Can't take the heat........

On Monday 5/21/07, Rosie O'Donnell on The View, stated "655,000 Iraqi civillians dead, who are the terrorists." What ensued is a backlash from the only Conservative on the show, Elizabeth Hassellback. On Thursday, she challeneged Rosie to defend, or at the least, clarify her comments. You may have heard about this argument as it seems to have been covered well. The other two Libs on the show did nothing to defend Rosie. Now, the question is, is Rosie really calling our troops terrorists? Absolutely fair question. Does anyone REALLY think that's what she's doing? Probably not. However, she certainly did leave it open, didn't she!? It was certainly a poor choice of words, and, she really needs to clarif what she said. Since our troops are over there Rosie, exactly who else would you be CALLING terrorists? The insurgents? Right, Libs are cheering them on!

We hear all kinds of crap for parading some guys around Abu Grahb Prison with women's underware on their heads, but Al-Qada comes out with a book on how to torture properly the infidels and not a peep from the Left. What's up with that? Keep in mind, these are the same people who are "supporting" our troops.

At the very least, what Rosie said was a poor choice of words, I think it's appropriate for her to apologize. Absolutely. However, did she? Nope. Instead, she kept putting the pressure on Elizabeth to defend her. Mocking her even. Well how about this Rosie, and as Elizabeth appropriately stated, you need to defend yourself. You're a big girl, you can do it. You were stupid enough to say it, you can explain what you meant! At the very least, it would be the responsible thing to do. But, what else does Rosie do instead, quits the show early. So, we don't have the opportunity for her to explain to us exactly who she meant were the terrorists. But again, she stated that 655,000 Iraqi civillians were dead and "who are the terrorists?" was what she stated. Who else could she have been referring to? The U.S. troops represent the U.S., so, I suppose if she wasn't referring to the troops, you could argue she meant the U.S., however, again, the troops represent the U.S., so, in a round about way, it comes back to the troops again. And, since Libs commonly refer to the insurgents as freedom fighters and suicide bombers (which incidently, is ridiculous because a suicide bomber would only take THEIR life. Once you take the lives of others, it's a HOMICIDE bomber), certainly, Rosie could not have been referring to them.

Whether you agree, or disagree with Rosie, I do encourage you to let her know how you feel. You may go to Rosie's website at www.rosie.com and express how you feel about this issue. That is, if you can figure out how to freakin' leave a message. She don't make it easy! Perhaps that's the point! She can spout all the hate she wants, and, doesn't allow you the opportunity to respond.......great concept!

Banning Guns

Well, we have had the Virginia Tech tragedy. Not suprisingly, the anti-gun nut Liberals wanted to ban guns. There were many shouts of "if guns were banned, this wouldn't have happened." Interesting since the guy who did it bought the gun legally. In other words, nothing prevented him from legally buying the gun. Now, let's look at the banning of guns. For example, Austrailia banned guns. So what, you say. Well, lets look at it before and after they banned guns.

Austrailia before gun ban:

1.8 crimes (of any kind) per 100,000 people.

Austrailia after the gun ban:

homicides jumped 3.2 percent
armed robberies were up 44 percent
assaults up 8.6
in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides.

So, keep in mind, this is after their gun ban. Now, what, pray tell, spawned the gun ban? Well, apparently a nut ball shot and killed 35 people. Hmmm. How many did the nut ball in Virginia shoot? About 30 or so if I remember right.

However, there is one other aspect that needs to be examined here. The Libs want a gun ban, right? Ok, how's this. The school's campus banned guns on campus. The students were not allowed to have guns on campus. Period.

So, how'd banned guns work out in THAT situation? Well, let's see, 30 some odd people dead, can't honestly remember how many injured. Now, as I have read in some accounts, some of the students did have guns in their cars. So, why didn't they go get them? Well, primarily because they weren't allowed to have them on campus. But to be far, a mentally ill gun wielding individual was roaming campus too.

Let's peek at a different concept. Had some of the students been allowed to have guns on campus, would it have been as bad? Sure, could have been. But, isn't it also possible that someone could have shot back at the dude? I mean, we've already established that he had to re-load at some point. Isn't it at least possible that at that point, at some point when he's re-loading, that someone could have shot him?

So, what we know for a fact is, no one on campus could have guns, effectively, they were banned, and that didn't work out for them too well for them. So, isn't it possible that having guns, effectively NOT banning them, could have had another effect. Let's say 5% of the people on campus, teachers and students alike, had guns, that's pretty good odds someone could have taken the guy out right?

So, at the very minimum, I think we can see that banning guns is not the answer. In this one instance whereby they were banned, it doesn't seem to have helped. And in Austrailia, they banned them, and that doesn't seem to have worked out too well either, right?

So, how is it that banning guns would effectively cut down on these situations? Have we not noticed that where these things take place, these acts of gun violence take place, they are all "gun free zones". If they knew that people in a particular location had guns, why on earth would they go there?

However, if you do believe that banning guns is the answer, thereby allowing more people to be held hostage and shot, by God, you've got that right. Please contact your Senator or Representative, as well as President Bush and express your opinion. The web addresses are below.

www.senate.gov
www.house.gov
www.whitehouse.gov