It’s a shame facebook doesn’t allow things like this to be published in purple ink, with hearts above all the i’s:

President Obama wants to give Russia our missile defense secrets because he believes that we can buy their friendship and cooperation with this taxpayer-funded gift. But giving military secrets and technologies to a rival or competitor like Russia is just plain dumb. You can’t buy off Russia. And giving them advanced military technology will not create stability. What happens if Russia gives this technology (or sells it!) to other countries like Iran or China? After all, as Woolsey points out, Russia helped Iran with its missile and nuclear programs. Or what happens if an even more hardline leader comes to power in the Kremlin?

We tried buying off the Kremlin with technologies in the 1970s. That policy was a component of “detente,” and the hope was that if we would share our technologies with them, they would become more peaceful. Things, of course, didn’t work out that way. The Kremlin took western technologies and embarked on a massive military building program. History teaches that peace comes from American military strength. And a central component of that has always been technological superiority. Why would President Obama even dream of giving this away?

Members of Congress saw how foolish President Obama’s gambit was, so they put a section in the defense appropriation bill that specifically forbids the federal government from spending money to share these technologies with the Kremlin. President Obama actually threatened to veto the defense appropriation bill over this section of the law! Fortunately, the House passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, a whopping 322 to 96. Attention now turns to the Senate.

Why is it that President Obama seems to work so hard to give things to our enemies, while at the same time asking friends and allies like Israel to make sacrifices?

During these tough economic times when we are facing massive deficits and a competitive global economy, does President Obama really want to give away technologies that the American taxpayer paid lots of money to develop? Giving away our missile defense secrets won’t make us safer. What it will do is create a situation where we are facing an arms race with ourselves. Russia gets access to our technologies, and we are forced to spend even more money because of the need to stay ahead. Does this make sense to you? Me neither. File this under “WTF.”

Jimmy Carter with a tan.

Like Obama, Carter was sold as a real thinker — he had a background in nuclear engineering — and he was packaged with the young, hip factor that Ford couldn’t match: Carter did an interview with Playboy, was a student of the radical chic movement that lent an air of danger and romance to the Palestinian movement and the red uprisings in Germany and elsewhere, and — like the hippies — could grow shit. Like, in the soil. He thought people like Castro and the Soviet leadership good men who differed from us in political aims, while sharing our basic moralities — and counseled that we’d just have to accept them, that we were but one country in a great big world whose managed decline he would oversee.

And now here we have Obama, sold the same way (with slight changes made for his own unique historical and cultural situatedness), but with the wind at his back — a super-majority, a complicit media that’d produced a successful cultural and political demonization of the right, and Congress stuffed with leftist true believers. And he is determined to transform the country in ways Carter couldn’t manage.

A transferal of our military secrets to Russia would, of course, destabilize the balance of power in the world — would weaken America’s standing while raising up those countries the US has “unfairly” outstripped in wealth, technological design and capability, freedom, and so on. And Obama seeks to “fix” that global wrong.

Obama doesn’t wish to be a successful US President. He wishes to be a transformational socialist and a hero to his ideological cause — the man who turned the US from a free-market capitalist republic into one of many managed social democracies in which society is run by the “smart” people and their bureaucratic enablers, and world-wide wealth is spread about “fairly” (with “fairness” determined by those pigs who, having down all the hard work of organizing things just as they like it, are entitled to more than those pigs whom they’ve tasked themselves with championing).

Sarah Palin, among others, sees that, says that, and wishes to prevent that. She still believes in the quaint principles laid out by the founders and framers, over like, a hundred-years-old and stuff though they may be.

To believe in that — and to govern along the contours of those principles as laid out — doesn’t require any special Ivy league schooling. It doesn’t require George Will’s demands for polish and a vocabulary that includes generous sprinklings of “propitious” or “redound”; it doesn’t require Charles Krauthammer’s demands for gravitas, particularly if passion is what drives the messaging.

Again, to turn us around after Carter, it took a Reagan — not a George H W Bush, or a Howard Baker, or a Walter Mondale.

I hope we’ve learned our lesson. And for what it’s worth, Sarah Palin, for all her squeaky homespun affectations, seems to have done just that.

(thanks to newrouter)