Did anyone hear President Obama mention how he cannot wait to be reelected because "after my election, I will have more flexibility"? He said this to the Russian President when he might have though the mics were off. I think Obama needs to answer for this. Did he mean that he can be more radical once he doesn't have to care about being reelected? Does he think he will be able to do whatever he wants if he gets elected to a second term?
So? Candidates always use the term, "...when I'm elected (or reelected)...." all the time.
The goal of every first-term president is to get a second term.
If Obama gets what he hopes will be his second term, he'll feel free to screw up the country even more than he already has.
God help us if he gets that chance.
I guess he just had a Joe Biden moment.
Surely he wouldn't intentionally actually be making plans with Russia behind the backs of the American people?! Oh no not the great Obama. How dare anyone question him, ever. His perfectness cannot be questioned, ever.
By the way, on a common-sense note, has anyone heard if Obama's tried to 'splain this away at all?
Or is everyone still skeered to ask him to ever explain his actions?
I checked the White House website, which produced nothing on this subject.
The rotten actors will be removed from power.
"A look at the pentagon budget for this upcoming year shows they have dedicated plenty of resources to financing reserve troop units inside the United States. This does not mean they are preparing to put average Americans into FEMA camps as feared by many. To the contrary, they are preparing for a mass round up of cabal agents and proxies, according to pentagon and CIA sources."
It's been 11 years. Double helix: 1 1 time is now.
This article states that Obama will now honour his promises to the Russians and ditch any promises he makes to the American electorate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … icans.html
Simple answer is just don't re-elect him, but you might have the same problem that we do over here in the UK, which is that once they get elected they all seem to be exactly the same anyway
Or could it be part of a Global initiative- a good one! and obviously International leaders speak to other International leaders, its kinda part of the job
New Zealand is contributing $500,000 towards a US-led project to send highly enriched uranium from Uzbekistan back to Russia to be securely stored, Prime Minister John Key has announced.
Mr Key is attending the Nuclear Security Summit in Korea, which aims to secure nuclear materials worldwide.
"This project reinforces our support for the securing of vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide," he said in a statement on Tuesday.
"We are not immune to the risks posed by nuclear terrorism."
Mr Key says since 2004 New Zealand has committed around $6 million to global partnership projects to make nuclear material secure.
(Copied from a local newspaper, I am sure other Western Countries are al part of the effort-and it will be necessary to communicate with Russia)
P.S It is a big deal for NZ to be supportive ,since our country does not support nuclear powered ships in our ports)
“We cannot destroy the war machine until we destroy the system that allows the wealthy to profit from the death of our children.” - Ghandi
Count down time.
Just one more great reason to have impeachment papers ready and waiting.
I know I'll be asked, "For what?" Lets start with Solyndra and work our way down the list of possibilities. It doesn't matter. Just find whatever we can to impeach him on and get rid of him.
Great idea, LH! Why don't you go ahead and write up the "impeachment papers" and thus save our country the time and expense of having it done by someone--unlike you, of course-- who may forget a few things?
I know I'd like to get a preview, so post them papers here when yer finished, son!
Naaaaw, I'll let someone else do the work. I got more important thing to do like stocking up on ammo for the coming revolution.
Oh, by the way, since I already have a damn good dad and you ain't him, there's no reason for you to call me 'son.'
Ah, so you are just an idea man? Gottcha!
Which coming revolution? I wonder if it's the same ones I've been hearing about all my life down here in God's Country? Who are we going to have to fight this time? (I always have enough ammo stockpiled and have never ran out yet during any previous revolution.)
At the rate things are going, we're gonna need a legal separation where we divide up all the stuff (states) and move into two separate houses (countries).
Hopefully, it won't come to a shootin' frakus to make it happen but I'm not so old I don't remember the ole Boy Scout motto: "Always be prepared."
OH, it figures....
Here's what it's all about: The START treaty with Russia!! You know--Common Sense...working towards nuclear disarmament...started by that Commie Reagan!
