About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Playing Devil's Advocate

Posted by Gary Gross on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:46:32 PM
It's time to play devil's advocate to expose the emptiness of the Democrats' 'plan' to fight Islamofascism. How aften have we heard Democrats say that Iraq is a "distraction from the real war on terror"? Or that the "the real war on terror" is in Afghanistan? The information that I've gathered blows those arguments to smithereens. Let's start with Iraq.

Let's say, God forbid, that President Bush accepts John Murtha's advice to "immediately redeploy" our troops out of Iraq. Do Murtha, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats think that (a) the Iranian mullahs will stop funneling money to Muqtada al-Sadr for the purposes of stirring up sectarian violence or that (b) Saddam's loyalists will stop craving a return to power? What happens if Saddam's loyalists take exception to the Iranian mullahs' attempts to take control of Iraq through Muqtada al-Sadr?

Isn't it predictable that the violence between Saddam's Baathists and Iran's proxies would make the current sectarian strife look mild in comparison? That's why it's of utmost importance that we stomp out the sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, not to mention training Iraqi defense forces, before we leave. Democrats know that but they're temporarily 'ignoring' that for temporary political gain. That's why Democrats' calls for leaving Iraq should scare every voter in America.

Another popular Democratic claim is that President Bush has been distracted "from the real war on terror." Considering the information in this article, isn't it impossible for Democrats to say that President Bush isn't paying attention to all potential terrorist hotspots?

CAMP LEMONIER, Djibouti -- In the fall of 2002, the U.S. military set up a task force here on the Horn of Africa to kill any al Qaeda fighters seeking refuge in the region. The base was crawling with elite special-operations teams, and an unmanned Predator plane armed with Hellfire missiles sat ready on the runway.
Today, the base houses 1,800 troops whose mission is to build health clinics, wells and schools in areas where Islamic extremists are active. The idea is to ease some of the suffering that leaves the locals susceptible to the radicals' message, thus bolstering local governments, which will run the new facilities and get credit for the improvements.
Behind the shift is Gen. John Abizaid, a 55-year-old of Lebanese descent and a fluent Arabic speaker, who leads U.S. forces in the Middle East. In May, the four-star Army general visited 17 Navy Seabees, or engineers, at work designing a school. "Those 17 Seabees doing their mission out there achieve as much for us as a battalion of infantry on the ground looking for bad guys," the general said. In an interview in Iraq later, he was even blunter about the limits of U.S. firepower. "Military power can gain us time...but that is about it," he said.

Based on this information, isn't it impossible for Democrats to say with a straight face that President Bush doesn't have a plan to combat jihadists worldwide? Based on this information, it's perfectly obvious that Democrats are being intellectually dishonest when they say that.

It suggests that President Bush has a comprehensive plan for protecting America from terrorist attacks, a plan that's far more multi-leveled and complex than Democrats, with their willing accomplices in the Agenda Media, give him credit for.

By comparison, the Democrats' plan, if you can call it that, is (a) reneg on our commitment to a fledgling democracy right before they're able to defend themselves; (b) 'redeploy' half of our troops to Okinawa, the other half to Afghanistan, where "the real war" is; and (c) hope that the jihadists stop making inroads in France, the U.K., North Africa and South America.

That isn't a plan to protect us; that's a plan to guarantee future terrorist attacks on American soil; attacks that will be far more deadly than 9/11 ever was.

Let's examine the credibility of Democrats' claims that our policies in the Middle East, specifically waging war in Iraq, is creating new terrorists. How does that explain this 2001 article?

On 23 February 1998, a statement appeared in the London-based Arabic Newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi calling on all Muslims to kill Americans. The statement, published by Osama Bin Laden and his associates, purports to be a religious ruling, or fatwa, against the "Crusaders and Jews," whether civilian or military (see Appendix). This document is part of the evidence that links the bin Laden network to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
It is not by chance that this fatwa was first published in England, where its publication was protected by democratic rights and freedom of speech. This is only one more example of the cynical exploitation of the freedoms of Western civilization by radical Islamists for the advancement of their extremist goals, including the abolition of those very freedoms. In order to launch their Jihad against the "Infidels" of the West, the Islamists have established a kind of forward base among their enemies, operating under the protective umbrella of democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech and religion. The U.K. has thus become a safe haven for the launching of Jihad against the rest of the Western world.

The ugly truth that nobody wants to face is that bin Laden's strain of Islam isn't  spreading because of American policies. Rather, it's spreading because of his ideology. 

If America left the Middle East; if the U.S. left Israel to fend for itself, bin Laden's ideological brothers would still keep spreading their hate-filled violence across the world because their goal is world domination.

Bin Laden's vision is similar to Nazism, communism and fascism because, just like his predecessors, bin Laden's goal is world domination, giving the world the option of slavery, proselytization or death.

Let's also suppose, for sake of this discussion, that Democrats got their way with the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. What impact would that have had on international terrorists' plots? After all, we know that the TSP was used to connect the dots that helped foil the London plots to blow up 10 American airplanes over the Atlantic.

We also know that (a) Democrats rejoiced when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the TSP was unconstitutional and Patrick Leahy and John Conyers stepped forward immediately after that to say we should pass legislation making the TSP 'legal', this despite the fact that every prior court ruling held that warrantless intercepts and searches are constitutional.

We also know that Harry Reid bragged about killing the Patriot Act and that CAIR lobbied John Conyers, John Dingell, Nancy Pelosi and others to prevent the renewal of the Patriot Act. Considering how vital everyone thinks the Patriot Act is in connecting the dots, can we afford to have people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid setting the legislative agenda as House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader respectively?

Isn't it true that Democrats, while saying that they want to work with the President on fighting terror, are the people asking the President to jump through hoop after hoop to do his Constitutionally mandated job of protecting us from attacks? Isn't it true that, if Democrats truly wanted to fight global jihadists with the same passion as President Bush, that they wouldn't make such a fuss about the NSA surveillance program? Wouldn't they have passed the Patriot Act renewal without filibustering it?

Let's not forget that Russ Feingold said that filibustering the Patriot Act renewal was a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. Hearing that, isn't it scary to think that he's likely running for the presidency?

The bottom line to this article is to point out how flawed the Democrats' 'plans', if you can call them that, are in fighting an enemy as ferocious and deadly as bin Laden's jihadists. No serious person can read this information and take Democrats seriously when it comes to fighting global jihadists. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Lynne Stewart

Posted by Gary Gross on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:54:43 AM
Precious few people know that Lynne Stewart represented Sheik Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, who was imprisoned after being convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks. Even fewer know about her beliefs. I'm about to change all that. Let's first take a look at a motion filed by the U.S. Attorney in Stewart's case:

Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished," prosecutors wrote in a document submitted Thursday to a judge.
Her lawyers have argued that Stewart should receive no prison time, arguing that a harsh sentence would frighten other lawyers from representing notorious clients and that Stewart's three decades of distinguished work for indigent clients should speak louder than a single serious mistake.
The prosecutors see it differently.
"Stewart did not walk a fine line of zealous advocacy and accidentally fall over it; she marched across it and into a criminal conspiracy," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Dember wrote. "The government obviously did not prosecute Stewart because she is a zealous advocate, but rather for blatantly and repeatedly violating the law."
Dember wrote that Stewart's "conduct was not isolated to one single event; rather, it showed a pattern of purposeful and willful conduct, in which she played a central role in repeated fraudulent attempts to pass messages to and from Abdel-Rahman."

The defense motion isn't going anywhere but in the trash hopper. As the u.S. Attorney's office said, it's not like Lynne Stewart tip-toed up to the line, then backed away from that line. If there's any doubt about Stewart's motivation in representing abdel-Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, here's a clue into Ms. Stewart's motivation:

The entities the Tides Foundation has chosen to fund are overwhelmingly leftwing. The so-called "legal left" (its own referent) has been a prime beneficiary of Tides largesse. One of its principal beneficiaries, for example, is the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which began as a Communist front organization and remains proud of its lineage. Its national convention in October 2003 featured a keynote address from Lynne Stewart, a lawyer specializing in defending terrorists who has been indicted by the Justice Department for providing "material support" to sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, whose organization, known as the Islamic Group, bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people and injuring more than a thousand.
Stewart is on record supporting terrorism against defenders of "capitalism" and "racism." "I don’t believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence," she told the New York Times in 1995. "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support." In her National Lawyers Guild keynote address, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:
"And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Ché Guevara…Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents."

Based just on the information that the AP didn't include in their article, doesn't it sound like Ms. Stewart isn't a "zealous advocate" for her clients but is instead am advocate of violence against anything American? Why shouldn't we think of Ms. Stewart as America's enemy? Anyone who's quoted in the NY Times as advocating "directed violence at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism" must by definition be America's enemy.

That isn't all I found out about Lynne Stewart:

Stewart was indicted for alleged criminal activity in April 2002. She was accused of providing material aid to a foreign terrorist organization, making false statements, and conspiracy to defraud the federal government. All the allegations stemmed from an apparent violation of Special Administrative Measures to which Abdel Rahman and his counsel were subject.
These measures, which Stewart had accepted in writing in order to be allowed to meet with Abdel Rahman in prison, provided that she would not "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman". The material support charges were dismissed in the summer of 2003, but, in November 2003, Stewart was re-indicted on charges of material support to a murder conspiracy, of which she was ultimately convicted.
Stewart was accused of using her meetings with Abdel Rahman to facilitate communications between Abdel Rahman and members of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, in English), an Egyptian organization classified as a terrorist group by the Department of State. Stewart was alleged to have allowed her Arabic translator and co-defendant, Mohammed Yousry, to use her meetings with Abdel Rahman to receive communications for passing to followers. She was also charged with releasing her client's press conference statements, which declared his renewal of support for Al-Gama'a's cease-fire against the Egyptian government.

In other words, Stewart was convicted for her part in a murder conspiract by acting as a conduit for arranging a murder. It's infuriating that her attorneys wasted the court's time by petitioning that she wouldn't get any jail time for her part in a murder.

