Obama to shield himself with children as he wages war on Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 15, 2013

U.S. President Barack Obama will present on Wednesday his list of proposals that will supposedly end gun violence in the United States.

During the announcement Barack Obama will be joined by Vice-president Joe Biden, the man he chose to hold talks with different social groups, before he handed Obama his review of the gun control issue. The U.S. President will shamelessly have by his side a group of children when he announces specific gun control measures which he believes will help end violence in schools, among other places.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney informed the media that Obama will continue to use children as instruments of policy, standing on the bodies of those murdered in the last shootings that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, Colorado and Oregon.

“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” said Carney.

“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” Obama said Monday. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action.

Among Joe Biden’s recommendations are to establishment of universal background checks, psychological test on all current and new gun owners, a prohibition on the same of high-capacity magazines and a ban on semi automatic weapons. Today, it has been revealed that Obama will also propose to do away with large purchases of bullets, although the Federal Government itself has bought over 1.2 billion bullets since 2012.

The U.S. puppet presidency ironically believes that by taking firearms off the hands of those who lawfully own them will help end violence in schools and other public places, while criminals continue to have full access to powerful firearms.

Politicians allied with the Obama administration as well as anti-Second Amendment groups call the proposals a “comprehensive approach”, but have not detailed much else beyond the leaked details about Biden’s recommendations and Obama’s public statements about how he will use his Executive Powers to limit the possession of firearms in the United States.

Neither Obama nor the U.S. Congress can legally impose bans on the Second Amendment or any other existing law. However, Obama has said repeatedly that in situations where Congress does not act, he will do so unilaterally. “The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a — in a shockingly rapid fashion?” Obama said Monday. “And surely we can do something about that.”

What Obama means with this statement is that a massive ban on the Second Amendment, which would punish lawful gun owners and the rest of the disarmed population, somehow is the solution to restrain criminals, who do not abide by any law.

Several Sheriffs  and Congressmen in the United States have warned Obama that an open attack on the Second Amendment will result in the initiation of impeachment proceedings and the nullification of unconstitutional Executive orders issued by Obama or any other branch of the Federal Government.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

When Firearms are Confiscated, Innocents are Betrayed

JPFO | DECEMBER 27, 2012

In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term “democratic” countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

The mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where “gun control” ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

Three Elements For Human Suffering Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that “bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education.” Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the “poverty, disease, and ignorance” explanation
for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people
and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win.

Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful. On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider “gun control” ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. “Gun control” laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?” The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.
Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations. All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:
When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.
The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Can All Evil Be Prevented?

Is an armed population absolutely safe from all invasion and persecution? No. But we have to consider the incentives of the aggressors. The better question is: will an invader or persecutor be more likely or less likely to attack an armed civilian population? Or, given a choice, would an invader or persecutor more often choose to afflict an armed population or an unarmed population?

It is possible to imagine scenarios where an armed population cannot do anything to protect itself against nuclear attack, for example. Such scenarios suggest only that no defense strategy is perfect, and that Evil can find a way to hurt and kill people. Overall, however, an armed population stands a much better chance of freedom from attack, persecution and slaughter than does an unarmed population.

History shows that Evil forces look for populations to enslave and annihilate. Evil selects those populations where it can operate with the least cost to itself. It is thus both a moral and practical imperative for populations to possess and learn to effectively use firearms for defense of self, family, community, and nation.

We hope this answers your question about the need and effectiveness of widespread private ownership of firearms.

Watch the film Innocents Betrayed below:

Resources

(1) Innocents Betrayed – the video documentary – makes a strong case because it presents the pictures and the flesh and blood reality of how the powerful can so easily destroy the powerless. It shows also how “gun control” laws are instrumental in paving the way for destruction.

(2) Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament is our book upon which Innocents Betrayed is based. The book does not talk about the Second Amendment – it talks about the problem of disarmed citizens vs. powerful forces, and it develops further how the rhetoric of “gun control” leads to a deadly physical and moral paralysis.

(3) Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel, takes a different tack from our book. While our book focuses on the civilian disarmament issues, Prof. Rummel looks at the political systems that create the situations that make genocides and mass persecutions possible … even inevitable.

Fake progressives and liberals wage open war on second amendment in the United States

Others call for murdering gun owners and taking all guns from the hands of the people.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 17, 2012

Coinciding with the visit of Barack Obama to Newtown to join the vigil for the 27 victims of the massacre of Sandy Hook, several Democratic Party leaders on Sunday announced an immediate legislative initiative to ban some guns and impose greater controls the sales of others, a proposal that will surely be met with strong resistance at the Capitol, despite the outrage caused by the bloody episode of the Connecticut school.

Although Saturday in his usual radio message, Obama insisted one the needed for “significant action” to prevent an incident like the one that happened last week in Connecticut, no concrete measures announcement was made in Newtown, where his presence was primarily intended to show support for the relatives of those whose children were killed at the Sandy Hook School. A total of 20 children and 6 adults, all of them teachers who died while trying to protect the students.

Senior members of the Democratic party, have now called for significant bans on gun possession, with which they intend to debilitate even more the constitutional rights of the American people, while criminals continue to have full access to all kinds of armaments. Some of the first steps to limit and then ban gun ownership are the imposition of legal limitations on arms sales as well as ammunition sales, a larger and more detailed registration process for gun owners and a ban on people who the government determines to be a danger to society, for example, people who the government has included on no-fly and presidential kill-lists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who in 1994 introduced the law to ban assault rifles, said yesterday that on the first day of the next Congress a proposal in the Senate will attempt to prohibit the legal possession of semi automatic weapons as well as those that might be modified to be turned into automatic ones. Meanwhile, the dying US corporate media is also waging an open war on gun owners, calling for the complete disarmament of all people in order to avoid more shootings.

A semi-automatic assault rifle was precisely the weapon used by Adam Lanza, the man who shot 26 people in Sandy Hook, all with several shots to the body. The corporate media is blaming guns, not the people who use them, for the mass shootings that have happened in the United States in the last few months in an attempt to echo the government’s call for banning gun ownership.

Suddenly, the same corporate media forgot that it is precisely the U.S. government the one who shipped thousands of weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, which caused the death of thousands of people over the last 5 or 6 years. No one in the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal has been held accountable for those deaths, but both the media and the government acted quickly to call for gun bans after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Feinstein’s proposal has been supported by another influential Democratic Senator. New York’s Charles Schumer said that “Maybe this dreadful tragedy helps us to unite to prevent the recurrence of such an atrocity”. Another New Yorker who has expressed his desire to ban gun ownership is New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who had been waiting for this kind of tragic events to reinforce his policy of disarmament.

A Democratic congressman from the state where the killing occurred, John Larson, along with a group of colleagues in the House of Representatives, are promoting a ban on assault rifles accompanied by other measures, such as requiring background checks on each buyer of weapons anywhere in the country.

On other fronts, the group of mayors against guns, captained by Michael Bloomberg, has mobilized to press Congress and the White House to crack down on gun owners. Bloomberg asked the president to submit a proposal to the Capitol Hill which congressmen can vote on. The mayor of Philadelphia, one of the hardest hit by gun violence, urged immediate action. “We do not need more speeches, we need action,” he said.

But the optimism reigning in the heads of the fake progressives may have just come too soon. With at least 5 percent of Americans fully armed, the disarmament process may be all but easy. A massive campaign to confiscate weapons from the hands of the people, will certainly cause another civil war, because most gun owners will not be subdued without a fight. After the shooting of 2011 in Tucson (Arizona) that seriously injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Department of Justice prepared a series of measures to control firearms, but those proposals were put in the drawer given the massive opposition from conservative congressmen and the American public.

But now that Obama may does not need to be accountable to anyone — because he doesn’t have the possibility to seek reelection — he has been more outspoken about going further on gun control. But still, the obstacles he had a year ago still exist today or have grown. One day before the killing of Newtown, the state of Michigan passed a law allowing guns in schools. Similar actions to strengthen gun ownership have happened all over the country.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which promotes most of these measures to extend the use of weapons, hasn’t officially issued a statement about the shooting or whether it will support gun bans or gun ownership limitations. Meanwhile, sales of firearms have skyrocketed since Barack Obama was elected back in 2008, and even more after he was reelected last November.  Firearm fairs have been booming with hundreds of people buying guns and ammunition. With every shooting and with every proposal to ban gun ownerships more and more Americans pile up on firearms and ammo to ensure they will be able to defend themselves from average criminals and from the entity that seems to want to keep its monopoly of force intact: their own government.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Debt Deal Surprise # 1: Unconstitutional “Super Congress”

Unconstitutional body created by debt deal to get “even greater super powers”

Infowars.com
August 1, 2011

The so-called “Super Congress” that is about to be created with the debt ceiling vote will have powers far beyond just controlling the nation’s purse strings – its authority will extend to target the second amendment – eviscerating normal protections that prevent unconstitutional legislation from being fast-tracked into law.

As the Huffington Post reported last month, the debt deal that has already been passed by the House and faces the Senate tomorrow will create an unconstitutional “Super Congress” that will be comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats and granted “extraordinary new powers” to quickly force legislation through both chambers.

Legislation decided on by the Super Congress would be immune from amendment and lawmakers would only be able to register an up or down vote, eliminating the ability to filibuster. The Speaker of the House would effectively lose the power to prevent unpopular bills from making it to the House floor.

But far from just being a committee that would make recommendations concerning the debt ceiling, the body is now to be granted “even greater super powers, according to multiple news reports and congressional aides with knowledge of the plan,” writes Michael McAuliff.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled no punches in making it plain that the Super Congress would have supreme authority. “The joint committee — there are no constraints,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”

That includes introducing laws to restrict the second amendment, states a Gun Owners of America bulletin, warning that the body would be “a super highway for gun control legislation”.

“Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty — all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours,” states the GOA release.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed Reid’s sentiment, asserting that the Super Congress was “not a commission, this is a powerful, joint committee.”

The Obama administration has already indicated that it will take the deciding vote as the de facto 13th member of the Super Congress. During his press briefing today, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the government would work with the Super Congress to hike taxes in 2012 and beyond.

Barack Obama has already exercised his fetish for executive autonomy by launching the attack on Libya without Congressional approval, bypassing Congress and having the EPA declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, as well as the appointment of ten state governors directly selected by him who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

The administration’s zeal to target the second amendment “under the radar,” as Obama promised earlier this year, has also manifested itself in the form of ATF harassment of gun owners who purchase two or more firearms, despite the fact that the law to mandate such a policy failed to pass.

The establishment of a “Super Congress” will completely demolish the credibility and the authority of the system of elected representatives. It represents another final nail in the coffin of the American Republic and its replacement with an executive dictatorship run by the political elite.

21st Century Culture: Free Enterprise vs Government Control

Arthur C. Brooks

This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new

Free Enterprise needs to exist for the gears to move.

struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.

It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration’s money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation.

I call this a culture war because free enterprise has been integral to American culture from the beginning, and it still lies at the core of our history and character. “A wise and frugal government,” Thomas Jefferson declared in his first inaugural address in 1801, “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” He later warned: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” In other words, beware government’s economic control, and woe betide the redistributors.

Now, as then, entrepreneurship can flourish only in a culture where individuals are willing to innovate and exert leadership; where people enjoy the rewards and face the consequences of their decisions; and where we can gamble the security of the status quo for a chance of future success.

Yet, in his commencement address at Arizona State University on May 13, 2009, President Obama warned against precisely such impulses: “You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that Top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long — that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf — that’s how you will measure success.” Such ambition, he cautioned, “may lead you to compromise your values and your principles.”

I appreciate the sentiment that money does not buy happiness. But for the president of the United States to actively warn young adults away from economic ambition is remarkable. And he makes clear that he seeks to change our culture.

The irony is that, by wide margins, Americans support free enterprise. A Gallup poll in January found that 86 percent of Americans have a positive image of “free enterprise,” with only 10 percent viewing it negatively. Similarly, in March 2009, the Pew Research Center asked individuals from a broad range of demographic groups: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free-market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don’t you think so?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agreed that they are better off in a free-market economy, while only 20 percent disagreed.

In fact, no matter how the issue is posed, not more than 30 percent of Americans say they believe we would fare better without free markets at the core of our system. When it comes to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70-30 nation.

So here’s a puzzle: If we love free enterprise so much, why are the 30 percent who want to change that culture in charge?

It’s not simply because of the election of Obama. As much as Republicans may dislike hearing it, statism had effectively taken hold in Washington long before that.

The George W. Bush administration began the huge Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, and for years before the economic crisis, the GOP talked about free enterprise while simultaneously expanding the government with borrowed money and increasing the percentage of citizens with no income tax liability. The 30 percent coalition did not start governing this country with the advent of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It has been in charge for years.