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.

USDA Committee wants farmers to insure themselves against GMO crop contamination

Members of the committee refused to assign responsibility to GMO producers for contamination of organic and conventional crops.

By CAREY GILLAM | REUTERS | NOVEMBER 21, 2012

Organic growers and food safety advocates on Tuesday condemned an advisory report to the Agriculture Department claiming its recommendations would be costly for farmers who want to protect their conventional crops from being contaminated by genetically modified (GMO), also known as genetically engineered (GE), varieties.

The groups were responding to a report submitted Monday afternoon to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a committee assigned by USDA with studying how best biotech agriculture could “co-exist” with organic and conventional agriculture.

“Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay to self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” said a statement by the National Organic Coalition.

“This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination while making the victims of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination,” it said.

Since their introduction in 1996, genetically engineered crops have become popular with U.S. farmers and now make up the majority of corn and soybeans produced in the United States. But there are a range of environmental and health concerns tied to biotech crops, and many farmers prefer not to grow them and many markets, both domestic and international, pay a premium for non-GMO crops and other products.

In its report, the advisory committee, known as the AC21, said all American farmers have the right to make the best choices for their own farms, including the choice to grow genetically engineered crops, or to grow organic or conventional crops.

“It is important that every American farmer is encouraged to show respect for their neighbor’s ability to make different choices,” the report said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said USDA would review the report and consider the recommendations. He said USDA supports “all segments of agriculture.”

“The report is the culmination of a great deal of hard work and complex discussion and review,” said Vilsack in a statement. “I understand that required compromises to find common ground.”

COMPENSATION ISSUE UNRESOLVED

USDA had asked the advisory committee to analyze what types of compensation mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers due to contamination by GE crops. And while there was some dissent, a majority of AC21 members did not agree on any type of compensation mechanism.

The committee said its members could not agree about the extent to which a systemic problem exists and whether there is enough data to warrant a compensation mechanism to address it. While the committee acknowledged there are unintended GE materials found in commercial products, they differed in their assessment of the significance of the unintended presence.

The committee recommended that the USDA evaluate data to better understand actual economic losses by farmers tied to GE contamination. If a compensation program is needed, the committee said it should be modeled on existing crop insurance. Co-existence agreements between neighboring farmers should be developed, the committee said.

“This issue will only increase as new biotech products come to market so it is essential that the federal government step up now and establish strong policies that ensure coexistence measures are carried out by farmers, seed companies, and others who move food from the farm to the consumer’s table,” said Greg Jaffe, a committee member and director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based non-profit.

Jaffe said he supported the report’s recommendations.

The committee was comprised of 23 individuals from 16 states and the District of Columbia, representing academia, the American Farm Bureau, corn, wheat and soybean industry organizations, the organic industry, grain companies and others.

The committee also recommended that USDA should set up and fund a comprehensive education and outreach initiative to “strengthen understanding of coexistence between diverse agricultural production systems.”

And the committee said the USDA should fund and research improved techniques for mitigating contamination and gather data from seed companies on contamination. It also recommended that USDA evaluate on an ongoing basis the pool of commercially available non-GMO seed and ensure that the seed supply remains diverse.

In criticizing the report, the organic growers said the committee “failed to make a single recommendation holding the patent holders of genetic engineering technologies responsible and liable for damages” caused by biotech seed use.

“We urgently need meaningful regulatory change that institutionalizes mandatory GE contamination prevention practices,” the National Organic Coalition said. “USDA needs to stop dragging its heels, get serious and focus on making this happen.”

9/11: La demolición controlada de Estados Unidos

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 16 SEPTIEMBRE 2012

Mientras recordaba aquellos que perdieron la vida el 9/11, sus familias y todos los que sufrieron directamente los terribles sucesos de ese día, me di cuenta de que los ataques iban mucho más allá de demoler tres edificios. Se demolió a todo un país.

Se necesita tiempo para encontrar la verdad que un mundo gobernado por la mentira. Se necesita tiempo para sanar las heridas cuando la verdad es ocultada del público y la gente tiene miedo de lo que la verdad podría revelar, por el que optan por evitarla o descartarla.

La peor tragedia del 9/11 es que más de una década después de los ataques terroristas que mataron a miles de personas en Nueva York, Washington, Afganistán, Irak y otros lugares en todo el mundo, hay quienes se niegan a aceptar la realidad como es.

Encontrar y entender la verdad es más fácil si los hechos se explican por medio de algo tangible, real y contable.

Cuando la mentira — el gobierno — es rampante, la ciencia es una de las mejores herramientas para combatirla. La ciencia es el peor enemigo de los que tratan de ocultar la verdad o engañar a la gente.

Dejemos entonces que la ciencia y el duro trabajo de miles de personas que dedican su vida a descubrir las mentiras y engaños del gobierno ayuden a los que todavía no pueden ver. Eso es lo que el documental 9/11: The Experts Speak Out hace. Vea el testimonio de expertos en física, arquitectura, explosivos y otros aspectos relacionados con la demolición de los edificios del World Trade Center en 2001.

Difunda esta información a todos aquellos que todavía no creen que los gobiernos son capaces de cualquier cosa para controlar a la población.

9/11: A demolição controlada da América

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 16 SETEMBRO 2012

Enquanto lembrava aqueles que perderam suas vidas em 9/11, as suas famílias e todos os que diretamente sofreram com os terríveis acontecimentos daquele dia, percebi que os ataques foram muito além de demolir três edifícios. Eles demoliram um país inteiro.

É preciso tempo para encontrar a verdade quando o mundo é governado por mentiras. É preciso tempo para curar feridas quando a verdade é escondida do público e as pessoas estão com muito medo do que essa verdade pode revelar, pelo qual eles escolhem evitá-la ou descontá-la.

A pior tragédia de 9/11 é de que mais de uma década após os ataques terroristas que mataram milhares de pessoas em Nova York, Washington, Afeganistão, Iraque e em outros lugares ao redor do mundo, existem aqueles que se recusam a aceitar a realidade como ela é.

Encontrar e compreender a verdade é mais fácil se os fatos são explicados através de meios tangíveis, reais e contáveis.

Quando o engano — do governo  — é galopante, a Ciência é um dos melhores instrumentos para combatê-lo. A ciência é o pior inimigo dos que procuram esconder a verdade ou enganar as pessoas.

Deixemos então que a ciência e o trabalho árduo de milhares de pessoas que dedicam suas vidas a descobrir mentiras e enganos do governo ajudem a aqueles que ainda não podem ver. Isso é o que o documentário 9/11 Truth: Experts Speak Out faz. Assista o depoimento de expertos em física, arquitetura, explosivos e outros aspectos relacionados com a demolição dos edifícios do World Trade Center em 2001 e apoie os seus produtores. Mas ainda mais importante, espalhe esta informação a todos os que ainda não acreditam que os governos são capazes de qualquer coisa para controlar a população.

9/11: The Controlled Demolition of America

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 11, 2012

While remembering those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families and anyone who directly suffered from the terrible events of that day, I realized that the attacks went far beyond demolishing 3 buildings. They demolished a whole country.

It takes time to find the truth when the world is governed by lies. It takes time to heal when the truth is hidden from the public and people are too afraid of what truth may reveal, so they choose to avoid it or discount it.

The worst tragedy of 9/11 is that more than a decade after the terror attacks that killed thousands of people in New York, Washington, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places around the world, there are those who still refuse to accept reality for what it is.

Finding and understanding truth is easier if the facts are explained through tangible, real and countable means.

When deception — from government or anywhere else — is rampant, Science is one of the best instruments to combat it. Science is the worst enemy of those who seek to hide the truth or to deceive the people.

May science and the hard work of thousands of people who dedicate their lives to uncover government lies and deception help those who still can’t see.

Support the dedicated work of Architect, Richard Gage, AIA, and 1,600 Architects and Engineers. — Show the DVD to your friends and family so they know the pretext for 2 wars is based on a LIE!