Check out this section of the AP article:

Her lawyers have argued that Stewart should receive no prison time, arguing that a harsh sentence would frighten other lawyers from representing notorious clients and that Stewart's three decades of distinguished work for indigent clients should speak louder than a single serious mistake.

The whole idea of making an example out of Stewart isn't to discourage lawyers from "representing notorious clients"; it's to tell attorneys that they'll be vigorously prosecuted if they assist their client in the commission of a murder.

That's the type of 'chilling effect' I'd want our courts to have on criminals. By the way, the Tides Foundation is generously supported by George Soros & Theresa Heinz Kerry.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Patty Wetterling Proposes New Tax Policy

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, September 04, 2006 10:49:11 AM
Patty Wetterling has proposed a new tax policy, though I can't call her new policy true tax cuts. Here's how Ms. Wetterling outlines her proposal:

In Congress, I will make the needs of middle-class families a priority so that they can achieve this dream. When it comes to making changes to our tax system, I will always follow three basic principles:

  1. We need to make the tax system fair so that no one is overly burdened;
  2. We need to make the tax code simple so that families are able to file basic household taxes on their own;
  3. We need to be responsible to future generations and stop burdening our children and grandchildren with a growing national debt.

The plan that I support follows the principles mentioned above and will help middle-class folks in buying a home, raising children, paying for college and saving for retirement. With this plan, we can lift the burden off of the middle class, provide them access to greater opportunities and give them hope for the future.

The Plan

  1. The Simplified Family Credit
    A credit for working families with children that provides more benefits to families while cutting 200 pages of the tax code into a 12 question form. It will replace three existing credits: the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the Dependent Care Credit.
  2. Universal Mortgage Deduction
    A home mortgage deduction for all homeowners, not just those who itemize their taxes. This approach is less complicated, makes the benefit more accessible and will encourage more home ownership.
  3. The College Credit (Refundable Credit for Higher Education Expenses)
    A college tax credit of $3,000 for all college students. This credit will help increase access to higher education and economic success. It combines several current tax incentives: the Lifelong Learning Credit, the HOPE Scholarship, the Deduction for Higher Education Expenses and the exclusions of employer-provided education benefits and qualified tuition reductions.
  4. Universal Pension
    A single, portable retirement account to replace the “alphabet soup” of 16 existing IRA-type accounts.

The Cost

Cost of plan over 10 years

  1. The Simplified Family Credit - $250 billion over 10 years
  2. Universal Mortgage Deduction - $56 billion over 10 years
  3. The College Credit (Refundable Credit for Higher Education Expenses) - $83 billion over 10 years (over what the current credits cost – which is $92 billion)
  4. Universal Pension – negligible. Savings are gained from consolidation

Total: $389 billion over 10 years

Sounds good so far, right? We're just getting to where this stops being a tax cut.

The Possible Offsets

As part of this plan, I propose several possible offsets so that we can provide relief for middle-class families without adding to the deficit.

Economists estimate that over $300 billion is lost each year to non-compliance (tax avoidance or underpayment). We can improve compliance in part by simplifying the tax code. My plan makes simplification an integral part of reform.

I will also propose closing these unfair loopholes in our tax law:

  • Special rules for the oil and gas industries cost us $19 billion
  • There is a corporate deduction for attorney’s fees that if closed could generate $327 million/10 years
  • Imposing penalties for abuse of tax shelters gets us $20 billion/10 years
  • Corporate jet executive loophole - $6 billion/10 years
  • Bermuda offshore incorporation loophole - $5 billion
By Ms. Wetterling's calculations, the cuts equal $389 billion. Using Ms. Wetterling's numbers, my calculations tell me that the offsets equal $287.27 billion.

Then there's the matter of credibility here. How likely is it that the trial attorney lobby, which Democrats are beholden to, would let Congress close the corporate deduction for attorney's fees? Less than slim? Little more than none? Or less than none? I'll choose C, less than none.

What's the likelihood that they'd get the corporate jet executive 'loophole' closed? I'd suspect that it's less than zero after the first lobbyist heard about this proposal.

Here's the Bachmann campaign's response:

Today, Patty Wetterling flip-flopped on her stance on tax cuts. From her own words, we know that Patty has "strongly agreed" that a portion of the federal tax cuts enacted since 2001 should be repealed (Star Tribune 10/28/04) and it was reported in the Star Tribune that she "opposes making the Bush tax cuts permanent" (Star Tribune 2/19/06). The tax cuts Wetterling has said she would like to repeal include the elimination of the marriage penalty and the elimination of the death tax.

It sounds to me like Ms. Wetterling isn't proposing tax cuts; she's proposing cuts in her credibility. That isn't smart strategy. I'd doubt that it'll help her come November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Collin Peterson Endorses Amy Klobuchar

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, September 04, 2006 10:12:32 AM
There was a time when Collin Peterson sounded like a midwestern moderate, a man of reasonable opinions. That image of Peterson still remains though he's changed dramatically. Opinions of him are likely to change now that he's endorsed Amy Klobuchar. Here's what he said in endorsing her:

“I need an ally in the Senate who I can count on, whose word is good; that’s why I am here today,” said Representative Peterson, speaking to a crowd of farmers. “Amy gets it. You can count on her.” Rep. Peterson, an eight-term veteran of the U.S. House of Representatives, has been a long-time voice for Minnesota farmers.

Mr. Peterson's voting patterns have dramatically changed since Nancy Pelosi became Democratic Leader in the House. Prior to Pelosi's tenure as leader, Peterson's votes were more in line with the DLC. Now they're more in tune with the Deaniac/Kos Kids crowd. This is the ultimate Barbra Streisand line:

"Amy gets it. You can count on her."

Please. Amy Klobuchar understands ag policy as well as I understand the soccer rules, which is like saying that she's pretty much clueless on ag issues. She can, however, vote as she's told by Chuckie Schumer and Harry Reid tell her to vote. I'd doubt if that's the "new direction" that Minnesotans want in Washington.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Harold of Forked Tongue, TN

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:04:15 PM
After reading Gateway Pundit's post on Harold Ford, Jr., that's the only title that I found that fit. See what I mean:

This is what Ford Jr. has to say about National Security:

Harold Ford Jr: "Once again terrorists tried to take down planes. This time with liquid explosives. Thank God the British stopped them. I'm Harold Ford Jr. The bipartisan 9-11 Commission said the airport failed on security 5 years after September 11. And, today our ports and borders remain vulnerable to terrorists. It's time to put a stop to politics. Adopt the commissions 41 recommendations and get tough with controlling our borders. I approve of this message because there is nothing, nothing more important than our security."
Sounds great! It really does...
Unfortunately, Harold Ford Jr. has a history!
Ford voted against the renewal of the Patriot Act.
Ford voted to Cut and Run from Iraq.
Ford voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
And,... Ford voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission!
Unbelievable!
As Elizabeth Dole said after Harold Ford Jr. attacked her on national security this week:
"He's a politician that will say one thing in Tennessee, and vote another way in Washington."

That doesn't sound like a man who's thought thing through and doesn't waver on his core principles, does it? In fact, I'd say that young Mr. Ford is suffering from STDS, aka Severe Tom Daschle Syndrome. The only known symptom is saying one thing in Washington, then feeding his constituents a totally different story. The difference between moderate and severe STDS & MTDS, aka Moderate Tom Daschle Syndrome, is how often the affliction shows itself. The only known cure for STDS is an electoral defeat that November. Let's hope that Bob Corker cures young Mr. Ford this November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Call This Analysis?

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, September 03, 2006 4:37:33 PM
If this is the best that the so-called elite media can do for analysis, then it's easy to understand why their stocks are dropping like a lead balloon.

President Bush's low approval ratings, the sharp divisions over the war in Iraq, dissatisfaction with Congress, and economic anxiety caused by high gasoline prices and stagnant wages have alienated independent voters, energized the Democratic base and thrown once-safe Republican incumbents on the defensive.

Just once, I'd like to see these idiots use current data. Gas prices have dropped almost 50 cents this month, wages are finally starting to increase and just as many people have anxiety over the possibility of a Speaker Pelosi as they have about a Republican Speaker. Furthermore, if you leave out the moonbat fringe idiots of the Lamont/Deaniac/Kos Kids crowd, there isn't nearly as much division on Iraq as Mssrs. Broder and Balz would have you believe.

As for this information energizing the Democratic base, I ask "WHO CARES"? It isn't like the Deniac/Lamont/Kos Kidz crowd is a sizeable amount of voters other than in a Democratic primary. Look what following the Kos line has done to John Murtha's re-election chances.

In fact, it's long past time to explode the Kos Kidz myth. We heard how they were going to give Dean a big win in Iowa. Instead, Dean took a beating from which he never recovered. We last heard about how jazzed the Kossacks were about the CA-50 special election. Word was that this was where the 'Culture of Corruption' meme was gonna push Francine Busby over the top against Brian Billbray. The Kossacks worked day and night for Busby but couldn't make it happen. The Kossacks have left that district in such numbers that this November's election won't be close. They've written off CA-50.

As the campaign season begins, Democrats are trying to guard against premature celebration, even as their prospects are brighter than most ever imagined. Republicans are hoping for some outside event that would show the president and their party in a better light, a spate of good news from Iraq, a foiled terrorist plot or an unlikely break in the deadlock over immigration on Capitol Hill.

Frankly, Mssrs. Broder and Balz are missing it entirely on immmigration reform. Just this weekend, I wrote about Rick Santorum's campaign picking up momemtum because he voted against the Senate immigration reform legislation. Broder and Balz are under the impression that McCain and Kennedy are driving the immigration debate. Nothing's further from the truth. The American people are telling their representatives and senators that they want 'border enforcement first' legislation. McCain and Kennedy are actually working against the will of the American people on this. Their's is the minority opinion.

Another thing that Mssrs. Balz and Broder aren't taking into account is that terrorism is a far bigger concern than is the Iraq war. When people hear Democrats like Harry Reid brag that "We killed the Patriot Act" or Russ Feingold saying that the filibustering of the Patriot Act renewal was "a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism", people notice and they don't forget the implications of those actions.

The truth is that pundits are sticking with a 'Washington' paradigm instead of a 'Heartland' paradigm, which is a monumental mistake. They get their information from the GIGO Beltway echo-chamber instead of reading the Right Blogosphere where they'd hear what the GOP's mainstream activists are thinking. The information they'd be forced to process is strikingly different than the stuff they're digesting now.

Some GOP strategists believe that the terrorism issue has lost some of its potency, in part because of the miscalculations and setbacks suffered by the administration in the Iraq war. One pollster who has surveyed the issue said, "That dog won't hunt again." But Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000, is not so sure: "September 11 shifted something inside the American people, and there are some lingering doubts [about Democrats' stance on terrorism] Republicans know how to exploit."

I don't know which back benchers these guys have been talking to but the only one worth listening to is Mr. Rove. Donna Brazile is exactly right when she says that 9/11 changed things for the average American voter. Check out this proof:
  • "The community really grew together," said sophomore Jacob Frazier. Walker remembers the building shake, a loud noise and a smoky cloud rise from a nearby field following the crash of Flight 93.
  • On Sept. 11, 2001, Kaitelynn Walker was in her sixth-grade gym class. "We immediately began to panic," she said. Parents began filtering into the school to take their children home. "Just seeing (my mother’s) face and the seriousness of her expression, I knew something was wrong," said Walker, a junior. "That hit me really hard and I knew it was real."
  • Baker said it took her three years to go to the temporary memorial. "It took me a while to go to the crash site," she said. "The emotions hit you when you go up there. I thought I’d be OK with it."
That doesn't sound like 9/11 has lost any potency. You'll forgive me if I don't pay much attention to these back-bencher GOP strategists. Frankly, I'd trust bloggers' opinions on the state of the campaigns more than I'd trust these unknowns' opinions.

There are three GOP incumbents at risk in Connecticut and four districts in Pennsylvania that could flip in November.

As I said here, Lieberman's loss in the Connecticut primary helps Rob Simmons', Nancy Johnson's and Christopher Shays' chances of re-election because Connecticut Republican will be turning out to vote for Lieberman in hopes of keeping the lightweight Lamont out of the Senate. Had Lieberman won, more GOP voters would've stayed home.

The bottom line on Broder's & Balz's article is that it's all about inside the beltway information. That era has passed with the impending dominance of the Right Blogosphere & conservative talk radio.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TODAY'S MUST READING!!!

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:41:48 AM
Follow this link to today's must reading.

Leo, know that you & Doug are in my prayers.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

9/11 Still Fresh in Shanksville Five Years Later

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:58:55 AM
That message came through loud and clear when I read this article  in the Tribune-Democrat. One of the things that these young voices tell me is that 9/11 will have a major impact on Pennsylvania politics. Check out the intensity in these statements:
  • "The community really grew together," said sophomore Jacob Frazier. Walker remembers the building shake, a loud noise and a smoky cloud rise from a nearby field following the crash of Flight 93.
  • On Sept. 11, 2001, Kaitelynn Walker was in her sixth-grade gym class. "We immediately began to panic," she said. Parents began filtering into the school to take their children home. "Just seeing (my mother’s) face and the seriousness of her expression, I knew something was wrong," said Walker, a junior. "That hit me really hard and I knew it was real."
  • Baker said it took her three years to go to the temporary memorial. "It took me a while to go to the crash site," she said. "The emotions hit you when you go up there. I thought I’d be OK with it."
These kids were deeply affected by the crash that blue-skyed September morning. I can't imagine it hasn't had a similar effect on their parents. The reason why I say that this will impact Pennsylvania politics is because of the emotions in the nation the night of the attacks. I'd imagine that the emotions that we felt in the heartland were but a tenth of the emotions felt in Shanksville.

Shanksville is only 15 miles south of Johnstown, PA, Murtha's home. How much does anyone bet that the people of southwest Pennsylvania feel an intensity about terrorism and the Iraq war? Does anyone think that Murtha's talking ill of the Marines and the military will play well in a district where terrorism's memories are still this fresh, this raw?

The Irey team is doing a great job of exposing Murtha as playing politics with terrorism and Iraq. The obvious seriousness of the people of Shanksville and PA-12 tell me that Murtha's made a fatal mistake by politicizing the issue.

Read those quotes and tell me otherwise. I dare you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who's the Hero? Who's the Villain?

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:53:49 AM
The Marine Times has a great article up about Sgt. Frank Wuterich's actions in leading the 3/1 Marines in Haditha. It's must reading if you (a) want the truth about Haditha or (b) if you don't trust John Murtha's account of Haditha.

The leader of an infantry squad led his men through 150 patrols that uncovered weapons caches and roadside bombs, detained more than 50 suspected insurgents and led a counterattack when his squad was fatally ambushed. So his platoon leader, commending his confident and competent leadership, nominated the sergeant in January for a combat award. But then-Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich isn’t just another small-unit leader put up to receive the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with combat “V” for heroics in the Iraq war zone.

When Murtha first went ballistic about Haditha, he said "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." It's difficult for me to picture a leader who had "led his men through 150 patrols that uncovered weapons caches and roadside bombs, detained more than 50 suspected insurgents and led a counterattack when his squad was fatally ambushed" "overreacted because of the pressure on them." The two images just don't fit together, not in my wildest imagination.

A "summary of action" noted his aggressive leadership through four months operating in Haditha and the nearby city of Hit that teemed with insurgent fighters. It describes the Nov. 19 incident during a mounted patrol as "a complex ambush that was initiated by an [improvised explosive device] and followed by automatic weapons fire."
"The squad then came under automatic weapons fire from both sides of the road," the summary states. "While under automatic weapons fire from two directions, Sergeant Wuterich aggressively directed his squad to provide security for the casualties in the kill zone by coordinating suppressive fires against the enemy. When the [quick reaction force] arrived, [he] ensured that the three casualties were safely evacuated and then led a counterattack against the enemy, south of the road."

Murtha's account isn't credible in the face of this official report filed, not by Sgt. Wuterich, but by his commander. The fact that the battalion approved the medal and submitted it to the 1st Marine Division says unequivocally that Murtha has a credibility problem. It really says that Sgt. Wuterich and his troops are genuine heroes.

The people of PA-12 need to ask themselves if they want truth-challenged John Murtha representing them in Congress or if they'd prefer having Diana Irey, a woman who would honor the great sacrifices and accomplishments of these Marines, representing them.

It's an easy choice, one that will become obvious this November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Denying the Undeniable

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 01, 2006 5:25:03 PM
That's essentially what CAIR is doing according to this Strib article. Here's the denial that they can't defend:

Ibrahim Hooper, the council's spokesman, denounced Erlandson's remark: "It is unfortunate that a candidate for public office would stoop to anti-Muslim bigotry ... by using long-refuted smears. Neither the council nor Mr. Awad supports any terrorist group anywhere in the world."

Here's proof that  Mr. Hooper's denials can't be sustained:

CAIR’s affinity for terrorist causes is well documented in the press. At a 1994 meeting at Barry University, Nihad Awad stated succinctly, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."

I don't know how Hooper can say that Mr. Awad doesn't support terrorists when he's on the record of supporting Hamas. It's a stretch to think that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization.

Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper has defended Saudi Arabia’s financial aid to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In recent months, three CAIR officials were indicted on terrorism-related charges.
As luck would have it, just hours before the hearing, news services reported that former CAIR official Bassem K. Khafagi had pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud in federal court in Detroit. The charges were brought against Khafagi for his role with the Islamic Assembly of North America, a group that has advocated violence against the United States and is believed to have funneled money to organizations with terrorist connections. At the time of his arrest, Khafagi was Community Affairs director with CAIR.

That Mr. Hooper would rationalize Saudi Arabia's paying off families of Palestinian terrorist-martyrs seems to suggest that he's a supporter of terrorism. Committing bank fraud so you can support a group, IANA, that advocates violence against the US isn't smart.

Whatever your perspective, Hooper's attempting to deny verified, documented facts, never a smart practice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Immigration Driving Santorum's Campaign

Posted by Gary Gross on Friday, September 01, 2006 4:41:39 PM
Rick Santorum has closed the gap on Bob Casey in his race for re-election because he's picked up on the importance of the immigration issue, according to a Washington Times article.

"Rick's immigration message is resonating," said John Braybender, Mr. Santorum's media consultant, who has helped the campaign produce two immigration ads in recent months. "People understand that the immigration issue is much more far-reaching than just border states."

This isn't good news for Democrats, especially those who've essentially ignored the enforcement issue while focusing on granting citizenship to those who've illegally gained access to the US. This isn't good news for Bob Casey, who hasn't taken a hard stand on the issue:

Mr. Santorum was the highest-ranking Senate Republican to vote against a bill approved earlier this year that would grant citizenship rights to some 10 million illegal aliens. Mr. Casey has said he would have supported the bill, though he did not like everything in it.

People, Casey's answer has the sounds of a focus-grouped answer that sounds good and means nothing. I suspect that people are figuring out that Casey is running on his dad's name, not on the issues. That might work for awhile in the summer but that won't cut it in the heat of a heated campaign.

"We did a certain amount of internal polling, and when it got to immigration, it was very clear," Mr. Braybender said. "Rick's position versus Casey's was overwhelming." Voters, he said, see the issue as more than just illegal aliens streaming across the border. It's also about giving them Social Security benefits, waiving certain back taxes and other matters of lawfulness and fairness.

This is perfect framing of the immigration issue. It's hard-hitting & concise. There isn't a better way of framing the issue.

Internal polling by the Santorum campaign, as well as by House and Senate campaigns across the country, suggests that the immigration issue will help Republicans in November.

I've suspected that this was a winning issue for Republicans once they got serious about it. That Santorum's campaign isn't the only campaign benefitting from it tells me I'm right.

If Republicans keep talking about border security & thwarting terrorist attacks, expect them to appeal to the overwhelming majority of voters. If they keep touting these issues, they'll gain seats in the House & Senate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Events, Dear Boy. Events

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, August 28, 2006 10:16:56 AM
Here's the opening paragraph of Michael Barone's latest article:

When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: "Events, dear boy. Events." The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic.

Michael isn't yet saying that Republicans are out of the woods yet but he's noted a change in the atmosphere surrounding this November's elections. With good reason. The nation's attention has been riveted since the foiling of the terrorist plot in London and Anna Diggs-Taylor's assinine ruling. In the aftermath of London, we found out that the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program played a major role in foiling that plot.

The contrast couldn't have been more damning for Democrats. Whether it was Russ Feingold crowing that the filibustering of the Patriot Act renewal was a "great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism" or Harry Reid crowing about "killing the Patriot Act" to loud applause from fellow Democrats or Anna Diggs-Taylor's ruling in ACLU vs. NSA, the American people got a clear picture that Democrats aren't interested in doing everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks.

This shows people that there's really only one party that's committed to preventing attacks. It's just another area where Democrats just aren't in touch with the majority of people on an issue. Most people concede that another terrorist attack is inevitable. Democrats took that to mean that people didn't care if another terrorist attack happened.

What people meant was that the odds were that there'd be another attack but they also expected the federal government to do everything in its power to prevent the inevitable. They didn't say that we should stop vital prevention programs, whether it was SWIFT or the NSA's TSP or Able Danger or the Patriot Act.

The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world, and quite possibly in this country, too, who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we haven't raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty or even because we're in Iraq.
They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden, all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us it's still there.

Thank you, Michael Barone, for that clarity. Terrorists don't hate us for all the things you cite; they hate us because (a) we exist and (b) because we don't agree with them. It's time that people woke up to that.

Another reminder that evil people were out to get us were the stories about the arrests of young Muslims with 1,600 throwaway cellphones. Let me refresh your memory on that story:

In Ohio, Houssaiky and Abulhassan were stopped by sheriff’s deputies for a traffic violation Aug. 8, then arrested after the deputies found 12 cell phones, $11,000 cash, airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car, authorities said. Prosecutors have not provided details about the passenger lists. Houssaiky’s mother, Nada Houssaiky, said Tuesday the information was training notes from her job as an airport passenger service agent at Detroit Metro Airport.
The two men acknowledged buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, according to authorities. Investigators said they sold the phones to someone in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb.
The remaining charges stem from allegations that the two men initially gave deputies different names than appeared on their IDs. The men also initially said they were buying phones for a relative’s construction business, then changed the story when deputies asked for contact information, Washington County Prosecutor James Schneider said. Within days of the Ohio arrests, three Palestinian-American men from Texas were charged in Michigan after nearly 1,000 cell phones were found in a van they were driving. In the Michigan case, the FBI said Monday that it had no indication that the men had any ties to known terrorist groups.

People not living inside the Beltway noticed and they cared about these arrests because they know their lives are at risk. That's why people are rethinking their vote for Democrats:

Other pollsters are finding that no matter how negative voters are about the Republicans who control both houses of Congress, less than a majority think the Democrats would do a better job of governing. Moreover, many voters who say they will vote for a Democrat in November also say their vote is not definite.

The truth is that there isn't much chance for a sizeable vote drop for Republicans but there's a healthy chance that there will be a sizeable drop in Democrats' popularity.

Factor all these things together and it's obvious that there's an atmosphere change happening across the country.

I suspect that Democrats won't like the change.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:12:02 PM
That's the question that people are asking about John Murtha in this OSC newsletter. Let's take a look:

Regardless of opinions on Murtha's past words and deeds, it is what Murtha is saying and doing now that have folks no longer supporting him.
His playing politics now with our soldiers' lives was a common reason cited for no longer supporting him. His insensitivity to troops in the field and soldiers' now, who need to know that the family member's life and sacrifice had good purpose, was another reason for no longer supporting him.
The backlash is coming this November as the truth sinks in. Message to John Murtha: the past is the past. We don't like what you are saying and doing NOW!

The legacy part of Murtha's record is fine, albeit a bit dull. Frankly, I heard of Murtha long before I actually heard Murtha speak. He was always a 'shadows' representative, meaning he didn't get much airtime until his immediate redeployment political ploy. Since then, he's been the military's worst supporter in terms of what he's said.

The military voters in PA-12 resent his statements over the past year, whether it was the immediate redeployment proposal, saying that the "military is living hand to mouth", that they were the main targets in Iraq's civil war (I still can't figure that one out, btw.), that Marines killed innocent Iraqi civilians in the terrorist hotbed of Haditha and that they didn't have the proper equipment, specifically body armor for the soldiers.

The truth is that the soldiers didn't wear the body armor. Here's what Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson said:

"In many cases we found [the troops] didn't wear it because it was too heavy."

Then there's these quotes:
  • "We must not burden our soldiers with weight to the point that they become ineffective and susceptible to other dangers," explained Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's director of force development.
  • Marine Sgt. Jared McNerney actually modeled the kind of up-armored uniform Clinton indicated she preferred. But Sgt. McNerney explained that if he was forced to carry that much weight, it could get him killed. "I'm climbing walls, I'm jumping through windows," McNerney complained. "What I need most is mobility." With the heavier gear, he said, "I can barely extend my arms over my head."
Murtha's been telling one whopper after another this year. That's why military voters in his district have turned against him. He's more worried about saying things that endear him to Code Pink and CAIR than he is worried about what he says to our military. It isn't difficult to figure out why his popularity has plummeted.

The reason you know it's plummeted is because you don't hear anything about his job approval ratings in the Pittsburgh/Johnstown press. If his popularity were strong, that's all you'd be hearing about him.

A couple of veterans I spoke with expressed loyalty to Murtha because he had helped them somehow along the way in the past; or they believed "he was a highly decorated honorable man." I appreciated their willingness to hear my reasons for not supporting Murtha even as I respectfully listened to them.
Being a real constituent of District 12, I explained that I have family members who have recently returned from on the ground in Iraq, and how deeply concerned I am about Murtha politicizing the military and troops for personal political gain. Such talk puts our troops in even greater danger and demoralizes our troops. As our discussion progressed it became clear that we had much more in common, than not.  This impressed both sides in the discussion.  

Once people know what the activists know, their opinions change. Some might still vote for him but their opinion is changed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Keep Fighting the Good Fight

Posted by Gary Gross on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:38:04 PM
As a Republican, that's the message I take from this USA Today article. I can't say that it surprises me, though. I've never participated in the 'Gloom Parade' that other conservatives have. I knew there would be a bounce for President Bush following the foiling of the terrorist plot in London. My only question was what the size of that bounce would be.

Now 42% of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, up 5 points since early this month. His approval rating on handling terrorism is 55%, the highest in more than a year.

I explain the President's jump in handling terrorism by simply saying that his rating dropped at a time of his policies' greatest success. People didn't take his policies seriously because we seemed to be on autopilot, with the world of dangers seemingly contained. When Americans woke up and realized that al Qaida had plotted another extraordinary terrorist attack, and that we'd cooperated with the Brits and Pakistanis to foil it, people snapped back to reality.

A recent poll (I think from CBS but I'm not certain) said that Iraq was the biggest issue for voters at 28%. Terrorism was second at 17%. The thing is that that poll sampled far more Democrats than Republicans. That doesn't mean that that poll doesn't tell us some useful information. What it tells me is that Democrats are rallied when the subject is Iraq because they've become the anti-war party.

What that poll doesn't tell us is that the rest of the people think terrorism is the leading issue of our time. Let me illustrate:

People hear the Agenda Media's reports and have a generally negative perspective on the war. Some think that we should send in more troops. Call that the McCain/Kristol Camp. Others think that we should redeploy to Okinawa and beyond. Call that the Murtha/Pelosi/Lamont Camp. Most people think that the Bush administration made some costly mistakes but they see the importance of staying the course. In other words, they don't like what's been happening there but they'll tolerate it, at least temporarily.

On the other hand, when people hear about a foiled terrorist plot of the magnitude of 9/11, people notice. That type of event gets their full, undivided attention. We snap back to the reality that there's a ton of bad guys out there who want to kill us and we know that the President's policies matter, whether we're talking about the NSA's TSP or the communication between the intelligence community and law enforcement that the Patriot Act legalized.

This issue moves voters because they noticed Democrats rejoicing when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the TSP was unconstitutional. They also noticed that Democrats rejoiced when Harry Reid declared that he'd "killed the Patriot Act" this past December. Here's what Russ Feingold said about the Patriot Act being filibustered:
 
"Today's vote is a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. If you don't have the confidence of the American people when it comes to this fight against terrorism, if they fear that somehow we're going too far and going after the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will weaken our ability to win in that all-important battle."

Focus on the second half of the first sentence. "Today's vote is a great moment...in the fight against terrorism." How can anyone take that statement seriously? By letting the Patriot Act lapse, the Gorelick Wall is rebuilt. The Gorelick Wall was the wall that stood in the way of the intelligence community talking with law enforcement. Shame on Sen. Feingold for saying that. He should be ridiculed for such an unserious statement. It's a statement to appease the Nutroots lunatic fringe base, the same group that won the Connecticut Democratic primary for lightweight Ned Lamont.

I'm betting that I'm not the only one who's noticed these things. I'm betting that you saw through these charades, too. I'm betting that the Agenda Media hopes you didn't.

Now it's time to go out and prove the Agenda Media and the Democratic Party that they bet wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Wonder

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, August 21, 2006 3:21:02 PM
I did some thinking over the weekend about Murtha's initial statement on Haditha. Here's the statement that I've been pondering:

"It’s a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat," he said. "One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children."

If "these guys" were under such "tremendous pressure", why haven't we seen this type of violence on a more widespread basis? If Murtha's theory that these were Marines that cracked under extreme pressure is right, then shouldn't we be hearing about this type of event in more places than just Haditha?

It's obvious that Murtha's theory isn't right, though. The theory falls apart because we haven't heard of troops cracking under the extreme pressure. Murtha's only making that statement to distract from the fact that he's paying judge, jury and executioner. He doesn't want people thinking that he's just a politician who craves a seat of power.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »