About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Shrinking Arab Street

JPost.com is reporting some excellent news:

The IDF assessed on Monday that Hezbollah's rocket launching capability was significantly compromised by the fighting that took place in the past three weeks. It was estimated that, while the organization still has hundreds of rockets with a sufficient range to reach Afula and Haifa, there were only a number of launcherss remaining with launching capability. The Hizbullah still had several Zilzal rockets left that could reach central Israel, Army Radio reported.

If this report is accurate, and I believe it is, then we might be closer to a ceasefire than previously imagined because Hezbollah’s offensive capacity will have been dramatically decreased, which was the purpose behind Israel’s not accepting the ceasefire in the first place. There’s more good news in the JPost article, too:

In the course of the fighting, the IDF asserted that it had killed some 200 Hizbullah operatives. Though most of the names were not released, one of the more prominent targets hit was Jihad Atiya, who was said to be responsible for the killing and kidnapping of IDF soldiers Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Sueid in 2000. Meanwhile, it was released for publication that an IAF UAV bombed a truck that was said to have been importing weapons from Syria, through the Masnaa border crossing, into Lebanon. The driver of the truck was wounded, as well as four additional Lebanese customs workers.

Killing “200 Hizbullah operatives” shrinks the Arab Street, which is always a positive thing.

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

A Party Committed to Losing

I didn't think I'd live to see this but it's now official: Democrats are the 'Party Committed to Losing'. In a letter to President Bush, the Democrats' leadership wrote:

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

TRANSLATION: We're quitting. We don't have the steadfastness for unconditionally supporting democracy or our friends around the world.

This is proof of yet another wing of the Democratic Party, a wing we didn't know existed. This wing might be called the 'Quitter Wing' of the Democratic Party. Here's a look at the letter:

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.
Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.
Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.
Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

The only person on that list that used to have serious foreign policy credentials is Jane Harman but she's changed her 'perspective' substantially because Pelosi threatened her with not chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee if Democrats regain control of Congress. (Not that they'll retake the House but it's the only lever Pelosi has.)

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

Kerry ‘Blasts’ Rush On Israel

Jean Francois Kerry got out his pack of spitballs and attacked Rush Limbaugh for Rush’s statement that President Bush is the best friend that the Israelis have ever had. Here’s Kerry’s official statement from his website:

"Rush Limbaugh's ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds. His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction."

Kerry’s got a French definition of fighting for Israel. Here’s Kerry’s statement to the Arab American Institute in Michigan:

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line, cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis’ security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.”

That doesn’t sound like he’s being supportive of Israel. I’d doubt that Israel is looking for that type of ’support’. Here’s what Kerry told a Jewish group right before the NY primary:

“Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.”

I think we could call that Kerry’s ‘I supported Israel after I supported the Palestinians’ moment.

“Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut.”

Another shining example of Democratic graciousness in the face of GOP meanspiritedness? Thankfully, most Democrats aren’t into personal attacks. Oh wait….

“It was a Democratic president who first recognized the State of Israel. It was a Democratic President who first sold Israel defensive weapons. And it was a Democratic President who first sold Israel offensive weapons.”

True enough, Mr. Kerry, though I'd doubt he’d recognize today’s Democratic Party.

“The people of Israel and the Jewish community don’t need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them, and no one has time for right wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.”

Wasn’t Mr. Kerry happy with the notion of badgering Ehud Barak into surrendering large chunks of land to Yassir Arafat in the 90’s? Israel doesn’t need that type of support. They need a president that won’t cave to the ‘international community’ just to keep his popularity ratings up.That’s why President Bush is seen by Israel as the best friend Israel’s ever had in the White House. That isn’t just Rush’s opinion. It’s part of the public record since 2002:

Who says that there are no more miracles today? US President George W. Bush's long-awaited speech on the Middle East, in which he upset the entire applecart of cherished assumptions up which Middle East diplomacy has been based for more than a decade, certainly qualifies. At least if you believe the pundits, not one of whom came close to predicting what the President would say.

If a speech can be judged by those it ticks off, then Bush's was a smasheroo. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was reportedly so revolted that he could not bear to listen to the end. No doubt he was indignant at the snub the President administered to his erstwhile "peace partner" and co-Nobel Laureate. In calling for a new Palestinian leadership, Bush didn't even deign to mention Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat by name.

That was written by Jerusalem Post columnist Jonathan Rosenblum in July, 2002. That isn’t the only person saying it. Many is the time that Ed Koch has said that President Bush has been Israel’s best friend.

Instead of Kerry telling Rush to pick up a history book, I’d suggest that he pick up a newspaper. Better yet, he should start reading the Right Blogosphere so he finally gets a clue.

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

Beren Criticizes Baghdad Jim McDermott

Yesterday, the U.S. House voted 410-8 on Resolution 921. Here’s the first article of the resolution:


1 . Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself...

One of the people voting against such a common sense resolution was Jim McDermott, which is perfectly explainable. McDermott served in the military but he’s one of the biggest pacifists around. He’s also one of the biggest America haters in Congress. It’s logical that he’s also one of the biggest Israel haters in Congress, too.

It’s incredibly irresponsible to have a representative that doesn’t think that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. It’s equally irresponsible for a congressman to vote against holding terrorists responsible for their actions. This isn’t a difficult intellectual decision. In what should’ve been an easy vote, Jim McDermott got it wrong. Badly wrong.

Since that time, I've had the time to do some digging into Mr. McDermott's past. What I found was disturbing. Here's an article in the Seattle Times that is quite revealing. I can only characterize it as the ultimate puff piece.

American Muslims mingling in a ballroom at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in downtown Seattle last night showed no outward sign of the pressure many are feeling. At the annual banquet for the Seattle chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the issues of war abroad and civil rights at home surfaced at the podium, and participants were ready with opinions when asked.
Yet this formal gathering of more than 300 people breathed the warmth and intimacy of a close-knit community. Children dressed in their best filled the room with a family feeling. Men from Africa, the Middle East and Malaysia greeted each other with broad smiles, tight bear hugs and soft kisses to the cheek. Young women mostly wore headscarves, and a few had their faces veiled.
One overt political note was sounded as U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, was introduced and given CAIR’s public-official-of-the-year award for his support of the Muslim community.

After reading that much puffery, I was left wondering if this was given to the columnist by McDermott's PR director. What's even more offensive is the fact that CAIR is anything but a moderate Islamic group.

CAIR has a decent enough public image but they’ve got some character flaws. Here’s a brief summary of those flaws:

For starters, it's on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October, 1998 when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy", finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."

and:

The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the Twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides." (A New York court, however, blamed bin Laden's side alone for the embassy blasts. In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that "if (note the "if") Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name."

and:

The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed a "travesty of justice." The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a "hate crime." The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marook it labeled "anti-Islamic and "anti-American."

and:

When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was “used to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

Does that sound like a moderate? McDermott likes and supports terrorist appeasing organizations like CAIR. The fact that he gladly accepts their awards is insulting to people who care about America.

It’s time the people of Washington’s 7th District fired him this November. It’s time they elected Steve Beren.

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

That Ain't Gonna Fly

Out of deference to the confidentiality concerns of foreigners in the U.S., the bill would bar state and local police from detaining aliens simply for being in the U.S. illegally. Police could arrest the aliens only if they commit certain additional violations of federal immigration law such as marriage fraud or document counterfeiting.

It's amazing the amount of warts that are coming out due to the House hearings. This would be among the dumbest provisions in law enforcement legislation that I've ever heard of. It's a joke that's about to get squashed by the House negotiators and with good reason.

"This is a time bomb that is just waiting to do a lot of damage," former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Kris Kobach told The Washington Times yesterday. "Either it will be the damage done by terrorists in this country or it will be the damage done to our ability to control illegal immigration." The wall, which opponents say is similar to the one criticized by the September 11 commission for hampering efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, is getting closer attention after Mr. Royce held immigration hearings last week in California and Texas. Mr. Kobach, who served as counsel to former Attorney General John Ashcroft and now teaches at University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Law, was among those who testified.

Frankly, I want to know who put that provision into the bill and if it got debated on the Senate floor. If it did, who voted for it? If this was snuck in as part of a last minute amendment, that's one thing. That would leave open the possibility of a lone senator playing games. On the other hand, if this was fully debated and passed with each senator knowing what was in this amendment, then whoever voted for passage should be chastised and embarassed for such a stunt.

Hurt is right on the money in saying that this is just like the Gorelick Wall, which prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI, something that might've allowed us to detect the 9/11 terrorists.

Mr. Kobach told the House panel last week that four of the 19 September 11 hijackers had committed immigration violations and had been stopped by state and local police before the attacks. In particular, he pointed to Ziad Samir Jarrah, the Lebanese terrorist in the country on a six-month tourist visa that he had overstayed. On Sept. 9, 2001, Jarrah was stopped going 90 mph on Interstate 95 in Maryland and given a $270 speeding ticket, which was later found in the glove compartment at the Newark airport in New Jersey, where he boarded United Flight 93.
"If the officer had asked a few questions and determined that he was illegal, he could have made the arrest," Mr. Kobach said. "If the officer had called the Law Enforcement Support Center, which operates 24/7 out of Vermont, the officer could have concluded that he was illegal and could have made the arrest."

With the enactment of the USA Patriot Act, the Gorelick Wall came crashing down. I just wish it had never existed in the first place. Now some senator or group of senators is trying to re-build that wall so that we can't catch illegal immigrants. Americans everywhere should insist that this provision be among the first deletions the Conference Committee makes.

What that provision says is that this senator (these senators?) aren't serious about border enforcement and that isn't acceptable at all. Period.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lieberman Files For Run As Independent

That isn't shocking news to anyone who's followed the bizarre Nutroots campaign against him. Sen. Lieberman did throw in an interesting twist, according to this AP article:

He announced his intent last week to run independently should he lose the primary. He would have to file signatures the day after the primary. He also filed papers Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman. A group of 25 people who are helping him form the party will oversee the petition drive, said Marion Steinfels, campaign spokeswoman.

Good for you, Joe. I wish you well.

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, has said an independent run would hurt Democrats. "He does this from a position of weakness, where he looks like a desperate career politician attempting to cling to power," Swan said.

Actually, Tom, this isn't as much a sign of weakness on Lieberman's behalf as it is a sign of the nuttiness of the Nutroots crowd. The Nutroots gang is demanding ideological purity from Democrats, which is killing the Democratic Party. The Nutroots gang sees DLC types as Bush lite, which is akin to being Satan himself in their eyes. Sen. Lieberman is a good politician who's holding fast to the noblest of principles out of their party.

Meanwhile, the Nutroots crowd is trying to run this decent man out of the Senate because (a) they crave power and (b) because they hate President Bush. Shame on them. JFK, FDR and Truman are rolling over in their graves knowing that their party has gone that far overboard.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat Plays the Social Security Scare Card Early

The Democrats had Bruce Braley deliver their national radio address Saturday. For those of you who don't recognize his name, which I suspect is everyone who isn't Mr. Braley's relatives, he's the Democratic candidate for the open House seat being vacated by Jim Nussle, who's running for governor. During his speech, Mr. Braley brought out the formerly tried-and-true Democratic boogeyman-- Social Security. Here's what he said:

"If the Republican plan is allowed to pass, future generations both here and across the country will be saddled with decades of debt and no guaranteed retirement security,'' Bruce Braley said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

It used to be that playing on peoples' fears worked for Democrats but it doesn't anymore, thanks to conservative talk radio and the Right Blogosphere.  People simply don't get scared when partial privatization of Social Security is brought up, thanks in large part to 401(k)'s.

I suspect that Mr. Braley's mentioning Social Security is either a sign of desparation on his part or he doesn't understand where the American people stand on this issue. What's worse is that he didn't stop there. His next quote sounds totally paranoid.

Braley said Social Security is under attack, with President Bush and congressional Republicans making privatization a top priority in 2007. He also accused the Bush administration of "plundering the Social Security trust fund while giving billions away to special interests, like big oil.'' "They are spending the money seniors rely on while making no effort to balance the budget or protect the limited funds we have for retirement security,'' he said.

That's a bald-faced lie & he knows it. After getting beaten up on Social Security immediately after getting re-elected, President Bush and the GOP legislature hasn't brought up the subject of Social Security reform.

Part of the motivation behind Mr. Braley's diatribe is the Democrats' belief that they can win by scaring people that Republicans are far outside the mainstream of American politics. They think that works because their Bush-hatred is that advanced. Unfortunately, that isn't where the American people are.

Democrats haven't come to grips with several important facts:
  • Republicans are the majority party in America;
  • America doesn't hate politicians nearly as much as Democrats hate Republicans; and
  • The American people won't vote for politicians who stand for nothing but hating their opponents.
At the end of the day, I suspect that the elections won't turn out to be nearly as gloomy for Republicans as the Agenda Media and other moonbat Democrats are predicting. In fact, I'll predict that: (a) Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel will turn on Howard Dean for wasting a ton of cash in the Southern states where Democrats don't stand a chance of winning and (b) the Daily Kos and others of the moonbat fringe will run a ton of conspiracy theories as to why they lost.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Must Be a Misprint

I just finished reading an article from the Dow Jones Newswire that contradict everything that liberals have been saying about the budget deficit. Here's a sample of the article's content:

With federal revenue continuing to grow strongly, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday that the federal budget deficit for the first three-quarters of fiscal year 2006 is about $40 billion less than for the same period in the previous fiscal year.

It was just yesterday that Nancy Pelosi railed against "Republicans continue to drive up America record national debt with tax breaks for their Big Oil cronies, while denying a pay raise for 15 million Americans." What a crock. Ms. Pelosi knows that the deficit is shrinking, although I'd prefer it shrinking faster.

What this means is that Ms. Pelosi, and, I suspect, all Democrats, knows that they have to lie about the President's economic record to not get crushed in the midterm elections this November. They're forced into these bald-faced lies because the American people would vote overwhelmingly for Republicans if Republicans were given credit for a strong economy.

I just spoke with my good friend King Banaian at SCSUScholars about the budget deficit forecasts. (King is my go-to guy on economics, especially forecasting, because he's a top economics professor.) King said that it isn't likely that the deficit would shrink into the $100 billion range before President Bush leaves office but that it's likely that it'll drop into the $200 billion range by the time President Bush leaves office.

You knew, though, that the NY Times wouldn't stay silent in the wake of this good news. Here's part of their 'wet blanket' article on the shrinking deficit:

"The fact is that revenues are way below what the administration said they would be a few years ago," said Thomas S. Kahn, staff director for Democrats on the House Budget Committee. "The long-term prognosis is still very, very bleak, and the administration doesn't have any kind of long-term plan."

What information or study does Mr. Kahn base his opinion off of? Or is this just a throw-away quote intended to lie about the President's role in a strong economy? It's amazing that the economy's doing this well considering a hurricane that wiped out an entire region's economic activity for a year and a terrorist attack that drained an estimated $2 trillion out of the economy five years ago.

Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves their argument that tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues. "The tax relief we delivered has helped unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and kept our economy the envy of the world," President Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

Republicans should be arguing that the revenue jump is a direct result of their tax cuts, especially cuts for corporations.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that corporate tax receipts rose 26% for the nine months ending in June compared with the year-ago period.

There's your conclusive proof that tax cuts work. By the way, feel free to 'leak' this secret program to the press. I promise it won't harm national security. It'll just wreck Democrats' chances of winning back the House and Senate this November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »