Archive for June 17th, 2009

Failing The Iranian Test–Barack “Hamlet” Obama–To Be or Not To Be President of The United States And Commander-in-Chief?

Posted on June 17, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Foreign Policy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, War | Tags: , , , , , , , |



To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of dispriz’d love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere’d country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 1, 55–87


    “The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction.
    “It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real opinion movement that tries to break its chains.”

    “If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate… why has this violence erupted?”

~President of France Sarkozy 


Mike Pence on the Iranian Election and Protests


Iran: The Coming Crisis




Hezbollah: Iran to support Lebanon


President Obama’s Statement On Iranian Presidential Election


Fox News Panel Discuss The Iranian Election and Obama’s Reaction To The Situation


Brit Hume on Obama’s Reaction to the Iranian Election


Hugh Hewitt interviews Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election


Thousands protest riot – fake elections tehran iran – voter fraud – fight for freedom 6-13-09 PEACE


Iran Revolutionary Guard Cracks Down On Online Media


Barack Obama has a history of hiding his true position on an issue behind a mask.

Obama repeatedly voted present instead of voting for or against an issue being considered.

In many of his speeches both sides of an issue are seemingly supported by the text of the speech.

The American people fully expect the President of the United States to speak for the nation.

For over thirty years the Iranian regime has been at war with the United States.

This war was fought largely by proxies or third-parties such as Hamas and Hezbollah that killed , injured, and captured Americans both civilian and military.

The time has come for President Obama to step up to the podium and read from the teleprompter a short statement on the Iranian after election protest and violence:

The American people and the United States government condemns the violence inflicted upon the Iranian people by current Iranian regime.

We support the Iranian  people’s quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a democratically elected representative government.

Our prayers go out to the families and friends of Iranians who have been killed or injured in the recent post-election events.

We look forward to working with the Iranian people and representative government to establish cordial and friendly relations that will benefit both the American and Iranian people and nations.

Let me make clear to the nations of the world that the United States firmly opposes any and all efforts by the current Iranian regime to develop and produce nuclear weapons that would be a clear and present danger to the security of all nations in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

The United States will stop by any means necessary the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

The American people and the United States seek peace in the Middle East and hope the Iranian people will assist us in achieving this goal.

While I am sure the President has speech writers that can improve upon the above, saying you are present and will not meddle in Iranian affairs lacks moral clarity and courage. 

The American people totally despise the current Iranian regime and would side with and support the Iranian people that overthrew the regime.

The Iranian regime is responsible for the killing of Americans starting in October 23, 1983 in Beirut Lebanon and continuing to this day in Iraq.

Step up to the podium Mr. President.

24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing

A tribute to the soldiers, sailors, and Marines killed in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut.

Beirut Remembered



Background Articles and Videos


Death to Dictatorship: U.S. Must Support Revolution in Iran

Iranian dissidents are risking their lives fighting for their future. The silence from the White House is deafening.

By Nicholas Guariglia 

“…Foreign journalists have been kicked out of the country. Revolutionary Guard thugs have taken to the streets as well, as have regime-loyalist Basij paramilitaries who are out in full force beating, clubbing, machete-slicing, tear-gassing, shooting, arresting, and killing the protesters. One report said upwards of 100 people were killed in Tehran alone. That number is unconfirmed, however.

Should these protests be nurtured and encouraged to proceed to their logical conclusion, this could turn into the best development to come out of the Middle East in sixty years. Should the protesters and rioters be aided, our greatest adversary could become one of our greatest allies overnight. This is a perfect opportunity to advantageously exploit. But how is the United States responding?

Vice President Biden said, “We’re going to withhold comment.” Secretary of State Clinton said, “The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran.” The State Department has refused to condemn the regime’s brutal crackdown. Press Secretary Gibbs said, “Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.” One unnamed White House official said, “There’s no reason to think the [Iranian] regime is not in control.” Another said, “[The election result] might also cause engagement to proceed more swiftly.” …”

“…President Obama’s silence is deafening. This will undoubtedly be considered the most important moment of his first term and he is as quiet as a lamb. According to reports, Obama has received updates on the situation in Iran but “did not convene any high-level White House meetings or conference calls.” Like so many times throughout his short and unlettered Chicago career, Obama has once again decided to vote “present.” Except this time, the issue is not some mundane community organizing red-tape dilemma. The issue is the lifespan of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and the future of war and peace in Southwest Asia.

Where is the condemnation of Ahmadinejad? Where is the criticism of Khamenei? Where is the denunciation of this stolen election? Where is the show of support and solidarity with the protesters? Where is the rhetorical support for the dissidents and democracy? Better question: where is President Obama, the man who campaigned and effeminately talked the talk about “soft power” until our ears bled? …”

Iran Election: The Beginning of the End

By Amil Imani & Dr. Arash Irandoost

“…Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Islamic Republic’s repressive Revolutionary Guard, took office on August 3, 2005, after unexpected win in a sham presidential election — there are no democratic elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran. All candidates are prescreened by the Guardian Council before they are allowed to run for office.  In practice, a president of Iran is already chosen through a farce process of giving the voters a chance to elect one of the men hand-picked from the regime’s functionaries, as was the case with President Ahmadinejad.

During the previous “election,” only a small percentage of the voters bothered to vote, since voting under the pre-screening and undemocratic system of the mullahs is more like selection than election. The result of staying away from the polls materialized in the person of the fascist Ahmadinejad.


The great majority of the people of Iran are disillusioned and even disgusted by the mediaeval incompetent, oppressive, and corrupt rule of the mullahs, irrespective of which mafia gang is in power. The votes, more than anything else, are protest ballots cast against the entire system, rather than indications of support for the so-called conservative-moderate coalition.


It took less than 4 years for Iranians to realize that boycotting the so-called elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran can only bring to power even a worse bunch of Islamofascists. This time around the people turned out to vote for the lesser of two camps of evil — the mullah dominated gang of conservatives and “moderates.”  …”


“…The vicious attacks on people by the hired thugs of the regime are failing more and more as the mullahs’ instrument of rule by terror. The police and official security apparatus are less and less willing to exercise brute force to suppress the people. That’s exactly why the regime has imported Arab speaking terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hizbollah and Palestinian thugs.  
In short, Iran is in a state of serious upheaval. Replacing Ahmadinejad with the already tried and proven wanton gang of Rafsanjani-Khatami-Mousavi is not going to change matters much. 


As for the West, it is prudent that it does not embark on a trigger-happy, self interested policy. The mullahs’ lease on life, [short of brutal massacre of the Iranian people in the absence of any foreign media] is just about over. A concerted political, economic, and moral support for the long-suffering and valiant Iranian people and the secular opposition can put an end to the shameful and hate-driven Islamofascists of any and all stripes. …”


Iran: What next?

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 16, 2009 10:44 AM





Photo via #iranelection twitterer maydar

Michael Ledeen weighs in:

What’s going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors. The regime has the guns, and the opposition has the numbers. The question is whether the numbers can be successfully organized into a disciplined force that demands the downfall of the regime. Yes, I know that there have been calls for a new election, or a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinezhad. But I don’t think that’s very likely now. The tens of millions of Iranians whose pent-up rage has driven them to risk life and limb against their oppressors are not likely to settle for a mere change in personnel at this point. And the mullahs surely know that if they lose, many of them will face a very nasty and very brief future.

If the disciplined force comes into being, the regime will fall. If not, the regime will survive. Can Mousavi lead such a force? If anyone had said, even a few days ago, that Mousavi would lead a nation-wide insurrection, he’d have been laughed out of the room. Very few foresaw anything like the current situation, although I will claim credit for predicting that neither side in the electoral circus would accept the official verdict.

Does Mousavi even want to change the system? I think he does, and in any event, I think that’s the wrong question. He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him. The real revolutionary is his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. And the real question, the key question in all of this, is: why did Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permit her to become such a charismatic figure? How could he have made such a colossal blunder? It should have been obvious that the very existence of such a woman threatened the dark heart of the Islamic Republic, based as it is on the disgusting misogyny of its founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini. …”


More scenes from Iran’s uprising; Update: Gunfire at protest

By Michelle Malkin 

“…You can see real-time photos pouring in over Twitter/Twitpic via this PicFog page. A small sample: …



1983 Beirut barracks bombing

“…In the Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) during the Lebanese Civil War, two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 servicemen, including 220 U.S. Marines. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah—or a group that would later become part of Hezbollah[1]—receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.[2]

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs, and the explosives used at the Marine barracks were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT. Two minutes later, a similar attack levelled the eight-story ‘Drakkar’ building, killing 58 French paratroopers from 1er RCP (Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes). In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[3] In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War.[4] In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines’ building was killed in the first blast.[5]

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. …”


“…Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[2][3]. On January 25, 2006, Hamas won the legislative elecions held in the Palestinian Territories, gaining the majority seats in the Palestinian parliament.[5] This further complicated matters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is considered wholly, or in part, a terrorist organization by certain countries and supranational organizations. Since June 2007, after winning a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament and defeating rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israel,[6] the first of them in April, 1993.[7] Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.[8] Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced those operations in 2005 and 2006.[9] In 2008 the rockets reached their peak and then once again went down after Operation Cast Lead.[citation needed]

In January 2006, Hamas was successful in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43.[10] After Hamas’s election victory, violent and non-violent infighting arose between Hamas and Fatah.[11][12] Following the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and replaced by rival Fatah members and independents. Hamas retained control of Gaza.[13][14] On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia.[15] Israel immediately thereafter imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, and Hamas launched rocket attacks upon areas of Israel near its border with Gaza.[16] After the end of a six-month ceasefire the conflict was escalated, and Israel invaded Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008.[17] Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in mid-January, 2009,[18] but has maintained its blockade of the Gaza border and airspace.

Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a “well-entrenched” presence in the West Bank and Gaza.[19] An estimated 80 to 90 percent of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.[20][21][22]

Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[23] However, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s Damascus-based political bureau chief, stated in 2009 that the group would accept the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and, although unwilling to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel, has offered a temporary, long-term truce, or hudna, that would be valid for ten years.[24]

Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as neither religious[25] nor antisemitic,[26][27] the head of Hamas’s political bureau stating in early 2006 that the conflict with Israel “is not religious but political”, and that Jews have a covenant from God “that is to be respected and protected.” [25] Nonetheless, the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders are believed by some to be influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories.[28]

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[29] the European Union,[30][31][32] Israel,[33] Japan,[34] and the United States.[35] Australia[36] and the United Kingdom[37] list the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[38][39]



“…Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-‘llāh(i),[2] literally “party of God”) is a Shi’a Islamist political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah is now also a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and plays a significant force in Lebanese politics.[4] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.[3] Many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah while others have praised the party.[5][6] Six western countries, including Israel[7] and the United States,[8] regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah first emerged as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee, in 1982, set on resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war.[3][9] Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[10] Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto listed its three main goals as “putting an end to any colonialist entity” in Lebanon, bringing the Phalangists to justice for “the crimes they [had] perpetrated,” and the establishment of an Islamic regime in Lebanon.[11][12] Recently, however, Hezbollah has made little mention of establishing an Islamic state, and forged alliances across religious lines.[10] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a “Zionist entity… built on lands wrested from their owners.”[11][12]

Hezbollah, which started with only a small militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.[13] Hezbollah maintains strong support among Lebanon’s Shi’a population, and gained a surge of support from Lebanon’s broader population (Sunni, Christian, Druze) immediately following the 2006 Lebanon War,[14] and is able to mobilize demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.[15] Hezbollah alongside with some other groups began the 2006–2008 Lebanese political protests in opposition to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[16] Later dispute over Hezbollah preserve its telecoms network led to clashes and Hezbollah-led opposition fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods from Future Movement militiamen loyal to Fouad Siniora, this areas then handed over to the Lebanese Army.[17] Finally, on the basis of Doha Agreement, Hezbollah was granted veto power in Lebanon’s parliament. In addition, National unity government was formed which Hezbollah has one minister and controls eleven of thirty seats in it.[4][18]

Hezbollah receives its financial support from Iran, Syria, and the donations of Lebanese and other Shi’a.[19][20] It has also gained significantly in military strength the last few years.[21] Despite a June 2008 certification by the United Nations that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory,[22] in August of that year, Lebanon’s new Cabinet unanimously approved a draft policy statement which secures Hezbollah’s existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to “liberate or recover occupied lands.” Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. …”

Edwards Calls Out Obama on Lame “Present” Vote



Two Guys in a Newsroom (June 17, 2009)


Karl Rove on Obama’s reaction to the election in Iran


Fox Report on Unrest in Iran – Post Election



Iranian Riots – Protesters show the Riot Police some kindness (Jun 16th)



Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 1


Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 2



Laura Ingraham goes nuclear on Obama over Iranian crisis


Iranian Nuclear Power Plant Open For Business


John Bolton about Iran nuclear testing


Dennis Miller interviews Mark Steyn, June 16, 2009. Part 1/2


Dennis Miller interviews Mark Steyn, June 16, 2009. Part 1/2


Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran


Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The American People Celebrate Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–By Marching in 1000 Cities and Towns and Attending Ice Tea Parties To Freeze Federal Government Spending, Taxes and Deficits–30 Million Expected Nationally–1 Million In Washington D.C.!

 United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job! 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 15 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...