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!