Could Obama’s administration be attempting to shift Americans’ focus to “A RELATIVELY SAFE but PASSIONATE” issue?

President Barack Obama

By Vanderbrink Mardell 


Could Obama’s administration be attempting to shift Americans’ focus to “A RELATIVELY SAFE but PASSIONATE” issue? 
Most of us understand that a strategist is not a key player in any political party and that the stay-at-home-moms rank highest among the conservative and the independent voters. A slam against any (wealthy or not wealthy) stay-at-home mom angers these voter If I was in Obama’s camp I’d want to get the conservatives and independents off the facts of what Obama has been doing and riled up on the issue of “stay-at-home-mom” because then Obama, his wife and others could rush to disagree and there’s the attempt to win the votes that Obama needs for re-election….. has everyone missed the fact that it is indeed odd that the opinion of an unimportant strategist regarding a stay-at-home-mom is more talked about than Obama’s hot mic whisperings to the Russian President.. Consider the following and you decide if we should be talking about the ease Ann Romney had as an at-home-mom or should we be remembering, investigating and talking about……. 
In 2009 Obama scrapped the long awaited missile defense system for Poland and the Czech Republic because Russia objected. 
• In 2009 Obama scrapped NASA and all of the future technological advances sure to be developed by NASA which would keep the US on the cutting edge of defense technology. He instructed the NASA hierarchy to focus on outreach to Muslim nations. Nearly 75% of the advances which we have made in aerospace have come from the technology created by the space program; which has now been flushed down the toilet by the America-hating Obama. 
• He has refused to keep secret the technical data on the U.S Standard Missile-3, as called for in the 2012 defense authorization bill. 
• Obama will not pledge to keep American missile technology from China, North Korea and Iran, as it would “…interfere with [his] constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs…” Really? We need to give the Communists our missile technology as a condition to talks about human rights and world peace? 

Obama with  Medvedev 

• Obama will provide Russia information on every Trident missile supplied to Great Britain as part of an arms control deal signed with Russian President Medvedev. 
• Leaked cables show that the US will now provide Russia with ALL serial numbers of Trident missiles transferred to Britain. 
• Obama proposes the United States CUT its nuclear arsenal by 80%, yet demands no reciprocity on the part of Russia or any of America’s enemies. 
• Joe Miller, 2010 US Senate candidate from Alaska, reports that, under the guise of drawing a boundary, 7 Alaska-area islands and oil rich sea beds containing perhaps billions of barrels were given to Russia in an unannounced, secret deal by Obama’s State Department. 
Under Obama’s programs, by 2016, defense will account for 20% of the national budget, yet bear over HALF of the deficit-reduction cuts.
In mid-March, Obama declared he would “…provide the Russians with detailed technical information about the anti- missile systems he plans to base in Eastern Europe…”
And Congressman Darrell Issa said that “the American people should be very afraid,” continuing with “I judge that in fact he is going to sell out our national defense after the election.” 
Who cares if Mitt Romney can afford to have his children’s stay-at-home-mom have one nanny or fourteen…that’s not going to impact our nation’s survival but what will impact our nation’s survival is that this man can use those same economic business skills and strategies to get the United States back on good economic ground. --go to www.issa.house.gov and also Google Representative  Communists . We all need to start reading, gathering facts and thinking about what it means if Obama is re-elected … Have we all lost our minds??? IF OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED, THE COST WILL BE TOO HIGH !! The cost will be our freedom, our constitution and our culture but most importantly, the costs of our behavior and mind-set will fall upon the lives of our children and grandchildren. 

Bowing to the Kremlin

Why Obama's "hot mic" diplomacy is endangering America. 

By Mitt Romney

Sometimes it's the unguarded moments that are the most revealing of all. President Obama just had such a moment at the summit in South Korea. "This is my last election," Obama told Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, in an exchange that was inadvertently picked up by microphones. "After my election I have more flexibility."

 But flexibility to do what? The president mentioned missile defense to Medvedev as one area where the Kremlin should expect more flexibility. This is alarming. 

It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.

And it is not hard to understand why. The record shows that President Obama has already been pliant on missile defense and other areas of nuclear security. Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, he abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland. He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia's demand that a United Nations resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program exclude crippling sanctions.

Moscow has rewarded these gifts with nothing but obstructionism at the United Nations on a whole raft of issues. It has continued to arm the regime of Syria's vicious dictator and blocked multilateral efforts to stop the ongoing carnage there. Across the board, it has been a thorn in our side on questions vital to America's national security. For three years, the sum total of President Obama's policy toward Russia has been: "We give, Russia gets."

Russian intransigence has elicited no push-back from the White House. Indeed, as the conversation in South Korea shows, President Obama appears determined to ingratiate himself with the Kremlin. This, unfortunately, seems to be the real meaning of his "reset" policy. An outstanding example is the personal phone call that Barack Obama made to Vladimir Putin from Air Force One congratulating the Russian leader on his election as Russia's next president.

The call followed a declaration from the State Department that "the United States congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the Presidential elections." Given that the Russian elections were widely seen to have been compromised by fraud and intimidation, these words made a mockery of America's commitment to democracy and human rights. They undercut all those in Russia who are risking so much to struggle for the universal rights that we ourselves enjoy. They are a shameful betrayal of our country's first principles.

President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy.

Would post-election "flexibility" lead him to reach out once again to the Iranian regime
"without preconditions"? Would it lead him to resume pressuring Israel into making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians? Would it permit him to take an even softer line, if that is imaginable, toward the authoritarian regimes of the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez? Would he further shrink our Navy and Air Force below the already-too-low force numbers currently planned? Would he pour more money into United Nations bodies that have recognized a Palestinian state and seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time and energy denouncing Israel?

In a self-governing country like ours, the people have a right to know what kinds of decisions are being taken in their name. The American people deserve candor. They also deserve a foreign policy founded upon our enduring principles and a recognition of our exceptional place in the world.

That is not what they are getting now. Unfortunately, what they are getting is a sad replay of Jimmy Carter's bungling at a moment when the United States needs the backbone and courage of a Ronald Reagan. In his dealings with the Kremlin, as in his dealings with the rest of the world, President Obama has demonstrated breathtaking weakness -- and given the word "flexibility" a new and ominous meaning.