Sherwood Ross - Grade A Moron.

I just read some comments from Sherwood Ross, senior headcase, at CounterPunch. Sherwood's comments can be read here. The gist of his article is that no one has a right to grieve for the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Why? Because they were Americans and Americans are the problem. He then blathers on about America's so called gun culture followed up by dribble about America's wars of the past century (he even makes us the bad guy in WWII).

I could school this jackass all week about America's involvement in war and how we have held this world together but it would be like trying to drive a paneling nail into a Abrams tank. Aside from that what I would write might just turn out a book.

But the "gun culture" I can handle.

Let's start with the premise of the gun control crowd. Make guns illegal and there will be no gun crime. Let me ask this, If a person is intent on committing a crime (robbery, murder, rape et al) do you honestly think that that person will care that gun possession is illegal? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. That person will get a gun illegally.

The next point made by the anti-gun crowd is usually something along the line of, if we get rid of the illegal guns criminals will not be able to get them. Response: is cocaine illegal? Yes. Do criminals still manage to get cocaine? Yes.

Liberals cannot see this though. They cannot bring themselves to blame criminals for crime so instead they want to blame inanimate objects. They cannot come to grips with the facts. Here are the facts:
-Murder cannot be committed by anything other than a human being.
-Firearms are nothing but paperweights without someone to pull the trigger.
-People killed each other (and in much greater rates) before the invention of gun powder.

History dictates that before guns people killed each other with arrows, before that swords, before that sharp, pointy sticks, before that rocks and before that bare hands.

I've heard comments from the gun control lobby play the "what if" game. they say if guns were illegal the Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. BS. If guns were illegal, Cho Seung-Hui would have found a gun on the black market, perhaps he would have brought a knife or a machete, regardless of how, he would have killed.

Allow me to give you a what if: What if every professor at that college carried a gun? What if every student carried a gun? Do you honestly think that Cho Seung-Hui would have been able to kill 32 people? Me neither.

Supreme Court uploads partial birth abortion ban

Earlier this week the Supreme Court upheld the legislation banning partial birth abortion. Naturally Liberals are livid by this decision. Over the week we have heard all the usual suspects yammering on about "women's health" and "women's rights" and so.

However, nowhere have seen these people call it as it is. Not once has anyone said, "This denies a woman the right to have a doctor reach into her, grab her unborn baby by the feet, pull it out up to his/her neck, jam a needle into the base of the babies skull, inject saline into the skull to 'loosen' all that brain matter before finally, using a vacuum cleaner to simultaneously suck the brains and collapse the skull."

For those of you that support this form of atrocity do not fret, rumor has it that your favored butchers are working on another form of late term abortion. In this method the baby is dismembered in the womb. Nice.

Here's the thing, the pro-abortion folks never want to talk about the baby. Anytime you talk to a pro-abortion zealot they will always talk about "rights" and "health" and "choice" as if someone is having a mole removed. But that is not it. They are removing and killing a human life.

Before signing off I can say to all the pro-abortion folks I've talked to, "YOU are the best person to make the case for abortion."

What have some white boys NOT go to do to get some love?

After a more than one year long Liberal feeding frenzy, the three Duke (or Dukies for you Libro-Americans) lacrosse players have been cleared of all charges. Naturally, Liberals are miffed at this and have shown their disdain in various ways. And why should they not be upset? I mean afterall in the bizarro world that IS the Liberal mindset this was the perfect fairy tale story. A poor disadvantaged, black woman, forced to strip for a living because of social injustice raped by three rich, white, lacrosse playing, frat boys from Duke University (conveniently located in the South). I mean the only thing that could have made this more a Liberal wet dream would be if one of the accused was named Bush. There is one problem with the story, it wasn't true. At all.

For a year we were treated to guilty verdicts from the Libs all over the place from would-be John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte with this little gem, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" To Mike Nifong's hooligan remarks. The thing to remember is that Liberals found these men guilty, with no trial, no evidence and an inconsistent story from the accuser. But now that the truth has been revealed the Libs are making all the efforts to find these men guilty of something or anything.

Our more "high-brow" Liberals in the media take the tact that these men may not be guilty of rape (like we've been saying for a year); but they are NOT innocent. That statement is followed by snippets about how the lacrosse players hired strippers, drank alcohol and allegedly said racial things to the strippers. The real award goes to Terry Moran who who lamented that if it were not for the fact that the players' families were able to afford good legal representation that they would have likely gone to prison. Oh great, if only their parents were a little poorer we could have sent these men to prison something didn't do, damn the luck.

For the lower brow Libs it breaks down to race and "class". You read plenty of "poor little white boys" remarks or "rich white boys will get on with their privileged lives" and so on. Bascially, it doesn't matter these men did not commit the crime but what does matter is that they have not suffered enough for being white, male, college students.

