Bang, bang. You're dead ~ By Barbara Simpson

And now in the case of Ivan Lopez, the question is asked again: How could a single armed person wreak such havoc on a state-of-the-art military base?

The answer is simple yet bizarre.

Our military men and woman are denied the right to carry guns on the base.

Never mind that they’re trained, that they took an oath to defend the Constitution, that we send them into battle to use loaded weapons.

On a U.S. military base on U.S. soil, we disarm them.

Is it any wonder that someone with the urge to take some sort of perverted revenge against this country will take advantage of that situation?

In Barbara's column, she correctly opines that it seems "Obama and the rest of them believe if we disarm, the bad guys – of whatever persuasion – will leave us alone." Of course, the bad guys don't work that way, really. They are always going to attack the softest targets, such as anywhere there are gun free zones like schools and universities, churches, malls, movie theatres, or businesses. It is just the half-baked liberal logic on display, and it always fails.

To further illustrate this opinion which I share with Barbara Simpson, I'll allow Mike Huckabee's commentary in the video below to get the point across much better than I can.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

As Barbarba will point out, the liberal logic debility of disarming doesn't just stop with gun free zones. "This administration has the goal of reducing, if not eliminating entirely, our nuclear weapon capability." That will make the bad guys like us, right? Probably not quite so much. Just sayin'...


Bang, bang. You're dead

Barbara Simpson

By Barbara Simpson

Sunday, April 6th, 2014

From WND Commentary

Last Sunday, after my KSFO radio program, I saw a short report on the Internet that authorities were on the alert concerning an Army soldier who might be involved in an expected attack at Fort Hood, in Texas.

Fort Hood, again. It was the scene in 2009 of the largest attack on a domestic American military installation.

It was carnage committed with intent by a Maj. Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist – a Muslim angry about our involvement in the war on terrorism.

He killed 13 and wounded 30. The attack ended when police shot him.

He was left paralyzed from the waist down, and it took much too long for his trial, which finally found him guilty. He’s on death row at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

Who knows when he’ll be executed?

Remember, Barack Obama never condemned the shooting rampage for what it clearly was: Islamic terrorism directed at our military and our country.

He didn’t do it at the time of the killings, during the trial or after. It’s a safe bet he never will.

I thought about that and decided I’d write my next WND column – this one – about Fort Hood, the almost forgotten massacre and the fact the convicted killer is still alive.

~~~ READ MORE on wnd.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*    *    *    *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The good news about nuclear destruction ~ By Shane Connor

This article by Shane Conner, CEO of www.ki4u.com - consultants and developers of Civil Defense solutions to government, NPOs and individual families - is extremely important for you to read. In fact, you should make sure that you also share it with others, as Shane suggests. As you will learn in this column, a "defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense." The good news is that many more people would be able to survive a nuclear detonation if they are prepared and know the right and wrong things to do.

RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL READING
"What To Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent!"
The Golden Horde ~ By Patrice Lewis


The good news about nuclear destruction

By Shane Connor

December 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What possible "good news" could there ever be about nuclear destruction coming to America, whether it is dirty bombs, terrorist nukes, or ICBMs from afar?

In a word, they are all survivable for the vast majority of American families, If they know what to do beforehand and have made even the most modest of preparations.

Tragically, though, most Americans today won't give much credence to this good news, much less seek out such vital lifesaving instruction, as they have been jaded by our culture's pervasive myths of nuclear un-survivability.

Most people think that if nukes go off then everybody is going to die, or it'll be so bad they'll wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as: "If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly."

This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense. The activists wanted all to think there was no surviving a nuke; banning them all was your only hope. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '50s and '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans saw neither a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism and nuclear saber-rattling from rogue nations, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can't even begin to envision effective preparations for ever surviving a nuclear attack. They think it totally futile, bordering on lunacy, to even try.

Ironically, these disarmament activists, regardless their noble intent, have rendered millions of Americans even more vulnerable to perishing from nukes in the future.

The biggest surprise for most Americans, from the first flash of a nuke being unleashed, is that they will still be here, though ill-equipped to survive for long, if they don't know what to do beforehand from that first second of the flash onward.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Senate Republicans: Vote No on New START ~ By Sarah Palin

In a tweet from David Limbaugh, I found out about Sarah Palin's column on NRO where she weighs in on the Senate ratification of the New START Treaty. Sarah makes the correct statement by saying that we "cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else." And, that is exactly what I call common sense when it comes to defending and protecting the security of the United States!

Senate Republicans: Vote No on New START

SARAH PALIN

By Sarah Palin

December 17, 2010 ~ 12:13 P.M.

The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America’s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.

New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START’s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty?

READ MORE at National Review Online - The Corner

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Why any doubt about Iran's nuke intentions? ~ By Les Kinsolving

From a White House correspondent, and an old school journalist, comes the news in commentary form that while North Korea's nuclear program is a major problem, Iran's nuclear program is not only a problem, but of extreme danger to our national security. The title to this piece alone - "Why any doubt about Iran's nuke intentions?" - speaks volumes. In my humble opinion, Les is right on the money. Dealing with Iran probably shouldn't be a political dilemma, but a major military and national security issue, for the United States and Israel alike.

Hey, Mr. President, your pal Rahm talks about not letting a crisis go to waste. Isn't the fact that millions of people could lose their lives, here and in Israel, somewhat of a crisis? Or, wait... maybe the real crisis is that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue how to deal with it... Or, wait, maybe the Obama administration has decided that a really good crisis would arise if New York City were to be incinerated. Just sayin'....

The gallant nation of Israel is surely determined through the world's best intelligence service – along with its own nuclear weapons, which it has had for decades – to stop any possibility of another Holocaust by Iranian ICBMs.

That the United States must stand with our one real ally in the Middle East to stop Iranian ICBMing of Tel Aviv, Haifa, New York and Washington surely must be apparent to Obama, who must have some major and secret plan.

By Les Kinsolving

Posted: April 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

From the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, there came a report to Congress including the following:

"Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."

Does President Obama or any member of Congress believe that Iranian determination to produce nuclear-missile bombs should realistically be designated as either "could be" or "if"?

Moreover, how does any such uncertainty about that nation (led by obviously mad Muslims) seem realistic, in view of last summer's defection of Iran's nuclear scientist Sharam Amiri to the United States?

All of us should now remember very carefully how our national government once pledged that North Korea would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

What happened to that U.S. affirmation of nuclear non-allowance?

North Korea produced and tested a nuclear weapon.

But North Korea was not punished for this. Instead, we began demanding that they get rid of their nuclear weapons – which, it surely should have been realized by demanders, Pyongyang has refused to do.

Since the North Koreans know of our nuclear-weapons arsenal – which our president has fortunately not (yet) abolished (nor has he responded to pleas of keeping it completely up-to-date) – they have not yet nuked Seoul or any other part of their freedom-loving neighbor, South Korea.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Obama wants U.S. defenseless ~ By Joseph Farah

As always, Joseph says pretty much what I have been thinking. I am glad that he has the courage to write what he does. I can only assume that Obama's minions will not be happy with Farah's column, and I can only assume that Joseph Farah could care less about what they think.

The important thing that we must remember, is that for now, we still have the freedom to write and say what the truth is, and it is extremely urgent for us to do so before it's too late (if it isn't already). That can change. There could be a day when we may no longer have that freedom. That day could come at any time.

I can only assume his globalist sympathies are more important to him than the lives and safety of 300 million Americans he swore an oath to defend.

I can only assume his bizarre, twisted and un-American sense of morality is more important to him than the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

This man is dangerous – not just to our liberties but to our very lives and the very future of America.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: April 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Barack Obama's own administration may still be trying to explain away his announcement that the U.S. would never respond to a biological or chemical weapons attack on America with nuclear weapons, but this is hardly the first gaffe suggesting the man in the White House has no interest in defending the homeland.

Much less news coverage was afforded the decision by his Congress to defund an incredibly promising project that could offer protection to all U.S. citizens currently vulnerable to missile attack – including those carrying biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

On Feb. 11, a high-powered laser successfully shot down a ballistic missile in a test off the coast of California. That was when the "airborne laser aircraft" demonstrated it is capable of destroying a missile traveling at 4,000 miles per hour.

This might have been greeted with sighs of relief given the news that has dominated the world lately – Iran's nuclear program and North Korea's nuclear tests. But it wasn't. Instead, it was greeted with a collective yawn from the complacent yet undefended American public and a choice by the Obama administration and Democratic-dominated Congress to pull the plug on the airborne laser system.

At the same time, the Obama administration is green-lighting plans by America's top technology companies, including Google and Yahoo!, to transfer strategic computer know-how to China, which is already acknowledged to be working on cyber-warfare capabilities that could pose tactical challenges to the U.S. in any future conflict.

Why should any of this surprise us? Obama's so-called "science czar," John Holdren, visited the Soviet Union during the Cold War as vice chairman of a group whose founder was accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviets build their atom bomb.

Holdren also has endorsed a "surrender of sovereignty" to what he called "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a world army and taxation, and enforce world population controls.

However, it's worth noting not everyone in the world community shares Obama's apparent fondness for "we are the world"-style totalitarianism. Some countries would prefer to impose their own will on the rest of us.

In China, for instance, Senior Col. Liu Mingfu published a book, with the approval of Beijing, that calls for his country to make a "sprint" toward becoming the world's dominant military superpower.

China has also reportedly developed a high-tech ballistic missile capable of sinking U.S. aircraft carriers.

There can be no confusion about what China is doing with its aggressive military arms buildup.

Beijing may already be in full sprint for the finish line – a military showdown with the U.S. when America can least afford it.

As I've said before, I don't think Obama is dumb. I think he's a reasonably intelligent person fully capable of seeing what I'm seeing and understanding what it means.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Loose Nukes and Knuckleheads ~ By John Kubicek

I'll just start this post out with the following video:

April 12, 2010 - The Nuclear Security Summit, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and loose nukes

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The knuckleheads are apparently completely delusional to not understand that Israel will not allow Iran to succeed. And my bet is that Benjamin Netanyahu was watching “24” last week, and heard the evil double-agent Dana Walsh say, “Tick-tock, Mr. Bauer, your time is running out.” Israel is all too aware of that scenario. Secretary Clinton, there is no such thing as “strategic patience” when it comes to Israel and Iran’s threats to annihilate them. Only a real knucklehead wouldn’t get that.


Do those knuckleheads even have a valid approach to avoid a nuclear war in the Middle East, in the very near future? Or, should it be called “The Nuclear Security Plummet?“

By John Kubicek

Here is the hardest part about writing commentaries for a blog: Deciding which crisis to write about. Rahm Emanuel has taught me well, as he had said to never let a crisis go to waste.

So, do I pick the issue (crisis) to write about that will get the most views, or do I go with something I believe is a major crisis that may have been lost in the fog of all the overwhelming events that make the front pages? The density of the fog was recently thickened with the news of the mine explosion in West Virginia and the subsequent failed rescue attempt(s); and, ironically speaking of fog, followed by the tragic crash of the Polish airliner carrying many of their top dignitaries.

But in the meantime, if we can get beyond the fog and look over the horizon, there are at least three scenarios looming that could be leading to crisis situations in the future. And believe me, Tiger Woods not winning the Masters didn’t make my top three. Actually, it was just little things like the massive increases to our taxes and the affect that will have on an economy already hanging on by threads on a precipice, or the Mexican drug war now spilling over the boarder. Either one of those things would provide plenty to write about, but there was one other topic that I felt deserved our attention the most. (But don’t worry, those other stories of crisis proportions will be themes in my commentaries in weeks to come.)

While on my daily news watch, I happened to see a combination of segments regarding “the Nuclear Security Summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and loose nukes.” There were several things that were discussed in that video that I found to be quite disturbing. It could be the quandary that Obama’s foreign policies can’t resolve.

First, there is the Nuclear Security Summit (more like a plummet), and the primary focus is apparently on “loose nukes” getting in the hands of terrorists, and Iran building nukes, that could eventually end up in the hands of terrorists. Yes, that is kind of a weird twist, and dilemma that needs to be dealt with. We learn from the above video that right now, there are no security procedures to prevent it from happening. Now, remember, we really don’t want terrorists to get their hands on a loose nuke and cross the Southern boarder into the United States…

But then it gets worse. What do we do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Have sanctions worked? Uh, not really. Okay, plan B, and Hillary tells us that is “strategic patience.” Oh, wait, maybe it was “crippling sanctions” that was plan B. The “strategic patience” is just part of the plan to convince the rest of the world that does business with Iran, like Russia and China, to go along with “crippling sanctions” against Iran. Please be patient, Hillary tells the world, it will take time to get sanctions “with teeth.” And in the mean time, Iran keeps working on their nuclear program.

READ FULL STORY at BreakdownofAmerica.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

I like Jack Bauer, but … ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph has a great point about the misinformation in "24," but it still the greatest show there ever was! I've been hooked, too, and I am sad this is the last year!

There's more proof. Not all Americans are left defenseless. Your federal government has used your tax dollars to build shelters for itself and its key people – tens of thousands of them. They will survive an all-out nuclear attack on the U.S. You, the taxpaying public, will not.

It's sad to see this propaganda continue today – even on one of the best TV entertainment shows around.

Someday, especially in this age of terrorism, it is likely there will be a nuclear event in the U.S. People need to know how to deal with it – and that there are practical and simple steps Americans can take to protect themselves and their families, despite the government's policy to leave civilians defenseless and ignorant.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: April 01, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I admit it.

I'm totally hooked on this season's "24."

I've seen them all, but this story line, about a "dirty bomb" threat to Manhattan, offers up one of the best action scripts in the history of the show.

But, there is a big problem with the story.

Over and over again, week after week – hour after hour if you use Jack Bauer time – the threat of an imminent "dirty bomb" attack is hyped beyond anything remotely scientific.

We're told if the bomb goes off, the blast zone might be uninhabitable for 100 years.

Another character in the White House threw out the possibility of life in the area not resuming for 10 years.

It's all nonsense to anyone who understands the very real danger of nuclear radiation and the big difference between a nuclear bomb and a radiological device like the one constructed by terrorists in "24."

While a nuclear bomb actually uses nuclear material to create a devastating explosion, a radiological bomb is very conventional. The blast will only be as big as the explosive materials uses – dynamite, plastique, some kind of military ordnance. When the explosion occurs, the radioactive material is dispersed as far as the conventional blast carries it.

That can only be as far as the conventional explosives used. There is no "mushroom cloud," which is an effect caused by the powerful nuclear explosion in an actual nuclear bomb.

Yet, in "24," the top experts in the script talk as if all of Manhattan would be destroyed somehow by this dirty bomb. There have been mentions of a 40-square-block area that would be destroyed, with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

It makes for a scary and suspenseful TV show, but it's not accurate and honest and is bound to lead to even more confusion and hopelessness about any kind of nuclear or radiological attack in the U.S., something the real experts keep warning us is virtually inevitable at some point in our future.

But surviving a radiological attack, or even a nuclear attack, is not hopeless at all – if people understand the potential, prepare for it and take simple, time-tested steps after such an event.

You want proof?

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. Just 65 years ago, these cities were leveled by actual nuclear bombs – the only ones ever dropped on populated areas. Today they are bustling metropolises. In fact, they have been for decades.

That's because while radiation is deadly, very deadly, it actually dissipates quite quickly – even in the first 24 hours. The main damage is caused by the blast. If you survive the blast, you have an excellent chance of surviving the radiation – if you can limit your exposure in a shelter or upwind from the detonation.

A dirty bomb is much less devastating because the blast is limited to the size of the conventional explosive device. Compared with an actual nuclear bomb, it's a piece of cake. Again, the main threat is to those affected by the blast itself – and maybe those within a block or two.

Of course, most Americans don't know this – including, I have to assume, the "experts" writing the scripts at "24." The reason most Americans don't have this information is because they were misinformed and miseducated to believe one cannot survive a nuclear event – or, at least, any life that survived would not be worth living.

The reason we were taught this unscientific nonsense is because there was a political agenda behind it – a political agenda called disarmament and appeasement.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Hal Lindsey: U.S. Seeks Regime Change

You will appreciate what Hal says in this video about the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is battle-hardened, and the Obama Administration will not be able to get rid of him in their desire for an Israeli regime change.

If you are paying attention, you've probably heard about the flack regarding the building of more housing units - in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem, one that wasn't even controversial as far as previously established agreements go. Now, the delivery bunker-buster bombs (so that Israel can take out Iranian nuclear targets) is being delayed.

We can all be pretty sure that Jeremiah Wright is proud of the President.

Thanks to BPTBlog at Twitter for bringing this story and video to our attention!

March 26, 2010 - Hal Lindsey - U.S. Seeks Regime Change

Hal comments on the delay of weapons delivery to Israel - a deal that was made in 2008. Yet another sign that Obama has no plans to continue our long-standing relationship with Israel.

Video provided by OmniChristianVids2

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Obama czar's shocking communist connections

This column by Aaron Klein supports my belief that global warming hysteria is a major part of the plan to form a Communist New Word Order. Just sayin'...

Edited publication whose founders allegedly fed secrets to Soviet Union

"[Soviet politician and security chief Lavrentiy] Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Szilard and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage," wrote Sudoplatov.


Sudoplatov said his spymasters knew the lobby efforts of the Bulletin editors would be a "crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this."

By Aaron Klein

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 9:07 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren, President Obama's "science czar," served on the board of editors of a magazine whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union build an atom bomb.

The magazine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has a long history of employing socialist and communist sympathizers, including during the time of Holdren's employment in 1984, reports the New Zeal blog.

Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.

Two of the magazine's founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

In 1994, Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, named Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.

"The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard," wrote Sudoplatov.

Sudoplatov wrote the Soviet Union "received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Mullen: Strike on Iran an Option, But a Bad One

The top U.S. military officer suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," he said. FoxNews.com - WASHINGTON - A military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table but could have grave and unpredictable consequences, the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday. "I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form." Iran is perhaps one to three years away from getting the bomb, leaving a small and shrinking opening for diplomacy to avert what he said could be a dangerous nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Mullen said. "I think the time window is closing." Mullen said President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Iran holds promise, despite political upheaval and deadly protests following Iran's disputed presidential election. Obama told The Associated Press last week that persuading Iran to forgo nuclear weapons has been made more difficult by the Iranian government's handling of claims that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole re-election. Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" - is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said. [CONTINUE READING]

U.S. Engagement of Iran Is Futile ~ By Mustafa Hijri

No doubt, international conflicts should be resolved peacefully and through negotiations rather than through the use of force. However, engaging Iran will turn out to be an outdrawn process with no positive outcomes for either the U.S. or the international community. Such a process will only serve the interests of the theocracy in Tehran. read more | digg story ~ Submitted by ramiro

Let's All Surrender Our Weapons – You First! ~ By Ann Coulter

By Ann Coulter © 2009 WorldNetDaily By The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible – other than the gun. So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:

Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh. Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself. Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high-school dropout with "violent tendencies" – according to one of his ex-wives – who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked. Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. – before eventually being shot himself. Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun. [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by Darktrooper007

Obama to hold nuclear weapons summit

Obama says he'll convene a global summit by year's end to discuss the protection, reduction & eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Uh... HELLO!! Is he completely DAFT? Or is he just mentally incompetent? What an idiot thing to contemplate doing... Think: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China, etc, etc? To answer that query: He is completely off his egomaniac rocker! ~ 4Christ (with a little editing by yours truly.)

I can completely understand what my friend 4Christ was saying in her digg description. Just read the following excerpts from the column, and I can say most of us with at least a brain cell or two can see just how daft O-bomb-uh can sound at times:

PRAGUE – President Barack Obama on Sunday launched an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the U.S. has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation to ever use one. In a speech driven with fresh urgency by North Korea's rocket launch just hours early, Obama said the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. would host a summit within the next year on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, and he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material. "Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," Obama said to a bustling crowd in an old square outside the Prague Castle gates. "This fatalism is a deadly adversary," he said. "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable."

read more | digg story ~ Submitted by 4Christ