Barack Obama’s open-mic comments to Russian President Medvedev gave us a terrifying insight into the true mindset of our president.
You remember the incident. Mistakenly thinking his remarks were inaudible, Obama told Medvedev he needed a little “space” for his missile-defense plans. This year’s election is his last, he reminded the Russian, but after that he will be more “flexible” to work with.
Obama’s loyal corps of apologists in the mainstream media rushed to his defense. The rock-solid New York Times abandoned independent thinking to opine that really important people talk to each other like that all the time, as if honesty and integrity become beneath you when you reach a certain level. Others actually approved of the president’s “candor.”
But they’re attempting to defend the indefensible. This is no normal gaffe like having been to “all 57” states or an offensive opinion like his reference to the unsophisticated folks who are “bitter clingers” to their guns and religion. This is intent to deceive the American people pure and simple.
His message to Medvedev was this: If I tell the American people that I plan to give in to your demands on missile defense, they won’t like it and I will be punished politically. So I’ll tell them what they want to hear for now and after the election I’ll be there for you. What other interpretation is there?
Of course, Medvedev understood completely. That’s how they do it in Russia. But in America, our government is traditionally of, by and for the people. We are not used to being disrespected by our leaders and treated like dupes for their political gain.
It’s hard to understand why, for Obama, winning the approval of Vladimir Putin is more important than protecting Americans in a dangerous world. Sure, the administration denied they would be “flexible” on missile defense when they were trying to shepherd the New Start treaty through the Senate last year. But the American Left has a long history of being curiously opposed to our country doing what it can to protect itself from missile strikes.
Missile defense is a strategy that should have broad appeal to pacifists, isolationists, hawks and all of us hoping for a secure future. But the Left has ridiculed “Star Wars” since it first was envisioned by President Reagan. They adamantly oppose funding it, then they pooh-pooh the scientific breakthroughs that are achieved in spite of the obstacles they throw in the way. Even after missile defense proved a key factor in ending the Cold War, their opposition was unabated.
Russia today is poking us in the eye around the globe, from Syria to Iran to Eastern Europe. Does their belligerence warrant having a missile shield in place against them? That’s hard to say, but the Russians’ attitude is alarming. Tellingly, their top priority is keeping us from having interceptors for their missiles. In other words, it is highly important to them to be able to protect their massive investments in nuclear warheads that can be used to threaten and intimidate us.
In that case, why would we ever agree to make ourselves more vulnerable? How would we explain that to Ronald Reagan? He made the world vastly safer by pursuing the opposite strategy.
President Obama’s willingness to prostrate us before the Russians reveals a leader with little regard for his own nation. He seems highly influenced by far left radicals who see in America only imperialism, racism and greed, not the world center of liberty and opportunity for all. For Obama, there’s apparently nothing here that warrants any special protection.
Maybe we need more “open mics” to find out what his real plans are for a second term. Would he really obstruct our chance to become energy independent with our newfound fuel reserves? Would he spend even more on entitlements and drive us deeper into debt? Would he go ahead with crippling taxes on our economy? What are his real plans regarding “comprehensive immigration reform,” i.e. amnesty? What about the growth of labor unions and voter fraud?
Nobody knows and that’s the problem. We have a president who doesn’t level with us. His second term would likely be a nasty shock.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:25 am on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
What he meant to say was "I will rule American as I see fit after I win the re-election". All hail king Obama.....
mnjcpa posted at 11:23 am on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
The Left has sullied this once great nation. Its becoming one that's culturally profane. Obama's dishonesty is palpable and you said it best - "We are not used to being disrespected by our leaders and treated like dupes for their political gain."
My hope is that come November people will wake up. The taxes coming will cripple America and there isn't enough to collect to sustain our debt. We're on our way to Greece if something dramatic doesn't shift. How can anyone even consider reelecting someone that can't even get his own party to approve a budget and operate without one since in office? You've got to ask yourself if you're really better off today than you were four years ago.
I say resoundingly, no.
What needs to change is a willingness for people to be curious and learn the truth, rather than be caught in a prism of what they're told to believe by less than credible or honorable sources. This article is fantastic in doing so.
jamespkrehbiel posted at 4:17 pm on Sat, Apr 7, 2012.
Missile defense? Star Wars? We currently don't know what to do with all the excess baggage in our military defense system. Even reasonable Repulbicans agree. We'd rather load up on unncessary military spending than provide access to healthcare, safeguard mental health services, and support those in financial need! Here's another radical Republican notion in which Ronald Reagan wouldn't even recognize. Yeah, let's keep drawing from the pockets of the middle class to support nonsensical defense spending.
baldeagle13 posted at 6:15 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
What a small mind this man Paterson must have. But it can be understood when one considers he spent his life pushing pills and as an Arizona Republican state senator. (Did you ever notice that when Medical Doctors write something, newspapers always identify them as Doctors, but if a PhD in Physics or a senior welder writes his skills are not identified?) Even a small amount of research into recent history will clearly show that Reagan had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but his wild spending and unbelievable tax cuts were responsible for starting the troubles our country is now experiencing.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:45 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Welcome aboard, 'jamespkrehbiel, yours is an unsual name, but your themes are quite welcome to the ears of us few 'true conservatives' on this cite.
And welcome aboard to you too, 'baldeagle13.' Can't say I get much out of your 'handle' but I do get you 'conservative' princples, too, even if you might not consider yourself as being a conservative!
Yes, 'baldeagle13' knows about our "Tom." I do give Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. I give credit to all Presidents for something. I give credit to LBJ for cradling in its infantcy the civil rights movement. Conservatives do believe in civil rights, you know. And his understanding that affixing his signature as a Democrat President on that legislation would mean the end of Dixiecrats showed both political courage and the goodness in his heart toward all men.
But you both are correct. My theme with today's conservatives is that they are not really conservative. They are neoconservatives. And by spelling that Neo-con, many get angry. But getting them angry is counter productive. So I have to appologize occasionally.
We all have to put up with the likes of Tom and his fellow neo-cons. After all that is what true democracy and freedome of speach is all about.
So once again, welcome to you both.
mnjcpa posted at 9:09 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
It's so good to see Dale has comrades.
Patterson's column had little to do with military spending and more to do with the disdain Obama has for America. We have a sitting President that presents us with the grave reality that our freedom is perilously close to extinction.
I don't have any idea what a neo-con is - but I do know this. You're flat wrong bald eagle about Reagan's economic impact. The tax cuts stimulated a dismal economy brought to us by Carter that grew the US economy to unprecedented levels.
Military spending shouldn't even be a talking point - it's a fraction of overall GDP.
But the minute someone discusses US security (or the lack thereof) the liberals twist the take to meet their ideas. My take on the article - free of insults to Patterson - is that increasingly without anyone vetting Obama we see him for who he truly is. He hates America - the constitution, our freedom, everything we were built on.
Grant Hubbard posted at 1:55 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
According to Conservative critic George Will, President Obama said “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space… This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Assuming this is accurate, as my research suggest it is, at least in substance, what does it mean.
All honest and Christian people, indeed all who live the Golden Rule, whatever their religion or philosopy might be would simple conclude that the President meant just what he said: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Indeed everyone of ordinary intelligence and minimal education understands the difficulty of campaigning and conducting diplomacy at the same time.
But, Patterson is an ideologic Republican, which trumps all other religious and ethical considerations. It’s too bad that so good ole East Valley Boys preach peace and fairness and decency but do not practice it.
Cincinnatus posted at 7:30 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
The President has only so much room to move during an election year. Especially one in which the Republican Party has basically become a captive of the irrational Right. Bad time to try to produce any serious or effective policy initiatives since they'll become political pinatas - especially with this Congress.
As for missile defense initiative, Patterson assumes too much. Besides the technological difficulties the strategic policy implications are a rats-nest of response/counter-response and tactical nightmares. There were good reasons we signed an ABM Treaty in '72 and I see no fundamental strategic or technological magic wand that makes the difficulties and dangers of missile defense disappear.
Mr Hubbard is not only correct about Patterson but a lot nicer about it than I am willing to be. Patterson's analysis is nothing more than an ideological twitch. He strikes all the those far dreary right-wing, paranoid memes that remind us that we've all been here before in our history. But the entire Obama as some quisling, alien "other" has really gone about as far as it's going to go thankfully. The fact is that he simply hasn't governed from the far-left and the American people know it - at least those not stuck in a 50's right-wing echo chamber. The reason that the Republicans have Romney is because the vast majority of the American people won't elect a President who displays the paranoid, nuttiness that these folks do. So keep it up Mr. Patterson and Obama will have a second term.
mnjcpa posted at 9:12 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
"The reason that the Republicans have Romney is because the vast majority of the American people won't elect a President who displays the paranoid, nuttiness that these folks do."
Cincinnatus - the people I know say the same thing about the Obama regime and they're not wild losers as you describe.
x1134x posted at 9:59 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
When Bush was president you had left-wing idiots that said word for word the drivel that Chatmandu002 typed. I guess there are also right-wing idiots. Anyone who refers to the President as "king" or says the president "thinks he is king" or "wants to make himself king" or "is going to appoint himself king" is not just stupid, they are actually mentally retarded. REGARDLESS of which party is in office. NOBODY is going to be KING. EVER.
VofReason posted at 1:13 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Right, no politician will ever be king. I mean, if they were or thought they were, they would try to shove a healthcare bill down the congress and citizenry's throught when the majority of America didn't want it then or now. Or maybe tell the 3rd branch of Government not to try to reverse it and that if they did, it would be unprescedented for a non elected body to do. Nope, no one would do anything like that- would they? Speaking of thinking their the King- why does Dale act like he owns the place- welcoming people and all? Really kind of silly.
VofReason posted at 1:14 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
Yes, but I guess that just "our" Dale.
fairygirl posted at 8:21 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
Stick to medicine doc. You're paranoia and conspiratorial mind is un-becoming and uncredible for a learned man practicing the science of medicine. Causes me to lose confidence in your skills and judgement.
x1134x posted at 11:14 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.
V: if he were "king" he woulnd't "try to shove" anything down anyone's throats, he would have absolute authority. Congress would be meaningless. You don't understand what being "KING" means.
You've mis-defined "king" to mean "loud-mouth president".