To the first I say this no one is truly innocent but we are talking about the law here. Is it illegal for men to hire strippers? The answer is no. Is it illegal to drink alcohol? No. Is it even illegal to call someone a racial slur. Morally disgusting but no. These men did not commit rape, they did not deserve to get indicted, they did not deserve the attempt at railroading that Nifong tried. But what they do deserve is for those papers that found them guilty to stand up and say, "These men are innocent."

To the second. Do these men not deserve equal protection of the law because they are white? Does due process not apply? Perhaps they are not even human and thus a year of derogatory and scathing indictments in the media do not matter? Go to any Lib blog. The Duke lacrosse players were not only guilty of "rape" but being white and "rich".

If we want a "color blind" society as so profess that color blindness has to work both ways.

I, Democrat

Democrat Senator Carl Kruger is proposing legislation to ban people from using personal electronic devices while crossing the street. This is in response to two recent deaths in his district that involved people run over while listening to their iPods.

This is just another in a long line of proposals by Democrats to outlaw anything and everything that they deem dangerous. Sugar, fried chicken, cigarettes, SUVs, guns, coffee and the list goes on. Essentially, we need to be saved from ourselves because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. It kind of reminds me of the Will Smith version of I, Robot. You know the robots want to take over and make us prisoners because the robots are charged with our protection. If we are imprisoned and kept basically as pets we can cause ourselves no harm.

Two things:

1. People die. All the time. All day, everyday. It's what we do on a regular basis. We do it in all kinds of unseemly ways. Part of what makes life precious is that we risk dying everyday. That's why we have to make it count. If every that could harm us were to disappear tomorrow the world would be a pretty dull place.

2. Democrats are proponents of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So much so that they would supplant any and all religious teachings with this theory. A big part of the theory of evolution is the notion of natural selection. Briefly, natural selection dictates that animals that do not properly adapt to their environment die, and with them the genetic line that produces animals that cannot adapt. Members of the species continue to die off until one of two things happen, the species adapts as a whole or goes extinct. See Dinosaurs. The same applies to people.

So why is it that Democrats want to forsake one of the very ideals they hold dear? Is it that they have good intentions. Have they taken a play out of the book of Big Brother in 1984?

None of this matters. The question we should be asking is "Where will they stop?" Just in case, I call dibs on the handle "Bubble Boy".

Big offensive in Iraq announced...

...In plenty of time to allow the bad guys to melt away.

Believe me, I'm all happy that we are launching this big operation in Baghdad but would someone please tell me why we are announcing it? Is it me or is the military and its leaders over communicating just a little bit?

I have a problem with this for many reasons. The first being that announcing your offense, i.e. letting everyone know that it's going to happen removes one of the biggest deciding factors in battle, the element of surprise. I just read it this morning, so I'm sure the insurgency knew about it well before that.

So what can we expect? The leadership of the insurgency will hightail it out of there well before the shooting starts. They will leave behind of few of the standard issue, not so bright, fanatical shooters with the promise of martyrdom. Of course these pre-martyrs will end up on the slab, not before making sure some women and children can be placed in the line of fire for propaganda to be sure. But the fact that they know we are coming increases the risk to our soldiers.

Finally, there is this notion of feeding this to the media. Why does the US Military insist on trying to play nice with the same media that is intend on making them look as bad as possible? You can play ball only so long when the other team is constantly screwing you over.

Congratulations COLTs!

Indianapolis Colts take the Super Bowl.

I've never been much of a football fan but last night it felt different. It felt kind of like I and all other Hoosiers were a part of the win.

Israel, the kid who fights back.

Nearly everyone has experienced a bully in their life, or even a group of bullies. Israel IS the bullied kid. And the rest of world (the U.S. excluded) is apparently the moonbat educrats of the public school system.

Let me take you back some twenty-three years ago. There was a kid that constantly picked on me, he made my life hell. The harassment ranged from verbal abuse to petty theft to physical aggression. I made all the attempts I (or my parents) could to stop the behavior. The teachers and principal instructed me to ingore the bullying or tell the teacher. Ingoring the behavior emboldened my tormentor and telling the teacher resulted in me getting in trouble for "tattling."

The final showdown happened at the school library. The bully and his friends cornered me. My bully hit me in the mid-section, it was not a good punch, but it angered me. I let loose with swinging my fists in the best windmill a nine-year-old could muster. I punished the air around me for several seconds before landing a blow out of sheer luck. When the teacher broke up the "fight" the bully was taken over to sit with the librarian look at books. I on the other hand was taken to principal's office where my parents were called.

What came next was a lecture from the principal of the school explaining that I had no right to hit that child. This child was a poor minority who had lived "a hard life" and his bullying behavior was to be excused. The bullying behavior not his fault, but the fault of his circumstances.

