Obama – The Prez Who Says He’ll Screw America To Help Russia If They Wait Till He’s Reelected – Demands Europe Not Save Itself By Booting Greece Until After Election Day

I’ll just re-post the whole article for you on what Obama said to the Russians first:

You want to talk about a hard punch right in the gut of American national security.

Allow me to sum this up for you: Obama is telling the Russians, “I assure you that I’m going to cave in to you like the pandering weakling that I am. But I can’t do it yet. If I sacrifice American security before the election, the American people will rightly turn on me and I’ll be out – and you’ll have a strong leader to deal with who will confront you as an obvious opponent rather than the Neville Chamberlain-style Appeaser-in-Chief that you have in me. If you give me ‘space’ to get re-elected I promise you I’ll bow down before you the same way I’ve already bowed down so many times before. I’ll even apologize to you for America’s ‘aggression’ if you want me to. Heck, I just got through apologizing to the people who murdered American soldiers! So you KNOW I’m good for it!”

Hot mike moment: Obama overheard telling Medvedev he needs ‘space’ on missile defense
By NBC News’ Shawna Thomas

SEOUL, South Korea — It was a comment not intended for public consumption, and another lesson for President Barack Obama on the importance of being careful about what you say around microphones, especially in an election year.

At the end of a 90-minute meeting between Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday, journalists rushed in to hear remarks from the leaders about the content of their talks.

Journalists spied the two leaders leaning close together and talking in hushed tones. According to those in the room, the conversation was difficult to hear but the videotape revealed Obama asking the Russian leader to wait until after the November election before pushing forward on the topic of a planned missile defense shield.

“Pool” videotape provided more information about the conversation between the two leaders:

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

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

While most journalists didn’t catch the rest, one Russian reporter managed to record the context with his equipment.

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

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

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

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

The planned anti-ballistic shield system has been one of many sore spots between the two world powers in the last few years.

Obama says US can reduce nuclear stockpile

Moscow says it fears the system would weaken Russia by gaining the capability to shoot down the nuclear missiles it relies on as a deterrent. It wants a legally binding pledge from the United States that Russia’s nuclear forces would not be targeted by the system.

That’s actually NOT what Moscow wants. Yes, it is their rhetorical posture to make them sound “reasonable,” but the reality is that Russia doesn’t just want some “contract.”

Moscow wants the United States to abandon this missile defense system altogether. Moscow wants to throw a monkey wrench into the entire system that the United States says is necessary to protect America from the now very real prospect of a nutjob Iranian ballistic missile attack.

You need to understand what current American policy is. And then you need to realize that Obama is signalling the Russians that he is going to abandon his own policy and undermine American security if Russia just gets off his back so he can get re-elected. Because getting re-elected is all that Obama cares about. And he’ll violate any trust no matter how sacred if it will purchase enough votes.

To frame it in terms of the title below, if Obama was going to “stick” to the missile shield as is official US policy as of just a few months ago (December 2011), he wouldn’t have anything to be afraid of. Which is to say that Obama is already planning on appeasing Russia; he just needs “space” to betray America:

U.S. sticking to missile shield regardless of Moscow
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:37pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama Administration plans to complete an anti-ballistic missile shield to protect European allies against Iran ”whether Russia likes it or not,” the U.S. envoy to NATO said on Friday.

Moscow’s objections to the project, which includes participation by Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain, “won’t be the driving force in what we do,” Ivo Daalder, the ambassador, told reporters at a breakfast session.

The U.S. estimate of the Iranian ballistic missile threat has gone up, not down, over the two years since President Barack Obama opted for a new, four-phased deployment to protect the United States and NATO allies, Daalder said.

“It’s accelerating,” Daalder said of the U.S.-perceived threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles, “and becoming more severe than even we thought two years ago.”

“We’re deploying all four phases, in order to deal with that threat, whether Russia likes it or not,” he added. At the same time, he urged Moscow to cooperate in both to deal with Iran and to see for itself that, as he put it, the system’s capabilities pose its strategic deterrent force no threat.

If the perceived threat from Iran ebbs, “then maybe the system will be adapted to that lesser threat,” Daalder said.

[…]

Daalder said the sides remain at odds over, among other things, Russia’s demand for the legally binding pledge, before any cooperation, that its nuclear forces would not be targeted by the NATO elements.

“They have gotten themselves quite hung up on our unwillingness to put this in legally binding writing,” he said.

The administration was not convinced that such a pledge would be ratified by the U.S. Senate, he said, nor should Moscow be convinced that even if it were, “we wouldn’t necessarily at some point walk away from it,” as the George W. Bush administration did from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the only U.S.-Russia missile defense pact.

That withdrawal opened the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense shield that the U.S. government says is designed to protect the United States from countries like Iran and North Korea.

Daalder said that if the United States ever were placing interceptors to counter Russia’s nuclear missiles, “we wouldn’t deploy them in Europe. We would deploy them in the United States.”

The physics of missile defense intercepts make it “easier and better to approach an incoming missile from the opposite side than it is to try to chase it down.” he said. “That’s the way that it works.”

Russia knows full-well that we wouldn’t build a system designed to protect America from Russian missiles in Europe. What Russia is trying to do is create difficulties that will make the missile shield politically impossible to build altogether. The Russians also very much like the idea (which is why Russia has helped Iran develop its nuclear program to begin with) of America being vulnerable to Iran which very obviously gives Russia more influence and power over US policy. At least unless we build a missile defense shield.

And ask yourself whether the threat from Iran has gone up or down given that Iran was just caught red-handed scrubbing evidence of a nuclear weapons program at its Parchin facility.

But Barack Obama is worried about the Iranian threat. Obama isn’t worried about millions of Americans being murdered. Obama is looking out for #1. Obama is worried about his re-election and he will betray America if that’s what it takes to keep his job so he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of America from a constitutional republic into a Marxist banana republic.

This has always been a nation that was determined to protect itself. Barack Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” that. He just needs “space” to do it so he can betray the American people with impunity.

You see, it really isn’t about 320 million Americans or their pitiful national security.  It’s about Obama and his election.  You suck; Obama actually is a messiah and ergo sum Obama is the only being that is worth a damn on Obama’s view.

The current news item about Iran is that they have massively expanded and progressed on its nuclear weapons program.  And they are just as feverishly working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.  But what is silliness like that compared to the re-election of the most marvellous being who ever existed or who ever will exist? 

Obama supporters assure their fellow liberals, “After November, Obama can do anything he likes without bothering to care about the pitiful American people or worry about their stupid votes.”  We’re not talking about some mere “president,” people.  We’re talking about an emperor – a Führer!  Who are you, you insignificant little pissant gnat, to stop such greatness?

And so this same Obama is telling Europe, “With all due respect, please remember that only I matter.  You can save your continent and preserve the hundreds of millions of peasants who live there, but just don’t do it until AFTER I’m re-elected:

 Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President’s election hopes
Oliver Wright  Friday 24 August 2012

The Obama administration will pressure European governments not to let Greece fall out of the eurozone before November’s Presidential elections, British Government sources have suggested.

Representatives from the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission are due to arrive in Athens next month to assess Greece’s reform efforts.

They are expected to report in time for an 8 October meeting of eurozone finance ministers which will decide on whether to disburse Greece’s next €31bn aid tranche, promised under the terms of the bailout for the country.

American officials are understood to be worried that if they decide Greece has not done enough to meet its deficit targets and withhold the money, it would automatically trigger Greece’s exit from the eurozone weeks before the Presidential election on 6 November.

They are urging eurozone Governments to hold off from taking any drastic action before then – fearing that the resulting market destabilisation could damage President Obama’s re-election prospects. European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.

The President discussed the eurozone crisis with David Cameron during a conference call on Wednesday and both welcomed statements by the European Central Bank that it was “standing firmly behind the euro”.

The ECB is expected to present a plan in the next few weeks to help indebted countries like Spain and Italy by buying their government bonds.