"The Senate Republicans turned the bipartisan-backed New START treaty into a major political clash in a way that had never been done before. Given that this pack is even stronger in the Senate these days, it is no wonder that Obama would tell Medvedev that any arms control initiatives would be quite difficult to manage in the months prior to the 2012 elections. With New START, Republicans demonstrated they were willing—even eager—to politicize such issues. Kyl threatened torpedoing the treaty if the White House didn't spend billions of dollars more on the nuclear stockpile. (Though he got his money, he went ahead with this threat.) McCain and Graham denounced ratification in hyperbolic terms (while signaling their votes for a treaty governing world-destroying weapons could be procured if Obama dumped his Don't Ask/Don't Tell repeal).
Obama skillfully navigated the Republican intransigence with New START. But the episode showed how hard it is for the White House to deal with the Senate GOPers on this critical front. And with Romney and other Republicans decrying Obama as a weak-kneed appeaser and apologizer—who kowtows to Russia—Obama is right to conclude that this is not a good moment to pursue the hard work of US-Russia arms control. There is indeed little political space available for this important endeavor, and the Republicans outraged about Obama's hot-mic remark are responsible for that."--David Corn
Once again: Determined to ruin Obama, as they treat him like DIRT, the big baby GOP twists the truth and smears the president, who is trying to do HIS JOB.
All in the name of waaaa waaaaaa
LMC, would you say you're a Dem, Liberal or Socialist?
That was smooth. You should be a politician!
In your brand of "America First", does that mean even to the dissolution of the U.S. Constitution to give Obama what he wants?
My brand of America is letting the person who WON the election, actually do his thing.
I know that is anathema to the GOP, who must act like they are the only party there is.
Always speaking for "the American people"...they never spoke for me, and now that we have a Dem prez...they block him too!
It's very annoying, and not very American.
In fact, it's Un-Fair, and Un-Balanced.
So what you're saying is when there's a Republican president, the Dems just sit back and let him have his way.
Come on, LMC. We both know better than that.
They sure don't filibuster every single little appointment a prez wants to make, yell "You Lie" at him during a SOTU speech,refuse to meet with him!,and call him "boy".
BTW--I saw what Kasich said when he took power:
"We are in charge now, you don't have a say." That's what he said to the Dems. On C-Span!
Dems do work with a GOP prez.....look what they did for Bush: Gave him authority to use force as a last resort in Iarq.....that was all it took for elBushbo and co.
BLAM! Shock and Awe.
The mistake was yelling at the SOTU, LMC. Doesn't change the fact the man wouldn't know the truth if it thumped on one his big ears.
At to what Kasich said, are you going to try to tell me Pelosi and Reid didn't run the House and Senate with an iron fist? Come on, LMC. The whole "we're in charge" thing goes both ways and we both know it.
What I know is I have never seen such disrespect, hate and outright superiority againts a prez as I do now.
Even hate radio hosts call him low-brow names.
Granted, they did it to Clinton too....but this time it's tinged with ugly ugly racism of the past.
Even Bill didn't have to produce a birth certificate.
In fact, no other prez in history has had to, that I know of!
What is this, a coinkydink? Me thinks NOT.
And Pelosi and Reid would never have refused a meeting at the White House. How disrespectful is that? As if the prez is their underling.
I get the impression you're not too much younger than me so I have to ask where were you during the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations?
Respect is something earned, LMC. Obama hasn't come anywhere near doing that with me and a lot of other people. So much so that if the man walked up and offered me his hand to shake, I would turn my back to him. I would have done the same with Carter and Clinton. Still would, especially with Carter. That man is an idiot. And with Clinton, God only knows where his hand's been lately.
As for his birth certificate, at this point, it makes no difference to me. IMO, the man isn't an American in his heart or in his way of thinking so who cares where his moma was when she plopped him out.
You don't know him personally to make that assessment, IMO.
And respect used to be given a president. I am probly older than you, so yes, I do remember.
When Nixon resigned, and even though my mom did not like him, she cried for him. Humanity.
When Kennedy was killed, the whole country mourned.
Same with 9/11. The whole country was with Bush in that church when he spoke.
Now we have a president who gave the order to kill Bin-Laden,and all you people can say is Yay team 6...as if Obama had NOTHING to do with it!
Bush would have been lionized.
What's the difference?
As for respect for the office, I have respect for the office of POTUS, just not the guy that currently occupies it. If the next guy isn't any better, the same will apply to him no matter what party he's from.
