Michael Bloomberg the tyrant says… Court decisions don’t matter

The New York City Mayor says it is normal for government to infringe on individual freedoms because government knows best.

By CHERYL CHUMLEY | WASHINGTON TIMES | MARCH 25, 2013

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Sunday: Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

“We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this,” he said, on NBC. “Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns.

The Hypocrite in Chief: Obama opposes armed security in schools while his daughters enjoy a security details

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 16, 2013

New questions about Obama’s legitimate intentions when attacking the Second Amendment were raised Wednesday.

In a new video, the National Rifle Association (NRA) points out Obama’s hypocrisy as the man who bears the torch against the right of citizens to lawfully own firearms as established by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, while he approves of armed men guarding her daughters as they attend school.

The assumption that Obama’s daughters are entitled to having secret service or private security for their safety is not questioned, but the NRA puts in doubt Obama’s double standard when he does not propose regular folks around the country enjoy the same kind of security.

Some states in the Union have adopted initiatives to allow teachers and other workers to carry handguns in order to protect children, while most of the country’s schools remain gun-free zones. The ad put out by the NRA questions the audacity of Obama’s speech, which is loaded with anti-Second Amendment rhetoric, while his family is unquestionably protected 24 hours a day by tax payer funded security.

The question being asked by the NRA is why doesn’t Obama extend the same courtesy to the average American by removing all restrictions on the purchase of firearms when law abiding men and women seek to protect themselves and their families?

Perhaps the answer is that the latest wave of attacks against the Second Amendment, which has been orchestrated by politicians and the main stream media, has nothing to do with protecting children, but with disarming the population.

The NRA calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” a label that could be stamped on anyone else who opposes a legitimate right of the American people. Any law abiding citizen who desires to himself or his family is entitled to buying firearms or any other weapon that can be used to do so.

Just as Obama and his family do it, Piers Morgan, Michael Bloomberg, John Stewart and other media personalities take advantage of having a security detail, usually composed by growth hormone-filled meat head goons, who accompany them at all times, but these hypocrites are the same people who are now trying to erode the Second Amendment they undoubtedly enjoy.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” asks the ad. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.” The compelling ad questions Obama’s opposition to schools having armed guards to prevent shootings of the type that occurred in Newton, Connecticut.

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” said Obama in a recent interview. Right there is the hypocrisy.

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.

New York State starts up attack on Second Amendment by approving new gun control legislation

The State’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, and New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, championed a movement to further deteriorate gun ownership ahead of Obama’s speech today

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 16, 2013

New York voted Tuesday afternoon in his House of Representatives (104 in favor, 43 against) for new legislation that imposes the toughest gun control measures in the United States. The laws, which directly violate the Second Amendment, prohibit the sale of ammunition cartridges containing more than seven bullets, expand background checks for gun buyers and outlaw the sale of assault weapons. The State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the legislation immediately after the State Congress approved the new law while everyone else was asleep.

New York’s Senate had passed the law Monday night with a vote of 43 in favor and 18 against, which made it a standard bipartisan initiative, that originated in the wake of Connecticut’s shooting. Last month, a deranged, doped teenager, supposedly acting alone, shot 26 people at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, which prompted a vicious campaign by gun grabbing groups. Yesterday marked one month since the shooting in Newtown where Adam Lanza shot six adults and 20 children.

After presenting his proposal during the speech of the State of the Nation, Governor Cuomo said that gun violence is “a scourge to society.” “There comes a time when we must say ‘no more loss of innocent lives'” he announced. Several schools around the United States have agreed to arm members of their staff in order children and teachers, who up until now worked in what are called gun-free zones.

“The Senate has made a bold statement to agree on a bipartisan bill and work together to face the challenges that await our nation after seeing too many senseless acts of violence carried out with weapons,” Cuomo said after the Senate vote. But it is exactly gun-free zones, and states like New York, where unarmed citizens are victims of the most violent crimes committed by criminals who do not abide by gun control laws.

The Senate Republican leader, Dean Skelos, said “the initiative is well-balanced, protects the Second Amendment [which guarantees the right to civilian gun ownership ” because no confiscation of weapons was included in the bill, which was a point they had mentioned on occasion.” Mr. Skelos forgets that in truth, according to the U.S. Constitution, government cannot pass laws that infringe the Second Amendment, which established a citizen’s right to acquire firearms without legal restriction. Despite already having a strong gun control laws, New York is the first of the lower 48 states to approve even more restrictions on gun ownership, limiting citizen’s purchases to mere hand guns.

Gun control has been at the center of the American political scene since the killing of Connecticut. The assault rifle with which Adam Lanza perpetrated his assault is a version of a military rifle that can hold up to 30 bullets, which has now been prohibited in New York. According to school sources, no one could have entered the school with an assault rifle without it being detected, which has many people thinking that Lanza did not act alone and that someone either handed him the gun once he got inside the school. The shooter also carried hand guns during his attack on the Sandy Hook School which along he allegedly took from his mothers gun cabinet. Those firearms had all been legally acquired.

It is not a surprise that according to two recent polls, most Americans – 52% – support tougher measures to counter violence causing firearms, including a ban on assault weapons and the presence of armed guards on each school. That 52% said that what happened in Connecticut made them take that position. By their own admission, most Americans have become domesticated jelly fish who are unable to admit responsibility for their acts and who prefer servitude instead of liberty.

A Pew Center poll concluded that 85% of citizens are in favor of private transactions in arms and those occurring in gun fairs do a thorough background check of the buyers. The same poll finds that 80% of the population is in favor of laws that prevent people with mental illness to purchase a gun.

While new anti-Second Amendment bills are approved and prepared all over the United States, law enforcement has not publicly determined if Adam Lanza acted alone, or if he was helped during his shooting spree. What is clear is that due to one mentally ill person’s actions, the rest of law abiding citizens, who do not use their firearms to go out and kill anyone, will have to surrender another portion of their Second Amendment right.

As we reported yesterday, President Barack Obama, will shield himself with children during his anti-Second Amendment speech, where he and his Vice President, Joe Biden will present a list of proposals that will allegedly address the ‘gun problem’. The President will appear with a list of 19 measures that could be implemented by executive order, that is, without congressional approval.

The new measures would enact stricter penalties against people who lie about their background in selling weapons, eliminate limits on federal research on the use of weapons, order stricter penalties against people who conduct arms trafficking and give schools flexibility to use their resources to improve safety. Ironically, the very same Obama administration allowed the circulation of heavy caliber rifles — including the same ones it intends to ban — to drug cartels in Mexico. Those firearms ended up killing innocent Mexicans and even American border patrol agents. The question is how will the new legislation — if passed — will address the U.S. government involvement in arms trafficking?

The White House confirmed today that the president will make every effort to pass a law banning assault weapons, high-capacity chargers and end technicalities that allow bypass background checks on prospective gun owners.

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.

Ladies and Gentleman: The Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 24, 2012

Before any serious discussion about the Second Amendment can begin, it is necessary to make sure those discussing its validity, definition and application really understand why it was written and how it applies to modern society.

Today, most politicians do not understand the Second Amendment or refuse to award it its real meaning. They refuse to recognized what the Founding Fathers intended to achieve and instead attach all kinds of connotations originated from their twisted and purposely wrong understanding of the this sacred right.

Two grave mistakes are commonly made when defining, validating and applying the Second Amendment. First, people attempt to interpret what it means, as opposed to simply reading and abiding by it. Second, it is defined, validated and applied according to ‘modern’ precepts issued by government.

Perhaps the best attempt to understand what the Second Amendment means in its raw form was recently presented by journalist Ben Swann, who limited himself to reading the text and, upon consulting constitutional experts and proper dictionary definitions, made a very good case for the correct understanding of what the Second Amendment really means.

The definition held by those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms and what it intends to guard against — the very same definition now being diluted by government enforcing illegal laws and the media pushing for gun control — is simpler than what many pundits and talking heads want to make it look.

The Second Amendment was not created to be conditioned to the kind of weapons that people may have available to buy or whatever the federal government thinks are ideal social situations for people to own a gun. It is also not limited by the mental health of a society or the vote of a group of people who are so afraid of armed lunatics, that they prefer to be killed rather than protect themselves and their families.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

After being victims of foreign aggressors, the Founding Fathers and the United States as a whole understood very well that an armed population, not only a standing army, was the best instrument to keep the country safe from both domestic and foreign attacks. That is why the responsibility to defend oneself was put in the hands of The People.

A number of countries whose armies were swept by oppressors and whose populations fell into the hands of local and foreign conquerors are historically significant. Meanwhile, quite the opposite happened with those nations whose people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. The statistics clearly show a direct link between free, armed populations and lower crime rates. On the contrary, subdued, unarmed people are most often subjected to violence from criminals in and out of government.

Governments alone are responsible for the murder of at least 250,000,000 people in the twentieth century and most of the people who were murdered were either lightly armed in comparison to their aggressors or completely disarmed. If the security of a free State — and such state is indeed composed by its citizens because that State is an independent Nation, depends upon its people — it is then the responsibility and the right of those people to keep and bear arms against all threats.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or the ownership of a specific caliber firearm, but about the ability of the people to be armed as needed to defend themselves from standing armies; both foreign and domestic. It is as simple as that. The people have the right, under applicable laws, to own and use firearms of undetermined calibers, sizes or firepower, to defend themselves, their families and their country.

There can’t be a better time to put that right to work than today, when average criminals, mentally ill people and the government itself pose the greatest danger to the security of the people than ever before in history. For those who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, it is clear that the full conquest of the United States will not occur unless its people are completely disarmed.

The globalists who control the American government have financially and politically disarmed the country, but they haven’t been able to break the will of the people to defend themselves. Americans are beginning to understand that their government cannot protect them and will not protect them, because government  doesn’t work for them.

Politicians who move to Washington, D.C., work for foreign interests whose goal is to destroy the United States the same way they’ve destroyed countries in Latin America, Africa and Europe. That is why, when studied from a legal standpoint — the only point of view it should be studied from — the Second Amendment explicitly enables Americans to defend their country as well as to defend themselves from their country if necessary.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of the individuals to be equally armed as their country’s military, both to aid the military to defend the country from foreign threats, as well as to defend themselves from the Nation’s military forces, should they turn against The People. The Founding Fathers intended to provide the citizens the ability to be armed well enough to keep their country and themselves free from oppressive forces which could arise internally and externally.

The idea that a semi automatic firearm should not be in the hands of average folks could not be more opposed to the right provided by the Second Amendment, since governments’ firepower has increased exponentially. What kind of self-defense action could an individual sustain with a .22 caliber gun if its government has sound canyons, armed drones and laser beam weapons? In fact, a semi-automatic or even an automatic weapon would be useless.

The next step on the road to serfdom after a population is disarmed is anything and everything that those in places of power believe is enough to keep themselves in power. “You can do all kinds of things when the population is disarmed. You can round them up, you can put them in ghettos, you can execute them, you can do all kinds of things,” says attorney Don Moore.

There is nothing controversial about the Second Amendment and what it means. Controversy arises from those whose power slips away when The People reclaim the rights given to them by their creator, which directly challenge the abusive behavior of corrupted individuals who use government to enslave his fellow citizens.

An honest debate about the Second Amendment will only be effective when those who participate in such a debate do so with full understanding of what they are talking about. The Second Amendment is intended to prevent the control, domination and oppression of the people by the government. Any discussion that starts without recognizing this fact will not only be futile, but also dangerous given the ignorance of the people who are charged with defending its very existence.

No matter what Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, or Pierce Morgan say, firearms don’t kill people. Crazy individuals using firearms murder people just as mad individuals use the power vested upon them by their fellow citizens to murder thousands of innocent civilians in a supposed attempt to ‘bring peace’ to their countries.

As foreign as it may seem for Americans or any other population whose governments want them to hand in their guns, the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens are the predecessors of Genocide.

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.

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.