Today, Prime Minister Antonis Samaras will travel to Berlin to meet Chancellor Angela Merkel, and to France tomorrow for talks with President François Hollande. He is asking that Greece be given more time to meet its deficit targets and implement its reforms as its economy is struggling through a fifth year of recession.

But Germany’s Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said it was only months since creditors drew up a second bailout package and agreed on a massive debt write-down for Greece.

Britain is understood to have pressed the Germans to ensure that if eurozone leaders decide Greece’s position is unsustainable the financial “firewall” around Spain and Italy is made stronger. Officials are worried that if Greece was to exit the eurozone, the move could result in dramatic increases in the cost of debt for other weaker eurozone members – making their financial situation unsustainable.

Allow me to translate that part that says, “European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.”  It’s pretty much the same thing as saying that Obama has assured Europe that he’ll promise to screw the American people to give Europe whatever bailout it wants as long as Europe doesn’t interfere with his re-election.  It’s pretty much the same promise Obama gave to Russia to screw American national security if Russia didn’t do anything to interfere with his re-election.

Greece, of course, has long-since proven that it is a giant black hole of bailouts.  Greece is a country that will promise anything to get the next bailout, then completely renege on its promises, then come begging for another bailout.  And given that it’s already worked so many times for them before, they’re going to keep doing it until Europe is a dry husk.  Greece is one of those cancers that has to be surgically removed or else the patient dies.

Not that Obama cares.  Obama is worried about the most important thing that ever existed or ever will exist: Obama.

I frankly don’t know whether Obama didn’t get his ass kicked nearly enough when he was a kid, or whether he got his ass kicked way too many times.  It was clearly one or the other, given the malignant narcissist he’s become.

Greece’s economy, Europe’s economy, hell our own economy, are all teetering and will very likely go over the brink.  But what matters any of that if Obama is re-elected?  His sheer wonderfulness is really all that ought to matter to anyone with the proper perspective.  All of the rest of us are but dust before him, and we ought to remember that.

‘No We Can’t’ Fixing To Be A Major Problem In God Damn America

We elected the man who stood for “God damn America”:

We elected the man who manifested the most amazing and narcissistic hubris in modern history:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”

We voted for an evil and arrogant man whose only valuable skill was the ability to read from a teleprompter screen.

Barack Obama spent more than 20 years in a church that literally prayed that God would damn America.  His personal arrogance invited divine damnation.

It appears we have very likely got what we wanted: an America no longer under God’s protection, but only under Obama’s.

No, We Can’t [John Derbyshire]

Read this piece.

It’s technical, but not intractably so, if you’re willing to concentrate for half an hour and chase down the links.

It’s also deeply pessimistic about our chances of doing anything much about the Gulf oil spill.

In brief:

● BP drills a hole down through many layers of rock, of different strength and consistency, to the oil.

● The oil will then come up through this bore hole at great pressure.

● You do NOT want that pressure forcing the oil sideways into upper levels of the drilled-through rock.

● So you line the bore hole with steel casing, and cement in the space between casing and bore hole wall. This is deep-drilling S.O.P.

● Evidence from the Top Kill failure suggests that this casing-cement system is now fatally compromised.

● So we have “down hole leaks” — oil under colossal pressure forcing its way sideways into below-sea-bed rock formations.

● If you had (which of course we don’t) some massive cork to jam into the top of the bore hole and stop the gusher, all that sideways-leaked oil would just come bursting out through fissures opening up in the sea floor.

● For miles around.

● And even though we don’t have such a cork, the bore hole might collapse in on itself, with the same effect.

As the writer says: “The very least damaging outcome as bad as it is, is that we are stuck with a wide open gusher blowing out 150,000 barrels a day of raw oil or more.”

In slightly different words: The best we can hope for is that the thing just goes on gushing through the bore hole indefinitely. (Or until we can drill enough relief wells to reduce the pressure. Don’t hold your breath.)

I’m as horrified as anyone by this — if the guy has got it right, and I’ve understood him correctly. At the same time, as a constitutional pessimist, I’ll own to a certain grim satisfaction. The infantile optimism of post-JFK America may have met its match down there in the Gulf. Nature is not mocked.

If this analysis is correct, the consequences for America will be so devastating that they can’t be overstated.

The author says “Nature is not mocked.”  I say God is not mocked.

Dr. Anne Wortham wrote an inspired article entitled, “No He Can’t” shortly after Obama’s election victory.  On her highly insightful view, what won in 2008 was an attitude of helplessness begging for deliverance by a pseudo-messiah of big government socialistic bureaucracy.

We elected a president who promised to be our savior.  But what we are now learning is that he is an incompetent failure who can’t do anything.  We wait and wait for Obama to save us, but all he actually does is make a terrible problem even worse with his mismanagement.

Obama was hailed as our great deliverer.  But where are we a year and a half later?  Our unemployment rate is far higher now than it was when Bush left office (7.6%).  Our out-of-control debt is far higher now than it was when Obama assumed office.  Our housing industry is worse than it has ever been since records were maintained fifty years ago.  Our war in Afghanistan is far worse was than it was when Obama assumed office.

By the Democrats’ very own metric from 2004, Barack Obama is the worst president in the history of the nation.

And now we have oil spewing out of a hole in the sea floor, at a rate that is creating an Exxon Valdez damage every four days.

A writer from The Times in England, taking note of all the incredible arrogance of the Obama campaign, said the very day after Obama’s inauguration, “Obama may be the ‘no we can’t’ president.”  In hindsight, it seems readily obvious that Daniel Finkelstein was right.

Is what is happening God’s divine judgment on America for it’s foolishness and wickedness in electing an evil man?  I don’t know.  God doesn’t tell me when He’s judging a nation.  But I DO know that God DOES judge nations (see Psalm 82:8; 96:10; 110:6; Joel 3:12).  And I DO know that even liberal sources such as the Huffington Post (and see also here) and Newsweek are using the word “apocalypse” to describe the terrible Gulf oil disaster.  Maybe these liberal and very likely godless writers don’t realize it, but the term “apocalypse” is loaded with the sense of the revealing of divine judgment.

I also know that God is not mocked, and that whatever men sow, they will also reap (Galatians 6:7).

I am not a prophet, and God has not revealed to me that He is judging America for its departing from Him and turning to a false messiah who hates and mocks His ways:

But in my own heart, I believe that God is beginning to judge America by withdrawing His favor from this once great nation.

I believe that we are reaping the consequences of voting for “God damn America.”  I wrote about that the night Obama won the election, and I have never found a single reason to change my mind.

How ‘Failed Policies’ Of Democrats Were Responsible For Financial Crisis

Why should anyone blame Democrats for the housing finance crisis?  Because they laid virtually all the landmines that would eventually explode in the first place, and then they wouldn’t allow Republicans to reform or even regulate the impending disaster before it occurred, that’s why.

From the New York Times in September 30, 1999:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. . . .

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.” . . .

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” . . .

The LA Times writes on May 31, 1999 that:

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites….

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . . .

Another article in the New York TImes from September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .

This reform – and another in 2005/06 – were blocked by Democrats who threatened to filibuster the bill in the Senate.

In that 2003 New York Times article, we find the extent of Republicans’ concerns, and of Democrats’ intransigence:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats such as Watt and Maxine Waters played the race card to label any effort to prevent poor and black families from buying homes they couldn’t afford as racist.

But when the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator as a direct result of Democrats’ policies, Nancy Pelosi trots and says:

“The — what we have now is a manmade disaster, a disaster that sprang — comes from the Bush failed policies, the failure of the Bush administrations to steward our economy in a responsible way.”

I am telling you, if you vote for Democrats in November, you will be putting the very people who caused this disaster in power, and you will be entrusting the people who created a crisis in charge of averting the very crisis they caused.  By putting these irresponsible demagogues in charge of our economy during one of the most vulnerable periods in our nations’ history, you will in effect be saying, “I want the Great Depression.  I want my children to suffer.”