Obama's Public Approval Slipping

Via The Rhetorican and the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Approval Numbers, While Still High, Are Slipping":

After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

There's good news for the administration, too, including tentative support for Mr. Obama's health-care plan and approval of his nominee for the Supreme Court. The public seems more optimistic about the country's economic future than it did a few weeks earlier, and Americans are still more likely to blame the last administration for the deficit.

But the poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

More at the link.

Obama's support has dropped sharply among political independents - whichh is interesting, since if these "independents" are roughly the same as Gallup's "moderates," then the declining support of this cohort could be trouble, and soon:

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page -- 73% call themselves conservative -- Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents -- 45% -- describe their political views as "moderate." Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

Gallup trends show a slight increase since 2008 in the percentages of all three party groups calling themselves "conservative," which accounts for the three percentage-point increase among the public at large.

Check also Cold Fury, which has some comments on President Obama's interview with Gerald Seib:

The lying dickwad has been a hard-Left socialist his whole goddamned life, which has been clear from his every spoken word; his every written word; his choice of associations; his choice of “community organizing” and public-sector careers (never once having held an actual job in his useless life); the few votes he actually bothered with in his brief Senate career — and he now wants us to know it’s all because of George Fucking Dubya Bush.

What a worthless, manipulative, buck-passing prick.

Hmm, I wonder if we can place Cold Fury in the "conservative" column?

Added: Memeorandum has a thread. Plus, the New York Times concurs with WSJ, "Poll Finds Unease With Obama on Key Issues."

Nationalized Health Care Abortions

From Jill Stanek:

Lest you doubt Obama's intentions, the last 2 Planned Parenthood weekly email alerts have been about the health care plan. Read this one. The intention to include abortion in nationalized health care couldn't be any more clear. (Yet isn't it interesting, as always, that the A-word is awol.)

Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care

Via Debbie Hamilton and The Grouch, "Socialized Auto Repair and Car Care":

The dictum finally came down from the lord Barack Obama, the messiah, the most merciful that all the land should be taxed and part of the proceeds would be used to fund socialized car care.

Mac the mechanic, who had been an auto mechanic for at least 30 years received notice in the mail that he would no longer be able to bill people directly for his services, but would rather have to send a monthly claim to the administration of car care and auto repair. Mac had always pretty much run a cash and carry service. His loyal customers would bring their cars in for service. Mac, who was very competent and very well liked, would go over the problems with his clientele, make the authorized repairs, get paid in cash, and everyone was happy. If any unexpected problems occurred, Mac would do his best to make things right.

Well, suddenly, Mac found out that the gubment would not accept paper claims from him. The gubment required that Mac submit electronic claims. Poor Mac did not know a thing about computers. He called the car care and auto repair administration to complain but was told that this was "change he could believe in" and that he would be required to buy a complete computer system, the latest gubment claim submittal software, and a high speed internet connection, as well as hire a technician to train Mac and his staff on the proper utilization of the system.

Bewildered customers began to appear wanting their cars repaired. According to the latest gubment rules, Mac was no longer allowed to accept their money, but would be paid based on the primary problem with the car. Mr. Jones brought in his car because it was missing. Mac found it needed new spark plugs. While under the hood, Mac also found a leak in the radiator and a worn brake pad. Mac was surprised to find out that the gubment would only pay Mac for the new spark plugs, and only about 40 percent of his usual and customary charge for labor. They would not pay him anything for the radiator repair and installation of the new brake pad. His payment was based only on the primary problem.

Good stuff!

Read the whole thing at the link.

It's Hard Out Here For Barack...

From Matt Duss on Robert Kagan's, "Obama's Conundrum: Shunning Iran's Opposition":

It’s hard out here for a neocon ....

I have to say, Mr. Kagan, your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach. These sorts of claims are better left to your friend and occasional co-author Bill Kristol, who uses his series of valuable journalistic perches (with which he inexplicably continues to be gifted) to launch an endless stream of comically transparent bad faith arguments. You’re better than that. You’re the smart neocon ....

By backing pro-democracy rhetoric with American war and occupation, President Bush and his conservative supporters cast the cause of freedom and democracy into disrepute

Hmm, well, actually no ...

Check this, from Daniel Finkelstein, "Fancy that. They want freedom. Just like us. The protests in Iran show the neocons were right. No people, whatever their culture, want to live under despotism":

For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don't want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn't true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don't want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn't American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

This idea that the critics of neocons advanced so vociferously, that liberal democracy can't be “transplanted” on alien soil - what does it mean to the people of Iran who have thronged the streets to express their will?

Does it mean that we think the morality police is just part of Iranian culture? Just their way of doing things? For the thousands of protesters it is not. It turns out that they don't think it's right for young girls to be arrested, snatched from the streets for wearing the wrong coat. And they don't think there is a cultural defence to beating these girls until their parents arrive with a “decent” garment.

They don't think that public hangings are Iranian, either. Nor arbitrary detentions of doctors who dared to organise conferences on Aids, nor keeping human rights activists in solitary confinement, nor sentencing trade union leaders to five years in jail for trying to organise fellow workers. They don't think there is anything culturally valuable in sentencing political activists to death after secret trials lasting less than five minutes, or returning lawyers to jail again and again for opposing the death penalty or “publishing insulting material with unacceptable interpretation of Islamic rules”.

It is not part of their precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women's rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

And what of the other leg of the neocon argument? What of the idea that peace comes through the spread of liberalism and democracy? Can anyone really doubt that should the reformists succeed, even a little bit, the world would be a safer place? A democratic Iran would stop financing world terrorist movements, it would stop obsessing about external enemies and foreign conspiracies, it would stop threatening its neighbours. It would still oppose Israeli policy, it would still want to acquire nuclear material, but the threat of violence would recede.

Jennifer Rubin adds the finishing touch:

If this ends poorly — in a brutal crushing of the protesters — the lack of moral leadership will haunt the president. Why didn’t America do more? And if the regime is upended, Obama’s dreams of a deal with the mullahs will fade and there will be great upset and turmoil. Either way, Obama’s fondest hopes for a return to the status quo will be dashed — and with it the mythology that his aura can motivate, inspire, and change events on the ground.

Well, Duss, sorry man, it's hard out here for Barack, 'cause a whole lot'a bitches jumpin ship...

Sullivan Waffles! Take Iran Recognition One Day at a Time

In response to the Stephen Walt's realist critique of Andrew Sullivan's call for No Recognition of Ahmadinejad, Sully now says, well, that's just for today. We'll see how we feel about this tomorrow:

My point was about not recognizing now. As to the future, we have to see what it brings. A day is a long time right now in Iranian politics. So let's take this one day at a time for now.

Now doesn't that just prove my point from this morning! "Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment?"

See also,on Sullivan, "Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions," and

on Walt, "That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama.")

That 3:00am Phone Call for Mr. Obama

First, Allahpundit notes this on the alleged murder of in Tehran's Isfahan dorms:

As with any Iranian video making the rounds on Twitter, I can’t prove that it is what it claims to be but it’s certainly plausible. Reports of students being killed by regime goons have been steady since the weekend, with 60 kids supposedly detained at Isfahan U. and others allegedly thrown out of upstairs windows. Clips of their injuries were being uploaded as early as Sunday but the one below takes it to a whole new level. Strong content warning, needless to say.

But see also, the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Iran Abdication":

The Obama Administration came into office with a realpolitik script to goad the mullahs into a "grand bargain" on its nuclear program. But Team Obama isn't proving to be good at the improv. His foreign policy gurus drew up an agenda defined mainly in opposition to the perceived Bush legacy: The U.S. will sit down with the likes of Iran, North Korea or Russia and hash out deals. In a Journal story on Monday, a senior U.S. official bordered on enthusiastic about confirming an Ahmadinejad victory as soon as possible. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August. In some respects, this might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker." The popular uprising in Iran is so inconvenient to this agenda.

President Obama elaborates on this point with his now-frequent moral equivalance. Yesterday he invoked the CIA's role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections," Mr. Obama said.

As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren't directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi. Beyond token Congressional support for civil society groups and the brave reporting of the Persian-language and U.S.-funded Radio Farda, America's role here is limited. Less than a fortnight ago, in Cairo, Mr. Obama touted his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people." Now the President who likes to say that "words matter" refuses to utter a word of support to Iran's people. By that measure, the U.S. should never have supported Soviet dissidents because it would have interfered with nuclear arms control.

The Iranian rebellion, though too soon to call a revolution, is turning out to be that 3 a.m. phone call for Mr. Obama. As a French President shows up the American on moral clarity, Hillary Clinton's point about his inexperience and instincts in a crisis is turning out to be prescient.

See also, Stephen Walt, "Realism and Iran":

Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as ... sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue.

Funny how "realism" gives the administration a pass for amateurish handling of events.

Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions"

James Joyner, in his post, "No Preconditions," hammers Andrew Sullivan and his post, "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad."

James provides this video from campaign '07, where candidate Obama was asked if he'd "be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries":

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them– which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration– is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

James links to his essay at the New Atlanticist, "Negotiating with Iran Without Preconditions." And he notes:

Atlantic senior editor Andrew Sullivan has a short post up titled "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad" in which he asserts, "This is the first and absolute requirement of all Western governments. The disgusting visuals of Medvedev and Ahmadinejad yesterday must not be repeated."

But Sullivan was one of the most prominent Obamacons, conservatives who nonetheless supported Barack Obama in last year's election for a variety of reasons, articulated superbly on his blog and in a December 2007 cover story in his magazine called "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters." Obama could not have been more clear on this issue. Who can forget this moment from the July 24, 2007 Democratic debate?

I'd note first that while perhaps Sullivan might have been an "Obamacon" last year, he's now a well-established spokesman for the gay-radical nihilist base of the Democratic Party.

In any case, it's clear, as James notes, that President Obama's assertion that he "will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran" remains the position of the administration.

Here's this morning's statement from the administration, from Jake Tapper:

President Obama argued yesterday that there is little different between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.

“It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” the president told CNBC. “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”

Read the whole thing. Actually, according to Tapper:

... there do seem some key differences on other issues. For one, Mousavi seems far more willing to engage with the West.

Mousavi has expressed a desire for more openness. "An approach that runs on the basis of 'keeping the influx of changes at bay' will irrefutably bring about the closure of newspapers, limitations on freedom in society and public detachment from national-religious leadership," he has said. "On the contrary, an approach that moves toward the recognition of changes, upholds values like sovereignty, liberty as well as peace. Such an approach would produce the right conditions for changes in the society and enable us to make the most of our opportunities.”

Bottom line?

Well, Sullivan's all messed up! Who knows what position he's advocating from moment to moment? But more importantly, is Barack Obama for real? As his homepage indicates:

Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

As James notes at his essay:

Should Obama now be willing to sit down with Iran's leadership to discuss interests vital to us both only on the rather stringent precondition that the mullah's oust Ahmadinejad? That would fly in the fact of his entire foreign policy platform.

See all the debate at Memeorandum.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Obama Disses the Opposition in Iran

From Robert Kagan, "Obama, Siding With the Regime":

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't. His extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American "moralizing." (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn't want the United States to appear to be "meddling.")

But Obama's calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

More at the link, and Memeorandum.

See also, "Neocons, House GOPers Demand Obama Take Moussavi’s Side."

Photo Credit: Boston Globe, "Iran's Continued Election Turmoil."

Iran Reveals Extent of BDS

From the unlikeliest of places - liberal foreign policy analyst George Packer - we have the bullet-quote of the day.

Packer notes that it's remarkable how difficult it's been for writers of various persuasions to call Iran's reprehensible police-state brutality "shameful":

The reason, of course, has everything to do with the wars of the Bush years, at home and abroad, which have left so many thoughtful people incapable of holding onto the most basic thought. But it’s a mistake to let your attitude toward historic events be shaped and deformed by the desire not to sound like a neo-con, or to sound like a neo-con reborn. Trust the evidence of your eyes.

Note the tricky nuance here: Packer comes very close to blaming President Bush for the inability of radical leftists to denounce the horrors of the Iranian regime. No wait, Packer WANTS to blame Bush for the left's derangement over Iran. But he pulls up short of that total condemnation. He has to pull up short! He ends up putting responsibility for the sickness squarely on the observer, because there's nowhere else it can go! And yes, sure, President Bush was a catalyst, but the utter demonic rage against the foreign policy of the Bush years had been simmering since the Vietnam era of the 1960s. A quick skim over Fred Baumann's "Our Fractious Foreign Policy Debate" demonstrates unimpeachably the building hate-based postmodernism that was unleashed by the unbinding of American foreign policy during the Bush years.

Packer, naturally, waxes on President Obama's "calm eloquence," which indicates that he remains enthralled by the Obameister's wicked spell of hope-and-change appeasement. And that makes the fact that he's been attacked by the likes of Spencer Ackerman even more spectacular. There are few as unhinged by BDS than is Spencer Ackerman. The guy's up there with Andrew Sullivan, and of course his flop-house buddy, Matthew Yglesias.

These folks are as bad as they come, and I should note with special reference to Sullivan, no amount of hyper-voluminous Iran-blogging can rescue these folks from the darkest depths of scurrility. We have seen the enemy at home. It's an menacing, ugly sight, but witnessing leftist Geoge Packer point it out is a rare but valuable thing to behold.

Neocons Unhinged?

Joe Klein attacks Senator John McCain, and the neoconservatives along with him:

For two years now, John McCain has been entirely consistent on Iran: every last statement he's made - at least, those that I've seen - has been (a) fabulously uninformed and (b) dangerously bellicose. He's still at it, apparently. There is no question that President Obama's more prudent path is the correct one right now. There is also no question that the neoconservatives are trying to gin up this situation into an excuse for not engaging with the Iranian government in the near future--and also as a rationale for their dearest, looniest dream, war with Iran.

Read the rest, here.

It's more of the same peacenik rambling from Joe Klein.

But seriously, why is President Obama's path the "more prudent"? We're only emboldening the Iranian regime, and we'll put the region into even greater peril - from Tehran to Tel Aviv - with the deadening moral silence of this administration vis-à-vis the heroic men and women in the streets of Iran.

As always, I'm struck by how intense have been our domestic partisan divisions over the mullah's shamocratic election and the brutal crackdown against the Iranian democrats in the street. (The left blames Iran's troubles on the U.S., and discounts any comparison between the bankrupt Democratic Party leadership of today to the vigorous Cold War leadership of the Reagan administration during the 1980s. The analogy holds, folks, because tyranny holds today in Iran as it did across the East Bloc under the Kremlin.)

Where is American leadership?

We don't have to use apocalyptic rhetoric to denounce the administration's abject moral cowardice. A perfectly measured tone will do: "What Obama needs to say and do about Iran," and "More things Obama should be saying and doing about Iran."

As for Joe Klein, he's simply attempting to settle scores for getting his butt kicked by neoconseratives so many times its ridiculous. Previously, Peter Wehner has repeatedly mopped up with Klein, and I eviscerated Klein at this post.

See also Peter Wehner's essay tonight, "Let Us Not Comfort Cruel Men."

Photo Credit: Boston Globe, "Iran's Continued Election Turmoil."

Instapundit Goes Green!

Solidarity!

Via Tigerhawk, Instapundit goes green!

Check Glenn's page for plenty of updates on Iran's election. For example, "THEY’RE rallying for Iranian democracy in San Francisco tonight."

Hmm, maybe I should try out some green on header background above?

What'd ya think? I mean, hey, Glenn Reynolds is the coolest. But if it's good enough for the Ordinary Gentlemen and Andrew Sullivan, it's good enough for me!

Senator John Ensign Admits Extramarital Affair

Via the New York Times, "Senator Ensign Admits Extramarital Affair":

Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, on Tuesday admitted that he had an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff.

Mr. Ensign led the Republicans’ campaign efforts in 2008 and had been contemplating a run for president in 2012.

An aide said the consensual affair took place between December 2007 and August 2008, and that the woman worked for both Mr. Ensign’s campaign operation, Ensign for Senate, as well as a conservative political action committee, Battleborn PAC, from December 2006 to May 2008. Mr. Ensign is honorary chairman of the PAC. The woman’s husband was a member of Mr. Ensign’s official Senate staff. Neither has worked for the senator since May 2008, the aide said.

Mr. Ensign, 51, is married and has three children. During college at Colorado State University, he became a born-again Christian and he and his wife, Darlene, were active in the Promise Seekers, an evangelical group.

In a statement released by his office in Washington, Mr. Ensign said: “I take full responsibility for my actions. I know that I have deeply hurt and disappointed my wife, my children, my family, my friends, my staff and the people of Nevada who believed in me not just as a legislator but as a person. I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions.”

Mr. Ensign’s wife also issued a statement, reaffirming her commitment to her husband: “Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger. I love my husband.”

More at the link.

See also, Chris Cillizza and Paul Kane, "Ensign to Acknowledge Extramarital Affair."

The Washington Independent is already twirling mustaches, "Cross John Ensign Off of the 2012 Hopeful List."

Personally, my sense is that if guys like this can't keep it holstered, then they deserve a primary challenge.

Added: The Politico reports that blackmail was involved, "Nevada Sen. John Ensign admits affair; sources say blackmail involved," via Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche!

Food Nazis

From The Guardian, "Food is the new fur for the celebrity with a conscience":

Actors, designers, pop stars have all got behind the hot new ethical campaign: food. From saving species to investigating conditions for pigs, star quality is pushing it to the foreground ...

Also, check out the "Food Nazi Mom," MeMe Roth , "Anti-Obesity Activist MeMe Roth Compares Eating To Rape":

The defence has been made in the case of sex criminals that there is pleasure on the part of the victim. The same is true with what we're doing with food. We may abuse our bodies with food, but it's incredibly pleasurable. From a food marketer's point of view, when your quote unquote victim is so willing and enjoying of the process, who's fighting back?

Ms. Roth runs the National Action Against Obesity.

I wonder what Robert Stacy McCain could do with this story?

Hat Tip: Gawker.

Amir Taheri: Excerpt, The Persian Night

Here's an excerpt from Amir Tahiri, The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution.

"Repression and Resistance: Urban workers, women, students, teachers, and ethnic minorities against the regime":

In 2007, several women’s organizations launched a campaign to collect one million signatures for a petition calling for an end to inequality. In a statement on March 7, 2006, the Organization for Women’s Liberation, one of the many groups fighting Khomeinism, had made it clear that Iranian women would not be satisfied with cosmetic changes. They were demanding major reforms that, if implemented, could undermine the ideological foundations of the Khomeinist system.

The statement reads in part:

The movement for women’s liberation is, at the present time, the flagship of No to Inequality, to Discrimination, to Sexual Apartheid, to the Veil, and is the flagship of defense of Women’s Rights against Cultural Relativism, defense of Secularism and struggle against Political Islam. With its clear platform of action this movement is being organized and led. The progressive movement for women’s liberation has, through its activities and influence in many protests, succeeded in pushing back and defeating the Islamic regime’s attacks against women. The presence of a radical women’s movement is an undeniable reality in Iran.

The statement adds:

The measure of society’s freedom is the freedom of women. To achieve freedom we must overthrow the medieval Islamic rule. So long as this regime is ruling, women and society will not be free. The struggle for women’s freedom is part of the general struggle for freedom, equality, and welfare.

That the regime is incapable of delivering even on its promises of limited reform is illustrated by the case of the Lapidation Act, concerning stoning to death. In 2002, President Khatami, bowing to pressure from women’s organizations, declared a moratorium on this barbarous practice. The more radical Khomeinist mullahs, however, reacted by issuing even more fatwas sentencing women accused of sexual intercourse outside marriage to death by stoning in public. Between 2003 and 2005, the number of such cases more than doubled as thirty-two women were stoned to death. The self-styled reformist president rubbed his hands together in mock despair. He could do nothing against fatwas that overruled the authority even of a self-styled Islamic state. The precedent was Khomeini’s fatwa for the murder of Salman Rushdie. If that fatwa could not be revoked, no fatwa could. This situation could lead to total lawlessness in which any mullah could decide to sentence anyone to death on any charge.

While workers and women are engaged in a deep and long struggle against the fascist regime, the most visible opposition to Khomeinism has come from university students. In July 1999, thousands of Tehran University students revolted against the regime with cries of “Down with the Dictator” and “Freedom of Thought, always, always!” The movement quickly spread to the provinces and within a week had mobilized more than a million students. A photo of Ahmad Batebi, one of the leaders of the movement in Tehran, wearing a bloodstained T‑shirt and holding a poster calling for freedom, made the rounds all over the world, prompting comments that Iran was on the verge of a “second revolution.” As the movement gathered momentum, other opposition groups watched and waited for the right moment to join.

They waited too long. The regime, badly shaken at first and divided between those who urged immediate repression and those who counseled accommodation, pulled itself together and reacted with terror and bloody repression. Thousands of hired thugs from Hezballah were brought in to occupy the Tehran University campus, while special units of the Baseej, led by General Qalibaf, beat and arrested the protestors. Four students died and hundreds more were injured. Over three thousand others were arrested. In September, an Islamic kangaroo court sentenced six student leaders to death, among them Batebi and Manuchehr Mohammadi. The crackdown came after Khatami, who had initially hesitated, realized that the movement was targeting the very heart of the regime. The students were openly calling for a secular system based on a separation of mosque and state. They were calling on the mullahs to return to their mosques and seminaries, allowing the people to form a democratic government representing the nation’s rich diversity. Khatami joined the crackdown after he was told that further hesitation could lead to direct intervention by the IRGC and possibly his own arrest. The uprising and the repression that followed killed all hopes of “change from within,” known as estehaleh in Persian, and thus effectively ended Khatami’s presidency. As one student leader, Akbar Mohammadi, was to observe a few months later, the regime had shown that it was incapable of reform. “We started the movement with the conviction that we were supporting efforts for reforming the system without changing it,” he said. “When the movement was crushed and we were in prison, we realized that the only way that Iran could see real change was overthrowing the regime.”

More at the link.

Buy the book, here.

That's Not My Name...

Let's lighten things up a bit with some hotness from The Ting Tings, "That's Not My Name." Enjoy (video starts shortly):

Lyrics are here.

Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty

Here's my latest at Pajamas Media, "Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty."

Below is the video of Prejean's interview with Sean Hannity:

The latest news is dueling lawsuits: "Carrie Prejean, Miss California Pageant Headed to Court?" and "Beauty Pageant to Sue Carrie Prejean for Talking Smack to the Media."

Also, see TMZ, "Pageant to Carrie: Your Court Is Ready!"

Leftists Hit Bottom?

Cold Fury, in Palin is the New Bush, sums up how I feel about legitmating extreme left-wing discourse:

For a good long while there, some of the more genial and polite souls in the right blogosphere seemed all too eager to give people like Yglesias and Oliver Willis the benefit of the doubt as perfectly reasonable and worthy opponents in a polite, genteel debate that never really existed; it seemed plain enough to me all along what they were really all about. But sooner or later, even the most unreasonably optimistic among us realizes that the toad isn’t going to turn into a prince, no matter how arduously they keep kissing it.

This comes after a discussion of Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias. As I note here on Sullivan (and those "Rovian Islamists"), the left's comparisons between American conservatives and the hardliner in Iran is simply breathtaking. But see also, "Yglesias Hits Bottom."

Glenn Reynolds has in interesting post on his battles with these idiots going back 5 years. It turns out Yglesias went so far to say, "Fuck you," Glenn, during a debate over President Bush and Iraq.

Maybe even Ann Althouse is finally coming around - the end of Althouse/Yglesias bloggingheads?

Obama Weakens America's Global Standing

From Nile Gardiner, "The Iranian Election: Barack Obama’s Cowardly Silence":

The Obama administration's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House's refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.

Read the whole thing, here.

See also, "FOX News Poll: Americans Say Obama Not Tough Enough on North Korea, Iran."

More at Memeorandum.

Photo Credits: Boston Globe, "Iran's Disputed Election."

Obama Faces Islamofascist Reality

The alternative information stream from Iran is truly mind-boggling. The Boston Globe is trying to catch up to the bloggers and twitterers with its photo roundup, "Iran's Disputed Election", via Memeorandum:

But Twitter is just amazing, for example, "IranRiggedElect."

But events have moved past the media's epic fail the President Obama's.

Ben Smith's got a piece up at The Politico, "Unrest in Iran Forces President Obama's Hand" (also at Memeorandum).

But International Business Daily nails it, "Helping Mahmoud":

In his inaugural address, President Obama had a message for the oppressed and oppressor alike. He said, "To all other peoples and governments who are watching today . . . know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

He added: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

The clenched fist of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his suspect return to power, has not only delivered a blow to freedom-seeking Iranians; it is also knocking the Obama administration for a loop — primarily because the president has chosen not to stand with Iranians who seek "a future of peace and dignity."

The administration was obviously rooting for Ahmadinejad to be beaten by his chief rival, former Iranian prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi. The president on Friday, the day of the election, spoke of "a robust debate taking place in Iran" bringing with it "new possibilities" and "the possibility of change."

How naive those words sound in retrospect. Presidential wishful thinking has crashed head-on into Islamofascist reality.

There's more at the link. And check Memorandum for more analysis.

The Future of Social Security: Not Good

From Kimberly Palmer at U.S. News, "The Future of Social Security: Not Good":

I spent the morning at the Youth Entitlements Summit on Capitol Hill, where 20-somethings quizzed economists about the future of Social Security, Medicare, and the financial security of our country. I left feeling like young people have a lot to worry about.

Not only are they facing one of the worst job markets right now, which means they're having trouble getting the early experience they need to build future careers, but they also seem likely to pay higher taxes and perhaps receive lower benefits from these entitlement programs. The Social Security trust fund, for example, is scheduled to run out in 2037. After that point, if no changes are made, there will only be enough money from tax revenue to pay about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.

Some on the radical left, of course, insist that the "sky is not falling on Social Security." And these guys get really mad if you don't toe the line on their unhinged big-government pie-in-the-sky analyses!