sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Why is North Korea Targeting San Antonio, Texas?

Governor Rick Perry feels that the North Korean plan to attack Texas is simply another form of flattery. You can read about it on Politico. The UK Telegraph suggests that North Korea is targeting Texas for obliteration because Kim holds a grudge against George W. Bush.

There are a few unique things about San Antonio. 

The map above is for US consumption and shows the targets that the DPRK
wants to hit with nuclear weapons. One of those is San Antonio, Texas, not
Austin, as has been reported in the US media. (comment North Korean generals
need to get BIGGER hats. I think that they are 'compensating'.)
(1) Every Mexican drug cartel has more than one nice home in San Antonio. It is the US destination of choice for narcos who want to cool off or who want to move their families somewhere safe. Since so many rival cartels have antipathy toward each other , it's odd that so many have chosen San Antonio. However, I'm not second guessing their decision. But why would North Korea want to target Mexican drug cartel leaders or their families? The simple answer is that they don't. So this dog don't hunt (I'm trying to speak Texan here).

(2) You can get some truly world class TexMex food in San Antonio's restaurants. Would a North Korean nuclear attack on San Antonio simply remove the American will to live by eliminating a source of culinary delight? I doubt it. Koreans don't usually appreciate the finer points of TexMex cooking.

(3) The San Antonio Spurs weren't particularly nice to Dennis Rodman, friend of North Korea. While that is true, is it a reason to obliterate San Antonio?

(4) San Antonio is home to Lackland Air Force Base, which houses the US Air Force Cyber Command. This makes more sense than items 1-3 above, or the need to punish former President George W. Bush or jealousy as Gov. Perry suggests.
The North Koreans have recently been complaining about cyberattacks against their networks. (Rodong Sinmun and KCNA both seem to have been offline for recent periods.) On March 15, KCNA carried a statement stating that “intensive and persistent virus attacks are being made every day on internet servers operated by the DPRK,” asserting the attacks are “timed to coincide with the madcap Key Resolve joint military exercises being staged by the U.S. and other hostile forces,” and warning that North Korea “will never remain a passive onlooker to the enemies’ cyber attacks…”
(5) The Bracken Bat Cave is located in San Antonio. It's possible that Kim Jung Un, a fan of US films as was his father, wants to "take out Batman" and he feels that a nuclear attack on San Antonio would solve his problem.





Insurance Policies for Firearms Owners


Let's review the Bill of Rights ONE MORE TIME: The RIGHT to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. (Second Amendment to the Constitution) It's a RIGHT, not a privilege, such as the licensed privilege granted by states to operate a motor vehicle. It's the same as the RIGHT against self-incrimnation or the RIGHT to privacy. (BILL OF RIGHTS)

$10k fine for gun owners who don’t have liability insurance:
In their usual method of operation, the Democratic Party is proposing to levy a fine of $10,000 against firearms owners who don't take out a liability policy. Since when is failure to insure a trump against the Bill of Rights?
(Michelle Malkin) A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. 
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.” 
Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.
How does this square with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It doesn't.  What are the odds that a crazed individual bent on killing as many people as possible will re-think his plan because he doesn’t want that “lack of liability insurance” fine? What about Major Nidal Hasan, US Army - remember the jihadi who slaughtered 14 of his brothers-in-arms at Ft. Hood? Would the lack of an insurance policy have stopped that freak? Name your mass murderer and then use those actions as your litmus test in evaluating the "progressive" move in Congress. 

Back to Michelle Malkin: 
It’s an idea that seems to be gathering a bit of steam. At Forbes.com, John Wasik lays out the logic behind treating firearm deaths as a market externality to be compensated via insurance, as we do with cars: “Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers… An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.” Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding write that mandatory liability insurance is a measure that could pass Supreme Court muster where other restrictions might fail: “[T]here’s a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a ‘compelling interest’ to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right.”
The Democratic "progressives" are proposing a systemic plan to deny inner city people a Constitutional right based on their lack of means. Really? And those are the same people who feel as if any sort of voter identification is a violation of their rights because it costs $10 for a state-issued ID card? Do these people ever listen to themselves?