redblueamerica.com

After 911 and the invasion of Iraq we have seen a gradual tendency in younger soldiers to equate pride in serving one's country with pride in killing. Increasingly we here reports of our own soldiers torturing and/or killing innocent people in Iraq. I believe most of this was not caused by 911, but by the lack of sensible thinking after 911. Hatred, fear, and stupidity became the norm after this attack took place. After 911, patriotism took on a whole new meaning - hate anything associated with muslims. This insanity did not run through everyone's veins, but the negative impact of it was experienced throughout the world. So now we have reached the period in time when national security is an issue more than ever before. The price we have to pay in the name of national security includes everything from taking away our constitutional rights to having our soldiers stationed heavilly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is the terror threat over? No, and it never will be over because it always existed throughout history and it will continue to exist as it always has. Is the terror threat underrated? Definitely not. Is the terror threat overrated? When it comes to violating our rights as of lately, yes, the terror threat is overrated. Terror threat is just that - terror THREAT. As Iv'e already explained the THREAT of terrorism existed long before 911. 911 increased the "threat" of terrorism, but that doesn't necessarily mean taking away our basic constitutional rights will help us avoid the threat of terrorism. In fact, that does more to harm us than it does to harm the terrorists. It amazes me why the Bush administration has not taken a stonger stand against Pakistan and Afghanistan after 911. It made no sense to me when president Bush announced his plan to invade Iraq when our real enemies were in the other two countries I mentioned. He blamed this on faulty information from the CIA. However, it is possible that president Bush panicked after 911 and went on a wild goose chase pressuring the CIA and other government agencies to either produce information on the location of the terrorists behind 911 or face more pressure. I cannot think of any other logical explanation as to why the CIA would have failed so miserably in their accuracy of things.

Hey bud you sound like you have some real fear and anger issues. I too served in the military so did my father, and my mothers father.
It ought to be obvious to everyone by now, You can't use an army or navy or airforce to defeat terrorist.
You can use our mighty military to quickly take down any nations standing army. That doesn't mean you've defeated the terrorist. So far it seems to prove that you just make more.
No act of terrorism will destroy our nation, But continued bad policy can.

I can hear it daily, that we are going back to the mind-set of pre 9/11. Of course we are, and I must blame the radical liberal facist in our midst. Mr. Kind I would like to sell you a raffle ticket for the chance to pull your head out of your a--! er, sand. You say how much will it cost? Is that in dollars or the price of, pick a number, innocent American lives? These fanatics want US DEAD, this country DESTROYED, and they don't care where they do it. Read a little background on WWII in the Pacific. Ever hear of Kamakazee's? They will follow us to our Homeland for there Jihad and I'm not a paranoid citizen of the fifties. They have sworn to Alah, its in there writings and whatever you call there governing documents, the koran. And just this about the wolf in sheeps clothing Mr. Obama. If you don't know what Socialism is, just listen to him then try to get an appointment at the nearest VA hospital in the next 6 months, which is universal health care. Sound familiar. This country need to wise up, and deal with these lunitics in their own backyard as apparently Mr. Obama would choose to do. I've spent 20 years defending this great land and it sickens me to hear people say they "Support the Troops" when they really support the blasphomas radical idiots of Berkley, Ca. Thanks for listening.

Big-Government Vision
A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow
Thursday, February 28, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he's aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending and taxing -- exactly what the nation and the stock market don't want to hear.

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade.

He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple the benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?

Dan Henninger, writing in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message, and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses and investors.

You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital -- and reaping the economic rewards -- Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity and real wages.

Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy.

I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects, he is a breath of fresh air. He's an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it -- such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton's five-year rate freeze on mortgages.

But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road.

Clinton had the opportunity capture bin Laden several times. No one ever talks about the attack on the U.S.S. Cole or the Embassy bombings.

We should have taken him out when we had the chance. I'll never forget Clinton's responsibility.

What mass shootings?

Does Bush get any credit for ZERO attacks on the United States in nearly 8 years, or not?

Because we take the battle to them. The latest of those is Adam Gadahn, who we probably killed earlier this month.

Read The Terrorist Watch if you want to know how Bush and crew have been keeping us safe.