March 16-17, 2007
Mar 16 00:42 Cold-Blooded Murder This Ain't Mar 16 09:45 CAIR Reviving Minnesota Chapter Mar 16 10:23 Media Alert Mar 16 16:58 LA Times Defends Democrats' Pullout of Fox Debate Mar 16 23:25 Next They Want Blood??? Mar 17 14:24 Brod On DFL's 'Leadership', Severson On Higher Education Mar 17 20:23 Global Warming Update
Prior Years: 2006
Cold-Blooded Murder This Ain't
Last May, John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of " killing innocent civilians in cold blood " while appearing on ABC's This Week. This Sunday night, 60 Minutes will run an interview that Scott Pelley conducted with Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the leader of the Haditha Marines. Here's the key portions of Drudge's article on the interview:
One of those decisions, which Wuterich admits to in the interview, was shooting five unarmed Iraqi men in their backs. Wuterich says the men were running from a car that had appeared on the scene at about the same time their comrade was killed by a roadside bomb. Wuterich says their killing was justified; he says he identified them as having hostile intent toward the Marines. Wuterich also maintains that the Iraqi men disobeyed the orders of one of his squad members and that the Iraqis should have known what to do.Let's put you in the soldiers' shoes. You're out on patrol. You haven't seen any Iraqi vehicles during your patrol. Suddenly an IED goes off and you see 5 Iraqi men get out of a car and start running. The car is 100 meters from where the IED exploded. You tell them to stop. How many of you think it's reasonable to think that the men running are the ones who planted or detonated the IED?
"Normally the Iraqis know the drill...if something happens...get down, hands up...They started to take off, so I shot at them," Wuterich says. Other Marines have told investigators that the Iraqis appeared to be following orders and were not fleeing. Pelley asks Wuterich how running away from the scene could have constituted hostile intent. He replies that he thought they may have detonated the roadside bomb. He adds, "But also at the same time, there were military-aged males that were inside that car. The only vehicle, the only thing that was out, that was Iraqi, was them. They were 100 meters away from that IED. Those are the things that went through my mind before I pulled the trigger. That was positive identification," Wuterich tells Pelley.
If it's reasonable to think that the men running were terrorists, I don't know how you can define that as "cold-blooded murder" like Murtha did. Let's move onto another section of the interview:
Another decision Wuterich made that day was to lead an attack on two houses. That attack killed three women and six children. The Marines attacked the first house with the permission of a superior officer because they thought two or three shots were fired at them from it. Wuterich says the Marines tossed a grenade into a room in the dwelling before determining who was inside. They pressed the attack with a charge through the door and gunshots to kill any survivors. According to Wuterich, this was the best way to clear a house safely, and he has no compunction about doing it. "You can't hesitate to make a decision. Hesitation equals being killed, either yourself or your men...That's what we do. That's how our training goes."If innocent civilians were killed while the Marines were doing what they were trained to do, I couldn't call that cold-blooded murder. Yet that's the conclusion that Murtha arrived at. Remember that Murtha did that before the investigation was complete and before being officially briefed. I'd side with Sgt. Wuterich that he did the right thing, especially when Sgt. Wuterich tells us that he saw a door open through which a sniper could've escaped. House to house combat is a bloody business. Risks can be anywhere. Hesitation will get soldiers killed more often than not.
Wuterich says he saw that the attack on the first house had killed women and children. But he did not stop the assault, because he says he saw a back door open in the house and assumed the sniper had gone through it to the next house. "My responsibility as a squad leader is to make sure that none of the rest of my guys died ...and at that point we were still on the assault, so no, I don't believe [I should have stopped the attack]," he tells Pelley.
That isn't what I'd call cold-blooded murder. It's time that we told John Murtha he was wrong in characterizing the Haditha Marines' actions that way.
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 12:44 AM
No comments.
CAIR Reviving Minnesota Chapter
That's the news from this Strib article. Not everyone is excited about their reappearance:
Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul, said he was dismayed by the news. "CAIR pushes issues from the Mideast under the guise that it's an umbrella organization for all Muslims," he said. "But it does nothing for Somali Muslims."I wrote here that MAS is the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the more ruthless terrorist groups in existence. I wrote here that the Holy Land Foundation donated $5,000 to CAIR to get their first office opened. HLF was shut down for raising money for Hamas through its 'charity':
Many Somali Muslims are new immigrants who do not have the advanced language skills and education of those here longer, "so they are vulnerable to being influenced by CAIR and MAS [the Muslim American Society], which walk hand in hand," Jamal said.
"You watch, they'll come in here and start fundraising and it'll all go toward pro-Middle East causes," he said. "The individuals involved here may be moderate and want to do good, but overall, the organization wants to push its own points of view."
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and DevelopmentIn other words, CAIR is tied to the Hamas terrorist organization. That's beyond dispute. Now they're opening a Minnesota chapter and they're meeting resistance from Muslim groups. That isn't the only resistance they're getting:
U.S. Designation Date: December 4, 2001 and re-designated on May 31, 2002
Background: The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was designated under Executive Orders 13224 and 12947 as a charity that provided millions of dollars of material and logistical support to HAMAS. HLF, originally known as the Occupied Land Fund, was established in California in 1989 as a tax-exempt charity. In 1992, HLF relocated to Richardson, Texas. It had offices in California, New Jersey, and Illinois, and individual representatives scattered throughout the United States, the West Bank, and Gaza. In the year 2000 alone, HLF raised over $13 million. HLF supported HAMAS activities through direct fund transfers to its offices in the West Bank and Gaza that are affiliated with HAMAS and transfers of funds to Islamic charity committees ("zakat committees") and other charitable organizations that are part of HAMAS or controlled by HAMAS members. Mousa Mohamed Abu Marzook, a political leader of HAMAS, provided substantial funds to the Holy Land Foundation in the early 1990s. In 1994, Marzook (who was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department in 1995) designated HLF as the primary fund-raising entity for HAMAS in the United States. HLF funds were used by HAMAS to support schools that served HAMAS ends by encouraging children to become suicide bombers and to recruit suicide bombers by offering support to their families. HLF and several of its directors were indicted on criminal charges in July 2004.
Steve Hunegs of the Jewish Community Relations Council said he hopes the local group will not push the same agenda as CAIR's national office.It isn't unreasonable to think that one of CAIR's unstated missions is to limit the influence that the Israel lobby has in Washington. You'd expect that of an organization that's affiliated with Hamas, right? It's also reasonable to think that Keith Ellison influenced their re-opening their Minnesota chapter. I suspect that their other main reason for re-opening their Minnesota chapter is to influence public opinion before their imam lawsuit starts.
"National CAIR has given a platform to the academics who accuse our pro-Israel community of subverting and distorting American foreign policy, which is simply not true," he said. "These accusations are an attempt to intimidate the pro-Israel community into not exercising its constitutional rights to lobby Congress and the executive branch."
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 10:24 AM
No comments.
Media Alert
I've been invited to appear on "World have your say", a radio talk show on the BBC. The program airs at 12:00 pm CT. We'll be discussing the Frank Wuterich case today.
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 10:27 AM
No comments.
LA Times Defends Democrats' Pullout of Fox Debate
The LA Times' Ron Brownstein has written a column in today's edition that attempts to justify the Democrats' decision to pull their Nevada presidential debate from Fox. Here's their feeble attempt at justification:
Fox cloaks itself in the mantle of objectivity with the nudge-nudge insistence that it-and it alone-provides "fair and balanced" coverage of the news. Then it advances its financial and ideological interests by promoting lurid accusations from conservatives against Democrats, accusations that are routinely debunked later by the mainstream media. Many Fox reporters are fair. But overall the network-through its language, its news decisions and its hosts-generally functions more like a cog in the Republican message machine than as a conventional news organization that attempts to abide, however imperfectly, by the traditional standards of (yes) fairness and balance.That's laughable. Democrats don't like appearing on Fox because Fox's hosts don't take dictation like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert do. People like Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Jim Angle, Major Garrett and Bret Baier ask tough questions. They also ask follow ups, something that no other TV talk show hosts do.
Fox's possible participation in the Nevada debate, one of several the state party is sponsoring before next January's presidential caucus, presented Democrats with a conundrum that may become increasingly common for both sides as they navigate a media landscape in which overtly partisan sources of information are proliferating.
Democrats, with justification, consider Fox tilted against them. Yet the network has a large audience, at least some of whom may be open to Democratic arguments (though exactly how many remains subject to spirited dispute). The question the party faced was whether access to Fox's viewers was worth the validation the network would receive from hosting a Democratic debate.
As for Mr. Brownstein's line that "it advances its financial and ideological interests by promoting lurid accusations from conservatives against Democrats, accusations that are routinely debunked later by the mainstream media" is utter nonsense too. Why didn't Mr. Brownstein cite some examples to prove his point? If FNC's claims are so easily debunked, why didn't he debunk a couple for his article?
When Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton, Clinton accused Wallace of being a tool of the Right Wing. It was later found out that Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat. Here's part of the transcript of the interview:
CLINTON: ...So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know...The only thing that this Clinton diatribe showed about Fox is that Democrats are either paranoid as to what it represents or it's pretending that Fox isn't a real news agency. That the Democrats took this route is predictable. It's typical liberal practice that, rather than debunk the information, they paint everything in their path with a broad brush and hope that no one notices that they dodged the specific question.
The question the party faced was whether access to Fox's viewers was worth the validation the network would receive from hosting a Democratic debate.Mr. Brownstein's bias notwithstanding, that isn't the relevant question. There are two relevant questions, the first of which is: Do you want to reach voters that you couldn't reach on any other network? The second question is "What are you afraid of"? First they cancel out of the Fox debate, then Rahm Emanuel tells freshmen House members that they shouldn't appear on the Colbert Report. Are they afraid that their answers that appeal to the Nutroots fringe would sink them in the general election? Or do they know that swing voters watching on Fox would run from them the instant any of them opened their mouth? Or is it all of the above? Or is it all of the above and then some?
There's merit in that argument: No party can survive by talking only to people who agree with it. But Fox critics, led by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, insisted the price for that access was too high and argued that it was self-destructive for Democrats to legitimize Fox in any way.A little paranoia goes a long way, doesn't it? Especially if it's put in MoveOn.org's hands. Whether Democrats have Fox broadcast their debate or not, the reality is that FNC attracts far more moderate and liberal voters than do any of the 'acceptable' networks. Whether FNC televises the Nevada debate or not, these viewers have legitimated FNC.
This shows the quality of the political advice MoveOn.org gives.
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 4:59 PM
No comments.
Next They Want Blood???
No, that isn't a dose of sarcasm. It's a question that I've got after reading about the DFL's proposed tax increase. You'd think that a $2.16 billion surplus would be enough. You'd think that a 9.3% spending increase for this budget would be enough. It isn't even close to being enough for the DFL's leading spendaholics. Here's some of the details of the DFL's tax strategy:
Businesses and some six-figure earners would be forced to pay more in taxes to offset increased classroom spending and property tax buydowns for homeowners under tax plans House and Senate leaders trotted out Friday. House Democrats proposed a new top income tax bracket while Senate DFL tax writers announced that they'll try to raise property taxes for businesses.Make no mistake about it: the DFL always intended to increase taxes. Passing the bill that would've changed how state budgets were estimated was to justify increasing taxes by saying we don't have a surplus. The DFL always wanted to " do many good things " because that's the way the DFL pays off its special interest friends.
In fact, it isn't difficult to make the case that they're more interested in paying off their special interest friends than they're interested in helping small businesses. Look at their proposals:
The new tax bracket, 9 percent, would apply to income above $400,000 for married filers and $226,000 for single filers after deductions. House fiscal staff estimated that it would hit about 50,000 people, and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said it would generate $433 million over two years.This tax rate is aimed squarely at small businesses, America's job creation engine. This is proof that this DFL caucus doesn't understand that their spending spree will cost the state jobs. It's quite reasonable to think that it might lead to a recession. This leads to a big question for Minnesota voters:
Is this the economic plan you thought you were voting for last November?I'm betting that it isn't. In fact, I'm betting that most taxpayers wouldn't have voted DFL if they'd known that the DFL intended on raising taxes and raising spending this much.
The DFL majority in the Senate is pushing for $222 million more in business property taxes to pay for some of its priorities, including a plan to funnel $376 million of state money into a property tax refund program, additional local government aid and school levy buy-downs.Let's see if I've got this straight. The Senate DFLers want to increase property taxes by $222 million on businesses so they can give a $376 million refund to residential property owners. Does the DFL think that all these businesses getting hit with the property tax increases will stick around? If they do, why do they think that? At what point do some of these businesses leave Minnesota?
Kelliher said she hoped Pawlenty would keep an open mind about the latest proposal. "We are not in a fighting mode with the governor now," she said.Too bad, Ms. Kelliher. You declared war on Minnesota taxpayers with all your reckless spending. I hope you didn't expect Minnesotans to sit on our hands while you drove businesses out of the state. I hope you didn't expect Minnesota taxpayers to sit idly by while you empty our wallets so you can pay off your special interest friends. If that's what you were expecting, David Senjem and Steve Sviggum have your answer:
Rep. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, and Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, were quick to label it a dead-end plan. "This is March Madness folks. This is absolute craziness," Sviggum said , who called it a "soak the rich" proposal.Gov. Pawlenty sent the message most succinctly:
Said Senjem: "We're off and running on a bumpy road." Democrats argued that property taxes and fees rose significantly during Pawlenty's first term, even if he avoided raising state taxes.
Then he told a Minnesota Chamber of Commerce audience: "You don't celebrate getting out of Weight Watchers by going over to the all-you-can-eat buffet. So our message to the Legislature is: 'Push away from the table. Put your fork down.'"Tarryl wasn't pleased with his statement:
Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, was not laughing. A lot of people "might not be very happy with his analogy," Clark said.Ms. Clark, there aren't alot of people, myself especially, who like you telling me that there were really only two tax bills in the Senate this year & that one would provide property tax relief. I specifically asked you why the first six bills that the Senate introduced called for tax increases. You tried slipping the question, saying that some of the bills were brought independent of the leadership's approval.
It appears as though you weren't being completely honest with me and Leo that morning, doesn't it? That's what happens when you tell people that you're a fiscally moderate bunch when you're really nothing more than a bunch of tax-increasing fiscal maniacs, isn't it? Yes, I know that that's Ms. Kelliher's quote but the DFL Senate is less moderate than the House DFL. (That should frighten the daylights out of people, shouldn't it?)
Senate Democrats are also eying companies with overseas operations and tax evaders.Sen. Bakk is typical of the DFL legislature in that he hasn't taken a look at looking for wasteful spending. The DFL hasn't had any serious oversight hearings into identifying wasteful spending, which we know exists. Shouldn't the legislature's job be to identify which programs' funding can be cut before asking taxpayers to assume a higher tax burden? Shouldn't taxpayers have the right to expect the government to operate more efficiently first?
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said he aims to help businesses in his overall tax bill with a sales tax exemption on capital equipment purchases and other breaks. Bakk isn't ruling out an income tax increase, but said he would first look at collecting more unpaid taxes to cover Senate spending initiatives.
The other thing that's typical is that Sen. Bakk isn't cutting taxes; he's shifting tax burdens. If you're saying that you're cutting taxes, that means that you aren't increasing other taxes. Otherwise, it's just a tax shift, a 'steal from Peter to pay Paul' plan.
Here's an idea for the DFL: If a program's funding can be cut without the 'product' quality to the consumer (i.e. the taxpayer) suffering and if the government won't operate less efficiently, then it's probably worth cutting funding to that program.
Here's another idea for the DFL: If you want to cut taxes, cut taxes without raising other taxes. If you aren't willing to do that, then you aren't cutting taxes. Tax cuts are possible. They require fiscal discipline and prioritizing, but they are possible. The other thing they require is the ability to say no to special interest groups. That takes courage but it's possible.
Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 11:27 PM
No comments.
Brod On DFL's 'Leadership', Severson On Higher Education
Assistant House Minority Leader Laura Brod has issued a press release on the DFL's budget priorities. Here's that statement:
BROD: HOUSE DEMOCRATS MISSING THE POINTRep. Brod has the right idea. Taxpayers should expect legislators to fight harder to keep spending under control. Taxpayers should expect legislators to cut spending if a program doesn't serve a vital purpose.
Assistant House Minority Leader says its time for leadership to take a new fiscal approach.
Today House Democrats released their budget proposal which would force Minnesota workers to pay an additional $433 million in state income taxes. State Representative Laura Brod (R-New Prague) said this is the wrong approach.
"While the House Democrats suggest tax increases are necessary, in my view there are definitely much better options. Citizens should expect that state government works harder for them, rather than continually asking citizens to work harder for state government by paying more in taxes. We should continue to look for opportunities to spend smarter toward better immediate and long-term results for Minnesotans," Brod said.
Brod said that the state has a $34 billion budget which is a significant amount of money to spend on the priorities which Minnesotans expect. "In addition, in this time when the state has a $2 Billion surplus, the discussion should be focused less on taxes and more on how state government can do things better with the money we already have, said Brod."
One program that should get cut is the in-state tuition subsidy. Before going apoplectic, let me explain. Last week, I had the privilege of talking with Rep. Dan Severson, (R-Sauk Rapids), about the budget. Rep. Severson said that some colleges weren't attracting enough students to fill classes so they started offering in-state tuition rates to people from states not covered by the reciprocity rules. The bad news for taxpayers is that they're subsidizing these students' education, whether they're from Texas or Florida or wherever.
Has the DFL done anything about it? All I need to say is that is that it's education funding. They won't lift a finger to eliminate that wasteful spending. That's why Rep. Severson has introduced legislation that would provide relief for taxpayers. Here are some specifics of Rep. Severson's legislation:
Students from other states couldn't be subsidized their freshman year. Students in their second year or who have completed "at least 32 credits" would have their tuition rate reduced by 33 percent. Third year students or students that have completed 64 credits would have their tuitions reduced by 67 percent.
In other words, it's a sliding scale subsidy based on the likelihood that a student will stay in Minnesota. According to the activity page for the legislation, it's been referred to the Higher Education and Work Force Development Policy and Finance Division. Let's see if Tom Ruckavina does anything to move the bill. I'm not holding my breath on it.
The big thing that comes through Rep. Brod's statement, and Rep. Severson's legislation is that the GOP is the party of reform, the taxpayers' watchdog party. On the other hand, the DFL is the party of the status quo, the party of 'We've always done it that way.' The GOP is the party that's doing everything it can to stop the raid on taxpayers' wallets.
UPDATE: I just got a call from Rep. Severson. We discussed his pending legislation. One alarming tidbit of information that Rep. Severson told me was that "many MnSCU colleges charge in-state tuitions to all their students" because they couldn't attract students by charging their regular rates. He further said that this artificially inflates class sizes. Rep. Severson explained that the reason why this should bother Minnesota taxpayers is because the artificially inflated class sizes provide the basis for asking for more money for higher education.
Another thing that happens is that legislators like Sandy Pappas can claim that "We're starving higher education." The reality is that we aren't starving higher education; we're starving Minnesota's taxpayers while feeding the 'Higher Education Beast'.
I'd bet that few taxpayers think that that sounds like a fair deal for them. I'd bet that they'd stage an open revolt if they learned about this. That's why I say that it's time to start a taxpayers' revolution.
Anyone who's outraged by the DFL's 'rob Peter, rob Paul so we can pay Higher Ed' plans; anyone who's outraged by the DFL's insatiable appetite for tax increases are welcome to join the revolt. There's always plenty of room for more on this revolution.
Posted Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:24 PM
No comments.
Global Warming Update
It's been a while since I posted about global warming so I'm jumping at the chance this headline is giving me:
Interfaith group braves storm in climate change trekAside from Al Gore's winning an Oscar, it's been a difficult spring for the global warming crowd. When Nancy Pelosi's newly formed committee on global warming wanted to hold their initial meeting, they had to cancel it because an ice storm shut Washington down. Now, an interfaith group hoping to draw attention to global warming were greeted with "a weekend snow storm."
"People have been asking me what happens if it snows," said the Rev. Fred Small of the First Church Unitarian in Littleton. "I tell them: 'we walk.'"Let's hope they don't keep holding these marches. If they do, we might have the coldest summer in history.
The nine-day haul from downtown Northampton to Copley Square in Boston was planned far before forecasts called for a weekend of snow and sleet just a few days before the start of spring.
"It was windy and cold. I was walking on the front of the line and I felt like I was bow of a ship with the wind just coming into my face," said the Rev. Margaret Bullitt-Jonas of the Grace Episcopal Church in Amherst, where the group warmed up on bowls of lentil and minestrone soup after walking eight miles in deep snow from Northampton to Amherst.
Posted Saturday, March 17, 2007 8:24 PM
No comments.