The days of looking at the occupant of that office with awe are long since over, not due to Obama, the man, but due to his predecessors not realizing there's a 24-hour news cycle analyzing every little move they make, good or bad. Everything to bowing to one's God to getting a "Lewinski" in the Oval Office has been all over our televisions for decades and, as a result, the respect for the office been tarnished in some way for every American.
That's only going to get worse, not better.
When it comes to the killing of bin Laden, I don't know about others, LMC, but I gave Obama his due for giving the "go" order. Admittedly it was begrudgingly at first but I'll give him the credit. However, my bride and I both have friends that are and were SEALs and, while NONE of them expect it, they certainly DESERVE the credit for getting the job done. That's all I want. Give the guys that squeezed the trigger their due even if they don't expect so much as a pat on the back.
From a fellow blogger:
"I can't wait for Marco Rubio to have to produce his birth certificate that states that NEITHER of his parents were citizens when he was born. When did they immigrate to the US? Did they immigrate legally? They certainly weren't Castro exiles since they arrived in this country before he even came to power?
I can't wait for Romney to have to produce his birth certificate that states that his Father was born to fugitives from the law in Chihuahua, Mexico. How do fugitives from the law re-enter this country legally? Explain that to me.
I can't wait for Rick S. to have to produce his birth certificate that states that his Father was born in Italy. Where are your daddy's immigration papers, Ricky?
By all means, SHOW US THE LONG FORMS!"
Were both of your parents born here, LMC? Were they legal?
It really doesn't matter as long as you were.
It makes you a citizen, at least according to the hundreds of thousands of anchor babies plopped out by illegal south-of-the-border mamas. So it makes no difference where these guys' parents were born or even if they were legal. That is, of course, if we're going according to the Liberal Play Book.
EXCEPT if you're Barack Obama.....
THEN it is suspect! Because your people don't believe him or his proof.
LMC, I've been doing graphics for 26 years using numerous softwares. There's nothing that can't be done to make a document of any kind look exactly the way a person wants it for the right amount of money.
As I've stated before, Obama's citizenship isn't being questioned by me. His belief in our Constitution is. I wouldn't believe he's an American in his heart or his beliefs if I had irrefutable proof he was born right smack dab in the middle of Kansas in broad daylight on national television with Walter Cronkite narrating the whole thing.
He's not an American where it counts - in his heart and in his beliefs.
Wow---you lost me there.
You Tarzan, me Jane.
(oh, and can you use IMO? I'm asked to a lot...thought maybe you could too)
Assuming this was to me:
IMHO, I don't believe Obama is an American in his heart or his beliefs.
IMHO, he doesn't believe in the U.S. Constitution.
IMHO, he would actually tear it into little pieces if given the chance.
That's what I believe about Obama, LMC.
Some posts sound very paranoid.
I am sure that is not the American way.(least not the Americans I had the pleasure of meeting) and I have no idea what their political afiliations were.
First of all your President is a leader.
All International leaders speak to other international leaders, including Russia.
At least the last time our media showed leaders ,yes including USA's President was at the S.Korea summit,where Russia was present also,many photos shoots showed them all meeting and greeting.
Would you prefer them to show shoes or duke it out in the carpark or something?
So what is the problem?
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
President Barack Obama is hopeful of Senate ratification this year of the arms reduction treaty with Russia he is signing in Prague today, a White House official said.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said "we...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Word of the day seems to be MANDATE.As it, Obama's winning of a second term does not constitute a MANDATE.What does that mean?Does Obama have a mandate?Or does he not have a mandate?
by Beyond-Politics7 years ago
With so much vocal an organizational opposition to President Obama and his policies (such as they are) after only 9 months in office, is such criticism warranted? Does the opposition reflect minority intolerance, or a...
by Deforest2 years ago
Indeed it is. Russia is worried since it's only move was to help Crimea in acquiring its independence from the Ukrainian fascist regime. Can you tell me, why Ukraine is so important to us whereas our economy is going...
by rhamson7 years ago
Yahoo:WASHINGTON – Despite near gridlock in the Senate, Republicans were expected to swing behind a new arms control treaty with Russia that President Barack Obama said they will like, even though some are reserving...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.