”I Will Transmit This Information To Vladimir”
Vol: 126 Issue: 27 Tuesday, March 27, 2012
America was given an inadvertent peek into the future, specifically, America’s foreign policy with Russia for the next four years, thanks to a chance conversation captured by an open microphone during a meeting between President Obama and outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.
The two were discussing US policy regarding missile defense, specifically America’s deployment of a missile shield over Europe. The exchange that was captured by the open microphone went like this:
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, and I stand with you.”
The Democrats defend their guy by saying that Obama didn’t do anything that any other president doesn’t do — all US presidents have to factor in public sentiment when it comes to foreign policy.
But that isn’t what we are discussing here. Obama isn’t telling Medvedev that he is factoring public opinion into his decision — he is saying he wants to wait until public opinion is no longer an issue in his political life.
Obama’s comments prompted the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee to demand an explanation. Representative Michael Turner sent a letter to the White House, the contents of which were made public yesterday.
In his letter, Turner made note of the fact that Obama gave the Russians highly classified data regarding Britain’s strategic nuclear missile system, shocking the British, as well as the rest of our allies.
To prevent Obama from doing the same thing with US nuclear secrets, Congress took the unusual step of including a provision limiting the President’s authority to share classified data with the Russians. In his letter, Turner wrote:
“I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.”
You DO see what Representative Turner is saying, out loud and in no uncertain terms, don’t you? He is saying that Obama is a threat to national security who cannot be trusted with the authority vested in him by his office.
If Obama wins four more years in November, he can’t run again after that. At least, he can’t right now — the Constitution currently prohibits anyone from serving more than two full terms in office.
But as Obama told Medvedev, after his election he will have “more flexibility”. After being handed four more years, only this time, without any future accountability, who knows if the Constitution of 2016 will still contain presidential term limits?
If he gets four more years, he will certainly get to appoint at least two more Supreme Court justices. Heck, who could say that by then, the Constitution will still be in force?
Senate Majority Whip Jon Kyl accused the president of offering secret, future concessions on missile defense to the Russians.
In a statement, Kyl said that the president canceled plans for anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and supported language in the New START arms treaty that links missile defense to nuclear reductions.
“We know the administration is sharing information with Russia, including plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe,” Kyl said. “We know the president has significantly reduced funding and curtailed development of the U.S. national missile defense system, undermining our ability to effectively intercept long-range ballistic missiles. And we know the president has doubled-down on efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenal while failing to honor his promises to modernize the aging nuclear weapons complex.”
Senator Kyl said that at the moment, the Russians know more about what Obama has planned than the Congress does.
“Perhaps the Russians, in whom President Obama recently confided, could shed some light on his missile defense plans for the American people who otherwise have been left in the dark by this president,” Kyl said.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was more to the point with a Tweet he posted yesterday after the comments hit the airwaves.
@Mitt Romney: Fill in the blank. @BarackObama: I’ll have more flexibility to _______ after the election. #ObamaFlexibility
Exactly. More flexibility to do what?
If you followed the link to Romney’s tweet, you were also treated to a list of other Obama sellouts of US national security to the Russians.
First, came the cancellation of promised missile defense shield facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, after both nations went way out on a limb to defy the Russians when they agreed to let the US put them there.
Then Obama threw his support behind a new START treaty that limited America’s ability to construct its own missile defenses. This comes in addition (as previously mentioned), to Obama’s betrayal of the British.
Over Britain’s strenuous objections, Obama gave the Russians, the age, number and capabilities of the Trident missile systems we sold to the British as well as handing over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain in the future.
Having betrayed America’s closest ally, ostensibly to pay them back for the sins of British colonialism in his father’s native Kenya, one now wonders if Obama is prepared to betray the United States, perhaps to exact retribution for the sins of American colonial slavery?
What is amazing about it is that such a possibility does NOT sound nuts. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to be a stretch to interpret the President’s remarks as meaning exactly that.
That he can’t afford to be seen betraying American foreign policy interests until after he has convinced the American people to give him four more years.
The President’s defenders are predictably, blaming the Republicans.
“Obama’s candid remarks Monday illustrated the political constraints that hem in any president who is running for re-election and dealing with a congressional chamber — in this case, the House — controlled by the rival party.”
“Republicans have fought Obama fiercely on health care, taxes and other issues. They are eager to deny him any political victories in a season in which they feel the White House is within reach.”
By anybody’s calculations, the Republicans control exactly one half of one-third of the US government. The Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives.
The Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. They control the White House and Executive Branch. And only a blind partisan would deny that the judiciary is dominated by liberal Democrats.
So if the reason that Obama has to wait until after his election to cut a deal with the Russians is because one half of Congress is controlled by the Republicans who won’t work with him, then what makes anybody think Obama will have more flexibility if he also loses the Senate in November, as is widely expected?
This is as counter-intuitive (or perhaps a better description might be “blindingly stupid”) as the Democratic assumption that raising taxes on employers will make them want to hire more employees with what money they have left.
Unless Obama wins back the Congressional majority, he won’t have any more flexibility to get a deal ratified after November than he does now, even if he wins another term. At least, legally, he won’t.
But if there is one thing that Obama has proved during his first term, it is that he defines “illegal” as “a sick bird” and “legal” as “whatever Obama does.”
In this one comment, Obama has validated pretty much all our worst fears, not to mention validating the Apostle Paul’s description of perilous times during the last days of the Church Age.
Note how many times Paul makes references to treason, disloyalty, and dishonesty in his description. I cannot read it without being awe-struck at how perfectly it encapsulates the Obama administration in totality and the political platform of the Left in general.
Which of these characteristics can you say is inconsistent with either the political performance of the White House or that of Congressional Democrats?
“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” (2 Timothy 3:2-5)
Would you argue that the President is NOT Narcissist in Chief? And what is class warfare if not covetousness applied?
A boaster? Obama? Prideful? Our president? Surely not! “Today is the day the oceans stop rising. . . etc.”
A blasphemer? (What IS the prettiest sound the president ever heard at sunset?) Without natural affection? You mean, like supporting partial birth abortion? Trucebreaker? False accuser? Despiser of those that are good? Heady? High-minded? Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof?
We could go on and on. I’m not sure we need to. I think that Paul’s point has been made, underscored, highlighted and then completely justified.
“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:12-13)
These are the last days. Perilous times are here.
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)