Does Obama Care More About Winning the Elections than Peaceful Treaties on Nuclear Weapons?

Obama doesn't know that the microphone is still on and says something very revealing to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

Obama talking to Medvedev

"After my election I have more flexibility," he says. This means that, even when he thinks that there are better policies that can make the world more peaceful and safer, he can't really advocate some of them because  his elections are coming up. It does imply that he cares a lot more about winning the elections and he will do whatever his campaign team tells him rather than advocate principles he believes in. This is very dangerous and sadly this is how politicians always act. They'd rather bend principles for as long as it allows them to stay in power.

Medvedev then replies with "...I transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin], and I stand with you." which sounds so much like a line you'll hear from a spy movie haha (I really can't get over this because I love spy films). 

Romney's Reaction to Obama's Open Mic Incident

And now here comes Romney, the GOP establishment favorite "front-runner" who says "[Russia is] without question our number one geopolitical foe" which I really just don't understand. In a modern world that has seen too much unjust wars and genocide, in a world now aware of diplomacy and trade, why would you say something like that with someone you are currently peacefully trading with. What makes them the number one foe? Who's number two? I'd love to see the list of his hierarchy of foes. Is Iran number two? Maybe Venezuela who recently had alliance treaties with Iran? I just don't understand what he means.

And criticizing Obama for decreasing missile silos in random unnecessary countries they have no sovereignty over is quite contradictory for someone who hates other countries for having missile silos and nuclear weapons. Aside from reducing hostility, I believe reducing missile sites are also very helpful to there economy because they are in so much debt and they just can't afford managing this empire and the policing of the world anymore.

What's interesting though is that both Obama's (source: and Romney's (source: top contributor is Goldman Sachs (one of the biggest beneficiaries of the billion dollar bailouts). And all the other banks and corporations that were bailed out? Name them and they'll surely be funding both the Democrat and Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential elections. And this isn't some conspiracy theory. They're actually quite transparent about where they get their contributions. So I guess sometimes transparency isn't enough to show people how blatant these lobbyists are able to affect domestic and foreign policy. 

You didn't wonder why Obama kept most of Bush's economic policies and even the heads of Treasury department and the infamous chairman of the Federal Reserve? Again, it's not a conspiracy, all of these individuals can be easily linked to Goldman Sachs and other big lobbyist corporations.

And that one guy I've been talking about who's been battling this kind of politics for 30 years, regardless if they laugh at him in national television, regardless of the marginalization and ignorance of the media and the establishment, regardless of his untainted voting record in congress even when at times he would vote alone or only with a few against the whole congress, Ron Paul, the only one who's really different among all candidates: it's as if the Americans don't want him. I've written several times on this 30 years of consistent principled integrity and if you are too lazy to read them then I just wish that you'd at least check out the videos I have posted about him.

Policies are not decided by voters. In fact, voting is an illusion for both candidates will be funded by the lobbyists anyway. And how about Ron Paul? Where does he get his campaign funds? He gets it first and foremost from grassroots donations and surprisingly, since he supposedly has the "unpopular" foreign policy, he gets the biggest donations from active duty military personnel more than all three other candidates combined.

Other related posts:
1. Why is Ron Paul Attracting Young Voters
2. Why Do I Support Ron Paul?
3. Why is Jeffrey Sachs Mistaken About Ron Paul?

No comments

Powered by Blogger.