Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: Islamic terrorists have attacked a hotel and a U.S. embassy in the span of two weeks. Russia is invading American allies and sending warships to our hemisphere. What would Obama do? Gut the military.
That's right, the Democrat choice for commander in chief wants to not only slash military spending but dismantle our nuclear arsenal — all so he can pay for his massive new welfare programs.
Didn't hear that in his acceptance speech in Denver? That's because he knows better than to make such an anti-military plan widely known. But he made the little-noticed pledge just before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.
In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the military by slashing conventional and nuclear weapons. The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting. Here's a transcript:
"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.
"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
"I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial (Defense) Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.
"Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."
Our ICBMs have been off "hair-trigger" alert for decades. But his threat to unilaterally hollow out our nuclear forces is chilling.
You can bet that Obama won't make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to lurch to the center before the election. But this is what he thinks and plans to do. His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.
And there are no signs his attitude has changed following Russia's invasion of Georgia and flexing of its military muscle off the coast of Venezuela. Or after al-Qaida's bombings this month of the U.S. embassy in Yemen and the Marriott in Islamabad, which killed some 60 people, including U.S. Defense Department and State Department officials.
In contrast, John McCain's mantra that the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is "radical Islamic extremism" is right on target. It's a phrase he's refused to back down from even as Muslim groups have convinced President Bush to stop using it.
Obama seems oblivious to the threat from Islamic extremism. During his 4,350-word acceptance speech in Denver, he couldn't summon enough spit even to utter the phrase a single time.
The gap between the two candidates in understanding the dangerous threats America faces around the world, particularly from Islamic extremism, is yawning.
Ret. Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says he's not going to vote for Obama "just because you're black." The critical issue, he recently averred, "is who is going to keep us safe." Whom does that leave other than McCain-Palin?