Hi Helen,

The results of the poll and the simple fact that the Independents are now the biggest party or group of voters might possibly be a sign of things to come and that true change might come about after 4 dismal years of B Hussein the great pretender.

If you read between the lines of the poll you'll see that this is actually a seesaw effect and one can't learn who these people will vote for next time but shows that many that voted  for B Hussein regret their decision.

If the Independents will have a good candidate next time we might possibly get an Independent president and that would in effect become a third party but we'll just have to wait and see.

As for Ron Paul where'd he disappear to??? Not hearing much from him since the election. Wonder if the extraterrestrials haven't abducted him. :)

Shalom,

Peter

Hello Friends,

B Hussein the great pretender was "Appalled and Outraged" by the actions of the despotic Iranian regime against the protesters and "revolution".

The truth is that many Americans and citizens of the world are appalled and outraged by B Hussein's ineptitude and johnny come lately response. A response that did little to change anything while a strong response at the beginning of the protest/revolution might have contributed in saving Iranian lives and a less harsh reaction by the tyrannical, despotic Muslim regime.

The excuse that the United States can't  interfere in other country's internal policies is ridiculous cos protesting the fraudulent elections and condemning their reaction and murder of innocent civilians is one of his responsibilities as one of the leaders of the free world.

His fear of commenting and taking action during the revolt and murder of Iranian civilians was supposedly not to give the despotic Iranian regime any reason to claim that the USA is behind the revolution and he got kicked in the ass by his Muslim "buddies" once again. They blamed America, England and the Israeli Zionists in any case. So yet again he showed his ineptitude and inability to cope with the real world. So while Iranians were getting killed he was out on the golf course. Makes sense and shows great leadership qualities doesn't it?

In days of old I would have phrased the previous statement as President of the greatest country in the world but during his short stay in the White House the US lost that title and for that matter his Presidency is still under question by millions of Americans. Where's his birth certificate? Still hidden away in the vaults in Hawaii?

Another thought is that he simply doesn't want to come out and say anything negative about a Muslim country since their causes are so near and dear to his heart and beliefs for what I think are obvious reasons mentioned in many previous posts.

There is so much to write about his latest failure but it all boils down to his being "Appalled and Outraged" was far to little and way to late.

Shalom,

Peter

Hello Friends,

I just read Anne Coulter's excellent article which in a way is an extension of the message I tried to convey in my previous post.

She shows in no uncertain terms B Hussein's gross ineptitude and spares no words defining his gross incompetence.

Shalom,

Peter

Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be involved.)

Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."

Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.

Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" – peace be upon him – "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Plumb the depths of our in-the-tank news industry with "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media"

Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hitler as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters – and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.

You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.

More than a week ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained, "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling."

You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (It also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."

If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president condemned the mullahs?

Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week about Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him) constituted, at best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the fraud.

Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to credit Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian protesters?

The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished anything – anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who say that believe it.

The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. president is a coward and an imbecile.

To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some local color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free election would not have happened."

That's what Lebanese voters said.

But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – which he didn't have to go to Lebanon for – to get a quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that Obama's Cairo speech was responsible for the favorable election results in Lebanon.

"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity and economic progress and education, and this person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was possible."

I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible" and "this little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully than a speech apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.

Obama – and America – are still living off President Bush's successes in the war on terrorism. For the country's sake, may those successes outlast Obama's attempt to dismantle them.

Now the worst part is that being the great "apologist" B Hussein wil probably capitulate and apologize for that too.

Shalom,

Peter

Ahmadinejad Tells Obama Not to Interfere in Iran, Seeks Public Apology

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on President Obama on Thursday not to interfere in Iranian affairs after the U.S. president said he was "appalled and outraged" by post-election violence, a news agency reported.

"Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Do you want to speak (with Iran) with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about," said Ahmadinejad. "I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it."

Hundreds of protesters and activists are believed to have been taken into custody since the June 12 vote, in which Iran's ruling clerics declared hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner by a landslide. The government has also set up a special court to deal with the cases of people arrested in more than a week of unrest and threatened harsh sentences.

Widespread protests erupted after the election, amid allegations of massive fraud. Since then, at least 17 people have been killed as authorities gradually intensified their crackdown.

The state-owned newspaper, Iran, reported Thursday that in addition to the 17, seven members of the pro-government Basij militia were killed in post-election clashes, and dozens more injured by weapons and knives. The report could not be independently verified.

Seventy university professors were detained in Iran in a widening government crackdown on protesters, according to a Web site affiliated with Iran's key opposition figure, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says he was robbed of victory in a rigged presidential election.

The professors were detained on Wednesday, immediately after meeting with Mousavi, said the Kalemeh site, which is affiliated with the opposition leader. The report said it is not clear where the detainees were taken.

The professors detained Wednesday were believed to be among a group that has been pushing for a more liberal form of government. The detentions signal that the authorities are increasingly targeting members of Iran's elite.

In recent days, demonstrators have found themselves more and more scattered and struggling under a blanket crackdown that Mousavi's wife compared to martial law.

In clashes Wednesday near Iran's parliament, thousands of police crushed hundreds of Mousavi supporters, using tear gas and clubs.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said the election of Ahmadinejad will not be reversed. He has said the nation's rulers would never yield to demands from the streets.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As PMW reported earlier this week, PA (Fatah) TV marked the second anniversary of the Hamas takeover of Gaza by broadcasting a public Fatah event that focuses on vilifying Hamas. One part of this performance features a graphic video of Hamas members brutally beating a Fatah member in Gaza.

Another part criticizes and mocks Hamas for the decrease in its terror operations against Israel, glorifies Fatah terror, and ends with Fatah boasting that they "arrested two soldiers in Ramallah," a reference to the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli reservists.
 
In this scene actors portray a Hamas teacher and student supporters of Fatah and Hamas, debating which movement is greater. Significantly, the competition between Fatah and Hamas supporters is based not on who has built more Palestinian infrastructures, nor on who has promoted peace, but rather on who can take credit for more terror.
 
The debate ends when a Fatah student trumps Hamas's boast of having kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by mentioning the "arrest of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah" by the PA-Fatah. This alludes to the lynching and gruesome murder of two Israeli reservist soldiers who accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city in October 2000. While the picture of a Palestinian celebrating the killing by waving his bloody hands to the mob horrified the world, the murder remains a source of pride for Fatah.
 
[Note: Seated in the front row at the event are Fatah leaders, including Muhammad Dahlan, former head of PA security; Kadura Faras, head of the PA Prisoners' Association; Nasser Al-Qidwa, former PA Minister of Foreign Affairs;  Samir Al-Mashharawi, senior Fatah official; and others.]
 
Click here to view the "terror competition" between Fatah and Hamas  

The following is a transcript of the act: