Tag Archives: Michael Bloomberg

Despite Michael Bloomberg’s money, pro-gun sheriff wins in Wisconsin

Yesterday, I did a disheartening post about a research study that found ordinary Americans have a near-zero impact on public policy. Instead, government policy is controlled by the monied élite.

Frequent FOTM commenter Seumas proposed that our battle should begin “at the local level, and not try for too big a fish too soon, get the town/city and county governments free of corruption first, including the police departments,” with which I heartily agree. It is at the local level that we truly can effectuate changes.

Below is one encouraging example of voters defeating monied interests.

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.Sheriff David A. Clark Jr.

Cheryl K. Chumley reports for The Washington Times, Aug. 13, 2014, that pro-gun incumbent sheriff David Clarke in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, beat back the anti-gun money of former New York City Mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg to win his primary contest for re-election by a handy margin, 52% vs. 48%.

100% of precincts have reported, giving Sheriff Clarke a 4,700 vote lead. But his Bloomberg-backed opponent, Chris Moews, has yet to concede, deciding instead to wait for the count on the 6,000 absentee ballots.

Clarke is a Democrat and is now almost sure to win in November because no Republican is challenging him.

Sheriff Clarke made national headlines with a public service ad in 2013 in which he stated, in part: “I’m Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: Your safety. It’s no longer a spectator sport. I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. … Consider taking a certified safety course in handling of firearms, so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?”

The sheriff was also a featured speaker at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Indianapolis — during which he harshly criticized Bloomberg’s anti-gun efforts.

The race took on national tones just last week when Bloomberg — who helps head the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group and has taken up a personal crusade to scale back Second Amendment rights — threw in $150,000 to defeat Sheriff Clarke. That amount was more than what Sheriff Clarke and his opponent had spent on their entire campaigns.

Happily, Bloomberg’s efforts to sway voters down the anti-gun path failed. dancingbanana

~Eowyn

Pro-amnesty billionaires should open their mansions to illegals

billionaires for amnesty

A country is like a house, but with borders instead of doors.

Anyone who enters your home without your invitation or permission are trespassers. The same applies to a country.

But Barack Obama, with the active collusion of the governments of Mexico and Guatemala, has decided to throw open America’s southern border by refusing to enforce border security and immediately sending back or deporting trespassers.

In so doing, the POS is committing dereliction of duty as the head of the U.S. government, and of malfeasance — an act that is criminal or wrongful which causes injury of another person. In this case, “another person” actually numbers in the millions. They are the citizens, legal residents and legal immigrants of the United States, as well as people across the world who respect our laws, having applied to and are patiently awaiting immigration to the U.S.

President Lucifer has powerful and vocal allies not only in the MSM but also among the richest and most powerful — the 0.1 percenters. They include multi-billionaires Sheldon Adelson (casino mogul), Michael Bloomberg (finance-media mogul and former NY mayor who wants to change the U.S. Constitution to prevent future Boston Marathon bombings), Warren Buffet (investor and abortion funder), Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft and funder of a remote-controlled contraceptive-abortion microchip implant), Charles and David Koch (industrialists and businessmen), Rupert Murdoch (media mogul), George Soros (currency profiteer and manipulator), and Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook).

As Hunter Wallace observes in the blog, Occidental Dissent:

Whether Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, Jew or Gentile, the billionaires in this country – the “1 percent” who rule the American oligarchy – overwhelmingly support amnesty for illegal aliens. The GOP establishment, the Obama administration, the Left, the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center], and the “1 percent” are on the same side of this issue.

Are they on your side?

In the video below, Bill Whittle asks the pro-amnesty billionaires to match their deeds to their rhetoric by opening the doors of their mansions to house the illegals flooding across the US-Mexico border, because that effectively is what they are asking from you, me, and the non-élite American people who will have to cough up even more in taxes to pay for the costs of transporting, housing, feeding and schooling HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of illegals.

~Eowyn

Were Boston Marathon bombings a false flag? – What’s a false flag?

False flag! False flag!

That’s the cry on the Internet as soon as another traumatic incident of mass casualties occurs in the United States.

It is said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a false flag. Skeptics of the Sandy Hook school massacre suspect it was a false flag. The latest incident — that of the two bombings at the April 15th Boston Marathon — is no exception.

I was aware of the latest cries of “False flag!” but was very reluctant to explore their credibility because if proven to be true, I think my last remaining shred of trust in my government would be obliterated.

But the cries persist. Notwithstanding my reluctance, I am undertaking a series of posts to explore that subject — in as responsible and careful a manner as I am able and as the gravity of a “false flag” accusation demands. This is the first post in that series.

Of all my (too many) years of undergraduate and graduate schooling, hands down the most useful course I’d ever taken was one on epistemology and the philosophy of science, from which I learnt how to think clearly and intelligently.

Epistemology is simply a fancy word referring to that branch in Philosophy that studies the nature of human knowledge:

  • The four different types (or domains) of truth claims: Empirical; Analytical (Math & Logic); Metaphysical; and Normative.
  • The criteria we use to evaluate and determine the truth or falsity of any truth claim (which depends on whether the claim is empirical, analytical, metaphysical, or normative).

But before one can even begin to evaluate the truth or falsity of some proposition, we must first have a clear idea about what the proposition says.

In this case — on whether the Boston bombings were a false flag event — before we examine the evidence (or lack thereof), we must first define the term “false flag” and list the criterial attributes of what constitutes a false flag incident. The definition and criterial attributes, in turn, will serve as our standards against which to assess the evidence.

What’s a False Flag?

From Wikipedia:

The name “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre. […] False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.

As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic public event that is:

  • False: The public are given an untruthful version of the event by the government and the media. The falsity can range from no one actually had been killed or hurt (it was all theater); to some of the alleged victims are real; to all the alleged victims are real but the alleged perpetrator(s) is a fall guy who was set up by the “real” conspirators behind the scenes.
  • Results in a “rallying around the flag” effect: Whatever the true nature of the “false flag” event, the objective is to arouse and manipulate the emotions (fear, anger, outrage, indignation) of the American people so that they’ll “rally around the flag” in an outburst of patriotism, supplying the current White House occupant and his (and his party’s) policies with their support and loyalty.

As an example, it is said the Sandy Hook massacre was a contrived event engineered to effect gun control. Conjectures about the massacre range from the extreme of no one in the school was killed (although Adam and Nancy Lanza were), to the 20 students and 6 adults of the school said to be killed really are dead but Adam Lanza wasn’t the killer (which would explain why Social Security had a date-of-death of Dec. 13, 2012 for him — one day before the massacre).

This blog on ZeroHedge lists governments from around the world that’ve admitted they carry out false flag terror.

What are some of the suggested signature attributes of a False Flag event?

1. Government officials and their mouthpieces use the incident to advance their policy agenda. This most certainly was and is the case with the Sandy Hook massacre. In the case of the Boston bombings, New York mayor Bloomberg already is using the bombings as a pretext, declaring that “our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution have to change” because of the bombings. (See also “Boston Bombing: Getting the sheeple used to the police state).

2. The co-occurrence of a government drill at the same time as the traumatic event and in around the same place. The purpose of the concurrent drill is to provide special ops personnel (who are the real perpetrators of the false flag incident) and/or professional crisis actors with a cover story should they be seen or caught on film at the false flag event. (See “Remarkable resemblance of Sandy Hook victims and professional crisis actors)

Indeed, the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducts HSEEP drills/exercises across America, in partnership with local/state governments. HSEEP refers to Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program. In the case of Sandy Hook, on the day of the shooting massacre at Sandy Hill Elementary School (SHES), Dec. 14, 2012, HSEEP conducted a “training course” drill, ”FEMA L-366 Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters,” at 2800 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT, which is about 14 miles from SHES.

It is claimed that in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, there was also a drill both before and during the marathon, and that suspicious-looking private military operatives were seen (and photographed) at the bombings.

3. Lastly, if we have evidence of outright fakery, for example, victims who supposedly were killed or wounded, but aren’t, then the event being a false flag is a no-brainer. Alas, clear and incontrovertible evidence is hard to come by, which is why some find significance in the odd behaviors of Sandy Hook parents, quickly switching from laughing and joking to near-choking on tears, and the absence of tears or of other signs of weeping, such as a red nose; and in memorial, donation, and other Sandy Hook massacre websites having a creation date that predates the massacre.

These subjects, and more, will be explored in my posts to come. So put your thinking caps on and stay tuned!

Updates:

~Eowyn

Hitler Bloomberg: Boston Bombing means Constitution will have to change

Terrorism is extra-procedural violence to effectuate a political end that cannot be achieved via “normal” political methods.

Scholars on terrorism warn us that one of the objectives of terrorists is to incrementally push the target government to adopt increasingly draconian policies and methods — all in the name of national security and ensuring the people’s safety. In this manner, the government more and more becomes dictatorial. The hoped-for result is a populace increasingly unhappy and alienated from the government, and the government’s concomitant loss of legitimacy.

We are seeing that malignant process unfurling before our very eyes.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks led to the Bush administration’s Patriot Act and a never officially-declared state of emergency. Next, while declaring that the War on Terror was over, the Obama regime nevertheless not only continued but exacerbated the Patriot Act with the NDAA — the infamous National Defense Authorization Act that “authorizes” the president and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

Now, right on cue, New York mayor Michael “Hitler” Bloomberg — whose every bone and sinew seem bent on restricting the liberties of New Yorkers, from super-sized soft drinks to breastfeeding to gun control — says our “interpretation” of the United States Constitution “will have to change” after the 4/15 Boston Marathon terrorist bombings, to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

Hitler Bloomberg

Jill Colvin r
said during a press conference in Midtown:

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.

We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to.”

Bloomberg then pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons. “Clearly the  Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws.”

While urging that our “interpretation” of the Constitution “will have to change,” Bloomberg is insistent that Muslims must be protected. He pontificates: “What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms. You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

Bloomberg said nothing about a U.S. military training manual putting Christians as the No. 1 “extremist” threat to America.

Yeah, Bloomberg, you really care about religions and religious freedom — but only if the religion is Islam and religious freedom means Muslims’ construction of a mosque at Ground Zero.

~Eowyn

80% of New York City’s hi-school graduates lack basic skills

Nanny Bloomberg
.

Instead of banning super-sized soft drinks, New York’s mayor nanny Michael Bloomberg should give his attention to the dismal state of the city’s high schools.

CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reports, March 7, 2013, that a shocking nearly 80% of New York City high school graduates managed to graduate without having learned the basic skills of reading, writing, and Math.

As many as 11,000 “kids” who received a high school diploma will have to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system. That percentage is the highest in years.

Reason no. ∞ to home school!

No wonder Americans are getting increasingly stupid….

~Eowyn

Going After Our Guns

In the wake of the terrible massacre of 20 first-grade kiddies (and 6 adults) by an evil, likely-deranged lone gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the usual gun-control hyenas are braying.

This time, however, they may succeed in their gun control agenda, at least in getting assault weapons banned.

The Usual Hyenas:

Don Lemon

CNN anchor Don Lemon (pic above) went on an anti-gun rant on Monday morning: “We need to get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets. They should only be available to police officers and to hunt al-Qaeda and the Taliban and not hunt elementary school children.”

In a Twitter exchange on Saturday, MSNBC host Ed Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and proposed a “confiscation of these types of weapons”. He also told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg renewed his perennial call for punitive federal gun control laws in the United States by lying that shooting deaths “only happen in America.” Not true. There have been shootings in other post-industrial societies, including Oslo, Norway; Winnendon, Germany; Kauhajoki, Finland; Beslan, Russia; Monash University, Australia; Dunblane, Scotland. (For those shootings, go here.)

Chicago mayor and former Obama White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel is calling for a nation-wide ban on assault weapons. When he was Obama’s COS, Emanuel famously said that “No crisis should go to waste.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) has pledged to revive a law banning assault weapons at the opening of the next session of Congress in January.

Ominous Signs:

The powerful pro-2nd Amendment National Rifle Association (NRA) shut down their Facebook page and have not had any Twitter activity since the massacre on Friday morning. NRA officials have kept quiet. On Twitter, NRA president David Keene and NRA members have received death threats — calls for them to be shot. The irony of anti-gun people issuing death threats appears to be lost on everyone.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has been a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights with an A rating from the NRA — is signaling he’s changing his mind. On Monday outside the Virginia Capitol, Warner said: “I‘ve been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. I’ve got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn’t acceptable. I’ve got three daughters. They asked me on Friday evening, ‘Dad, what are you gonna do about this?’ There’s got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition.”

Obama’s Hypocrisy

Gun rights advocates believe Obama will now focus on making gun control a top issue; one said, “It’s in his DNA to push this issue. This would be his crowning achievement, if he can ban guns.”

What is noteworthy is that, despite Obama’s decrying of gun violence, since he has been president, prosecutions for breaking gun laws have diminished sharply — a drop of 40% since the zenith reached under George W. Bush, which was 11,000.

***

Meanwhile, the American people are responding with an upsurge of gun purchases, even more than the marked increases in gun buying since Obama first occupied the White House.

In Colorado, for example, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation received 4,154 requests for background checks from potential gun buyers on Saturday, the day after the Connecticut shooting. That was so many the CBI couldn’t process them all and the backlog grew to nearly 18 hours. Extra staff was brought in over the weekend and workers are still trying to clear the backlog.

~Eowyn

Nanny mayor forces moms to breastfeed

He’s pro-abortion, pro-amnesty for illegal aliens, and pro-gun control. He enacted an Agenda21-like plan called PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York “to fight global warming and protect the environment.” He’s extended a smoking ban to all commercial buildings. He’s banned trans fats.

Now the nosy mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, wants the city’s hospitals to lock up infant formula so as to force more mothers to breastfeed their newborn babies.

Mary Kay Linge reports for the New York Post, July 29, 2012, that starting Sept. 3, New York city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.

Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture. “If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”

Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications. With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”

Lisa Paladino, of Staten Island University Hospital, said: “The key to getting more moms to breast-feed is making the formula less accessible. This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication. The nurse’s aide can’t just go grab another bottle.”

Some of the hospitals already operate under the formula lockdown. “New York City is definitely ahead of the curve,” said Eileen DiFrisco, of NYU Langone Medical Center, where the breast-feeding rate has surged from 39 to 68% under the program.

Breast-feeding in the first weeks gives a baby a critical healthy start, many medical experts say. It helps the digestive system develop and protects the baby with the mother’s immunities. Nursing also helps the mother recover from childbirth.

But not everyone is convinced. “They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”

+++

That isn’t the point, is it?

It’s not about whether breast milk is better than infant formula. The crux of the issue is whether THE GOVERNMENT gets to play “Big Nanny Brother Knows Best” to force us to do what’s supposedly in our best interest.

Truly, the Left are pretentious know-it-all elites who have a high opinion of themselves and utter contempt for the people — we whom Katie Couric, in a moment of candor, calls the “great unwashed.”

H/t FOTM’s beloved moxielouise, who sent this news tip with a perfect quip: “I guess he wants to get babies used to the idea of being ‘on the teat’ for the future….”

~Eowyn