Fast forward to 2006. Israel his given the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians after years of terrorist attacks against citizens of Israel. How do Israel's "neighbors" respond? They continue the attack. Hamas crossed into Israel's land and kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Hezbollah kidnaps two. Now Israel is fighting back and is being condemned as wrong?!

Liberal moonbats are livid because Israel is defending itself. In the next days they will post on their blogs about every offspring of a terrorist (pardon me, 'freedom fighter') that gets killed during this, while caring nothing about Israeli deaths and even applauding them.

Israel's hostile neighbors instigated this hostility, they instigate it in every case. They bullies, and they are excused by the UN and the moonbats who enable them. Israel, well Israel is the kid fighting back.

WMDs found, Libs try to change the game.

Well, well, well, it looks like we found WMDs in Iraq afterall. So what is next?

This week Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Pete Hoekstra announced that as early as 2004 US and coalition forces have several WMDs in Iraq. The WMDs are mainly comprised of Sarin and Mustard gas shells. You can read the details in this Fox News story (funny that CNN and MSNBC did not think this was news worthy):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200601,00.html

With that I have a question for the Libs in the audience: what now? I mean, you've all these books, made all these t-shirts about how Bush lied about WMDs and now low and behold it turns out there were WMDs. For liberals there is only one thing to do, change the game.

With this discovery there will be three different directions that liberals take to spin this find:

1) The find is insignificant. They will say that the WMDs found were not a threat and not that big a deal. To that I say, tell those Kurds that were murdered that Sarin is no big deal.

2) The WMDs are ours. We supplied them to Hussein. Here's a clue, the WMDs found were primarily Sarin. Sarin the was the primary nerve agent used by the Soviet Union. Now, if it were VX that we found in Iraq then there'd be a beef.

3) Finally the classic claim that the report is false.

Primarily we will see spin #1 played out. Number #2 is primarily for the anti-war crowd and #3 for the paranoid conspiracy theory folks.

This however is to be expected. It will take us finding a nuclear arsenal large than that of the US and Russia combined before the Dems yield on the "WMD lie" spin.

Libs, Dems and America haters spinning about Zarqawi.

In case you haven't heard, Zarqawi is dead. The man that is responsible for thousands of deaths of both coalition soldiers and innocent Iraqis has left this planet courtesy of two 500 lb bombs from a US F-16. Naturally, before Abu's body was cold the hard left, Dems and America haters were starting their spin. Normally, the death of a wartime enemy of a nation is good news to the people of said nation, but not for these guys. If it benefits the war or more specifically George W. Bush, they are opposed. Believe me, our favorite hard left bloggers relish the idea of some great crisis that they can lay at Bush's feet.

The left is trying to spin this victory in a few different ways. The goal is to deprive Americans from feeling good about this victory.

What you most likely here Democrat politicians saying is a rehash of what they said about the capture of Saddam Hussein, "It means nothing, there will be another one (or two) that pops up right behind him and takes over." The second statement may be true, but does not make this victory mean nothing. Here's why, Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, no organization can easily sustain the loss of its leader. No matter how much the Islamofacists release statements and such that they congatulate Zarqawi for becoming a martyr, they would much rather have him alive and leading their operations. The loss of Zarqawi is bad for morale. Secondly, Zarqawi had more than three years of experience fighting us "infidels". He was at the top of the decision making, tactics and strategy making process, now he is dead... and his knowledge and experience with him. The next guy that comes up will not be as seasoned as Zarqawi.

A continuation of that little piece of spin is that "Zarqawi is a Martyr, they will be emboldened more now." To that I say, Is Zarqawi a Martyr? I mean afterall, the Islamofacists are very fond of recruiting the easily persuaded with the promise that if they take on suicide missions against the infidels or die fighting the infidels that they go to paradise. When did Zarqawi take on his suicide mission? When did he engage the American soldiers? He never did. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi has spent the last several years in hiding. He didn't even believe what he was preaching. And deep down inside, our Islamofacist enemy knows this. So is our enemy "emboldened" by that fact that there leader was killed while hiding a in shack? Somehow I doubt it.

Finally we get to my favorite little piece of spin. "This is convenient timing". This a tried and true spin tactic that I have seen for years. The premise is that Zarqawi was dead (or Saddam was captured) long before the Government says he was. Why would the Goverment do this? To have a "get out of jail free" card so to speak. When things are going bad for Bush, he just leaks Zarqawi's death to the news and viola! The sheeple are distracted from whatever. Well the truth is the "This is convenient timing" spin is quite convenient. Simply because they will always be able to apply it. If we had killed Zarqwai in five months from now why it's an "October suprise". If we killed him six months ago, it would be to distract from judicial nominations, or three months ago to distract from the Cheney shooting.

Gulf War I Conspiracy Theory Revisited.

