For six long days, the protesters in Iran waited to hear some words of support from the President of the United States. Public pressure for him to say a few words in support of the Iranian freedom demonstrations began to build, even as Obama justified his silence by saying that he didn't want to "meddle in Iran's business." Standing up against a dictatorship and for people willing to risk their lives in search of freedom is hardly 'meddling'. Unless one is a fascist and one's sympathies therefore lie with the state instead of the people.
I've said it before and it bears repeating here; there's something really wrong about America's new president. He's so wrong that it has become a sort of insulation that surrounds him, like the Principle of the Big Lie made flesh. The Principle of the Big Lie was articulated and later field tested by Adolf Hitler, who explained it like this:
"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."(Every time I read this through I am staggered at the depth of demonic insight this passage reveals. Want to see your mind from the devil's perspective? Through one of his chosen, he lays it out for us right here.)
"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."The point relevant to the Big Lie that I am trying to make here is that eventually, the public becomes conditioned to it. Not just the lie, but the principle itself. Even when they know it is a lie, they'll accept it -- and even defend it.
"Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." (Mein Kampf, Chapter 10)
When Obama finally broke his silence to condemn the Iranian government's reaction to the demonstrations, his criticism was tempered by his reference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "President" Ahmadinejad and to Ayatollah Ali Khameni as "Supreme Leader."
The demonstrators heard what they needed to hear. Obama recognized Ahamadinejad's presidency as legitimate while acknowledging Khameni as Iran's 'Supreme Leader'. Since the catalyst for the revolt was Khameni's legitimization of Ahmadinejad's election, Obama's 'condemnation' cut the legs out from under the revolution.
But so accustomed have we become to hearing that whatever Obama does is too deep for the average person to grasp, the only ones who really heard what Obama was saying were the Iranian students he was throwing under the bus. (Which brings something else to mind. Ever notice how indelibly linked Obama has become to that 'bus' metaphor?) Remember during the campaign when Joe Biden babbled something about a 'test' and how at first, it is gonna look like they're doing the wrong thing? Maybe Joe wasn't babbling at all, but planting the first seeds in preparation for the conditioning process to come. The first 'test' was the economy. America was too far in debt and some of our creditors had started to pull out. As a consequence, the market tanked. The Obama response to being over-extended is to over-extend to the point of incomprehension. Not only is the average American unaware of how huge the debt has become, neither does the Congress and Senate who admittedly passed the spending bills without reading them.
The Obama response to Iran's threats to wipe Israel off the map was to extend a hand of friendship. The Obama response to a popular uprising against the Iranian dictatorship was to extend recognition to the dictatorship. Whenever anyone dares to question what Obama is doing, the questioner is ridiculed as too simple to grasp all the nuances. The fallback position is "we had this debate in November and we won." So shut up.
The Honduran Congress ousted President Manuel Zelaya for what amounted to crimes against the Honduran Constitution aimed at extending both his power and his ability to rule beyond term limits. Until the Honduran Congress stripped him of his office and exiled him to Costa Rica, Manuel Zelaya's actions were compared by the media to those of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Make no mistake about Zelaya. He is a South American leftist of the same school that graduated Castro, Chavez, Manuel Noreiga and Daniel Ortega. Zelaya signed Honduras on to the Chavez-led bloc of Latin American countries called the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, which was conceived to undermine support for a U.S.-based hemispheric free-trade accord.
Manuel Zelaya once ordered ten two-hour mandatory government broadcasts on all television and radio stations "to counteract the misinformation of the news media." Sounds like Obama's kind of guy, doesn't he?
The Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya violated the constitution by trying to hold an illegal poll on whether people support his proposal to change the constitution. The court issued an arrest order for the president on June 26.
Zelaya also ignored a court order that said he couldn’t fire the head of the military for refusing to oversee the survey, and stormed a military base with a mob of civilians to “liberate” the ballots.
Not only the Supreme Court but the Congress of Honduras, the attorney general of Honduras, and the top national electoral body declared Zelaya's proposed referendum to be illegal. Congress began to discuss means to impeach Zelaya. On June 28th, acting on an arrest warrant and orders issued by the Honduran Supreme Court, Zelaya was seized , taken to an air force base and flown into exile in Costa Rica.
On June 27th and again on June 30, 2009, thousands of protesters opposed to Zelaya's rule marched through the capital city. Instead of staying silent for days as he did in Iran, Obama immediately issued a statement calling it an "illegal coup." The press, who only days before were comparing Zelaya to Hugo Chavez, also started calling it a "coup" instead of what it was - a legal exercise of democratic checks and balances designed to prevent the rise of a dictatorship.
Here's a terrific example of what I mean from the clearly confused BBC:
"However, despite near-universal support internationally, Mr Zelaya faces some major challenges if he is to be reinstated, say the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Tegucigalpa."And just what are those "challenges" to Zelaya's return that the the BBC foresees?
Ummmm. Well. Ya see. . .
"There is no evidence of disunity in the military, and a substantial proportion of the Honduran population do not want Mr. Zelaya to return, our correspondent says."My, that IS a challenge. The Congress doesn't want the guy back. The Supreme Court doesn't want the guy back. The army doesn't want the guy back. The people don't want the guy back. Why? Could it be because he is a leftist dictator who tried to take over his country?
But Obama says his impeachment and removal from office is an "illegal coup" and ordered Secretary of State Clinton to meet with "President" Zelaya in Washington later today.
Far from not wanting to "meddle" in another country's internal affairs, the White House has redefined "illegal" - for Honduras! Zelaya doesn't even have the support of his own people. If the Supreme Court and Congress cannot legally remove Zelaya, who can?
Obama has enlisted the majority-leftist Organization of American States in his drive to overturn the will of the Honduran people to determine their own leadership.
I'm NOT making this up!
There is no hidden 'back story' that explains why American interests are involved or why a Zelaya dictatorship is more in America's interests than the Constitutionally-installed interim government now in place there. People are assuming there MUST be, else why would Obama be calling it an "illegal coup?" It is the Principle of the Big Lie in action.
Why would Obama remain silent about Iran's stolen election until Ahmadinejad regained control while immediately denouncing the legal removal of a rogue president trying to take over his country? (Insulation against the future?) There MUST be a reason. It's not apparent to us yet, just like Joe Biden predicted on the campaign trail. But nonetheless, there's a good reason why up looks like down and black looks like white and why increasing debt is the way to prosperity. There's a good reason why America should recognize Ahmadinejad's election as "legal" and the Congressional impeachment of Manuel Zelaya as "illegal." Obama says so.
And that is all you need to know.
Iran Cites Preparations for Talks With West - Wall Street Journal
Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters - National Review
Iranian Foreign Minister Says Tehran Preparing 'Package' for West - Voice of America
Isolated Honduras hunkers down, Zelaya vows action - Reuters
Hopes Fade for Quick End to Honduran Political Crisis - Wall Street Journal
Honduras government gains ground with Congress - The Hill
Political Uncertainty in Honduras Remains as Talks Fail to Produce Agreement - Transworld News