Is Obama's lack of interest in Iran violence to do with the future actions he plans taking on his own people?

He probably watches what's happening in Iran and thinks about America.

I see Mussolini with his head on a stick and it makes me think about Obama

I'm a Republican who happens to have a liberal view on immigration. If you want people to drive the speed limit and not 5 to 10 mph over, you have to enforce that on the spot - not suddenly turn around and retroactively hand out thousands of tickets and suspend everyone's license for what we've all been doing for a very long time. It's an unwritten contract that although technically illegal, the cops are going to let you get away with going a little over the speed limit. We have been lax on enforcing illegal immigration and looked the other way. It's much easier to turn people away at the border or deport them once their visa expires than to throw them out of the country once they've been here for many, many years and built a life here. Ultimately, we need to secure the border and to find out who's here. If they aren't criminals, I don't have a problem with a pathway to citizenship - and I have no desire to squeeze these people like many other conservatives seem to feel is necessary. As far as "jumping the line", the problem there is that there is a line at all. Our legal immigration system is so screwed up that it's backing up people who should be able to enter and contribute to the country. All of that is just context... To answer your question, I still don't have a problem with the term. The "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" denotes status - the same way we have "single people" and "married people". It's a factually accurate ongoing status. The term has nothing to do with race or racism. There are white illegal immigrants too. How is the framing incorrect? Just because I'm not big on punishment for a crime we weren't adequately enforcing doesn't mean they aren't ultimately responsible and accountable for their own actions. As far as employers, in the past many have not known (or quite frankly tried not to know) whether their employees were illegal or not. For those you can prove knowingly hired "illegal immigrants", I have no issue calling them "illegal employers" either. Go ahead and add that to the lexicon.

Okay, first of all the US Government interned US Citizens in the 50's, this is widely known. Japanese-Americans. Their land was confiscated and barely returned. Then in 1993 Waco.. if you can watch a full Waco Documentary and not be fuming, you're heartless. Gotta love good ol' Shumer: "Do you think anyone here cares who fired first?"

I would hardly say his not interested in what's been going on. He's sort of in a tough spot. He wants to continue his attempts to open a dialogue over nuclear power/weapons so he doesn't want to step on anyones toes to hard. He is in line with the rest of the world leaders and he is now saying what everyone else is saying and doing what everyone else is doing. What more do you want? An invasion?

You paranoia is somewhat alarming. What future actions are you speaking of? Being reelected in 2012? That's hardly comparable to what's going on in Iran.

Eh - I don't believe so. I do think that he's trying to worm his way into Ahmad's good graces - and as most of us living in the real world know - that is just never going to happen. The weak response from America lately has only given more arrogance to Ahmad's assumed power.

I think Obama's honestly just scared to death that strong action will need to be taken during his reign - oops, Presidency - and he's not ready to deal with being THAT guy.

ADD - the comments from Obama, seen posted below, continue to be non-responses. I do not want to rush into another ugly situation that will cause casualties & heartache.

However, his response to the situation can be summed up thusly - "Eh - it's for them to work out." Some people agree with that, and some don't.

The fact of the matter is - Ahmad is directly poking America & Britain right now, so I hope some strategies are being discussed behind the scenes should the situation escalate. I feel for citizens over there who are garnering no support for protesting the obviously rigged election.

Matthew, he already gave it away to who was it... the House Speaker?

Go listen to Three Days Grace and go start a riot.

You know, that's a moronic question, especially from you. At least you Used to ask thought provoking questions, now you sound like you're parroting the 3 stooges (Hannity, Rush and Beck)

Short answer, because that's all you deserve this time, is NO.

We need election reform now! We must prevent another Bush/Gore incident and the riots and disorder that could result. I wouldn't doubt Obama would abuse his power.

Have you been asleep all these days? Or just ignore what you don't want to hear? There is NO lack of interest. I wonder sometimes if you prophets of doom have any real connection to the world of reality.

June 15:

Q Mr. President, on Iran, does the disputed election results affect -- there's been violence in the street -- in any way change your willingness to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions? And also, do you have anything to say, any message to send to people who are on the streets protesting, who believe their votes were stolen and who are being attacked violently?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presi...

June 20:

President Barack Obama on Saturday challenged Iran's government to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissenters, using his bluntest language yet to condemn Tehran's postelection response.

Obama has sought a measured reaction to avoid being drawn in as a meddler in Iranian affairs. Yet his comments have grown more pointed as the clashes intensified, and his latest remarks took direct aim at Iranian leaders.

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090620/...

June 24:

"In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice," Mr. Obama said. "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."

"We have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124575867345041295...

EDIT:

Wrong again Trust and Believe. It seems he has missed Obama's commentaries completely and I was happy to provide them.

Let me guess, the 22 people above me were all personal attacks, as opposed to actual attempts to rebutt your assertion.