Mousavi seeks to overturn Iran election result

Mousavi seeks to overturn Iran election result

Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:39pm EDT

By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Defeated candidate Mirhossein Mousavi demanded on Sunday that Iran’s presidential election be annulled and urged more protests, while tens of thousands of people hailed the victory of the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mousavi’s supporters again took to the streets after violence on Saturday, clashing with police in protests that have underscored political rifts exposed by Friday’s disputed vote.

In a statement on his website, Mousavi said he had formally asked the Guardian Council, a legislative body, to cancel the election result.

“I urge you, Iranian nation, to continue your nationwide protests in a peaceful and legal way,” he added.

Mousavi’s supporters handed out leaflets calling for a rally in Tehran on Monday afternoon. After dusk some took to the rooftops across the city calling out “Allah Akbar” (God is greatest), an echo of tactics by protesters in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The unrest that has rocked Tehran and other cities since results were declared on Saturday is the sharpest expression of discontent against the Islamic Republic’s leadership for years.

The election result has disconcerted Western powers trying to induce the world’s fifth biggest oil exporter to curb its nuclear programme. U.S. President Barack Obama had urged Iran’s leadership “to unclench its fist” for a new start in ties.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden cast doubt on the election result but said Washington was reserving its position for now.

“It sure looks like the way they’re suppressing speech, the way they’re suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there’s some real doubt,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked if Ahmadinejad had won the vote.

Germany, one of Iran’s biggest trading partners and a negotiator in the West’s nuclear talks with Tehran, has summoned the Iranian ambassador, the foreign minister said.

“We are looking toward Tehran with great concern at the moment. There are a lot of reports about electoral fraud,” Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Germany’s ZDF television.

An adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said what was happening in Iran was “clearly not good news for anyone, neither for the Iranians nor for peace and stability in the world.”


Ahmadinejad appeared amid a sea of red, white and green Iranian flags waved by partisans thronging Tehran’s Vali-e Asr square, some perched on rooftops or cars, to applaud the victory he achieved with a surprising 63 percent of the vote.

“Some … say the vote is disrupted, there has been a fraud. Where are the irregularities in the election?” he said in a speech that the crowd punctuated with roars of approval.

“Some people want democracy only for their own sake. Some want elections, freedom, a sound election. They recognize it only as long as the result favors them,” he declared.

Tarverdi Chegine, a 35-year-old government employee, told Reuters: “We have a very brave president. I love him.”

He said anti-Ahmadinejad protesters were not true Iranians. “They belong to the West. They belong to Bush. We are anti-Bush.”

After the rally, witnesses said Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters clashed on a main Tehran street. A Reuters reporter saw fires and broken glass on the street, people throwing stones, and riot police on motorbikes. One policeman was beating people on the pavement with a rubber truncheon.

About 2,000 students at Tehran University, some with Mousavi posters, others covering their faces with bandanas, chanted anti-government slogans and taunted riot police across the road outside. Some threw stones at police when they chased protesters who had tried to gather outside the university gates.

Abdul Reza, 26, standing behind the gates and watching as police charged the crowd outside, said: “Mousavi is the real president of Iran. Ahmadinejad did not win the election.”

Speaking at a news conference Ahmadinejad described the election as “clean and healthy” and dismissed complaints by defeated candidates as sour grapes.

He consigned Iran’s nuclear dispute to the past, signaling no nuclear policy change in his second term, and warned that any country that attacked his own would regret it. “Who dares to attack Iran? Who even dares to think about it?” he asked.

Iran’s refusal to halt nuclear work the West suspects is aimed at making bombs, a charge Tehran denies, has sparked talk of possible U.S. or Israeli strikes on its nuclear sites.


Police have detained over 100 reformers, including a brother of former President Mohammad Khatami, a leading reformer said. A police official denied Khatami’s brother had been arrested.

Interior Ministry officials have rejected accusations of election fraud and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s top authority, has called on Iranians to back their president.

A senior Western diplomat in Tehran said he believed the authorities would soon subdue the street unrest, but said Ahmadinejad’s re-election battle had exposed a polarizing power struggle between radicals and moderate conservatives which could affect the Islamic Republic’s long-term stability.

“There is turbulence in the whole system,” he added.

A spokesman for Mousavi said his newspaper, Kalameh-ye Sabz, and its website had been shut down. Mobile telephone text services have also been interrupted in Tehran for several days, and the British Broadcasting Corporation said Iran was using “heavy electronic jamming” to interrupt its widely watched BBC Persian television service.




Propose this in 2009:




(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan..

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost o f living adjustments..

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that’s Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH…

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;


From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of


$1,000 per month


After retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley’s benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
Then sit back…..

And see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people CAN you send this to?

Better yet……

How many people WILL you send this to ?


This is A Time For Courage

AT THE TEA PARTY, a black man, Dr. Donald May delivered this message from the courthouse steps in Lubbock . He electrified the audience like I haven’t seen in a long time.  His delivery was masterful.  I am sorry you could not see him in action.  Anyway, I thought you might enjoy his words. The news media were there, but not one word of this man’s appearance ever appeared on TV or in print, even though he completely dominated the scene.

Ralph McLaughlin

This is A Time For Courage April 15, 2009 – 11:49 pm

“Ladies and gentlemen, This is a time for courage. “We are gathered here today on the Plains of West Texas in common purpose. We are here to remind our government that this is our country, We the People are still in charge, and our government is still our servant and not our master. “Our Nation’s founding document is The Declaration of Independence.  It tells us that our rights come from God and not from a small group of elite men and women. “Our Constitution starts with the words “We the People.”  Our Constitution was written for ordinary Americans like you and me.  Our Constitution protects us from our government and from the politicians. “Our President has complained that our Constitution gives ordinary people too much protection. He has ridiculed us for the high value we place on our Bibles, our guns, our personal property, and our liberty.  He tells us we do not deserve to keep the money we have earned.  We are told freedom has not worked.  Personal responsibility, free enterprise, and Liberty have not been effective.  Our government will now make more of our decisions for us.

Other than our military, I can think of not one government agency I have ever found to be helpful. “And speaking
of our military, how about those Navy Seals blowing the heads off those three terrorist pirates?  Don’t you just wish our entire government would function with such efficiency, professionalism, and courage?  We watch in disbelief as our beloved
United States is weakened economically, militarily, and morally by a radical President and his eager accomplices.  What has taken generations to build is systematically destroyed and replaced with the same Socialist
evil that brought poverty, destruction, and despair to untold hundreds of millions. “The problems we face today have occurred because we have not defended our Nation from Socialism.  For too long we have allowed the wrong people to make the worst possible decisions.
The Bible warns us of class hatred. The radical leadership of our government daily fans the evil flames of class envy.  Our European and Canadian friends beg us to not make the same Socialist mistakes they did.  The President of the European Union warned our President that his Socialist economic plans are taking the world down the ‘Road to Hell’. “The path to power for Socialists includes taking God and guns from the citizens.  Without spiritual and physical protection, people cannot defend themselves and their liberty.  They soon become slaves.  We are angered that our President apologizes for the exceptionalism and heroism of the
United States of America .  We are deeply troubled he told others the United States is not a Christian nation.  We are angered that we have been called cowards and racists because we oppose Socialism.  Socialism is not racial.  Socialism is an equal opportunity destroyer.  We are angered that a recent Department of Homeland Security report has singled out our military men and women who are returning home as being radical threats. The report also characterizes you and me as right-wing extremists and radicals because we favor smaller government and lower taxes. “You and I are average citizens who believe just like most of our fellow Americans.  We want our government to leave us alone and to keep it’s hands off our money, our religion, or guns, our private property, and our lives.

We demand that our government stop spending money it does not have. “Stop confiscating our money and private property. “Stop printing money. “Stop subsidizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the other failed financial institutions and companies. “Mr. President, stop appointing tax cheats to positions of power and influence. “Mr. President, secure our borders. “Mr. President, do not divert money from our missile defense, F-22 Raptors, and other vital military equipment.  This gives encouragement, aid, and comfort to our enemies.  Protecting us is your number one job. “Mr. President, do not give voting rights to millions of illegal aliens and felons.  You have no more right to create new voters for your benefit than you do to use our money to buy the 2010 and 2012 Elections.

“We gather peacefully here today because there is a growing concern for what our government is doing to us and to our future.  We fear for the very survival of our Republic.  Yet there is much to make us hopeful and to fill our hearts with optimism and courage.  This is still our country!  The Constitution of the Unites States belongs to We the People.  Our Constitution still protects us from our government. “Call every possible elected official, including our President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House.  Demand that they stop stealing our money and giving it to ACORN and their other political supporters in order to buy votes.  Call Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and (your) Representative.  Thank them.  Urge them to do much more.  Remind them now is a time for action and not for campaigning. “Volunteer to work on our 2010 Census.  Confront ACORN.  Keep our Census honest.  We must not allow our President to take control of our Census for his political advantage. “We must replace as much of our far left Congress as possible in 2010. Get involved.  Do not let ACORN control our 2010 Election. “Talk with someone every day who does not understand our nation’s history and our great heritage.  Tell them why the United States is a good and prosperous nation.  It still remains that brightly lit city on the hill. It still is the best hope for all mankind.

