There’s a disturbing video clip making its way around the Internet. It features President Barack Hussein Obama dashing up to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, shaking his hand exuberantly and then bowing to Putin. We can quibble about whether it’s an actual bow or not, but it’s very close. Given Obama’s past supplicating behavior – his literal and figurative bowing to people who don’t care for America – this could well be a bow.

Certainly, the president’s antics in Russia constitute a bow to the country. Obama wasted no time in deeding away the American National Security farm when he got there. And things might get worse if he decides to toss our nuclear missile defense system plans into the bargain.

We heard that a guarded Prime Minister Putin spent the first 50 minutes or so of their meeting lecturing Pupil Obama on Cold War history.  The truth is that it’s in part because of our missile defense shield plans that Putin can't stand America.  He and President George W. Bush got along initially, but things soured when Bush wouldn’t budge on plans to erect a nuke shield in Poland. Putin isn’t happy that we still have those plans on the table.

Now Obama seems ready to scrap those defense plans, even though he hasn't out and out stated so.  Given his pacifist idealism, we must suspect that Obama has every intention of giving away the missile defense farm.  Long before he became president, Obama was showcasing pacifism. Andy McCarthy points out a 1983 Columbia campus newspaper article the New York Times recently unearthed. In “Breaking the War Mentality,” Obama quoted Rastafarian Peter Tosh song lyrics (“Obama: Student Radical,” National Review, July 6, 2009, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDEyMGNkZTI4MWE1ZjU4MzBiZjcwZjJhNzMyYzljYTA). In the article, Obama reflects, “When Peter Tosh sings that ‘everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,’ one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem, and not the disease itself” (“Obama’s 1983 College Magazine Article,” New York Times, http://documents.nytimes.com/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article#p=1). What idealistic profundity! Catch us as we swoon! Who didn’t anticipate a future national leader after reading that stunning missive?

Obama has already gift-wrapped a third of our nukes to Russia.  In turn, Russia is letting us cut across their backyard on land and on air as we fight the Afghan war.  They’ve also thrown a few antiquated rotting missiles into the mix. Who’d want them? Who has state-of-the-art technology? Who comes out a winner here? A genuine no brain barter just took place, and Russia came out the winner.

Even more disturbing: Ralph Peters contends that “the Russians don’t care much about our warhead numbers . . . What they really wanted – and got – was a US cave-in regarding limits on our nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and missiles that could leave us with as few as 500 such systems, if the Russians continue to have their way as the final details are negotiated” (“Desperate Deal,” New York Post, July 7, 2009).

Since “President Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts” (Ralph Peters, “Desperate Deal”), OK believes the next step for our pacifist prez may well be to scrap our U.S. nuclear missile defense system.

Iran is moving ever closer to having nuclear capabilities. The U.S. needs the nuke defense shield to keep Amoudinajad in check. Can we trust Russia to police Iran for us? Obama think so. He wants Russia to strong-arm Iran into cutting its nuclear program.

An attempt to forge a stronger U.S.-Russian alliance makes sense – but we should be prepared to flex our own muscle instead of relying on a former prime adversary to solve an impending crisis.

By the way, cutting through Russia saves the U.S. a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what the porkulus bill cost us.  So money isn't an issue.  It's having an idealistic president in charge of America; a president whose actions repeatedly signal diffidence for the welfare of the American people and re-election and legacy building as his ultimate goals.

Conservatives leaders like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush never deeded the National Security Farm, nor did they waver in their resolve to protect America.  Obama is already doing the former and hasn't begun to do the latter.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

One More Weak Presidential Pick!

Legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 outlines the following priorities for the United States: to prevent a terrorist attack, to reduce our vulnerability to such an attack and to aid with recovery if the U.S. should be attacked. However, new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s failure to mention the words terror, terrorism or terrorists at her first House Homeland Security Committee meeting (February 24), raises serious doubt that she understands her job description.

Many of us will never forget what terrorists did on 9/11. We believe that meeting homeland security issues is vital. Terrorism is a real threat to our safety, yet Napolitano and President Obama have eliminated ‘war on terror’ lingo from their vocabulary. Keeping Americans safe should be their top priority, but Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, release known terrorists and try terrorism suspects in the U.S. justice system demonstrates a clear shift from Homeland Security’s intended priorities.

How Do You Spot an Islamic Terrorist?

Ann Coulter says she knows. “As he slits your throat, he shouts, ‘Allah is great!’” (www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/04/03/coulter).   Obama’s release of Gitmo terrorists is shocking. News broke over the weekend that there are security leaks regarding Marine One. Canada released word that Russian aircraft were nearby during Obama’s February visit to Canada. And according to American intelligence sources, Iran is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles. Iran also recently accused Obama’s UN ambassador of making Bush-like accusations against Iran.

These acts on the part of foreign powers are attempts to test, discredit and disarm America, even as we learn that Iran recently successfully tested its nuclear power plant. The plant can be used to power parts of the country or just as easily be reprocessed to convert reactor fuel into plutonium for a nuke or two. Or three.

Obama and Napolitano would do well to remember that more than the American economy is in upheaval. They should take a good stare at foreign policy and insure that America remains combat ready. Now is not the time to be tossing olive branches left, right and center.

Unfortunately, there are signals that budgets and borders are merging into one slippery mess. Circulating rumors predict that Obama plans to grant the Chinese eminent domain over American land and business as collateral for U.S. debt. North Korea is test firing long-range missiles, in clear violation of old agreements, and we’re not doing much about it.

Then there’s our increasingly troublesome relationship with Russia. The U.S. needs a base in Kyrgyzstan to maneuver in and out of Afghanistan. The Kyrgyz will soon shut down that base. Enter Vladimir Putin, who has offered us a “caravan route through Russia and its Central Asian client states to make up for the loss of Manas.” Why the nice guy treatment all of a sudden? Ralph Peters makes an astute observation: “With our main supply route through Pakistan increasingly threatened, Putin wants to addict us to an alternative under his direct control” (“The Putin Plan To Sucker America,” New York Post, Feb. 25, 2009).

Napolitano needs a strategy for keeping America safe from people who hate us. It’s wise to keep an eye on the south and mobilize troops to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but it’s foolish to neglect the war overseas as we watchdog Mexico’s instability.

On the other hand, why should we expect Napolitano to attend to homeland security threats from across the ocean when her track record for keeping our southern borders secure is dismal?

We’ll discuss that more extensively next time because there's much more to say about our new Homeland Security director.