Posts Tagged ‘Russia’

Sarah Palin Is Right About Obama’s Intentions

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

The Gov Weighs In

When President Obama was caught by an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed more flexibility because this is an election year, he wasn’t saying this as a means to buy time for negotiations as his staff later claimed.  He was plainly delivering a promise on our missile defense systems that endangers every American from sea to shining sea.  This ridiculous behavior caught the attention of many, but it brought down a hail of criticism from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has embarked on a mission to thoroughly vet Barack Obama since the media didn’t do it in 2008, and since Obama now has a record from which he cannot escape.  In an article entitled The Audacity of Obama’s Intentions Revealed, Governor Palin makes the strong case that Barack Obama isn’t looking out for American interests, and may indeed by hurting them.

She offers the following quote from the open-mic transcripts:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

“Vladimir” is none other than Vladimir Putin.  What Medvedev does is agree to be a courier for Obama and deliver a message to Putin.  He’s buying time, but it’s political time, meaning he is offering to come across with what Putin wants but he has to wait until after the election when he’ll be able to get away with almost anything if re-elected.  From Gov. Palin’s Facebook note:

“I pointed this out as Governor of Alaska when he proposed reducing Alaska’s missile defense system capabilities. I explained then that the President’s proposed military cuts would diminish Alaska’s opportunity to defend the union with our strategic location’s defense infrastructure. We also know that in 2009, as part of his “reset” with Russia, President Obama turned his back on our Eastern European allies by abandoning past promises for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Governor Palin is spot-on about this.  President Obama has done everything he could to weaken the United States position with respect to Russia, and it hasn’t gone well for America’s defenses as Obama has cut our vital strategic capabilities.  Among other things she notes, Gov. Palin points out the disastrous results of just three short years of Obama’s defense policies for American national security:

“He has consistently taken a position of weakness and naïve trust in Putin’s Russia. Consider that one-sided New START Treaty as an example of this. Or consider those cuts to Alaska’s missile defense system, which leaves us much more vulnerable in the face of a nuclear North Korea. Now consider the state of our national defense under a President who whispers to a foreign power that he needs even “more flexibility” to weaken us further.”

This is demonstrably true, and it should cause great concern for Americans.  Read the rest of Governor Palin’s article here.  I think it’s a dangerous sign that the President of the United States is making whispered assurances of this sort to Putin’s emissary.  What Obama clearly has in mind is the ability to rule without worry about being kicked to the curb for his disgraceful behavior in this matter, but also his general lack of concern for the defenses of our nation.

My questions are simple, and I’ve asked them many times before, in various forms:  What is Barack Obama after?  Why is he undermining our country?  What will he gain?  Whose interests does he serve, since it cannot be ours?  Why do I get the feeling that if re-elected, Barack Obama might well leave this country even more fully open to attack than his policies have already made it?

As Governor Palin points out elsewhere in her article, while we can’t know what’s in Barack Obama’s mind, we can make educated guesses based on his past performance as a decryption key in speculating about his future actions.  In my own view, with the past as prologue, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that Barack Obama isn’t intentionally undermining America and bolstering its enemies at home and abroad.  As I have pointed out before, I do not believe that Obama’s actions owe to incompetence.  What he’s doing is by design, and the increasing threat of an Obama second term should be terrifying to Americans who love their country.

Obama Will Have More Flexibility After the Election – As Will Romney After Nomination

Monday, March 26th, 2012

The Flexibility To Betray Us?

Much as Democrats can’t wait to point out the “Etch-a-Sketch” tendencies of Mitt Romney, Barack Obama has similar problems, and another example arose when he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he(Obama) would have more flexibility after the election.   What he means is that it will be easier to get away with selling out American interests, since he’ll never be forced to answer to voters again.  Of course, as you can tell, Obama already thinks he has this election in the bag, and there’s really no getting around the fact that if he is re-elected, he will have free reins and many expect he will extend his executive authority to rule without reference to Congress.  It points out the reason that character matters, as politicians promise one thing in campaigns, and deliver another afterward, but it’s not only Obama about whom conservatives should worry on this basis.

It also tells us something important about the minds of politicians.  The positions he will take before the election will have no bearing on his actual policies afterward, translating the remark.  That’s an egregious instance of Obama bragging about effectively lying to the American people.  Republicans have a similar problem in their own party, where Mitt Romney’s Communications Director openly admits that the general campaign is like starting over, and he likened their flexibility to an “Etch-a-Sketch.”  This has precisely the same meaning as Barack Obama’s remark, leading me to wonder why any Republican would choose Mitt Romney over the others.  If they find this attitude and conduct disgusting in the behavior of the President, but not in the campaign of Mitt Romney, one must wonder why.

We all recognize that Barack Obama will try to hide his radical side through the coming election, but as bad as that is, our own nomination front-runner is currently doing the same thing to us.  I have no problem with those who wish to point to Obama’s duplicity based on this and other statements, but if we accept Mitt Romney as our nominee, aren’t we falling for the same thing we decry in Obama?