NO WAR FOR OIL!!! Ahhhhh, a new catchphrase for a generation protest and conspiracy-minded people. I was a junior in high school when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the first Gulf War started in 1991. I remember hearing the conspiracy mongers delve into “all the angles” on the issue. One thing was for certain, this was not a just war like WWII when we ended the Holocaust. The only reason we were involved was one thing, oil. We had no business inserting ourselves into the squabbles of other nations. We stood no chance, Hussein had one of the five largest armies in the world and said this would be the mother of all wars. No American's life was worth saving 10¢ per gallon at the pump. And above all else George H. W. Bush was an “OilMan” who gave Hussein permission to invade Kuwait assuring him that is he did invade the US would not interfere (thus making Hussein a hapless patsy).; once the war was over he was going to pillage the Middle East and “steal all the oil.” It seemed plausible enough, to a sixteen-year-old boy that is.

The war started. I remember being at the mall with by friend Christian when word that US and her allies began bombing. I called home to find out what exactly was going on. My mother had been a small child through WWII, had nearly seen my father shipped off to Korea as a Marine, Vietnam and still harbored a ton of Cold War paranoia. Her suggestion, come home now, they may try to strike back. No way was I going home. I tried to explain to my mother that there was no way the Iraqis were going to counter-attack in the US let alone Indiana.

As the war carried on first came air superiority, then came Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, then came the total defeat of Iraqi forces in the land war. Saddam Hussein and his forces were defeated; and not with the “Mother of all Wars” that was promised by Hussein. Relatively low casualties on our side.

Then something strange happened, or didn't happen. George H. W. Bush the “OilMan” did not install the puppet regime in Kuwait, did not march on Baghdad, did not make any aggressive action toward the Middle East at all. In short, the looting of oil as predicted by the conspiracy hounds never happened. Life went on, the US and her allies put out the oil fires and went on. The US base remained in Saudi Arabia, and that is about it.

The conspiracy theory that Bush and the US were going Kuwait and Iraq solely to increase the profits of the evil “BigOil” was dead and buried, right? Wrong.

Just as conspiracy kooks have no trouble re-writing history to fit their theories, they also have no trouble re-writing their own theories to fit history if they cannot effectively re-write it

I recently read an article on the popular conspiracy website, www.whatreallyhappened.com. In an article entitled, “Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship” the website contends that nearly every war fought in the last century was done so under false pretenses and always seems to place the US in the role of the aggressor. This where I found the re-write of the Gulf War I conspiracy theory “Gulf War I was so BigOil could profit.”

The purpose of the theory is to convey and “prove” the following: Gulf War I + GHW Bush + X = Profit for BigOil. Previously X = “stealing the oil.” The problem is that the oil was never stolen. So how do you keep your theory intact? Change X to something that did happen. In this case X ends up as the following. We wanted Iraq to burn the oil wells and we wanted to destroy Iraq and further sanction Iraq for one purpose... to take the oil off the market. You see? If there is a shortage of oil then the price will go up and BigOil gets its profits!

It seems plausible... except for one tiny thing. It makes absolutely no economic sense. History will debunk this theory as it did its predecessor, but I don't feel like waiting around.

The premise of this theory is that BigOil makes more money by, pay attention here, not selling oil. With the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil off the market and not being sold, BigOil makes more money. One could be fooled into believing this if they were not familiar with the way that the market works. Basic economics dictates that a company maximizes its profits by selling the most amount of goods and services possible while keeping expenses down. In other words: Profit = Sales – Expenses.

In this scenario, there are fewer production facilities online, thus less oil is sold overall. There are massive expenses in repairing the damaged facilities. In other words, expenses are up, gross sales are down. Look at any business that has failed miserably and you will find the same thing. From AMC (the automobile manufacturer) to Pets.com, low sales and high expenses killed them all.

Let's look at some real world businesses that are profitable as examples. Walmart, few companies are as profitable as Walmart. How does Walmart operate? Simple, sell as much stuff as you can, sell it fast, keep your expenses down. Walmart would never dream of allowing only 200 32 inch TV's to be sold and charging $5,000 in the name of “profit” simply because it would not be profitable. Daimler-Chrysler, a very profitable automobile manufacturer that sells a variety of automobiles.

So tell me, which serves the bottomline better, selling a couple hundred Lamborghini Diablos at over $250,000 a pop or selling hundreds of thousands of PT Cruisers at $17,000 a pop? If you can't figure it out it is telling the Daimler-Chrysler dropped Lamborghini.

Everyone knows that BigOil wants to maximize profits, that is a business's sole purpose of existing is to make money for the person and/or people that own it. So how are they going to do it? Easy, sell the most oil (which means that it will abide by the law of “supply and demand”) and incur the least amount of expenses possible (including avoiding having drilling and refining facilities destroyed).