Words and suits are both empty

After days of watching the people of Iran protest the tyranny and oppression that rules their country and their lives, our President has decided to make a statement of support. Bold.

Yes, I understand the theory that we don't want to be seen as "meddeling" in a foreign revolution. But when has it been meddeling for the President of the United States to vocally and vociferously support freedom? When does the President sit by the wayside and watch a people clamoring for justice go unaided or unsupported?

I find it so odd, but so typical of this man, that in his remarks of solidarity with the Iranian people, Obama cited his Cairo speech. "As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." He thinks very highly of himself. And to an extent, I am sure that he remains somewhat confident that his speech is partly the catalyst for this uprising.

And now we couple this with the fact that in his 2010 budget, Obama has stipped all funding for democracy groups in Iran from the State Department's budget. Maybe it's because of the economic crisis... though if that were the sole reason, one must question the other $3.5+ trillion.

Talk about your empty words. Talk about an empty suit. Talk about an empty man. Obama's thought processes are so alien to any executive thinking and presidential acumen. He is still a community organizing looking to run America like a south side Chicago neighborhood.

His Majesty

The Queen of England does not govern.
She reigns.

Which does Mr. Obama think he should do?

He is striving for both.

Ich bin ein Iranian...

Just moment ago, our President finally addressed the thousands of protestors in Tehran who are fighting for freedom and justice. Let's see what he said:

"It's not productive given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddeling, the US President meddeling, in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being supressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me, and it's of concern to the American people".

So, to you thousands of people in the streets of Iran KNOWING that your lives are on the line as you clamor, with whatever hope you have in your hearts, for freedom and justice in your homeland, the President of the USA says to you "can't meddle, Not because of our past relations. If Bush hadn't messed things up, I would be there with you. But I can't. However, I am concerned".


Mr. Gorbechov, tear down this wall. The Axis of Evil. The Evil Empire. Powerful words coupled with powerful actions that did, indeed, free people. And today we have "it's not productive to be seen as meddeling". If he could use the passive voice more often, it would be done.

"This is a corrupt, flawed, shame of an election. The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights and we support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime and they should not be subjected to 4 more years of Ahmadinejad and the radical muslim clerics" -John McCain

Voice of a leader, and I am no McCainite.

Mr. President, couldn't you even speak about hope and change? You speak worse about the Bush Administration than you do about the Ayatollah.

I'm ashamed of my President.

My Advice to Iranians

Move.

I know your pride in your Persian heritage and your language is nothing like the Arabic and Pashto spoken by your neighbors. But I've been to your borders and I know that, albeit a difficult journey, it is possible to get out of your country.

And that, sadly, is the best advice I can offer you.

See, the new America, as envisioned and lead by our President, doesn't support your clamor for democracy and freedom.

It's too difficult.

Instead, he is "encouraged" by the robust debate and is eagerly watching the calls for investigation into election fraud allegations. Poor child, he really thinks there will be investigations. He really thinks there is legitimacy and accountability in your theocratic country.

Is he naive or just willfully ignorant. Or afraid. I wonder.

Former President Bush was billed as pedestrian and small minded with his manechistic vision of the world and rogue regimes. President Obama doesn't like "rogue regimes" or even a war on terror. It's nicer to think of the world as an international, diverse community with continuing operations.

So as you protest in the streets rising your life and putting the lives of your family members at risk, know that the government of America does not, repeat, does not stand with you. Unfortunately.

We are faced with a grave moral decision: solidarity with the 70,000,000+ citizens of Iran who seek freedom and justice or angering the Ayatollahs who run the country and actively seek nuclear weapons. President Obama has shown his desire to side with the latter.

Detente, anyone? It worked so well in the late 70's.

When Lech Walesa organized the Solidarity movement in Poland, he knew that he could count on the freedom loving west in the USA and the UK and the truth loving power of the Polish Pope. What empowered their movement and uprising was truth, and how great to have the truth supported with power.

The people of Iran are protesting right now, fighting for a sliver of truth and freedom. They are being shot at. Their faces are being recorded for future interrogations by the Iranian government. And they protest on. How sad that no one else supports them. The worlds super powers are silent. It is a tragedy.

So, dear people of Iran, I apologize. It is pathetic that our President has been painfully silent and decisively apathetic to your cause. Once American Presidents came to the aid of freedom fighters. Today, we apologize for imposing our values.

As I write this, the South Korean President is in the Oval asking President Obama for a form of guarantee that should Kim Jung Il decide to go nuclear, the USA will support the South in their inevitable war.

The answer to that question is no. Ronald Reagan is dead.

Lefty misspeaking

Hillary Clinton was named after Sir. Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Mount Everest.

Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

If you know what "is" the definition of "is".

Joe Biden is the only man in the world who knows of TV footage of President Roosevelt addressing the nation after the stock market crashed in 1929. (Many Americans said "who the hell is Franklin Roosevelt and what is a television?".

That's the same Joe Biden who's chopper had to land in the Waziristan region because of gunfire. Or snow. Honestly, does it matter?


Kind of like Hillary's sniper fire in Bosnia. Or was it Kosovo? Eh, who cares.

Hours after winning the election in November, Obama makes a joke about the former first lady: "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances.". That was the first indication that the genius orator was teleprompter dependent.

Add that to the joke about "the special olympics or something" on Leno. Those retards sure are funny. Just ask the President.

That brings us to Mr. Letterman, the funny man who makes $30+ million a year and tells jokes about raping 14 year old girls while calling Alaska's governor a slut. Letterman, like the aforementioned Mensa members, "misspoke".

It happens. I often talk of my muslim faithful until Matt Lauer reminds me I'm a Christian. I too misspeak. In fact last week I went to the Synagogue on Friday night before realizing I was not a Jew. I "mis-prayed".

Like I said, it happens.

I think of Les Moonves, the CBS president who 8 days after the "nappy headed ho's" comment fired Don Imus. Imus initially dismissed the comments as "some idiot comment meant to be amusing". Apparently, they were not.

The next day, the next day, the VERY next day, Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio program "Stirring the Pot with Fat Al" (may not be the official title of the program but I couldn't find it online. Eh, who am I kidding, I didn't even look. I remember Tawana Brawley, Al.) Then Imus went to Rutgers to apologize to the players personally.

Les Moonves still fired Don Imus.

Les, what will you do with David Letterman? Will he be reprimanded? Suspended? Or just... ignored. I'm guessing the latter.

Dave retorts that he wasn't joking about Willow Palin (who is 14). He was joking about Bristol Palin who is 18. See, it's not so bad to make rape jokes about 18 year olds, so stop crying. Baby want a cookie now?

No comments about the Sarah Palin "slut" comments, however. That's fair game. Palin is a Republican.

Dave offers a non-apology. He hems and haws that he misspoke and the joke was in poor taste. And honestly, if you were Dave, would you gave a damn? You hate Sarah Palin (reasons unknown) and you know that no executive in CBS will scold you- so why bother?

Dave- wasn't your son the target of a foiled kidnapping plot a few years ago? Too bad it didn't happen because that would have provided late night comedy with TONS of material. Kidnapping kids is funny stuff, Dave. Like rape.

Les, the clock is ticking. You gave Don 8 days. You've given Dave 2. I'm curious to see what happens over the weekend in CBS. But I'm not holding my breath.

Go Connan.

Three shootings

May 31, 2009
Scott Roeder (allegedly) kills Doctor George Tiller at his church in Kansas.
Google hits on the killer's name: 285,000
Coupled with "right wing": 42,600

June 1, 2009
Abdulhakim Hakim Mujahaid Muhammad (allegedly) kills Private William Long outside a recruiting station in Arkansas.
Google hits on the killer's name: 4070
Coupled with "left wing": 696

June 10, 2009
James von Brunn (allegedly) kills security guard Stephen Johns at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.
Google hits with the killer's name: 33,100
Coupled with "right wing": 9,280

Something is not right. Or fair. Or objective. Just review those numbers again.

There is a deliberate cover-up or selective negligence by the news agencies. How can a domestic terrorist attack on our military go virtually ignored while other, more politically profitable crimes, are reported on the front page.

To be clear- all of these crimes are equally heinous, immoral and vile. All should be equally condemned and measures should be taken to punnish the guilty and ensure repeat crimes do not occur.

But in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, never let a crisis go to waste.

These awful crimes are being exploited by the media, by the left, by the administration to further their political interests. Obama is vehemently pro-abortion. Any chance he has to "criminalize" the pro-life movement, the better.

A case could be made to "criminalize" the pro-peace movement. Cindy Sheehan is as guilty in the death of Private Long as Bill O'Reilly is in the death of George Tiller or Rev. Wright is in the death of Officer Johns. "Dem jews ain't gonna let me talk to Obama" Rev Wright reminds us just a few days ago.

Keep eating the anti-semite sandwich, Revered.

Let's review some things: Letterman, Leno, Stewart, Colbert, 'Lil Bush, SNL, You're Welcome America! with Will Ferrell, Farenheit 9-11, W the movie, et al ALL contributed to the anti-Bush, anti-Republican, partisan angry politics that envelope this nation. Yes, it still envelopes the nation and Obama is only exacerbating it to his advantge (never let a crisis go to waste, right?). Yet how often did the media talk about "left wing" anger and hostility? I can't remember.

The rhetoric coming out of the media these days is comical. Protecting the President and the left and the democrat party, they speak of a "growing trend" of anti-American, anti-Obama, racist behavior. Remember Jeanne Garafolo (who's political credentials include reading from an Aaron Sorkin script on The West Wing) called the Tea Party's "racist". And the CNN reporter who spoke of the tea party's as anti-government? (I wrote about that briefly ).

I don't recall any shock or frustration at the hatred spewed at President Bush. And N.O.W. was virtually silent when Sarah Palin was mocked over and over again. had dave Lettermen made a joke about Sasha Obama as cruel and gross as the joke he made about 14 year old Willow Palin, I bet there would be some reaction from the media. I guess you can make rape jokes about the children of Republicans.

A few years ago, Mrs. Alito left the Senate chamber in tears because of the line of questioning her husband was facing during his confirmation hearings. Yet we are told by the White House to tred lightly on Mrs. Sotomayor because of her hispanic heritage. (BTW- she was born in the Bronx to Puerto Rican parents who were Americans since birth. My mom was born in Brooklyn to immigrant parents who because naturalized Americans. My mom, however, is not a minority. Go figure.)

I apologize- these comments have been a little all over the place. But I think you understand my point. The left uses every moment, every crime, every crisis to improve their image and bash their opponents. They never silenced the 9-11 conspirators, they never apologized for their treatment of our former President, they never distanced themselves from "General Betray-us" and other such attacks. And they never have to. Because we don't make them.

These three shootings are sad commentaries on our life in America. There are crazy people out there from the Unabomber to Richard Reid. How sad that groups use their evil actions to improve their polling numbers and election chances.

Campaigning in the Middle East

I can hardly recall a time when a sitting US President spoke ill of his country and his predecessor on foreign soil more often than Obama has done in his first few months in office. And so much of this "hope and change- Obama '08" rhetoric has spilled over into the executive methods of our 44th President that the line between campaigning and governing are mixed into a dizzying and dangerous hodgepodge of weak actions and strong words.

"Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible", said President Obama in his address to muslims this earlier today in Cairo.

I ask, as a follow-up, the sort of follow-up no reporter asked President Obama during the campaign season, a 2-part question that will never be answered"

1. What types of diplomacy were not used before the Iraq war that could have prevented it? Were not the countless UN resolutions and sanction sufficient? Was snubbing the IAEA and international inspectors properly responded to? Have you read resolution 1441?

2. What countries were missing from the international consensus that could have lead credibility and gravitas to the US efforts? To refresh your memory: Canada, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Colombia, Poland, etc were just a few of the dozens of nations that formed the "international consensus". Absent, notably, were Russia, France and Germany. Communists, wimps and nazis. I think we did OK.

Obama still talks abot the Iraq war thinking he has to outflank Clinton and Edwards who voted for the War Powers Act. Newsflash Mr. President: you are the President. What you think about the war's inception is now moot- moreso, it is precarious. It is now your war. Will you handle it thus?

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

The magnificent platitude of a campaign speech. More precisely, a straw man campaign speech. If you seek a "new beginning...based on mutual interest and mutual respect" then you are, indeed, saying that America's past was based on self interest and lack of respect. Now, to be even more precise, is that America's relationship with muslims or muslim nations?

America has no relationships with "people" around the world- be they communities of religion or creed or race. To talk about the "United States and Muslims around the world" means we have policies with "Buddhists" around the world. And "Methodists" around the world. What are those relationships? And where are they defined? In Presidential order of acts of Congress?

The US does not enter into relationships with communities or people. It has relationships with nations, as America is a nation. How can a government have a relationship with a people? Are laws and policies going to be created specifically targeted towards one people?

In Obama's mind, yes, there should be such laws. And more of them. Affirmative action, hate crimes, any form of legislation that favors a minority or victim class is a good and necessary action because it helps achieve "fairness". And fairness, in the mind of a liberal, is tantamount to "equality".

Funny- the US Constitution should prevent such favoritism based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. But with liberals like Sonia Sotomayor who denies Ricci his promotion because he's white and triumphs her own wisdom because she is latina headed towards to Supreme Court, Obama is ensuring that his beliefs will be upheld at the highest level.

This same logic is what prompts our Campaigner in chief to launch a new beginning with muslims around the world. We elected a Saul Alinsky community organizer as President. His community is now the world. But his methods are the same.

"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".

Mr. Obama, you call yourself "a student of history" in this speech. If only your speechwriter and teleprompter were students of history, too. Based on this, tension in muslim countries are derived from:

a. religious wars (medieval Europe)
b. colonialism (modern Europe)
c. the cold war (Reagan)
d. modernity and globalization (Bill Gates)

In summary: tension in muslim countries is, again, our fault. Despite the fact that other parts of the world had "religious wars", all of America was colonized, no one was more a proxy than Poland in the cold war and globalization is global... it is all our fault. Had the Czech responded to the Internet with terrorism, we should have been more empathetic. Had the Latvians responded to SALT talks with suicides bombers in the town square, we should have looked inward at our own culpability.

When you treat everyone as a victim, you need to blame the victimizer. On the world stage, muslims are victims and the President places all the blame on us.

"The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights".

Not all priests are pedophiles. Yet all priests suffer because of the 3% of scum who commit crimes in a roman collar. Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust towards priests. Anything less would be irresponsible.

There is still a man outside the vatican embassy on Observatory Circle with the sign "The Vatican hides criminals".

Cannot the same be said for Islam? Can it not be said about muslims in America? Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust. Anything less would be irresponsible.

Where is the man in NW outside the islamic center with a sign "Iran hides criminals"?

The same goes for muslim nations. Nations that do not police their own, turn over their own, should be dealt with under a premise of scrutiny and moderate distrust. Nations that harbor men who behead journalists, who plant bombs in market places and inflict terror on innocent civilians cannot be trusted. That means Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia.

That is your responsibility, Mr. President. Your job is not one of fostering a new beginning with any peoples- especially not one group over another. Your job is to foster relationships with nations. And in your words, relationships that are "based upon mutual interest and mutual respect".

Go to France and talk to the French people. Typical sentiment: they hate America. They love Americans. Sure they think our culture is disposable and superficial and they mock our cuisine and wine. But they don't shower daily, they dress like the Thompson Twins and and pay 70% in taxes. But all this is pointless because the relationship that the country of US and the country of France has is strong. Whether or nor the people get along is gravy. We don't make relationships with the French people. We build relationships with the French government.

Whether or not muslims and Americans get along will not be decided by President Obama or any politician. But creating a national policy that protects and defends our interests will foster an atmosphere where such niceties can flourish in time.

President Obama has a messiah complex because he wants a messiah complex. We wants to heal the world because he believes he can. Call it confidence or arrogance, the man believes his own press releases and his campaign has not ended. Too bad that in the process he is doing more damage than good and the relationships he hopes to create will only lead to greater international discord and danger.

I wish I were wrong. But I too am a student of history. And I know where we are headed. It is not pretty.