Who is More Provocative Law-Abiding Americans or Kim Jong Un?

If you were an alien, just landed here for another planet, one thing you would know for certain from watching the news this week: Law abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights are more of a threat to the world than a punk tyrannical dictator threatening nuclear war.

Barack the Terrible and his wife Marie Antoinette, let us eat $100 a pound Japanese steak, Obama are racing around the country exploiting shooting victims and their familes in the name of making it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile in North Korea, the pot-bellied punk in with the bad haircut is moving his missiles into place and threatening to wipe the home of the Kia off the face of the earth -- South Korea or Japan or perhaps Guam, a US territory -- and the leftist despot that heads our executive branch seems utterly unconcerned. Not even after a classified report was unwittingly released that voices the Pentagon's concerns that the Norks might well be able to arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead:

 A Pentagon spy agency concluded for the first time that North Korea likely has the ability to launch nuclear-armed missiles, illustrating the high stakes surrounding the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula.
But a Defense Department spokesman later on Thursday cast doubt on whether Pyongyang is fully capable of firing nuclear missiles, as a study dated last month by the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency suggested.
The secret assessment - which was mistakenly marked as unclassified and partially revealed at a congressional hearing - said the agency had "moderate confidence" that North Korea is able to launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. But it said the weapons would probably be unreliable.

But never mind, chirps the lapdog leftist media "the weapons would be unreliable" - no worries about that pot-bellied punk behind the curtain threatening to blow us to hell. How much do you want to bet that the A bombs we dropped on Japan were deemed to be "unreliable" at the time?

Not to be distracted by minor annoyances like a dictator threatening to launch a nuke, back in Washington, twit politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, are in the process of dealing with important business:  Negotiating away our Second Amendment rights:

Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday, as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes expanded background checks and new penalties for gun trafficking.
Senate Democrats, joined by 16 Republicans, were able to overcome an attempted filibuster by GOP senators opposed to the current bill. Those senators could still slow-walk the debate, but the Senate will eventually begin votes on amendments -- one of which is considered crucial to winning support for a final vote.
Though the bill cleared a 60-vote hurdle on Thursday, supporters will likely have to corral another 60-vote majority when it comes time to call a final vote, which Democrats acknowledged is a heavy lift.

 Background checks for whom? For law-abiding citizens attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Does anyone with one tiny shred of common sense think that putting more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners will prevent criminals and lunatics from creating mayhem? These aren't the type of people who are concerned about legally obtaining guns and it's rampant idiocy to think otherwise.

"New penalties for gun trafficking"? Is this a joke? Gun traffickers worried about "new penalties" for their already illegal activity? This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. Anyone who seriously believes that "new penalties" will deter gun traffickers is mentally deranged. 

Meanwhile there is a lunatic across the pond who keeps threatening to nuke us and his neighbors who happen to be our allies and we have every right and every means by which to put a stop to his lunacy. After all, how many times has he declared war on us in the past couple of weeks. And yet this is our official response from Secretary of State John F'in Kerry:

"If Kim Jong Un decides to launch a missile, whether it's across the Sea of Japan or some other direction, he will be choosing willfully to ignore the entire international community," Kerry told reporters. "And it will be a provocation and unwanted act that will raise people's temperatures."

Well, now that's the understatement of the year: Launching a test missile as a prelude to nuking South Korea or Guam or Japan will be "provocation and an unwanted act".

Meanwhile the folks who haven't provoked anyone -- law-abiding Americans wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights -- are under assault by Barack the Terrible and his merry band of leftists. And the punk who may or may not me able to wipe Seoul off the face of the earth with the push of a couple of buttons (we don't really know and apparently don't care all that much) sits over there being provocative. I guess when assessing REAL threats to the world, a madcap leftist like the liberal's statist president has to have priorities. 



Read more!

Background Checks for "Razor-Type Knives"?

This is the logical extension of anti-gun idiocy based on Dylan Quick's stabbing spree in which he injured 14 people yesterday:

Quick told investigators he had fantasies of killing people and had been planning the attack for some time, sheriff's officials said late Tuesday. Quick used "a razor-type knife" to stab his victims, they added.

"According to the statement the suspect voluntarily gave investigators, he has had fantasies of stabbing people to death since he was in elementary school," a statement from the Harris County Sheriff's Office said.

Quick has been charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, said Donna Hawkins of the Harris County Prosecutor's Office.

Of course ... the "razor type knife" "had fantasies of killing people and had been planning the attack for some time"

Read that quote above and you see the idiocy of the anti-gun debate in a nutshell: If Dylan Quick couldn't find a "razor type knife" he would've used something else. Should we make everyone go through a background check to buy a set of steak knives? Maybe we need to check every steak knife purchaser against the national steak knife database. Perhaps we should limit the number of steak knives that can be held in a butcher block. What about box cutters? Sharp butter knives? Knitting needles?

It's not the gun, folks, it's the nut holding the gun, or knife or knitting needle or baseball bat, or hammer, or steak knife .... I hope you get the picture. What do we do to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of psychopathic nuts? Well, whatever the answer is, taking away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens won't do it.  

Read more!

"Evita" Obama's Central Plan for Veggies

Head nutrition Nazi Michele Obama is studying plans for getting veggies to the masses. Yes, this is the much-ballyhooed interview in which she called herself a "single mother", but we all know that the marriages of most leftist politicians are marriages of political expedience. The fact that her and Barack's marriage isn't a "storybook" marriage isn't much more of a surprise than the fact that Slick Willie and Hillary's marriage is a sham. The quote from this interview that should really concern all of us is this one:

"We're looking at new models of getting farmer's markets you know to create buses and drive-ins to communities that are under-served. So, we have to deal with the question of access"

I can't believe I'm the only person who thinks that having a first lady conniving a plan to deliver vegetables to the "under-served" masses is more troubling than the Freudian slip she made about being a "single mother". Yet you'll have a hard time finding this whole quote in a news search. The front end of this salient quote is cut off at the beginning of the video clip amidst the breathless reporting about Michele's "single" motherhood. The fact that the woman feels isolated from her husband the president who seems to have no time for work or family and all the time in the world for recreation with his rich and famous buddies ain't news. The fact that the first lady of the United States has tasked herself with central planning the quantity, availability, nutritional value and content of our food is a lot bigger deal.

Of course this doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who are actually paying attention, but the rest of us had better start paying attention if we want to continue to enjoy our Constitutional right to put whatever we want to in our mouths because Evita Obama would is on the process of changing that. How many of us with school-age kids have heard about how new rules governing "school nutrition" have turned their school lunches to crap -- crap that gets thrown away. The stranglehold that various federal bureaucracies have on the food supply has been increasing over decades but has greatly accelerated under Barack the messiah's regime with the full-blown support of Evita's actions and rhetoric. Now she's looking at various central plans for to busing the masses to the veggies .... or is it busing the veggies to the masses? I'm confused. And that's even before I try to think about what a drive-in farmer's market will look like.

The bottom line is this: There is nothing in our Constitution that gives Evita Obama the right to look at "new models" for getting any type of food anywhere. It's none of her damn business where veggies are sold or whether I even eat veggies or not. If people in "under-served communities" want veggies bad enough, they can figure out a way to get to the veggies themselves. Out here in flyover country between May and October, you can't go a block and a half without running into a veggie stand. That's the free market at work. And the actual farmer's markets are a whole hell of a lot closer to what Evita Obama would consider "under-served communities" than they are to my house in the country. And when Evita talks about the "under-served community" just what in the hell is she talking about? The rent-subsidized apartments or the high-rise condos and lofts that are a couple blocks away ? They are both in the same "community". But the leftist who sees everything through the prism of class division and class envy gerrymanders that "community" to exclude people whose incomes arbitrarily fall above their preconceived notion of what "under-served" is.

A little message to Evita and Barry (and the rest of the leftist cabal running the administrative branch of the federal government): Keep your central plans off my food supply. 



Read more!

It's Not A Hard Concept

I really don't understand why the people that have somehow managed to get elected can't seem to comprehend how this nation's system works. The Founders laid it all out in two relatively short documents. Much less reading than your average week in college--even a community college requires better retention of the required material than our elected "leaders" have shown. If the past four plus years were a take-home examination on American government, John Houseman (remember Paper Chase?) would be handing them a dime and telling them to go home and tell their mothers they will never be American citizens.

The Declaration of Independence lays out the case for the formation of the new nation quite succinctly, rooting it firmly in natural law, asserting specific pre-existing rights, and explaining what government is for:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]

Is that so difficult to grasp? God gives us rights to which we are entitled (a word woefully misused in this age of food stamps and welfare). These rights belong to us by virtue of our status as free men and women. Government has one, and only one, purpose: "to secure these rights."

The purpose of government--federal, state, or local--is not (pay attention, Mayor Bloomberg) to educate us. It is not to bring about (pay attention, President Obama) fairness. It is not (pay attention, Governor Cuomo) to substitute its judgment for that of the people, as expressed in the Constitution.

Today we are verging on a nation half-slave, half-Constitutionalist. Everywhere we look, the rights of the Bill of Rights (without which the states refused to ratify the original Constitution) are under (you'll excuse the expression) assault by the well-meaning ignorant, as well as those with evil intent and no respect for our system of government.

In particular danger is the Second Amendment, the discussion of which has ranged from the thoughtful (rare) to the almost comically misguided (nearly every episode of Piers Morgan since the Sandy Hook massacre). It has been promulgated that the Second Amendment is all very well and good, so long as one limits one's gun ownership to the intention of hunting--or, perhaps, defending one's self with a genteel firearm of no large size and as few bullets as the mayor of New York, the legislature of Colorado (operationally now one and the same), and the President of the United States believe you "need". This is utter foolishness.

It is immaterial to what extent the Founders may have hunted (in those days, known as "shopping"). The fact is that nothing was further from the minds of those who wrote the Second Amendment than where one's daily meal was coming from (you'll note there is no "right to go to market" enshrined in the Constitution--were side dishes of no import?). The Founders were finishing a bloody war against a tyrannical King who had done everything within his considerable power to prevent their becoming a nation. This war was pursued not with knives, forks, karate, or rape whistles--but with guns. Unregistered, unaccounatable guns--obtained, owned, maintained, and used without benefit of any form of background check.

They knew how freedom had been won and how it was to be kept. By force of arms, when necessary. Those who ridicule this notion by asserting that the government cannot be fought by its citizens, because it has tanks and rocket launchers merely prove the case for the Second Amendment. If, indeed, the government has become able to overcome its citizens fighting for the right to be free, then it has become a potential danger to that very freedom. At the very least, the people have the right to a fair chance against those who would abuse them and their precious liberty.

Justice Scalia founded his opinion in the Heller decision in the pre-existence of the right to bear arms as protected in the Constitution and stated conclusively and clearly that:

the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The President believes this right is his to bestow, as he will. But he is wrong. Wrong on the issue, and wrong on the law. What other right does he deem optional at the whim of the president?

Certainly not the right to privacy as expressed in the use of birth control. It is strange indeed that the Administration will fight to the death to protect an interpreted Constitutional right--not only for its protection, but for its unhindered and fully-funded exercise by all, paid for by even those who choose not to exercise it. Yet he has no concern to protect a right explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights itself, requiring no logical acrobatics to read, and no imagined "penumbra" to inhabit. By the logic of the comically-named Affordable Care Act and the Secretary of Human Services, guns should not only be easily available, they should be free to all who want one (or one a month, I suppose).

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot place an "undue burden" in the path of someone exercising a Constitutional right. Yet, the current web of governments is not shy about admitting that stopping people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms is precisely their aim. Diane Feinstein, the queen of gun bans, seeks to eliminate "assault rifles" (for which is there is no technical manufacturing definition), "high-capacity" magazines, and guns with one "military characteristic."

The objection of the gun-grabbers is that "assault rifles" fire quickly, can fire many bullets, and have been used in high-profile massacres. The first two characteristics might be seen as the features of any decent product (i.e., it is efficient and useful), while the last is statistically irrelevant.

While the "assault rifle" (specifically the AR-15) has been showing up in massacres, such presence is easily explainable by the fact that it is the most popular gun in America. The better statistical question is not how many assaults have these weapons been involved in--the better statistical question is, "of these weapons in circulation, how many have been used in a deadly assault?"

But Democrats will never ask that question, because it makes the "assault rifle" uncomfortably irrelevant in the gun discussion. Most sources estimate that there are something like 250,000,000 guns of all kinds in America. Of those, according to the FBI, 323 rifles were used in homicides. 323. That's a percentage so small I can't even do the math. Knives, blunt objects, hands and feet and unspecified "other" weapons did more damage than the guns Feinstein wants banned.

I say, let's ban "other."

But all of this is irrelevant. Even if there were any evidence that gun bans, background checks, or other nannyish interferences in the ownership of guns in America had any effect whatsoever, it would not matter.

Because there's this Second Amendment, and it protects the right you have as a free person (with or without a government) to have those arms.

One more time: You have rights. Government exists to protect them, or it does not legitimately exist at all. And the promise of the Constitution is that your right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

Got that? Good. Now go tell the Senate.
Read more!

More Anti-Gun Idiocy From Obama's Court Jester

Mere hours after he advised women to unleash both barrels of a 12-gague uselessly into the air, Shiftless Joe Biden emerged from the woodshed to toe Barry's anti-gun line. The Washington Post called this idiocy a "point by point rebuttal" to the National Rifle Association's arguments that the Second Amendment means what it says: That "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed":

Vowing that there is “a moral price to be paid for inaction,” Biden sought to publicly shame lawmakers who are hesitant about voting for President Obama’s gun-control agenda.
“I can’t imagine how we will be judged as a society if we do nothing,” he said. “If you’re concerned about your political survival, you should be concerned about the survival of our children. And guess what? I believe the price to be paid politically should go to those who refuse to act. . . . The American people are with us.”
Biden, his voice growing louder and louder, delivered a point-by-point rebuttal of arguments made by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights activists. He argued that people do not need AR-15s and other military-style assault rifles for self protection.
“They say, ‘Well, it’s about our culture,’ ” Biden said. “The facts are, our culture’s not killing 25 people a day. It’s weapons and high-capacity magazines. It’s criminals who get guns without going through a background check.”
Biden accused some questioners participating in his online chats of planting questions designed to place roadblocks to his gun-control agenda.
“They say, ‘All you’re going to do, Biden, you and the president, you’re going to deny law-abiding citizens their rights under the Second Amendment,’ ” Biden said. “Not true.

An actual point by point rebuttal to this nonsense isn't difficult to muster.

First of all, trying to "publicly shame" lawmakers with a moral compass who are on the right side of this issue is going to be difficult.Better than 10,000 Americans are killed each and every year by drunk drivers. Do we ban cars for law-abiding drivers because of this carnage? Then why does Bozo Biden insist that there is "a moral price to be paid" for not depriving law abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms?

If Biden were truly "concerned for the survival of our children" he would be campaigning to replace every motorized vehicle on the road with pedal cars that achieve a top speed of five miles an hour because a hell of a lot more kids are killed at the hands of drunk drivers than at the hands of crazed psychos with guns. And can we once and for all dispense with this idiocy that criminals and psychos will obtain their guns legally by going through background checks? Just how stupid do you think we are Bozo Joe?

Biden is right on one point: Our culture is NOT killing 25 people a day ( obviously one of those "statistics" Joe pulled out of his ass). This is an argument for the Second Amendment Joe, you moron. But weapons and high capacity magazines aren't killing people anymore than a Ford Explorer kills people. It takes psychos with weapons (not necessarily guns) and drunk drivers behind the wheel to kill people with guns and cars.

As far as denying "law abiding citizens their rights under the Second Amendment" who the hell are you, Moron Joe,  to tell a law-abiding citizen that they "do not need an AR-15". By the way, for you ObamaBot Zombies out there, you can read up on what an AR-15 actually is right here. Or better yet, I'll just explain it to you in simple terms: An AR-15 is essentially a scary-looking .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle. It isn't difficult to use, as Shiftless Joe would have you believe, and is commonly used for target practice and hunting.

Read more!

Joe Biden Inserts a Shotgun in His Mouth

We all know Shiftless Joe inserts his foot in his mouth several times a day but yesterday he inserted a shotgun in his mouth:

“If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun, have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun … and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you … You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use, and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun,

Now I'm not necessarily against having a shotgun in the house for protection but has the liberal's vice president not figured out by now that he is the court jester in a regime that wants to totally compromise, if not completely eviscerate the Second Amendment? Barry is probably none too appreciative of the fact that as his homeland security department is recommending such ridiculous self-defense techniques as attacking a shooter with a pair or scissors or peeing or barfing on your rapist-to-be, his buffoonish VP is making the case us Second Amendment defenders have been making all along: There's nothing like arming yourself with a big gun to equalize the situation if you happen to be faced with a break-in or assault.

The other point that needs to be made here is this: Who in the hell is the stupidest vice president in modern history to be telling me what gun I need to defend myself? The Second Amendment doesn't read "the right of the people to bear whatever arms the stupidest vice president in modern history shall deem necessary shall not be infringed". And why should my Second Amendment rights have to conform to this idiot's notion of how many rounds I need in my clip (or the idiot governor of New York for you New Yorker's)? I bet this woman in Georgia who fended off an intruder that hunted her and her nine-year-old twins down in a crawlspace in the top floor of their house thinks she could've used a few more than the five bullets it took her to wound  her attacker.Suppose there were two intruders and she just spent all the bullets moron Joe thought she needed on one? Every situation is different and who the hell is some idiot liberal to tell me how many bullets I need?



Read more!

The Lame Duck Messiah Campaigns Against His Own Sequester Plan

Will someone tell this dumb ass that he can stop campaigning? He's a lame duck, he doesn't have to campaign any more.Yes, I'm talking about the liberal's president of the United States. But apparently Barry figures that campaigning beats the hell out of actually governing because he doesn't do a hell of a lot of governing. 

Why doesn't he govern? Because he doesn't know how to. He's a "community organizer" whatever the hell that is and that's all he's ever known (other than being a malcontent teenage druggie punk). And a community organizer's job is to is to whip up anti-establishment sentiment in a quest for "change", never mind that Barry is the establishment and has been for the last four years. He pretends like he isn't and reinforces that notion by spending his time, golfing with Tiger Woods vacationing by himself, and playing pick-up basketball with Jay Z.

Which brings us to the looming sequester -- automatic spending cuts that were his idea -- and the campaign stops Barry made (flanked by first responders as props)  today to warn about how dangerous these cuts, which were his idea and agreed to by a bunch of panty waist Republican lawmakers, will be to damn near everything liberals hold near and dear:

 This so-called sequester “won’t help the economy,” Obama said. “It won’t create jobs.”
The “meat cleaver approach” will lead to such things as the layoffs of teachers, cutbacks in the air traffic control system, furloughs of FBI agents and a compromised military, Obama said as he again called for heading off sequestration with a “balanced” debt reduction plan — and laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if the automatic cuts come to pass.
“These cuts are not smart, these cuts are not fair,” Obama said. “People will lose their jobs.”
A balanced plan means both spending cuts as well as new tax revenue to be derived from closing loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy, Obama said.

Wow, all this from $85 billion in cuts in a four thousand billion dollar budget. Rather than slash all these programs Barry, we could just cut food stamp card benefits to all those folks I see in line ahead of me at the grocery store who are buying $400 worth of groceries on my dime, including every name brand food you can imagine.

Let the sequester happen. We need to call the bluff of the punk community organizer who holds the highest elective office in the land.



Read more!