"Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."
Condemn it? Ooo...Marack, you're so strong...so tough...such a fucking worthless piece of crap. When you open your mouth I feel like running to the nearest toilet so I can spew. The sight of your stupid face contaminates my soul. You are a self-absorbed cretin who would no doubt advocate eating the poor if you could get away with it. Oh, and by the way ass, the protesters are not pursuing justice (Caroline Glick is mind melding with me again, she thought the same thing, as you will read later...I wonder if she threw something at the TV too). They are fighting for their freedom from fascists like yourself you colostomy windbag.
Of course the media orgasmed with fury at your thoughtlessness, elegantly cloaked in mock concern...this one's for all the douchebags at the NBC (National Barack Channel), MSNBC (Multi-Shitheaded National Barack Channel), and ABC (All Barack Channel).
So, when I read his utterly worthless statement in the McPaper (USA Today) I wondered what contradictory spew would come flying out of his rectal mouth...something about not getting involved, or it's not our place to judge the legitimacy of other people's elections (especially when he got into office thanks to the DNC condoning and enabling his campaign's rampant registration, caucus, and voter fraud...'cause he's cool like that). Not surprisingly he sent his camp counselors to do the job for him: David Axelpimp and Susan Lice (unrelated to Kindasleezy Lice). In the face of the essentially confessed fraud, and the people of Iran calling the election illegitimate, Susan Lice basically said legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder:
"Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."
First Susan, let me disprespectfully say...go fuck yourself. We know the legitimacy of a corrupt regime that crushes democracy is not critical to you as you are part of an illegitimate regime that crushes democracy. As I've said before, Marack is more interested in rimming the mullahs than he is about freedom and democracy. The dissidents in Iran are going to learn exactly what the words "hope and change" mean in Marack speak: "Go fuck yourselves. I love mullahs."
Once again, let's turn OMV over to Caroline Glick:
"No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement."
She then goes on to ask the same questions we in the Marack Resistance have been asking:
If Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.
Welcome to our world Caroline. Sucks doesn't it?
Read the whole column.
On the other side of the coin comes Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah of Iran. The father came to power in 1941 after Britain and the USSR invaded, deposing Reza's grandfather. The toppling of Iran's popular Prime Minister in the 50's with the help of the CIA is a well known story. Considering the past, it is hard as a cynical American to ascertain what motivates Reza Pahlavi to come forward. Is it concern for his fellow Iranians who are being gunned down in the streets, being hauled off by secret police in ambulances, taken outside the city limits and executed? I have to believe this is at least partially true. Only a heartless scumbag can watch what is happening in Iran and not be enraged. Does he hope to restore the line of monarchs that, until the deposition of his father, ruled Iran in a line of monarchical rule that dated back to the rule of Cyrus? Perhaps. But even he must know that his return would be symbolic. It is democracy that the people desire. Regardless, his speech is indeed a great contrast to the callous, thoughtless, and mullah sanctifying stance of the douche in the White House.
Even the son of a deposed ruler has more dignity than the First Poseur.
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment