Ali Sina, Faith Freedom.org

 

I am an Iranian and I want to comment on your stance about the situation in Iran. You said you don’t want to intervene in the affairs of my country. Speaking on behalf of all Iranians we don’t want you to intervene either. To put it more emphatically we will not allow you or anyone to intervene. Election is an internal matter.

 

What we expect is moral support.   Instead you made it clear that you do not give a hoot about the people and their vote and will do business with anyone who wins the power even if that is through cheating and by force.

 

You said that both candidates are the same because they both represent the same regime. Sir, if both were the same why would millions of Iranians risk their lives to favor one over the other? You don’t have to be a seasoned politician to know this. All you need is commonsense and a bit of intelligence.

 

There are many similarities between you, Mr. Obama, and Ahmadinejad. Both of you have no experience, but have gigantic egos. Both of you have messianic complex. Both of you have never done anything worthy to show forth and yet your campaign slogan was “Yes We Can.” Both of you are admired by Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, the leaders of Hamas and every other thug on the planet. Both of you are favored by the gullible people and the less educated folk that unfortunately are in big supply. Both of you are pro Palestine, anti Israel and anti Zionism. But above all, both of you believe in the power of the Big Lie. Read article.

Srdja Trifkovic, TakiMag.com

 

“As the Holy [sic!] Koran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,” President Obama told his audience at the beginning of his much heralded speech in Cairo last week.

 

It was a remarkable performance: not a single significant statement he made on the nature of Islam, or on America’s relationship with the Muslim world, or on the terrorist threat, complied with the quoted command of the prophet of Islam.

 

Obama’s two immediate predecessors have done a lot of respectful kowtowing, of course. Bill Clinton declared before the United Nations in September 1998, “There is no inherent clash between Islam and America.” Three years and several thousand American lives later, President Bush said, “there are millions of good Americans who practice the Muslim faith who love their country as much as I love the country.” Four years after 9-11 he continued insisting “the evil” unleashed on that day “is very different from the religion of Islam,” and its proponents “distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus.”

 

Obama brings a new quality to the continuum, however. He is developing the theme in Islam’s heartland. He is doing it in a manner likely to raise geopolitical expectations that cannot be fulfilled, and certain to cement even further the Muslim myth of blameless victimhood. It is the greatest favor any recruiter for the cause of global jihad could hope for.

 

Is Obama deluded or mendacious? In view of his middle name and family history, the question is more legitimate than it would have been with Clinton or Bush. Read article.

 

Rich Lowry, JWR.com

 

If only the Obama administration considered motorcycle-riding thugs beating demonstrators in Iran an offense on par with Israel's West Bank settlements.

 

Then it could speak with moral passion. It could unmistakably denounce the killings, and relieve its State Department spokesman of the trouble of dancing around the word "condemn." It could say that our relationship with the Iranian government depends on the unconditional end of its thuggery. It could explain that only if Iran stops the crackdown can we "move forward" in the Middle East.

 

But Iran is not an ally of the United States. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gets a rhetorical pass that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't. As hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters march for democracy, in defiance of a government that is our committed enemy, President Barack Obama resorts to lawyerly equivocations. He labors to avoid saying anything denoting untoward disapproval of the baton-wielding shock troops of Iran's theocracy.

 

In a perverse irony, we are witnessing the most serious threat to the Islamic Republic since its establishment, at the same time the first American president explicitly to accept the regime's legitimacy happens to be in office. Read article.

 

Mark Steyn, OC Register.com

 

The polite explanation for Barack Obama's diffidence on Iran is that he doesn't want to give the mullahs the excuse to say the Great Satan is meddling in Tehran's affairs. So the president's official position is that he's modestly encouraged by the regime's supposed interest in investigating some of the allegations of fraud. Also, he's heartened to hear that O.J. is looking for the real killers. "You've seen in Iran," explained President Obama, "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

 

"Supreme Leader"? I thought that was official house style for Barack Obama at Newsweek and MSNBC. But no. It's also the title held by Ayatollah Khamenei for the past couple of decades. If it sounds odd from the lips of an American president, that's because none has ever been as deferential in observing the Islamic republic's dictatorial protocol. Like President Obama's deep, ostentatious bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, it signals a fresh start in our relations with the Muslim world, "mutually respectful" and unilaterally fawning. Read article.

 

Dick McDonald, Capitalist Party USA.com

 

We used to call it "creeping socialism." Now it is better described as "raging Communism." Barack Obama is not some timid FDR or Lyndon Johnson willing to slowly impose a collectivist state on a capitalist America - this guy is hell bent to change America right now from a country ruled by individuals to a country ruled by those who control big government under the guise of the "equality" principle. You know the equality principle - if Obama thinks it fair to redistribute your property to the less successful then he will make you equal by confiscating your property.

 

You've heard of dumbing down a society - well "raging communism" will not only dumb it down it will strip the individual of all of his rights to resist except one - the right to watch Obama and his Marxists implode from overreach. The techniques these pre-communists have been using for 75 years is confiscation by creation of entitlements that redistribute money from the rich to the poor all justified under the "social justice" umbrella.

 

There is only one problem - these "equality pimps" are mathematically-challenged. They have made serious financial promises to the unwashed masses they can never pay. To date those promises are short $55 trillion in funding. In other words considering projected receipts and expenditures these irresponsible pre-communists have promised $55 trillion more than they can ever reasonably hope to collect in taxes. To fully comprehend the severity of the $55 trillion liability realize that it is 15 times greater than the $3.6 trillion 2009 budget and 30 times greater than 2009 tax receipts. Read article.

 

Chris Carter, Analyst-Network.com

 

“The Speech” delivered by Barack Obama may have been intended to strengthen ties with the Muslim community, but it also served to add another chapter to Obama's troubling history with the world's oldest international terrorist organization – the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Consider the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo on organizing members in North America that said all members “must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

 

The MB, CAIR, and ISNA all praised Obama's speech and welcomed the new approach. Part of this “new approach” is Obama's promise to ease the ability of Muslims to give zakat, or the Islamic duty of charitable donations. The ISNA said in a statement that they “applaud the President's recognition of the problems Muslim American charities have been having and the hardship that resulted from the 'rules on charitable giving' by federal agencies. We welcome his commitment to ensure that Muslim Americans can fulfill their zakat duty, a religious obligation to provide the needy with financial support.”

 

As Commander-in-Chief of the forces whose death the Muslim Brotherhood is advocating, it defies reason that this administration should be working alongside them on so many levels.

 

Scott Wheeler, the Director of the National Republican Trust summed it up: “The American people did not vote for President Barack Hussein Obama to make peace with Muslim terrorists.” Read article.

 

Lynn Stuter, NWV.com

 

In her newsletter of June 8, 2009, Senator Patty Murray (Communist Democrat – Washington State) gushed:

 

"On Wednesday, I met with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to discuss her nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor’s life story is the embodiment of the American Dream and I believe that her nomination will be an inspiration to many Americans. I look forward to considering her nomination in the Senate."

 

Since when is one's "life story" a qualifier to sit on the highest court in the land?

 

Since when should the possibility that one will be an "inspiration to many Americans" be a qualifier to sit on the highest court in the land?

 

In response to this obvious oversight of common sense and her oath of office, I responded as follows to Comrade Murray's communiqué:

 

What a crock. Since when does one's life story have anything to do with one's understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Quite obviously, it has none and this appointment is not only racially motivated on the part of the non-American usurper in the White House, but it is also motivated by her sex, which is not a qualifier either! Read article.

 

Henry Mark Holzer.Blogspot.com

 

In the June 15, 16 and 17, 2009 National Review Online Andrew C. McCarthy has written a devastating three-part essay “Obama Goes to Court.” In that series, Mr. McCarthy—a former federal prosecutor, and one of a handful of lawyers writing knowledgeably today about the legal aspects of national security—has provided a brilliantly cogent exegesis of how the Supreme Court’s forty-three-year-old Miranda decision has been used and misused by the courts and executive branch to seriously jeopardize America’s national security.

 

In Part I of his essay, Mr. McCarthy writes that:

 

[The] Miranda [decision] is a concoction of bad law and bad policy. Its criminal protections are sheer judicial inventions. Nothing in the Constitution mandates them. The Fifth Amendment forbids police to coerce a suspect’s confession; it does not require police to tell the suspect that his confession may not be compelled, nor does it impose a publicly funded lawyer to shield the suspect from interrogation. Thanks to Miranda, however, a guilty suspect who has not been forced to speak can get his voluntary confession judicially suppressed—no matter how heinous the crime—if the police, though they’ve honored his rights, have failed to tell him about those rights. (Emphasis in original.)

 

How did this happen? How was the Warren Court in 1966 able to invent a “constitutional” right for a kidnapper/rapist (and three other criminals), which in the Twenty-First Century seriously jeopardizes America’s national security?

 

To answer that question, I have to dissect the Supreme Court’s Miranda opinion. Read article.

 

Miranda Goes to War – Part 2 GO HERE.

 

Mortimer Zuckerman, US News.com

 

The state of Israel and its citizens are confronted by the greatest peril in the nation's history. Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, seek to "wipe Israel off the map"—and Israel's longtime faithful defender, the United States, seems to have gone wobbly. On such an existential threat, there is a fundamental difference between the United States and Israel: Americans are in the bleachers; Israelis are on the playing field. As the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "We can't afford to err twice."

 

The situation is starkly clear—but not to a world so bored with the conflict, so used to quick fixes, so confused that it has succumbed to the most specious moral equivalency. It makes no distinction between the inexcusable, indiscriminateviolence of terrorism that deliberately targets the innocent and the very different, unavoidable defensive violence of theauthority responsible for protecting its citizens. It's the difference between the arsonist and the firefighter. Israel is expected to act as if it has to win the Moral Man of the Century award. It is not enough for it to be 10 percent more moral than other nations. It has to be 50 percent more—which means it would not survive. Read article.

 

The Prowler, Spectator.org

 

House Republican staffers on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are mulling their next steps in investigating last week's firing of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service and its AmeriCorps program.

 

On Tuesday, ranking member Darrell Issa sent a letter to White House Counsel Gregory Craig, demanding the release of all e-mail and other communications between the Department of Justice's Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California regarding the dismissal of IG Walpin.

 

The U.S. Attorney connection arose from a 2008 Walpin investigation into allegations of misused taxpayer funds via AmeriCorps to the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, Calif., founded by Obama supporter and former NBA player -- now mayor of Sacramento -- Kevin Johnson. Walpin determined that Johnson's program misused almost $1 million in AmeriCorps funding, referred the case to the U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, but no criminal charges were filed. St. HOPE officials, however, settled the case, promising to repay half of its AmeriCorps grants. Read article.

 

Paul Greenberg, Hartford Courant.com

 

Speaking on the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Ronald Reagan's purpose was clear -- not only to pay tribute to the brave men who stormed the beaches, but to unite the West in the defense of freedom. As it was united on June 6, 1944. One might disagree with that president, but there was no misunderstanding him.

 

No one would ever write a headline about Ronald Reagan like the one that appeared in the Boston Globe after Jimmy Carter had given one of his forgettable speeches: "Mush From the Wimp." It was typical of the Globe that the best headline it ever ran was printed by mistake; an editor had meant it as just a temporary label, an in-house joke, but naturally it got into the paper. At least in the early editions.

 

There was nothing mushy about Ronald Reagan's speech that day at Normandy. His point was unmistakable: "We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response...."

 

This year Barack Obama went to Normandy with his own view of the past, the better to support his policies in the present. For him, the titanic struggle of which Normandy was a decisive part represented an exceptional time when choices were clear and values universal. Barack Obama's is a highly compressed version of that conflict, for if universal values emerged from that struggle, they did not emerge by themselves, or without strong leadership and constancy of purpose. Even by the time Ronald Reagan spoke at Normandy, 40 years after the war, an Iron Curtain was still drawn across the middle of Europe. And there were still many who could not bring themselves to take a clear stand against the threat posed to Western values.

 

Barack Obama's is a highly compressed version of that conflict, for if universal values emerged from that struggle, they did not emerge by themselves, or without strong leadership and constancy of purpose. Even by the time Ronald Reagan spoke at Normandy, 40 years after the war, an Iron Curtain was still drawn across the middle of Europe. And there were still many who could not bring themselves to take a clear stand against the threat posed to Western values. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: