Home

Minnesota’s Benedict Arnold(s)

Leave a comment

The attacks keep coming.

Not just from Senator Ron Latz. No, not even from Dave Pinto or Linda Slocum, the author of HF 3022, the gun-control MEGA Bill!

Gun owners are being attacked by “pro-gun” Republicans, hell bent to make a deal in the misguided hope that it saves their political hides in the upcoming elections!

Gun owners well remember Lyin’ Scott Jensen (R-Chaska) who promised to OPPOSE any and all gun control when he was running for office in 2016 but then quickly sided with Michael Bloomberg and Ron Latz by sponsoring Universal Gun Registration this year.

Now, Representatives Anderson (HD44A) and Loon (HD48B) have joined the large list of “Benedict Arnolds” in St Paul by stabbing gun owners in the back and sponsoring last-minute gun control hoping that Bloomberg’s anti-gun organizations will sing their praises at election time.HF4473, if enacted, would “encourage” gun owners to go through a government “background check” whenever they give a firearm to a family member or sell one to a friend.

In other words, through fear mongering tactics gun owners would be browbeaten into making sure the government can track, trace and register more and more firearms in the state of Minnesota.

This is nothing more than a watered down version of Michael Bloomberg’s Universal Gun Registration designed to be more palatable as they shove it down the throats of Minnesota gun owners to curry political favor with liberal media like the Star Tribune.

But they aren’t the only ones. More

Advertisements

Harry Reid Tries To Ease Passage Of Anti-Gun “Health” Bill Through Procedural Fraud Scheme

1 Comment

free-men-own-gunsGun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org

Friday, October 16, 2009

We have been keeping you posted on the anti-gun “health” bill which would dump all of your most private health-related gun information into a federal database — and would allow the Obama administration to suspend your government-mandated insurance if you keep a loaded firearm for self-defense.

But this legislation ran into a buzz saw because it would cut health entitlements — primarily Medicare — by $404 billion.  In particular, under the health bill crafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Medicare payments to doctors would drop 25% after the first year — bringing the Medicare program to a screeching halt. 

Now, Senate Democrat Leader Reid has crafted a procedural trick:  He’ll restore over $200 billion of the $404 billion in cuts in separate legislation — S. 1776.

Because it is a separate bill, he will continue to claim that health reform “doesn’t increase the federal deficit by a single penny,” even though it increases the deficit by 20 trillion pennies when you consider this second bill. 

Suffice it to say that this tactic is corrupt, even by Harry Reid standards. 

This fraud bill is being filibustered by Senate Republicans.  And the Senate will vote on whether to cut off debate on Monday, shortly after 5:00 EDT. More

Internment/Resettlement Specialist: The National Guard

3 Comments

So we were all conspircay theorists, right?  There were no camps…..no intent to round up and incarcerate Americans.  Well……here it is.  Here is the National Guard advertising on Monster.com for “internment/resettlement” specialists.  Wonder who it is they are planning on interring and resetteling?  Marti Oakley  https://ppjg.wordpress.com

 

http://jobview.monster.com/getjob.aspx?JobID=82289266&q=Corrections+Officer&AVSDM=2009-07-16+09%3A18%3A00&pg=1&seq=2&fseo=1&isjs=1&re=1000

 

Job Title: Corrections Officer – Internment/Resettlement Specialist 

  • Company:  Army National Guard
  • Location:  Multiple locations
  • Job Status:  Part Time
    Employee
  • Job Category:  Security/Protective Services
  • Career Level:  Student (High School)
  • Experience:  Less than 1 Year
  • Occupations:  Correctional Officer
    Military Combat
    General/Other: Security/Protective Services

 

Job Description: More

Refusing vaccination labels you a “criminal”, so says WHO

18 Comments

 PPJG Original Post                                                       Tell a Friend                      

(C) 2009 Marti Oakley

dusplashThe World Health Organization determined in 2005  it has the authority to dissolve sovereign governments and take control should there be a “pandemic”.  This applies to any country signed onto WHO….which of course we are.  The WHO just raised this non-existent pandemic to level 6. 

From the WHO 2005 declaration: (excerpted)

“ Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world including the USA, in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency and replaced by special crisis committees, which take charge of the health and security infrastructure of a country, and which are answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.

If the Model Emergency Health Powers Act is implemented on the instructions of WHI, it will be a criminal offence for Americans to refuse the vaccine. Police are allowed to use deadly force against “criminal” suspects.  Here are ten key points associated with MSEHPA: More

Another anti-gun bill from the anti-gun extremists HR 2159

Leave a comment

free-men-own-gunsHR 2159


Another anti-gun bill from the anti-gun extremists


by David S
(libertarian)
Saturday, May 9, 2009

HR 2159 is another bill from the anti-gun extremists. It says;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.r.02159:

“The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

In other words if the Attorney General suspects that you are a terrorist then he can deny you the right to buy a gun. There is no trial and no due process of law. So not only does this bill violate the second amendment, it also violates the fifth and sixth amendments.

The author of this bill and the cosponsors all took an oath to support the constitution. And yet here they are happily proposing to violate it left and right. In my opinion that should be ample reason for removing them from office.

But there are other troubling aspects to this bill. If second amendment rights can be removed in this manner what about other rights. Could your first amendment right of free speech be revoked because you might be using it to conspire with others to commit acts of terrorism? Could your fourth amendment right to privacy be taken because you might have something dangerous on your person or your property?

