refuge in the Iranian embassy after the murders and were allowed to leave Austria after the Austrian government came under massive pressure from the Iranian government.

Austrian authorities, who maintain close economic ties with Iran, have never commented on whether Ahmadinejad was in Vienna at the time of Ghassemlou's assassination.

Incidentally, several former hostages of the 1979 US Embassy Crisis in Iran claimed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had played a major role in their abduction.

Sadly, Ahmadinejad's challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is not much of a saint either.

Mousavi began his political career as a hard-liner and a favorite of the revolution's architect, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

In an interview with the New York Times in 1981 Mousavi defended the taking of American hostages from the US Embassy in 1979, saying “it was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution, it was after this that we rediscovered our true Islamic identity."

As prime minister of Iran [1981-1989], Mousavi approved of Iran's effort to purchase nuclear technology from Pakistan.

Mousavi was also one of the founders of Hezbollah. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put him on the Hezollah leadership council when the group was created in 1982-1983.

Mousavi coordinated the financing of Hezbollah and set up a scheme so that Hezbollah would get a share of Iranian oil sales.

Mousavi was also prime minister at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 when tens of thousands of political prisoners were murdered in cold blood on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Mr. Mousavi's heinous past is undoubtedly what prompted Pro-democracy groups to call on Iranians to boycott the recent elections, with one group saying, “this is a selection, not an election.”

Thus, the question arises: Which one of the two - Mr. Ahmadinejad or Mr. Mousavi - is the lesser of two evils?

Who knows. Both of these thugs have blood on their hands.

Nevertheless, President Obama has said that he'd be willing to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions [and undoubtedly, he'd be willing to meet with Mr. Mousavi too].

"I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to [Mr. Ahmadinejad]," Obama lamented during the presidential campaign.

Obama also has insisted that he would not meddle in Iran's internal affairs - despite the recent deaths of scores of protesters at the hands of the Iranian regime - ostensibly, because prying into the regime's internal affairs would be even more disgraceful than not speaking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.....

Friday, June 19, 2009

Promises, Promises: Obama's health plan

From the AP:
President Barack Obama seems to leave little room for doubt when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge...

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said Monday, addressing the American Medical Association. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

He didn't let up.

"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

Yet the legislation the Obama administration is working on with the Democratic-controlled Congress would make major changes in how Americans pay for health care. The goal is to slow cost increases and bring in nearly 50 million uninsured, and the consequences are bound to affect how employers design benefit plans.

Americans could be headed for a frugal era in which doctors order fewer tests and procedures and insurers monitor medical decisions more closely.

Earlier this week, a preliminary analysis by Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance under a Democratic plan that a Senate committee is working on, because their employers would no longer offer coverage...

Obama's opponent in last year's presidential election, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, declared: "I don't believe this is a promise the president can keep."

Neutral observers are also skeptical. Dallas Salisbury, head of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, called Obama's promise "an aspirational statement."

"If he was a king, he would deliver that, but he's not king," said Salisbury. [Salisbury's]group is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse on health and pension benefits...

White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance...
From the Foundry:
Depending on how the public plan is designed in Congress, millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage. By opening the public plan to all employees and using Medicare rates, the Lewin Group, a nationally prominent econometrics firm, has said that the public plan could result in 119.1 million Americans being transitioned out of private coverage, including employer based coverage, into a public plan....
Promises, Promises.......

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Cannon the Meddler, Obama the Appeaser

President Obama on Tuesday explained his relative public silence with regard to the political situation in Iran, saying, "It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling" in Iran's internal affairs.

But apparently, Canadian Foreign Minister, Lawrence Cannon is not all that worried about meddling in Iran's internal affairs or challenging the Iranian regime:

From CBC News:
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Canada will not remain silent on the political situation in Iran after Tehran added Canada to a list of countries that it says is meddling in its internal affairs.

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called Canada's chargé d'affaires in Tehran to a meeting on Thursday, reportedly complaining that Canada has been spouting meddlesome comments and decrying media coverage of the outcome of Friday's presidential election...

"He was told the same thing that every other chargé has been told: 'Stay out of our politics,'" Cannon told CBC News. "And we will not. We will continue to promote democracy. We will continue to challenge Iran on human rights."

"These are things that are extremely important and it’s incumbent upon us to continue to do that."...

Cannon had earlier denounced the "brutal treatment" of protesters while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada "finds the behavior of the regime unacceptable in so many ways that I cannot even begin to name them."
From the AFP:
Canada is "extremely concerned by the brutality that is taking place in Iran at this period in time, and we have called upon the Iranians to cease this (violence)," said Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon.

Cannon also called for a full and "transparent" investigation of Friday's presidential election results.
But Obama, well, I suppose when it comes to rogue regimes, he's just not a "meddling" type of guy.......

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Obama & McCain, Then and Now

Barack Obama and John McCain Then:
"I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict."
Barack Obama's initial response after Russia sent troops and tanks into the former Soviet state of Georgia - August 2008

"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory."
John McCain's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia - August 2008
Barack Obama and John McCain Now:
"It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."
Barack Obama's response to the [rigged] election in Iran and the ensuing protests - June 16, 2009

"[Obama] should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights."
John McCain commenting on the election in Iran, the ensuing protests and Obama's subsequent response - June 16, 2009

More Indications Obama Bought off Palau with Increased Economic Aid

From the AP:

A group of Guantanamo detainees expected to be resettled in Palau may not want to move to the remote Pacific nation, a Palauan official said Wednesday.

Last weekend, Palau sent a fact-finding team to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to meet with the 13 Uighurs — Turkic Muslims from China's far western Xinjiang region — and assess their needs.

The Uighurs appear reluctant to temporarily resettle in Palau, said Joshua Koshiba, who leads a committee on U.S.-Palau relations. He has been in contact with the team since their trip.

Possibly only one Uighur wants to move to Palau, he said, without providing details of the discussions.

"You and me, we thought this was between the U.S. and Palau," Koshiba said. "But they have their own lawyers, and they have rights."

Koshiba leads a committee negotiating the ongoing Compact of Free Association [aka, the economic aid package] between the U.S. and Palau.

The four-member fact-finding team, sent by the committee, had initially traveled to Washington as part of talks to renew that agreement, which governs U.S.-Palau relations. They detoured to Cuba after Palau agreed last week to President Barack Obama's request to take the men as part of plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Apparently, the country of Palau ain't good enough for the 13 remaining Uighurs who would prefer to join their buddies in the tropical island of Bermuda. But of course, when you're staying in a high class resort like Gitmo, why settle for a dinky little island like Palau?

Nevertheless, it should also be noted as follows:

The fact-finding team from Palau which met with the 13 Uighurs in Gitmo, were originally part of the committee which traveled to Washington to negotiate Palau's economic aid package. As part of the ensuing [economic] negotiations, or after the negotiations had ended, they were then sent by the committee on a fact-finding mission to Gitmo where they met with the Uighurs to "assess their needs".

Which seems to suggest - contrary to the State Department's statement on the matter - what many have been saying all along: That Paula agreed to accept the Uighurs only after the Obama administration had bought it off with a hefty economic-aid package, exceeding - according to some reports - $200 million.

Related Posts:
Palau Negotiator intimates Money played a role in Uighurs deal

Obama frees 4 Al Qaeda Thugs, but he'll defeat Al Qaeda anyway, so he says

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Bermudian Premier Denounced as a Dictator for acting Unilaterally

From Reuters:
Hundreds of protesters called for Bermudian Premier Ewart Brown to step down on Tuesday and accused him of acting like a dictator in allowing four Guantanamo prisoners from China to settle on the mid-Atlantic island.

Some 600 people gathered outside Parliament in the island's capital Hamilton, waving banners and chanting "Brown must go" as they marched to the Cabinet office...

The United States last week sent to the British territory four members of China's Muslim Uighur minority who had been held at the Guantanamo prison camp... U.S. politicians blocked efforts to release them in the United States.

The British government complained that it had not been consulted about the deal and questioned whether Brown had authority to admit the Uighurs.

In Bermuda, opponents who had earlier accused Brown of autocracy also condemned him for acting unilaterally.
Reminds me of a post I wrote last week about this episode, entitled, "Obama's Unilateral Foreign Policy, a far cry from Bush's Multilateral Approach".
Janice Battersbee, who described herself as a lifelong supporter of Brown's Progressive Labour Party, stepped up to the microphone when Brown invited the protesters to send a representative to speak.

"The leadership of this country seems to be on a course heading toward dictatorship that the majority of Bermudians are no longer willing to tolerate," Battersbee said.

"This latest action is the final straw. We are fed up, disgusted, disrespected and angry."
Interesting, indeed. If the Bermudians are calling their own Premier an autocrat and a dictator for acting unilaterally, I wonder what words they would use to describe President Obama, the one who sent the Uighurs to Bermuda - unilaterally - without the consent of both the British government and the Bermudian people?

Hmmm. I could only imagine.....

Monday, June 15, 2009

Palau Negotiator intimates Money played a role in Uighurs deal

"Any independent thinking person will say (the Uighurs) will have an effect (on the compact review) [economic aid package from Washington] despite the fact that the politicians say it has nothing to do with it."
Joshua Koshiba, head of Palau's negotiating team with Washington - Monday, June 15.

The Obama administration recently negotiated a new economic aid package with Palau that could exceed $200 million.

US State Dept. officials and Palau President Johnson Toribiong, however, insist that the aid is not tied in any way to Palau's recent agreement to accept 4 Uighur detainees. But apparently, Mr. Koshiba thinks otherwise.

Mr. Koshiba, after all, is the head of Palau's negotiating team with Washington, so I assume he knows what he's talking about, despite what the politicians are saying.

Nevertheless, it's heartwarming to see the Obama administration and the former detainees working in tandem to craft a generous stimulus package for Palau. Obama is proving once again that he indeed is a global leader of the first order.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Hypocrite Panetta Lambasts Cheney, but Refuses to Criticize Obama

In a recent interview with the New Yorker Magazine, CIA director, Leon Panetta lambasted former Vice President Dick Cheney over remarks he made during a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21.

Cheney, in the aforementioned speech, defended the Bush administration's "enhanced" interrogations of al Qaeda prisoners and asserted that Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility made “the American people less safe”. Cheney also called the decision "recklessness cloaked in righteousness.”

The New Yorker Magazine goes on to say that Mr. Panetta had learned "the details of Cheney’s speech when he arrived in his office, on the seventh floor of the agency’s headquarters. An hour earlier, he had been standing at the side of President Barack Obama, who was giving a speech at the National Archives, in which he argued that America could 'fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law'."

Panetta, according to the New Yorker Magazine, 'responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor'. “I think he [Cheney] smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue," said Panetta. "It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

But the question begs to be answered: When Panetta stated that "I think Cheney smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue", was he not, in essence, conceding that there, in fact, is "some blood in the water" to be smelled as a result of Barack Obama's perilous policies?

And here's another question that's begging for an answer: In his speech to the National Archives - delivered shortly before Mr. Cheney's address [as CNN noted at the time, Obama's speech preceded Cheney's] - Obama stated that President Bush had made America less safe by keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

"Rather than keeping us safer," Obama argued, "the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security."

Why then, did Leon Panetta and the rest of the Liberal elite denounce Mr. Cheney's remarks, when Obama himself - just moments earlier, in the presence of Leon Panetta - had uttered remarks that were identical to Mr. Cheney's.

What's more, during the Bush presidency as well, Barack Obama consistently accused Mr. Bush of making decisions that left America less safe.

Case in point: On July 15, 2007, Obama stated as follows:

“We could have significantly reduced our risks had we pursued better polices over the last several years. As a consequence of bad decisions, we are more at risk and less safe than we should have been at this point..."

But truth be told, there is a marked distinction between Cheney's critique of Obama and Obama's criticism of Mr. Bush:

Mr. Cheney - as Leon Panetta inadvertently and foolishly conceded - "smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue" as a result of Barack Obama's asinine policies. Barack Obama, on the other hand, never did smell any blood in the water during Bush's presidency. For indeed, Mr. Bush consistently stood firm against the terrorists, hence, there was never any blood in the water to be smelled.

Thus, Obama's criticism of Mr. Bush - a president who refused to kowtow to terrorists - was nothing more than a subterfuge, a scare tactic, campaign rhetoric at its worst. Conversely, Mr. Cheney's critique of Obama is based on veritable facts, hard truths and a political reality that is staring all of us right in the face.....

Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama's Unilateral Foreign Policy, a far cry from Bush's Multilateral Approach

Yesterday I cited an article from Reuters which stated that the British government had expressed anger over the Obama administration's decision to release 4 Uighur detainees from Guantanamo bay into the Caribbean island of Bermuda, a British overseas territory.

The Reuters piece went on to say that "in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, the State Department said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the matter with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday. However, Reuters added "when asked if U.S. authorities had consulted the British government, [a State Department] official said: "We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane."...


Today the Guardian UK writes:
Taken by surprise by news of the Uighurs arrival, Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, is understood to have had an uneasy telephone conversation with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, about why London was not told...

A senior Labour MP accused the US of "riding roughshod" over British legal rights in pursuit of its own interests.

"The proper authority here is the British government and the US should have consulted with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before they did anything of this kind," Mike Gapes, the chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

"I wonder what promises have been given to the Bermudans, potentially about going a bit soft on the tax haven status or something else as a quid pro quo."
Well, Mr Gapes, I'm sure you are aware of the cash handouts that Obama is handing out to Bermuda. If not, you can read my previous post for more information on the whole quid pro quo deal.

Apparently, Mr Obama has decided to take a unilateral approach with regards to his foreign policy decisions, clearly straying from the multilateral approach of his predecessor George W. Bush, who closely coordinated his foreign policy decisions with America's long-time European allies.

Ah yes, but who can forget what Obama said back in April at a town hall speech in Strasbourg, France:
Mr. Obama directly addressed the strain between America and Europe over the past several years, saying the relationship has drifted...

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world… there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive," he said... "I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership."
"Renew our partnership"? Heh....

Oh, and here's another interesting quote from Obama's speech:
"I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al Qaeda is still a threat."
Nevertheless, now that Obama is president, the four released Uighurs - who once trained in Osama Bin Laden's camps in Tora Bora - are apparently no longer a threat.

Aren't you glad Mr. Bush is no longer president?

Obama has "rebooted our image" abroad, eh?

Praise the Messiah!

From a March 2008 article in the Telegraph UK, entitled, 'Barack Obama 'will repair image of US in UK':
America needs to work hard to regain the trust of the British public..., a senior adviser to Barack Obama says today.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Samantha Power, who is a key member of the Presidential hopeful's foreign policy team, says... "a restoration of trust will have to occur between the US Government and the British public... People still want to believe in the USA."

The "special relationship" between Britain and America would, she believes become stronger if Mr Obama won the White House because he would make voters in this country warm to the United States.

"Obama reminds people of the better angels of America," she said.

Mr Obama would also try to heal the divisions between Europe and America, caused by the war in Iraq. "Obama can go door-to-door in Europe and say, 'Look like you I opposed the war in Iraq but what are we going to do together about Al Qaeda?'"
Why not send the entire Al Qaeda organization to Bermuda, all expenses paid? [Without informing our British allies, of course.] Eh?
The United States must show more respect for international institutions, she adds. "We have to show that we know we can't do it alone...
If Mr Obama wins the Presidential race [Samantha Power] is likely to remain a powerful force.

"I'd do anything he asked me to do," she said. "It's not about working for the next President of the United States, it's Obama. If he ran General Motors I'd be working for him."
Little did she know at the time, Obama would soon be running General Motors and would eventually become GM's de facto CEO.


Thursday, June 11, 2009

Obama frees 4 Al Qaeda Thugs, but he'll defeat Al Qaeda anyway, so he says

From Reuters:

Four Chinese detainees from Guantanamo Bay arrived in Bermuda on Thursday after being freed by U.S. authorities in the Obama administration's latest move to close the controversial prison camp for terror suspects...

Attorneys for the four Muslim men, who were held for seven years before being cleared by U.S. authorities as terrorism suspects, said they will take part in Bermuda's foreign guest worker program...
What?! These thugs were "cleared by U.S. authorities as terrorism suspects"?
Their lawyers said the four men -- Huzaifa Parhat, Abdul Semet, Abdul Nasser and Jalal Jalaladiny -- never took hostile action against the United States and were sold to U.S. forces by bounty hunters.
Heh. Here's what a Department of Defense memo, has to say about Huzaifa Parhat:

The detainee is associated with al Qaida and the Taliban:

The detainee departed China in May 2001 and traveled to Tora Bora, Afghanistan via Pakistan.

The detainee received training on the Kalashnikov [sic] AK-47 assault rifle and other light weapons at a Uighur training camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan.

The training camp was provided to the Uighurs by the Taliban.

The East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) operated facilities in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in which Uighur expatriates underwent small arms training.

The camps were funded by Bin Laden and the Taliban.

The detainee lived at the Uighur training camp from early June through mid-October 2001 until the United States bombing campaign that destroyed the camp.

So he was cleared as a terrorism suspect by US authorities, aye? I don't have a good PDF reader with me right now, so I'm not going to look up the info on the other detainees, but I'm sure it's all the same deal.

Click here, if you want to read the PDF file yourselves. Clearly, this administration is outright lying about these thugs. Pathetic! But let's get back to the Reuters' article:
Britain expressed concerns about the move and said it had asked for and would help Bermuda conduct a security assessment of the four men, who do not have travel documents and cannot leave the British overseas territory.

"We have underlined to the Bermuda government that it should have consulted the United Kingdom on whether this falls within their competence or is a foreign affairs or security issue for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility," said a spokesperson for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, the State Department said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the matter with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday.
But if Hillary Clinton did indeed discuss the matter with David Miliband, how come the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London says Britain was not consulted?

Bear in mind that David Milibrand recently conducted a meeting with Hezbollah officials, so we know where he's coming from...

Back to the Reuter's piece:
When asked if U.S. authorities had consulted the British government, [a State Department] official said: "We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane."...
The State Department's got a sense of humor. Cute!

So who knows, maybe Miliband only found about the move right before the terrorists had boarded the plane. But apparently, the rest of the British government only found about it after the thugs had already arrived at their destination.

Perhaps, it was a surprise gift from Hillary to the British government. After all, who doesn't like a nice surprise!

Meanwhile, the UK's Daily Express writes:
Britain has been handed a humiliating snub by US president Barack Obama...

It emerged last night that, astonishingly, the US did not consult the UK government, which is responsible for the island’s security.
Questions: If Obama hasn't already lost favor with the Britsh people - as a result of his previous snubbing of the UK - are the Brits still fawning over him now, even after this latest incident? Has it finally dawned upon them that Obama is actually more concerned with appeasing the enemy than he is in currying favor with Britain, a staunch US ally? Hmmm?

Here's a couple of more interesting tidbits:
The tropical Pacific island nation of Palau said on Wednesday it had agreed to temporarily take the [17] Uighurs as a humanitarian gesture and to help President Barack Obama close the prison. [Now that 4 of the Uighurs have gone to Bermuda] the remaining 13 Uighurs could still go to Palau...

Palau Foreign Minister Sandra Pierantozzi was quoted as saying the United States had promised to pay $85,000 for each prisoner Palau accepts...

But wait, there's more:

In an interview with the Spiegel Online, Palau President Johnson Toribiong denied that he had agreed to accept up to 17 Uighurs in exchange for a $200 million quid pro quo payment:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: ...Two unnamed State Department officials [claim] Palau's acceptance of the refugees was part of a quid pro quo arrangement in which the US agreed to pay Palau $200 million. This allegation has been widely reported. Is it true?

TORIBIONG: It is completely spurious. We do not link this gesture of good will and humanity to the negotiations over the review of the compact of free association between Palau and the US. If we did, it would undermine the quality of our humanitarian gesture...
In other words, Palau will likely receive $200 million from the Obama administration, but it's not a quid pro quo payment. Obama just happens to have some extra money left over in his stimulus package, so why not give the Palaus some of the dough to help them stimulate their own economy?

So now you know where your tax dollars are going: To help destitute Al Qaeda thugs relocate. Sounds like a most magnanimous and charitable act, indeed.

Oh man, my eyes are tearing. Handkerchief, please....

At least we can all rest assured knowing that when Obama and his minions aren't dolling out cash to ACORN to get out the vote, they're at least dolling out millions to assist the needy. With our tax dollars, of course.

As the venerable Joe Biden is wont to say: Paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do, especially when you're assisting the destitute and the homeless.

I would prefer to call it "empathy", but "patriotic" sounds about right too.

Oh man! My eyes are tearing again...

Obama & Ahmadinejad, Redistributing the Wealth?

Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have a lot in common, at least in terms of their economic policies.

Both Obama and Ahmadinejad won their respective presidencies - Obama in '08 and Ahmadinejad in '05 - based on a platform of economic justice and wealth redistribution, and both of them have embarked on massive government spending sprees to bring about their promise of economic salvation.

Meanwhile, the Iranian president's fiscal policies have only exacerbated Iran's economic woes. Since taking office Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has engaged in a populist spending campaign that critics say has severely boosted inflation and left the country's budget for the next Iranian year, ending March 20, 2010, with a fiscal deficit of up to $44 billion.

But in spite of this, the Iranian president insists his economic policies are working. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that the rate of inflation [in Iran] was standing at 15 percent. Financial officials maintain that the annual inflation rate is actually standing at 25 percent. [On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad acknowledged that inflation was at 25 percent.]

In 2006, Iran's Deputy Minister of Labor and Social Affairs stated that the government was determined to both cut the unemployment rate to 8.4 percent by the end of 2110 and to create 900,000 jobs each and every year during that period. Unemployment in Iran is now in double figures.

Likewise, the Obama administration has embarked on a massive government spending spree, and just a few months ago insisted that unemployment in the US would top out at 8 percent if congress passed the stimulus ["spending spree"] bill. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

And while the US economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs since the stimulus bill was passed, the Obama administration claims the stimulus package "created or saved" over 150,000 jobs. But independent experts say those estimates are merely "based on macroeconomic models and projections", and contend that it is very difficult to measure the number of jobs created.

According to Harvard economist, Greg Mankiw, the expression 'create or save jobs' - a term regularly employed by the Obama administration - is both disingenuous and "an act of political genius."

"You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time," Mankiw says , "but there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved."

Nevertheless, Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart have pledged to stimulate their countries' economies and to spread their nations' wealth. But so far they've only managed to spread poverty and unemployment, and to stimulate government spending and deficits.

This would be the perfect time for these two distinguished leaders to meet with one another, not to discuss foreign policy, but to recalibrate their wealth redistribution policies. For indeed, as the old adage goes: "Two heads are better than one". All the more so, when you have two great minds that actually think alike...

Monday, June 8, 2009

European Socialists to rename themselves Democrats?

From the AP:
Right-leaning parties hailed European Parliament victories [on Sunday] as a vote against stimulus spending and corporate bailouts, pledging Monday to forge ahead with conservative approaches to the economic crisis.

The Socialists, who dominated the last vote in 2004, suffered a stinging defeat, barely clinging to the No. 2 spot.

"Tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe," said Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament. "(We will) continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."...
According to the Financial Times, some European socialists are now contemplating "possibly changing their name to 'Democrats'. The thinking is that a different title might help the group..."

Ironically, when Republicans last month proposed that Democrats rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party", the DNC responded that the Republican proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

But apparently, European socialists agree with the Republicans' assessment that the Democratic Party and Socialist Party are one and the same - especially, with Obama now running the Democratic Party.

"Name calling"? "Petty politics"? I don't think so.

It's called "Change"!

"Change you can believe in!".....

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

The Historical Legacy of George Tiller, renowned Abortionist & Obama Campaign Donor

With the sudden demise of the esteemed physician and late-term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller, President Obama has lost not only a staunch ideological ally - who shared his fervent passion for abortion - he lost a valuable campaign contributor too.

Over the years, Mr. Tiller dolled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to various political candidates in his home state of Kansas and in out-of-state races to ensure that his abortion clinic and baby crematoriums remain operative - including $210,000 in campaign contributions in a failed bid to prevent a pro-life candidate, Mr. Phill Kline, from becoming Attorney General in the state of Kansas.

Mr. Kline ultimately won the election and eventually went on to indict Mr. Tiller for performing illegal and late-term abortions on girls as young as 10 years of age. The charges, though, were later dismissed due to technical and procedural reasons.

One of the lucky recipients of Mr. Tiller's campaign contributions, was none other than our current president, Barack Obama.

During the 2008 primary season, Tiller donated $20,000 to Barack Obama's fund-raising arm, the "Committee for Change".

Thus, the pain and agony over the death of such a staunch ideological ally and personal campaign donor - was clearly palpable and evident in Obama's statement on Sunday, when he expressed both "shock" and "outrage" over Mr. Tiller's brutal demise.

But the legacy of George Tiller - including the more than 60,000 abortions that he performed during his lifetime - will forever live on. The myriad of campaign contributions that he dolled out to Barack Obama and other Democrats, so that countless of unwanted fetuses could be cremated and laid to their final resting place, will forever remain etched in the hearts of his political beneficiaries and eternally inscribed in the annals of Democratic Party lore.

P.S. A detailed account of Mr. Tiller's lifetime achievements, including testimonials from his clients, photos of his baby crematoriums and the rest of his wonderful legacy can be found here.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Obama: "Tiller's Murder, an act of 'hopelessness' and 'Despair!"

Upon learning Sunday of the shooting death of Mr. George Tiller - a Kansas physician who performed late-term abortions - President Obama immediately issued a statement imploring the American people to display a bit of empathy toward the killer and to try to understand the motive behind his act of brutality.

"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved family of Mr. Tiller," the statement read, "I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy... We must engage in the difficult task of understanding the source of the murderer's madness."

"Such a failure of empathy... most often grows out of a climate of... helplessness and despair... Thus, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered, anti-abortion vigilantes..."

Okay, okay, I admit, Obama never said that!

Here's what Obama actually said on Sunday:

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Nice, short, and to the point.

However, shortly after the 9/11 attacks - in which thousands of Americans were brutally murdered at the hands of Islamic terrorists - Obama issued a statement almost identical to the bogus statement I had attributed to him earlier:

Here's what Obama said shortly after 9/11:

"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy... We must engage in the difficult task of understanding the source of such madness.

"Such a failure of empathy [on the part of the terrorists]... most often... grows out of a climate of... helplessness and despair... We will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe..."

Unlike his statement on Sunday, Obama exudes quite a bit of empathy toward the 9/11 killers. And rightfully so, the Tiller murder was an act of sheer brutality. 9/11, on the other hand - as Obama explained so eloquently - was a simple act of "helplessness and despair"......