OBAMACRATS TARGET THE AMERICAN MILITARY

The article below, quoting Barney 'Far Left' Frank, says it all. He is putting the American people on notice that, under an Obama presidency with the Democrat party in control of Congress, we can expect a 25% reduction in the budget for our military services and personnel. Most certainly that appeals to the far left, radical, anti-war gang but the rest of us need to pause and contemplate what that future looks like while we are on the way to the ballot box on November 4th.

We are currently on the ground in two fighting wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. These are specific theatres of action in the much larger, world wide war against terrorism. There is light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq as the government there increases it's capacity to defend itself each and every day. Given the length of our troop presence in Iraq, our future on the ground participation in that beleaguered nation is a much shorter time frame than the years we have spent there to date. That is good news.

There is no visible end to the tunnel, let alone any light, in Afghanistan. It remains a struggling and unstable country with a fledgling and fragile democratically based government that is on life support. Although NATO is theoretically in place there, the reality is that the fighting is being done primarily by the American and British military. By all appearances, this will be a prolonged engagement for us with no real prospect of withdrawal on the radar.

Most importantly, the long war is and will continue to be the global war against terrorism. Jihadists are patient, determined, dedicated, smart and utterly ruthless. Here in America, we are flat fortunate to have had more than seven years without another severe attack since the devastating blows of 9-11. Regardless of your political bent, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that our luck will not last forever. The jihad against our country has not gone away. If it takes a century to bring us down, jihadists are willing to wait and continue trying.

The only viable way to pursue the war against terrorism is to stay on the offensive, as we have been since 2003. No one likes war but even more fundamental than that, no one wants their families to fall victim to blood thirsty terrorists bent on the destruction and elimination of the American way of life. There are no shortcuts here. We cannot withdraw and wait to be attacked. The choices are uncomplicated: either we take the fight to the terrorists or they will bring it to us. Those who believe otherwise are simply living in a fantasy world. One only need study what the jihadists themselves promise to fully understand the enemy we face.

So what do the far leftists amongst us advocate we do going forward? 'Far Left' Frank wants to cut the military budget, while we have troops on the ground fighting in two wars, by one quarter. Those to the left of him want to cut it even more if not emasculate it altogether. At a time in history when America is in the cross hairs of jihadists around the planet, the far left wants to so diminish our military as to put our nation on a path to devastation.

Some will argue that if we were just nicer to our enemies, they would leave us alone. We simply need to sit down and talk with them. How naive! As terrorist leaders like to often repeat, people will follow and support what they perceive to be "the strong horse". Because we have been the strong horse in recent years, attacks against our homeland as well as American interests around the world have diminished. Back away from that posture of strength, and we will once again be victimized as we have been, off and on, since the 1970's. Those decades of violence came to an abrupt halt the minute we took to the field on offense. If we withdraw into a defensive posture we will be hit, repeatedly.

If we are attentive to what those currently running for office have to say, there is a clear difference between our presidential candidates. Obama speaks of dates certain for withdrawal. Democrat "leaders" in Congress speak of cutting the military budget. The far left blames America for 9-11 and supports Obama because he spoke out against the Iraq war as an little known Illinois state politician. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are strident advocates of withdrawal and retreat back to the homeland.

Can you see where all this is going? Will you vote Obama and thereby embolden the jihadist movement worldwide? Are you prepared to undercut the military while we have troops in the field, fighting the war against terrorism?

Think and choose carefully when you vote next week. Terrorists await the outcome of this election in order to make their plans going forward. Our fate is exclusively in our own hands.


Frank envisions post-election stimulus from Democrats
By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent

NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for health care expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects — bridges, highways, etc. — that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.

Contact Steve Urbon at surbon@s-t.com

Sphere: Related Content