This bill stinks to high heaven. All Americans should contact their representatives and tell them this bill must not pass.

Progressive View of Gun Rights: 2A All the Way.

Leave a comment

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2A-All-the-Way-by-Rady-Ananda-090419-216.html

 by Rady Ananda 

pink_ak-armedfemalesofamerica-2795-20090419-349

Because this essay sparked strong reaction, OEN owner Rob Kall has convinced me that I could better make my case for Second Amendment advocacy if I clarified my politics: I am a progressive populist. As a progressive, I value, work toward, and believe in an ever-expanding recognition of equality for all peoples. I have no tolerance for intolerance. Owning personal firearms levels the playing field somewhat for those most vulnerable to abuse: women, the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped.  I’m a populist because I feel no allegiance to or from elites. Instead, I fear the vast expansion of governmental power over the past decade, at the expense of the Rule of Law, and at the expense of basic human rights — particularly the 800-year-old Magna Carta provision for habeas corpus. 2A advocacy is an egalitarian issue. ~ RA

 (Excerpted from the full article at  www.opednews.com)

“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.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Gun rights are neither liberal nor conservative, feminist nor patriarchal, Democrat nor Republican, Left nor Right. Gun rights are populist at their core, in defense against government tyranny at their widest application, and in self-defense at their most personal application.  
The debate over gun rights is vast and well-documented. The basic arguments for an armed citizenry are:
  

  • To maintain political order and prevent tyranny;
  • To protect community from outside invasion;
  • Personal defense and crime prevention; and
  • Sport and hunting.
  • The basic arguments against an armed populace ignore history or adopt a Pollyanna view toward government. Plenty of folks, on the Right and on the Left, and those in-between, recognize the value of preventive armament. We recognize that bipartisan-passed legislation over the past nine years strips US citizens of their sovereignty and destroys the Bill of Rights. (All this legislation, because it’s unconstitutional, is void, in my non-legal opinion.) 
    Some history – Jews and Other Genocides
    In 1981, Morton Grove, Illinois became the first U.S. city to ban the possession of firearms. Next came Evanston, Illinois, which passed a similar ordinance without controversy.  But when the measure was proposed in nearby Skokie, it was soundly defeated.  Skokie, populated by Holocaust survivors, knew the merits of personal armament and the dangers of its lack. (Alderman and Kennedy)  
    Some researchers took this argument on a survey of seven nations that committed genocide in the 20th century, determining that in each instance, citizens were legislatively disarmed prior to their mass extermination by their government.  In Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide, the authors demonstrated that these nations that perpetrated genocide had chosen a victim population which was disarmed.  If the intended victims were not already gun-free, then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they began the killing. 

    The Supreme Court & the NRA’s Response

    Leave a comment

    According to an article posted by Ohioans for Concealed Carry (June 28, 2008), written by Daniel White (NRA Files Second Amendment Lawsuits In Illinois And California Following Supreme Court Ruling), The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Chicago to overturn their gun ban laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “decision,” last week, about the Second Amendment.

    The San Francisco suit is brought under a ficticious pseudonym in order to protect the identity of the plaintiff, a gay man living in public housing.

    On the surface, these actions seem to be a righteous response to the so-called “victory” for the Second Amendment – which is not a victory at all (see my article, What the Second Amendment Really Means – And What the Supreme Court Really Means). Of course, this is by design, to project the continued camouflage the NRA needs in order to conceal the fact it has been working for gun control, not against it, for years. This is revealed in the language of the court document itself, which states:

    “This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 to vindicate the rights of law abiding, responsible San Francisco residents and residents of public housing to keep firearms as guaranteed by Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to keep firearms in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.” (emphasis mine)

    There are a few things wrong with this wording that you need to be alerted to, and which will make clear the NRA’s subterfuge. First is the term “law-abiding” or “law-abiding adults.” If the Constitution – not the several unconstitutional gun-control laws on the books – is the law of the land (as it is supposed to be), then the only law governing gun ownership that anyone need “abide” by is the Second Amendment of the Constitution itself, which clearly states that “…the right of the people [not some specified sub-set of the people, but all of the people] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    What does this mean? It means that the Constitution makes no distinctions about who has the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it make any distinctions about what type of weaponry the term “arms” is supposed to denote, nor does it make any distinctions as to under what circumstances or in what locations a person may keep or bear arms. It is clear the founders intended that the absolute right of everyone to keep whatever weapons they wanted to and to be able to freely carry them as they see fit – anywhere, any time – is an existing right that the government may not regulate, curtail or remove in any way. Why? Because this right is fundamental to protecting us from a tyrannical government and, of course, if that very same government has the power to confiscate our means of protecting our lives and liberty, then our free republic as we know it is finished.

    So, it is evident, then, that the NRA’s supposedly indignant defense of the right to keep and bear arms is not any such thing at all. It is, in fact, a smoke screen, a diversion to make us believe that the NRA is standing up for our rights, when, in fact, it is playing right into the government’s hands (and quite deliberately, as it has been infiltrated and subverted by those who seek to eliminate gun ownership) by acknowledging the very same “reasonable limitations” the Supreme Court spoke of last week when it rendered its decision (which was, in itself, an unconstitutional act, as it violates the court’s constitutional limitations of power).

    The fact is, everyone has an unalienable right to possess whatever weapons they deem necessary to defend themselves with and there are to be no restrictions of this of any kind. That is the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment. To allow anything short of this is a direct violation of the Constitution.

     

    %d bloggers like this: