Author Archives: amyself313

Eight methods for the destruction of the United States.

Leave a reply

Can you believe this guy was a Democrat Governor of Colorado.
He was never very impressive until now.
His comments are right on the mark.

Wherever you stand, please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the beejeebers out of you!

We know Dick Lamm as Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant.
Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to capacity by many of America ‘s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, ‘Mexifornia,’ explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California .
He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America .

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States .
He said, ‘If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’

‘Here is how they do it,’ Lamm said:

‘First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country…  History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.’

Lamm went on:

‘Second, to destroy America , invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.
Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

‘Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec ‘ without much effort.
The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.
As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’
Lamm said, ‘I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor.
It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.’

‘Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated.
I would add a second underclass, un-assimilated, under-educated, and antagonistic to our population.
I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.’

‘My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money.
I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology…’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority.
I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.’

‘My sixth plan for America ‘s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties.
I would celebrate diversity over unity.
I would stress differences rather than similarities.
Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other.
A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together.
Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods.
All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions.
Greece fell. ‘E. Pluribus Unum’ — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will ‘Balkanize’ America as surely as Kosovo.’

‘Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’
I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking.
Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural country, having established multi-culturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws.
I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.’

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,

‘Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.

There was no applause.
A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference.
Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.
Discussion is being suppressed.
Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness.
Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America Take note of California and other states.
To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book ‘1984.’ In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: ‘War is peace,’ ‘Freedom is slavery,’ and ‘Ignorance is strength.’

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast.
If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don’t!

Term Limits for Congress

Leave a reply

All credits to:
Bob Reid
Founder/Executive Advisor
Term Limits for US Congress PAC
www.termlimitsforuscongress.com

Give me a couple of minutes of your time and I am confident I can convince you that this is a workable solution.

This is not just a facebook page with armchair warriors. This is an all-volunteer, feet on the ground movement across the nation, although we are definitely taking advantage of social networks to get the word out.

Now let’s talk about Congress.

The Princeton and Northwestern study of 20 years of Congressional decisions proved what we already knew, that only those with money have a voice in Congress. They proved that the opinions and needs of the bottom 90% of income earners in the US have no impact on Congressional decisions. We have corporations and special interest groups spending billions annually (appx $3.2 Billion annually) influencing the decisions being made and its working. Those lobbying are showing skyrocketing incomes and the rest of us are struggling to keep up with the cost of living.

The average net worth of members of Congress increase over a million each year, while on a $174,000 salary. They become rich and powerful in Congress, then when they retire, about half of them become lobbyists. Oh, did I mention that many members of Congress also have family members that are lobbyists? Or, that many members of Congress own stock in the very companies they’re passing legislation for?

Needless to say, DC has become a self-serving pool of corruption and they’re not going to change a thing while they’re benefiting from the existing environment.

Now let’s talk about how to fix it.

There are so many changes that need to be made, such as campaign reform, limiting lobbyist influence, and creating a representative environment. The problem is that these types of changes are too complex to be Constitutional Amendments, so we need legislation.

The problem becomes further compounded by the Congressional Rule that seniority equals authority. There’s no way in the world that the senior/most powerful members of Congress, who decide how the parties will vote and who have been benefitting from the current environment for 30 or 40 years, will let the necessary legislation reach the floor.

In an ideal world the answer would be to vote these senior members out of office. Unfortunately, the voting system has become perverted by social apathy, the power of the two polarized parties, and the mountains of money thrown at incumbents by the lobbyists who have bought them off.

They become so powerful that in 2014, 58% running for re-election didn’t even have a challenger in the primaries. When you throw in the polarized parties, people like you and I are stuck in the voting booth looking at two names; the incumbent we dislike or the party whose ideology we can’t stand. The result of this environment is that with the lowest approval rating in history, 96% were re-elected in 2014, and 98% were re-elected in 2016.

If we can’t vote them out, we’re left with one option; including a term limits Amendment in the US Constitution. Before I explain how we can do this without Congress’s approval, let me give you an example of what we will see.

If a 12 year max for life (equals 2 senate terms) term limit was ratified today, the 227 senior/most powerful members of Congress would not be eligible for re-election. This single step would eliminate EVERY long-term relationship between Congress and lobbyists. In addition, lobbyists have confessed that it takes millions and years to buy a seat in Congress. With term limits in place, there would be an average of 89 new members of Congress every two years. While 12 years is plenty of time for experience, this turnover rate would never again allow lobbyists the time necessary to control a majority in Congress.

Here’s how we’re going to do it.

Our founding fathers were some pretty brilliant men. Having battled for our freedom from an aristocratic and unrepresentative government, they were very aware that the possibility of our own government evolving into something similar was a possibility. What many people are unaware of is that the founders added a panic button in the Constitution in case this happened.

Article 5 of the US Constitution is the article that defines how Amendments are added to the Constitution. Again, what many don’t realize is that they included TWO options for adding an Amendment.

The first is pretty commonly known. If an Amendment passes a super-majority vote in the House and in the Senate, it then goes out to the states for ratification.

