Obama believes the Ayatollah but what would Ronald Reagan do?

Breitbart reports on Obambi’s latest effort to be loved by bloodthirsty dictators abroad.(H/T Stop the ACLU)

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.

Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”

But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.

What do other Western countries have to say about Iran?

Germany

Germany denounces the suppression of democracy:

…the Germans, who shamefully happen to be Europe’s biggest exporters to Iran, strongly denounced the crackdown on protestors, as have a number of European governments. Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier condemned the “brutal actions” against demonstrators, and summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Berlin in protest.

Merkel is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to her.

France

France denounces the suppression of democracy: (H/T Lucianne)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday branded Iran’s election result a fraud as the international outcry over the security forces’ crackdown on the opposition in Tehran intensified.

Governments from Asia to Europe voiced concern about the violence that erupted Monday during rallies protesting the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election, with US President Barack Obama saying he had “deep concerns” while also not wanting to meddle in Iran’s affairs.

But while some governments tried to avoid taking sides, Sarkozy said the unrest was a direct result of Ahmadinejad’s failings in his first term.

“The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction,” said the French leader.

Sarkozy is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to him.

Canada

Canada denounces the suppression of democracy:

“We have called for a full and transparent investigation into electoral fraud and discrepancies,” Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told Parliament in Ottawa, as the government called Iran’s top diplomat on the carpet to explain the reported beating and detention of a freelance Canadian journalist in Tehran following Friday’s contested ballot.

“The security force’s brutal treatment of peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable.”

“The government of Canada calls for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran, and urges the country to fully respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice. We also continue to call on Iran to comply immediately with its legal obligations concerning its nuclear program.”

Harper is a conservative, not a moral relativist secular-leftist. Freedom means something to him.

What about the Republicans?

Consider conservative Republicans like Mike Pence: (H/T Hot Air)

Nice Deb has the full transcript of Pence’s speech.

Excerpt:

We are witnessing a Tiananmen in Tehran, and the United States of America must stand in the gap on behalf of those brave Iranian citizens who are standing for free and fair elections, democracy and basic rights.

Let me say from my heart, the American cause is freedom and in this cause the American people will not be silent, here or abroad. If the President of the United States won’t express the unqualified support of our nation for the dissidents in the streets of Tehran, this Congress must.

What will you do about it, Republican Congressman Mike Pence?

Today I’m introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections.  It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.

Read the whole thing to find out about his Hungarian neighbor. I have Lebanese neighbors, and they say the same things – the USA is the guardian of freedom in the world. Our military might is the reason why countries like South Korea are free. We should not have elected Democrats who let let innocent people die while bashing liberty and prosperity to foreign dictators. Being a Democrat means being an amoral coward. It means being interested in your own comforts, provided stealing from those who work, and ignoring the real poor and oppressed who languish under despots abroad.

Why can’t Obama give a speech like this? Because Obama is a Democrat, and Democrats are moral relativists. Always remember how Evan Sayet explained why progressives hate what is good and love what is evil. They believe in abolishing moral distinctionsso that all disagreements will disappear, and so they must side with tyrants and terrorists against freedom and prosperity.

What would Reagan do?

Remember what it was like to have a Christian President, who beleived in God, and objective morality, and wanted everyone in the world to enjoy certain inalienable rights, guaranteed by their Creator? Remember “The Speech” he gave in 1964?

And his speech at the Berlin wall?

And his 40th anniversary of D-Day speech?

There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Those who have high ideals and those who act like spoiled children.

And remember when the atheistic communists were oppressing Poland, and the left was mocking Ronald Reagan for his “naive” anti-communism and his irrational Christian beliefs? That’s right, atheists hate Christianity, and the human rights grounded by it. And they hate capitalism, too. But Reagan didn’t care what the secular left though of his faith and his foreign policy. He didn’t want to be loved by dictators. He stood with Poland.

We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people.

Violence invites violence and threatens to plunge Poland into chaos. We call upon all free people to join in urging the Government of Poland to reestablish conditions that will make constructive negotiations and compromise possible.

…The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history. The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law.

Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it.

Story from Hot Air. Please click over and read ALL of Reagan’s speech.

This is Reagan.

And I’m only here to tell you that I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also, that this meeting this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, and that we cannot shirk our responsibility as a leader of the free world because we’re the only ones that can do it. Therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong.

Does this sound like Obama?Does Obama believe this? Can a secular-leftist fight for these ideals?

Does it sound like a man who could win the cold war and liberated millions of people without fighting a world war?

And also see my essay on Reagan’s doctrine of “Peace through Strength” to understand why Reagan mattered.

10 thoughts on “Obama believes the Ayatollah but what would Ronald Reagan do?”

  1. So you’re saying you want Obama to give a speech, just like your beloved conservatives? maybe afterwards we can all hold hands and sing koom ba ya my lord? If you don’t plan on any type of more aggressive actions, why waste your time? What results do you think talking to the ambassador will result in? Nothing other than weakening your position. France, canada, and Germany will be seen as countries without spines. “We talked about it, but that’s all, since talking is what makes conservatives happy obviously.”

    Unless we’re gonna boycott them, implement some type of export ban (and force others to obey), we’re wasting our time, resources, and effort that could be much better directed at bigger problems.

    I find it a bit hypocritical that you’re saying we should endorse rioting and violence when it serves our ends but I have yet to see anything on your site denouncing the atrocities happening in the places like Darfur, don’t you?

    Like

    1. Speeches didn’t win the cold war, my friend, but the cold war was won, and without the military response you seek. (Remember, Obama cut missile defense)

      I can supply you with a dozen non-military options for dealing with Iran, such as refusing to refine their oil or supporting resistance movements with arms. These are not things you would have heard about though, because they are found in books on military strategy and foreign policy by scholars like H.W. Crocker III or Stephen Ambrose or John Bolton or Ken Timmerman or Richard Miniter.

      Like

    1. I didn’t say Africa, I said Darfur. Are you seriously suggesting all the women and girls getting raped should throw stacks of money in their rapers faces?

      And, I would like to see some proof of that claim. Everything I read indicated just the opposite.

      Like

  2. We didn\’t win the cold war because of missile defense or nuclear build up, we won because we have a superior form or government. The Soviet union would have collapsed around the time it did regardless of who was president.

    And like I was saying we would have to get others to join the boycotts you speak off since we don\’t use iranian oil, Japan is their biggest customer. In doing so, we would send oil prices through the roof causing the conservative movement to criticise for that.

    So no, you cannot supply a dozen non-military options since we have no diplomatic nor trade relations with Iran. We are powerless to deal with the situation unless we can get others to agree to our wishes.

    Like

  3. http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/171381.asp?from=blog_last3

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/twitter/5552733/Twitter-maintained-service-during-Iranian-elections-after-US-State-Dept-request.html

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVfx9nWcGKwoXsxpAQZFJhNwGVsAD98RVV7G0

    To sum up the above three articles:
    \”the US State Department has asked Twitter to delay system maintenance to prevent cutting off Iranians who have been relying on the service during the post-election crisis.\”

    So I guess we\’re not abandoning democracy so quickly after all. A little research, wintery, is all you needed!

    Like

    1. Who said anything about Twitter? I was monitoring Twitter feeds for news on the Iranian election. What was shut down by the Iranian government was SMS text messaging and internet access. Sheesh, stop being so angry.

      He told reporters: “We announced a week earlier that the government intended to block access to internet and SMS on Friday and that was what actually happened yesterday. They blocked the SMS network totally since Thursday night.” He also said that “our representatives were supposed to monitor poll centres since Friday morning but none of them had been allowed to do so and many have been treated poorly”.

      He added: “In many poll centres they didn’t let our legal representatives enter and monitor. It’s obviously rigging and we want the results to be annulled.

      “They hindered us monitoring poll centres by not giving necessary cards to our representatives or giving them wrong cards,” he continued, adding that their representatives were not also allowed to monitor vote-counting after the polls closed.

      This was a paper ballot election, yet the results were announced a few hours later. That is why we know it was rigged.

      How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? That’s a key question in Iran’s disputed presidential election.

      International polling experts and Iran analysts said the speed of the vote count, coupled with a lack of detailed election data normally released by officials, was fueling suspicion around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory.

      No one can count that fast.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s