Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Charlie Wilson's RONALD REAGAN'S WAR

According to Hollywood, as presented in "Charlie Wilson's War", opening this Friday, conveniently forgets History. The Investors Business Daily (IBD) has published Reagan's War, Not Charlie Wilson's as an attempt to counter Media Bias.
Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11.
Of course Hollywood has a long history of rewriting History. In "Charlie's War", President Reagan is a bit player. In reality it is Charlie Wilson who should be the footnote.
Charlie Wilson was a pro-abortion, Equal Rights Amendment-supporting congressman widely known as "the liberal from Lufkin." To his credit, he did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote.
Of the 5 main characters involved in the actual events in Afghanistan, (Charlie being one), 4 were Republican Conservatives.
The movie is based on the book by former "60 Minutes" staffer George Crile. Crile's credits include the infamous 1982 CBS documentary alleging that Gen. William Westmoreland led a conspiracy to mislead America about the Vietnam War. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame.
Considering the writing history of the authors of the Book and the Screenplay, helps to explain the possible bias presented in the film.

Actually another Left-Wing conspiracy theory is also featured in "Charlie Wilson's War".
The movie also perpetuates the left-wing myth that the covert operation funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and ultimately led to the 9/11 attacks. Reagan-era officials such as Ikle say Osama never got funding or weapons from the U.S. and that he didn't launch his terror war until after U.S. involvement and the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
Alas Jimmie Carter is also not featured prominently in this movie.
It was his naivete about Communist expansion that led the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980 there would have been no Stingers and no victory in the Cold War.
Food for thought.

Strange Event

FedEx Truck Hijacked In New York City - Strange Event details a "What were they thinking?" event in the news. Read the article and then let me know what it means.
Many aspects of this story just don’t make sense to me. Maybe I’ve just been doing this too long and I over analyze things.
In this on "edge world" events like this are worthy of questioning.
On one hand it appears to be a planned crime and not a crime of opportunity (guns, handcuffs, badge). However, if that was the case why didn’t the hijackers bring along some type of tools to break open the seals on the containers?
As the author points out, the hijackers had this truck for 9 hours. Surely this is enough time to acquire the tools and means to open the containers, if that was their purpose. But apparently they did not distrube the cargo. Why???
This is where I begin to over-analyze. What if the truck was hijacked for some other purpose and the hijackers hadn’t planned on it being full of merchandise? What if they were actually hoping to take control of an empty truck just before Christmas and use it for some other purpose?
Another event that may mean nothing, but might mean something. The question is Which.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all, but especially to our men and women, and the families of our Military, (past and present) I also say Thank You and God Bless.

Murky Research

Monday, December 24, 2007

Self Deportation - It Works!

Illegal immigrants "self deport" as woes mount is an article which shows that we don't have to round up the millions of Illegal Immigrants. They will self-deport if the laws are enforced.
Mexican illegal immigrant Lindi sat down with her husband Marco Antonio in the weeks before Christmas to decide when to go back to Mexico.
Contrary to what the Left has maintained, when the economics are changed to favor the Legal Americans rather than the Illegals, the Illegal Immigrants leave. Of course not all will go, but if the economic incentive is gone, most will leave.
The couple are among a growing number of illegal immigrants across the United States who are starting to pack their bags and move on as a crackdown on undocumented immigrants widens and the U.S. economy slows, turning a traditional Christmas trek home into a one-way trip.
The fence is a must if we really want to secure the border, but when the law is enforced, the results are clear.
Mexican consular sources in Phoenix say they are seeing a spike in the number of immigrants applying for Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children, which will allow them to enroll in schools in Mexico. [emphasis mine]
They didn't have to prove US Citizenship to go to school here, but they do in Mexico. But it's not just Mexican Citizens who are leaving.
Members of the Brazilian community in the U.S. northeast, meanwhile, say they are starting to see an increase in the number of illegal immigrants heading back to their homes in Brazil in recent months.
However, many are moving to the Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States instead of going home.
While some illegal immigrants are simply self deporting, others are moving within the United States to avoid federal immigration raids and pro-enforcement measures passed by a patchwork of state and local authorities.
Self-Deportation works and costs little.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Global Warming Question

My Global Warming Question at TCSDaily asks the question which is also on my mind.
I am not a skeptic about the rise in average temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two.

My question is this:

what are the most persuasive reasons for believing that the rise in temperature is due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide? [emphasis in original]
The answer to that question is the crux of the arguments about Global Climate Change. At this point, neither Dr. Kling nor I have encountered the persuasive reasons for the connection.

The author of this article is Arnold Kling. Dr. Kling holds a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Bio). Dr. Kling and I have almost identical views on Global Warming.
I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it. One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions by some drastic amount, only to discover that--oops--it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else.
As you read this article, Dr. Kling gives several examples of Scientific and Economic Theories for which the facts overwhelmingly support the Theory. Dr. Kling and I agree that no such factual data has been assembled to overwhelmingly support one position over the other.

There are about the same number of arguments on each side, and on both sides it appears the opposition would rather attack the author of a dissenting opinion rather than the facts the study author presents. This is emotion, not Scientific Research. For those of you who are old enough to remember Jack Webb's "Dragnet" the common phrase Jack used is appropriate here. "Just the facts Madam, Just the facts."

Read the article and if you can, and as Dr. Kling asks, send him an e-mail with your facts. I would also appreciate a copy too. (E-mail me here Murky Research)

Saturday, December 1, 2007

What Does Islamic Sharia Law Look Like?

Teacher Hidden As Sudan Mob Urges Death says it plainly.
Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad [emphasis mine].
This is Radical Islam. This is al Qaeda. This is the Muslim Brotherhood. This is what we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The application of Sharia Law is not limited to the Sudan. Saudi Rape Ruling Puts Govt on Defensive articulates the application of Sharia Law to a RAPE VICTIM.
Saudi Arabia is bristling at international criticism over the sentencing of a rape victim to prison and 200 lashes, insisting the West should stay out of its legal system. But the case could empower voices for change in the kingdom's Islamic courts.
And what was the Rape Victim's crime?
In the case of the Girl of Qatif, the woman - a member of the kingdom's Shiite minority - was attacked in 2006 when she met a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him, since she had recently married. Two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where five others waited, and then the woman - 19 at the time - and her companion were both raped, she has said. [emphasis mine]
Did you understand the crime the Rape Victim committed?
In October last year, she was sentenced to prison and 90 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her - a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. The seven rapists were also convicted. [emphasis mine]
Of course this criminal conviction was reversed on appeal. Wrong!!!
When her lawyer, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, appealed the sentence and made public comments about it, he was removed from the case, his license suspended, and the court increased the woman's penalty to six months in prison and 200 lashes. [emphasis mine]
This is the application of Sharia Law as practiced by Radical Muslims. The Appeals Court claimed justification for the increase in the Rape Victim's penalty.
It also defended the doubling of the sentence against her, insisting she was an "adulteress."
Sharia Law is Government and Religion as one. It is not Freedom of Religion. It is not separation of Church and State. It is Governmental Law based solely on Religion. It is Church IS State.