“Talk with all of the young people you can find.  They are our future. Many do not understand what they have and that their future is being destroyed. “Encourage your elected State officials to pass legislation that will protect us from our Federal government.  Governor Rick Perry and others are doing that right now for Texas .  Thank them and pray for them. “This is a time for strong peaceful action.  Let us pray that ‘We the People’ can quickly return our government to it’s Constitutional responsibilities.

Our President and Congress were elected to be our servants and not our masters. “May God help our President and Congress to quickly realize the error of their ways and stop their reckless and unwarranted spending, cut our taxes, and reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy.  If they do not, may God grant us the courage and determination to vote them out of power next year. “May God richly bless and protect each of you, and our Constitution, as together
we pursue

Delivered at the Lubbock, Texas , TEA Party by Dr. Donald May Tax Day, 15 April 2009


Netanyahu Endorses Palestinian State, but Attaches Conditions

Netanyahu Endorses Palestinian State, but Attaches Conditions

By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:59 PM


JERUSALEM, June 14 — Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he is willing to support the creation of a Palestinian state, for the first time making a commitment that the United States, Europe and the Arab nations have urged on him since he took office.

But in a prime-time address, he attached a weighty list of conditions dictated by his personal beliefs and by the need to satisfy his right-leaning coalition in the Israeli parliament: The Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, with international guarantees that it remain so; it would have to cede control of its airspace to Israel; and it could be created only if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland.

President Obama welcomed Netanyahu’s speech as an “important step forward” and in a statement endorsed both key Israeli and Palestinian concerns. “The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,” the statement said. “He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel’s security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s endorsement of that goal.”

However, the prime minister’s speech left major points of contention unresolved, including Obama’s call in a speech in Cairo last week for a freeze on Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Netanyahu did not commit to a freeze in his remarks, instead shifting the discussion to what he views as the core issue — longstanding Arab rejection of the idea of a Jewish national home in “the land of our forefathers.”

“The root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own,” he said in a speech that ranged from biblical history to the threat Israel perceives in Iran’s development of nuclear technology.

“A fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu told the audience at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

“If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.”

The main points in Netanyahu’s address are not new. He has made similar comments in several public speeches since taking office. But in connecting them, as he did, with the creation of a Palestinian state, he has taken a step toward the U.S. position without compromising the basic principles on which he has based his political career.

Netanyahu’s remarks were sharply condemned by Palestinian officials, who said the prime minister had undermined the peace process by attaching so many requirements to Palestinian statehood and drawing a hard line on other issues.

In his 40-minute address, Netanyahu rejected the idea of resettling any Palestinian refugees on land inside Israel and insisted that Jerusalem would remain under the full control of Israel instead of becoming a joint capital — both issues that the Palestinians feel should be negotiated.

The Palestinians — and the Arab states broadly — were also hoping he would announce a freeze on settlements, something that past Israeli governments have promised. The West Bank, occupied in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, is now home to nearly 300,000 Jewish settlers, a number that has been growing steadily.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that while Obama had attempted in Cairo to mold a new future for the Middle East, Netanyahu was replaying history.

“He is in total defiance of Obama’s speech. He wants people to believe he said Palestinian state,” Erekat said. “What he said was that Palestinians left in cantons on the West Bank can have a flag and a song.”

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, he added, would slight the Muslim, Christian and other Arabs who make up about 20 percent of Israel’s population and prejudge resolution of the refugee issue.

“Our obligation is to recognize the state of Israel,” Erekat said. “Israel can call itself whatever it wants to call itself.”

Officials from the Islamist Hamas movement, who control the Gaza Strip, said the speech showed that Palestinians will not win concessions from Israel through negotiations.

The group maintains an armed wing that fires rockets into Israeli territory and attacks Israeli military patrols along the Gaza-Israel border.

In his speech, Netanyahu said the prospect of Hamas taking over the West Bank was one reason Israel must attach security conditions to the creation of a Palestinian state. He also said that, ultimately, Abbas’s government would have to extend its authority to Gaza and “defeat” Hamas.

But Netanyahu’s advisers and party supporters said the prime minister had shown he was willing to deliver a “secure peace” that allows Palestinians full self-governance — and has put the onus on the Palestinians to prove they are serious.

“The right in Israel has the confidence to move toward peace,” said Ron Dermer, a strategic adviser to Netanyahu.

By couching Palestinian statehood in terms of a broad acceptance of Israel’s Jewish identity, he is also likely to keep the support of his right-leaning parliamentary coalition, many of whose key members urged him to avoid supporting a Palestinian state altogether.

“Netanyahu is truly in a very tough position, with what seems to be pressure on him from all over the world” and a coalition expecting him to stick to principle, said Gideon Ariel, a key member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Assessing the Iranian Election–Ahmadinejad symbolizes the rejection of Barack Obama’s overtures to Iran and, as such, his selection represents a slap in the face of the American president’s pro-Islamist policies.

Assessing the Iranian Election

by Daniel Pipes
June 13, 2009

updated Sun, 14 Jun 2009

Better put, the Iranian “selection,” as the exercise yesterday appears to have been window dressing for Spiritual Leader Ali Khamene’i, the real power in Iran, to re-appoint Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. According to the authorities, Ahmadinejad received 63 percent of the vote, Mir-Hossein Mousavi 35 percent, and the remaining two candidates each about 1 percent.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to supporters on announcement that he won re-election by a landslide.

Ahmadinejad proclaimed a “great victory” but Mousavi called the elections a “dangerous charade” and the two other candidates agreed with him. Many analysts see Ahmadinejad having stolen election but I interpret it as Khamene’i stealing the election on Ahmadinejad’s behalf. 

What to make of this? I think it about the best result possible. I also find it a mystery. First, why it pleases me. Count the ways:

  • Ahmadinejad remains the lunatic face of Iran to the world, making it difficult to argue that the mullahs’ regime is mellowing and its possession of nuclear weapons poses no threat. Had Mousavi won, policy would have remained roughly the same because, as one Iranian insider puts it, “the government of Iran executes foreign policy decisions made by Iran’s supreme leader,” yet the regime would have appeared much less threatening.
  • Ahmadinejad symbolizes the rejection of Barack Obama’s overtures to Iran and, as such, his selection represents a slap in the face of the American president’s pro-Islamist policies.
  • Ahmadinejad remains in charge of the Iranian economy, which he is progressively wrecking, thereby reducing the country’s capabilities to make mischief abroad.
  • Ahmadinejad also determines the social mores, which he has tightened to the point of rebellion, assuring that his subject population grows more alienated from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  • Supporters of the opposition candidates have not accepted the results, leading to riots in Tehran. In the description of the Los Angeles Times, “Searing smoke and the smell of burning trash bins and tear gas filled the night sky. Protesters poured into key squares around the capital, burning tires, erecting banners and hurling stones at riot police on motorcycles, who responded with truncheons.”
  • Yesterday’s sham election may be a turning point, the moment when the much-suffering population found its collective voice against the regime. It bears noting in this regard that the Iranian population in 1978-79 mounted what was perhaps the largest-scale rebellion ever against a government. It could do so again.

Then the mystery: Why did Khamene’i select Ahmadinejad to “win” the election? Why did he not chose a president-puppet who would present a smile to the world, including Obama, handle the economy competently, not rile the population, and whose selection would not inspire riots that might destabilize the regime? Has Khamene’i fallen under the spell of Ahmadinejad or does he have some clever ploy up his sleeve? Whatever the answer is, it baffles me. Put differently, the West makes plenty of mistakes, so it’s a relief to learn that its enemy sometimes does likewise. (June 13, 2009)

Winds of change: The uprising in Iran

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Winds of change: The uprising in Iran

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 13, 2009 10:55 PM

Here’s video of the riots and police beatings in the streets of Iran as citizens bravely stood up to protest election fraud by the mullah-cracy:

There will be public protests in Toronto and Berlin in solidarity with the reformists.

Latest from the wires on the winds of change:


The brazen and angry confrontations — including stunning scenes of masked rioters tangling with black-clad police — pushed the self-styled reformist movement closer to a possible moment of truth: Whether to continue defying Iran’s powerful security forces or, as they often have before, retreat into quiet dismay and frustration over losing more ground to the Islamic establishment.

But for at least one day, the tone and tactics were more combative than at any time since authorities put down student-led protests in 1999. Young men hurled stones and bottles at anti-riot units and mocked Ahmadinejad as an illegitimate leader. The reformists’ new hero, Mir Hossein Mousavi, declared himself the true winner of Friday’s presidential race and urged backers to resist a government based on “lies and dictatorship.”

Authorities, too, pushed back with ominous measures apparently seeking to undercut liberal voices: jamming text messages, blocking pro-Mousavi Web sites and Facebook and cutting off mobile phones in Tehran.

Best and most up-to-date coverage: Follow Twitter hashtag #iranelection.

Here’s an Iran Feeds aggregator.

Jim Hoft has a news and photo round-up.

Allahpundit’s Iran election quotes of the day are here and extensive coverage here.

The price of Obama’s health care ‘savings’

The price of Obama’s health care ‘savings’

Cliff Thier
Okay. Everyone who thinks that Obama’s take-over of the health care system in America is a good thing, pay attention. Here are some imporant facts from the Wall Street Journal article on Obama’s plan:

The new proposals would decrease payments to hospitals and others that provide Medicare services in a variety of ways.
*  *  *
“We are disappointed to see cuts of this magnitude to hospitals, especially in these tough economic times,” said Alicia Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the American Hospital Association, the industry’s main trade group. The proposed cuts would hurt hospitals that provide intensive, pediatric and trauma care for recipients of Medicare and Medicaid, she said.
*  *  *
The White House suggests the government save $110 billion over 10 years by increasing payments more slowly to hospitals, device manufacturers and others who provide services to Medicare patients. The change would come by adjusting the payment formula to take into account increases in productivity.


Huh? What increases in productivity are they talking about? Less time per patient per doctor? That’s what an increase in productivity means. Each doctor sees more patients. What else could it possibly mean?


In addition, the president is proposing to reduce subsidies for hospitals that care for the uninsured as the number of uninsured falls. That would generate $106 billion over a decade, the White House said. Payments would be slowed beginning in 2013. By 2019, payments would be 25% of what hospitals had received in 2013, updated for inflation.
*   *   *
The White House is also proposing $75 billion in savings on the Medicare prescription drug program, by reducing reimbursements to pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Orszag said there are several ideas for policy changes that would achieve these savings and promised to detail their preferences soon. One possibility would be to reduce reimbursement rates for drugs used by patients who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.
“If the drug makers pay their fair share, we can cut government spending on prescription drugs,” Mr. Obama said.
A variety of other changes are expected to generate some $22 billion over a decade. Doctors who offer imaging services and skilled nursing facilities would be among those affected.
*   *   *
Mr. Obama prefers to talk about how his plan will cut the cost of health care, but most of those changes he emphasizes are long-term goals aimed at altering the way medicine is practiced. In the short run, he and his congressional allies need to find immediate savings to pay for the subsidies they want to offer the uninsured to buy coverage.
These cuts to government spending are not expected to reduce the cost of care for people with private health insurance. In fact, some would argue that health care providers will simply increase rates they charge others to make up for cuts from the government.


For those of you who have never taken a course in basic economics, let me point out a law of economics: when you pay less for a good or service, you will get less of that good or service. So, when you pay pharmaceutical companies less for drugs, you are going to get fewer new drugs.


The risk for developing drugs is already substantial. Most drugs costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and never get into the marketplace because the drug fails to treat the disease as hoped, or it proves to be dangerous. And, it often takes years before the companies learn if their bet will pay off.


Developing drugs is risky. The reward must be substantial to justify the risk.


Reducing the reward means fewer risks will be taken. Smaller risks. Many diseases will attract fewer research dollars. Fewer drugs will reach the market and people will die as a result. It’s not complicated. Is that too difficult to understand?


Drugs for diseases that hit the poorest nations of the world will also see a slow-down in development. Every day that development of a new drug is delayed, thousands of people will die, most in the poorest parts of the world.


And, if drug companies are paid less for their drugs, they will have to pay their researchers less as well. And, that means that fewer of the smartest people will do into those careers.


So, if you support the Obama plan to nationalize health care, and years from now a loved one, your wife or husband, child or parent, dies because a new drug is still a few months away from approval, you can look yourself in the mirror and know that you share in the blame for that death. Less money for drug companies means less money for research and fewer bets on possible new drugs and devices. New, important, life-saving drugs will be slower to reach the market. And, those delays will kill thousands here and millions across the planet.


Got it?


And, what do you think will happen if you pay doctors less? You’re going to have fewer doctors. Is that too complicated or you?


Fewer of the smartest college students will choose to enter medicine. That’s because choosing a career in medicine is extremely expensive and risky. You will have to pay high tuition fees for medical school and then spend years as an intern and resident with very little pay. For seven years or more, you will be spending more than you are earning. If you can’t catch up once you can practice medicine you’d be a fool to choose that career.


Fewer doctors means longer waiting times to see one. And that means more people will die as result. It’s not complicated.


Obama will increase our mortality rate. When it happens just don’t say you weren’t warned.

Page Printed from: at June 14, 2009 – 02:38:06 PM EDT

Obama’s Other Controversial Church

Obama’s Other Controversial Church

By Andrew Walden

“This is a guy (former Weatherman terror-bomber Bill Ayers) who lives in my neighborhood … the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago – when I was 8 years old – somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” — Barack Obama on the Campaign trail, 2008


As President Obama prepared to commemorate D-Day, the Associated Press dug up old details and photos to write a warm fuzzy story about the WW2 service record of Obama’s maternal grandfather and grand uncle.  One could conclude that the actions of these two-nearly 20 years before Obama was born–are the closest Obama ever came to uniformed US military personnel prior to launching his political career.   


But Obama has a much closer military connection-one he has not talked about publicly.  Had a reporter asked Obama: “So what were you doing during Bill Ayers’ fugitive days?”  An honest answer would be: “I was going to Sunday school at a church which had provided sanctuary to US military deserters.”


While John McCain was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu — at which the elementary-age Obama would later attend Sunday school after returning from Indonesia in 1970 or 71 — was sheltering deserters and AWOLs recruited by ‘flirty fishing’ coeds from a Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) group known as “The Resistance”.  The deserters’ exploits were front page news for months on end in mid-1969 Honolulu.  They were also proudly trumpeted by the Honolulu SDS tabloid, “The Roach“. 


The contrast between the war hero POW and the Obama deserters’ church would have made a pretty good campaign commercial.  But nobody in Honolulu spoke up to claim Obama’s First Unitarian connection until after Election Day.  Even then it was hush-hush.  As the Star-Bulletin explained December 24:


“(Rev Mike) Young, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Honolulu, could only tell his wife and a handful of church administrators that a small, private service was planned for Madelyn Payne Dunham on Dec. 23.  It was very hard to keep this secret. …”


Obama’s maternal grandmother had passed away just days before the election.  The story of his ties to the church began to emerge only after he attended her memorial service.  They have never received wide media attention, but have been published just enough that-after being kept secret in the 2008 campaign — this chapter of Obama’s life can arguably no longer be considered a secret to be revealed in any 2012 campaign.  The connection to Vietnam deserters has not been included in any of the Obama-related coverage.  


Was sheltering deserters an aberration for First Unitarian Church?  No.  Long before anybody was thinking of Barack Obama as a Senator, much less a President, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin February 8, 2003 described First Unitarian’s 2003 golden anniversary celebration complete with “Liberal Religion for 50 Years” T-shirts:


“The bumper stickers on cars outside the church gave an insight into its members’ beliefs: ‘No War.’ ‘If you want peace, work for justice.’ ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.’
“Activism for peace and human rights causes has characterized the congregation of the First Unitarian Church of Honolulu since it was organized 50 years ago. Members were instrumental in founding the League of Women Voters and activating a local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. It offered sanctuary to servicemen who went AWOL to avoid being sent to Vietnam. It helped launch the Save Our Constitution effort to fight the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriages….
“After leaving Hawaii to work at the Unitarian seminary in Berkeley, Calif., (Church co-founder Rosemary) Mattson and her husband were active in the international peace movement. She escorted more than 25 tours of Americans to the former Soviet Union for people-to-people experience….”


But six years later the coverage of the memorial service did not bring out any of this information.  At first there was no revelation that Obama had any relationship to the church beyond simply holding the service there.  Then a January 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin brings out the hidden story of Obama’s religious upbringing:


“When (UU Rev Mike) Young reminded Obama that he had attended Sunday School at First Unitarian, ‘his eyes lit up, and he said, ‘Oh that’s right!'”


In response to an email query from Hawaii Free Press Rev. Young confirmed the Star-Bulletin’s account. 


Young also repeated the story in the March 28, 2009 edition of his hometown Tampa (Florida) Tribune:


When Obama was in elementary school in Honolulu, Young recounted in a telephone phone interview, either his grandmother or grandfather (there’s confusion over which one) brought him to Sunday school there for several years.
The Dunhams had attended a Unitarian church in the Seattle area when Obama’s mother was a teenager. Although there’s no record of their attendance at the Honolulu church, Obama writes about it in his memoir “Dreams From My Father,” and one family who still attends the church remembers him.
When Young reminded Obama at the memorial service, “his eyes lit up, and he turned to Michelle and said, ‘Hey, that’s right. This is where I went to Sunday school.'”
Obama spent some time on the second floor, where Sunday school is held, but didn’t recognize anything. That’s not surprising, Young said, because the church has been renovated over the years.


The Dunhams’ Seattle-area Mercer Island Unitarian Church was infamous as “The Little Red Church on the Hill“-Obama’s mother’s attendance there had been exposed during the campaign-and had been associated with an ambiguous reference to Obama’s grandfather Stanley Dunham in Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” (p17).


“In his only skirmish into organized religion, he would enroll the family in the local Unitarian Universalist congregation….”


But knowing Obama’s connection to Honolulu’s First Unitarian Church, it is possible this passage refers to either church — or both churches. 


Contemporary accounts of the SDS Resistance use of First Unitarian and nearby Church of the Crossroads as part of the 1968-70 sanctuary for deserters movement shows why Obama would not have wanted this information exposed.


Starting in 1966 University of Hawaii students and professors began raising funds to donate directly to the Viet Cong.  By 1968 UH Manoa leftist activists had morphed into a chapter of the so-called Students for a Democratic Society and began publishing a newspaper called “The Roach.” 


On October 26, 1967 Lt. Commander John McCain was shot down over Hanoi.  With two broken arms and one broken leg he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake where he was dragged from the water, beaten and bayoneted.    


The June 4, 1968 edition of The Roach includes “memo from the resistance”-The Hawaii Committee for Draft Resistance-which urges supporters to show up at a June 10 court hearing for “the ten arrested for loitering when they attempted to block the 29th Infantry Brigade troops leaving Fort DeRussy….”  On the very next page Mao Zedong’s murderous Red Guards are described as, “…young activists full of joy who understand the potential for their society….”


In mid-1968, the Vietnamese communists realized they held the son of Admiral John McCain-commander of the Pacific Fleet, including US forces in Vietnam.  The younger McCain refused an offer of early release because preferential treatment for the son of a high ranking officer would provide a propaganda opportunity for the communists.  He would be held five more years.    


The September 24, 1968 edition of The Roach describes Resistance leader John Witeck refusing induction right next to articles titled “Pot Talk” and “Revolutionary Orgasm.”  An obscure article in the October 23 edition mentions “two marines (sic), Young C Gray and Tom Mat, who are now in sanctuary….”  This ‘sanctuary’ apparently lasted four days.


The Roach, January 15, 1969, describes Gray receiving two years in the stockade after being found guilty of “‘attempting to possess’ mescaline and marijuana.”  The Roach further explains: “Gray had also written some disparaging remarks about NCOs and lifers concerning their intellects and temperaments.  These statements appeared in ‘A Call to Join Us’, a piece read to the congregation assembled at the Unitarian Church.”


After losing 50 pounds while receiving insufficient treatment for his injuries, John McCain was placed in a cell in December 1967 with two Americans who did not expect him to live a week.  He was then locked in solitary confinement for two years beginning in March 1968.  Here he endured beatings and rope binding tortures but refused to meet with anti-war delegations attempting to visit the POWs.   


The August 16, 1969 Star-Bulletin shows deserters going shirtless with some of the dozens of hippy girls who had flocked to the sanctuary churches.  The headline: “Hot showers for AWOLs at Church.”


By August 23, 1969 the New York Times was reporting “24 G.I. War Foes now in Sanctuary…staying at both the Church of the Crossroads and the Unitarian Church of Honolulu….”  The Resistance had grown but all was not well.  As The Times explained:


“One of the protesters, Seaman Arthur parker, 17, turned himself in to the authorities at Pearl Harbor yesterday after talking to an Army Chaplain.
“Seaman Parker denounced the protest as ‘a movement to overthrow the government.'”


The Honolulu Star-Bulletin August 22, 1969 had much more of Parker’s story.  


(Parker) arrived in Honolulu from a Great lakes, (Ill.) boot camp and … got drunk with buddies at Waikiki last Thursday night.
He told of meeting a young girl the next morning who promised love and relief from the military.  Parker disliked violence and war….
“We were walking down the street.  Man was I bombed, and these two girls came up and handed me a sheet of paper.  It told about the servicemen at the church and what the Resistance stood for.
“I told the girls that I didn’t like to hate and I didn’t like the war but that all I neeed was love.  One of the girls said, ‘Well there’s a lot of that at the church.’  Then we just talked.
“I went back to the hotel, drank three beers and a half pint of whiskey and then called the Rev Bob Warner to come pick me up….
…On that day the young man from Holland, Mich., became number 18 at the Church of the Crossroads….
“… It isn’t a sanctuary anymore.  Its become a movement to overthrow the government and I don’t stand for that; neither do a lot of the others….
“Even though I don’t like the military, I would rather be part of them than what’s down at the church.  They scare me now.”


Four days later the following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Star-Bulletin:


SIR: Whereas the Congregation of the Unitarian Church of Honolulu acted on October 18, 1968, to adopt a policy of offering symbolic sanctuary to those who in conscience oppose the machinery of war by nonviolent means, the Board of the Church, at its regular August meeting, offers its commendation on behalf of the Unitarian Church of Honolulu to the Church of the Crossroads for its courageous support of the men now in sanctuary.
–Martha D. McDaniel, Secretary of the Board, Unitarian Church of Honolulu


On September 12, 1969 the Star-Bulletin reported a broadly sponsored US House resolution, “condemning ‘cruel and barbaric’ treatment of American prisoners of war in Vietnam….


“The resolution cites reports that the POWs are subjected to ‘physical torture, psychological terror, public display, neglect of health and are denied dietary and sanitary  necessities.  They are unable to correspond with their families and are forced to comply with propaganda exploitation.”


Just two days earlier the Star-Bulletin had interviewed Rev Donald Adams, a former associate minister of the Church of the Crossroads.  Regarding the military personnel in ‘sanctuary’ Adams explained:


“I think the majority of them are probably in need of counseling and psychiatric help.  After the wraps are off, you find the real internal problems.  Psychologically, some men are not for the military.  Its not easy in there.”


Interviewed for the same article, Church of the Crossroads member Rev. Ted Chinen explained:


“The men come for various reasons.  We should look into their previous records.  We may be assisting psychopathics or neurotics.”


To be considered a deserter, a soldier must be AWOL for 30 days.  Eventually the City of Honolulu cited both churches for violations of zoning and health ordinances related to the use of the church buildings for ‘sanctuary’.  Then on September 12 military police raided the Unitarian Church, Church of the Crossroads and nearby Wellesley Foundation arresting 12 AWOLs.  As many as 15 others evaded arrest. 


The Star-Bulletin September 19, 1969 editorialized:


“It seems inconsistent that these men who were so willing to face television cameras and speak up before the nation on conscience-so long as they had the protection of the ‘sanctuary’-could not see their adventure through. 
“That gives us reason to believe that these young men are not made of the fiber they would have had us believe. 
“Their evasion of the consequences, which they admittedly knew would eventually come, casts a shadow over the sincerity of their convictions.
“We can be thankful that they decided to take their stand in the safe confines of a church.
“Had they gone to the jungles of Vietnam, it is entirely possible that their lack of intestinal fortitude could have got someone else killed.”


While the deserters were hiding, the September 15, 1969 Star-Bulletin reports on another group of missing soldiers.  A delegation of four women-wives of American MIAs believed to be POWs-went to the Paris Peace Talks.  In a statement released to the press they wrote:


“Our husbands have been missing from eight months to four years and we are hopeful North Vietnamese representatives will tell us if we are wives or widows.”


The November, 1969 edition of the Hawaii Free People’s Press –– successor to The Roach –– recounts the story of a Schofield Barracks deserter who had a different type of relationship with women.  The article titled “Fock the draft” begins with the testimony of underground Schofield Barracks stockade escapee Bobby Jay Norton:


“Some five or six months ago I was charged with rape which I did not commit.  The girl that charged me with the intentions of rape was pregnant when she came to Hawaii, so instead of her letting her parents know of this, she thought that she could come here and charge rape on someone….
“While we were driving in Waikiki she started screaming louder and louder, so I told her that if she didn’t be quiet that I was going to slap the s**t out of her.
“As we came to a stop sign she jumped out of the car and started running down the street crying.  I started to go after her but I decided that I had had enough of her crying so I decided to let her go.
“The next day I was informed by some friends that I was being looked for by the H.P.D. and some M.P.s….I had previously gotten out of an assault on a chick.”    


Above this was an untitled piece by “Private Partz” and a cartoon of a naked general swallowing people whole and defecating them out as soldiers.


These activists eventually won their war against America in Southeast Asia.  They and those who admired them are now our professors, our journalists, our ministers, moviemakers, and politicians.  One of their understudies is President of the United States.


In 1973 and 1974 Nixon withdrew US troops from South East Asia.  When the US war ended the real killing began.  The Democrat-controlled Congress cut off US funding to the South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments.  By April of 1975 Pol Pot took over Cambodia and began murdering as many as 3 million Cambodians.  The Vietnamese communists murdered as many as 1.6 million people and forced millions more into exile as “boat people.” 


Those deaths and the domestic political means which made them possible are the most accurate reflection on the generation of activists who raised Barack Obama and created his values.


Andrew Walden edits



               The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii


               Barack Obama reading list 

Page Printed from: at June 14, 2009 – 02:34:13 PM EDT