The second option of Article 5 is the panic button and the reason most of you haven’t heard about it is because those in power don’t want you to. If you have heard about it, the odds are that you’ve heard some disinformation that is now being pumped out to try to keep Americans from using it.

Congress and those benefitting from the corrupt environment in DC have a lot of power and money. The last thing they want is for us to realize that a means exists that allows the people and states to supersede Congress’s authority.

When 2/3’s of the States (34 States) apply for an Article 5 Convention for the same purpose, a Convention is called. Each state sends delegates to the Convention, where they discuss the topic and vote on an Amendment. If the Amendment passes at the Convention, it is returned to the states where it must be ratified by ¾’s of the States (38 States), just like the ratification of the first option of Article 5. If ratified by 38 States, it becomes an Amendment to the US Constitution, and there’s nothing Congress can do to stop it.

If anyone tries to scare you away from this option, remind them that ONLY Amendments can be proposed at a Convention and that the ratification process is the safety that our forefathers installed for either option. There are not 38 States that lean to the right. There are not 38 States that lean to the left. The only type of Amendment that will be ratified is a non-partisan Amendment such as Term Limits.

Obviously, the next step is to convince the State Governments to apply for an Article 5 Convention for Term Limits. The State Legislatures are as upset with Congress as we are and they stand to benefit by getting rid of the senior/most powerful members of Congress. But, there will always be the fence-sitters and those scared of change. That’s where the petitioning comes in.

Petitions have a much stronger affect at the state level than the federal level. Petition signers within a state are much more likely to impact a state legislator’s future. The more signatures we have in a state, when we approach the state governor, the more pressure we apply to the fence-sitters to support calling a Convention.

What we need.

YOU!

Signing the petition, e-petition or hard copy, is a great start, but if that’s all you do, then you’re counting on a handful of us to reach the entire nation. But, if YOU sign the petition and also volunteer to fill a petition (15 signatures) or even a partial petition, we can accelerate this process dramatically.

Now the ball’s in your court. You can sign and wait, in which case this will take many years. Or, you can sign and volunteer, and we can quickly begin changing the course of our government back to a representative body.

Remember. Corruption is color-blind. It is not red. It is not blue. On this one occasion, on this one non-partisan topic, we must set aside our labels and work together as Americans.

 

Who Were the Counter-protesters in Charlottesville?

Leave a reply

Nazism is the father of all evil and should be fought anywhere on earth!
But this does not make many of the Counter protesters in Charlottesville the good guys!
The “Fake Media” can manipulate and distort the news as much as they want, but the truth remains the truth.

Fighting Nazis doesn’t make ‘antifa’ the good guys

By Jonah Goldberg

August 17, 2017

Fighting Nazis is a good thing, but fighting Nazis doesn’t necessarily make you or your cause good.
By my lights this is simply an obvious fact.
The greatest Nazi-killer of the 20th century was Josef Stalin. He also killed millions of his own people and terrorized, oppressed, enslaved or brutalized tens of millions more.

Nazism was evil. Soviet Communism was evil. It’s fine to believe that Nazism was more evil than Communism. That doesn’t make Communism good.
Yet confusion on this point poisoned politics in America and abroad for generations.

Part of the problem is psychological. There’s a natural tendency to think that when people, or movements, hate each other, it must be because they’re opposites. This assumption overlooks the fact that many — indeed, most — of the great conflicts and hatreds in human history are derived from what Sigmund Freud called the “narcissism of minor differences.”

Most tribal hatreds are between very similar groups. The European wars of religion were between peoples who often shared the same language and culture but differed on the correct way to practice the Christian faith. The Sunni-Shia split in the Muslim world is the source of great animosity between very similar peoples.

The young Communists and fascists fighting for power in the streets of 1920s Germany had far more in common with each other than they had with decent liberals or conservatives, as we understand those terms today.

The second part of the problem wasn’t innocent confusion, but sinister propaganda. As Hitler solidified power and effectively outlawed the Communist Party of Germany, the Communist International abandoned its position that socialist and progressive groups that were disloyal to Moscow were “fascist” and instead encouraged Communists everywhere to build “popular fronts” against the common enemy of Nazism.

These alliances of convenience were a great propaganda victory for Communists around the world because they bolstered the myth that Communists were just members of the left coalition in the fight against Hitler, bigotry, fascism, etc.

This obscured the fact that whenever the Communists had a chance to seize power, they did. Often, the first people they killed, jailed or exiled were former allies. That’s what happened in Eastern Europe, Cuba and other places of Communist success.

This history is relevant today because of the depressingly idiotic argument about whether it’s OK to equate “antifa” — left-wing radicals — with the neo-Nazi and white supremacist rabble that recently descended on Charlottesville, Va. The president claims there were “very fine people” on both sides of the protest and that the “anti-fascist” radicals are equally blameworthy. He borrowed from Fox News’ Sean Hannity the bogus term “alt-left” to describe the antifa radicals.

The term is bogus because, unlike the alt-right, nobody calls themselves “the alt-left.” That’s too bad. One of the only nice things about the alt-right is that its leaders are honest about the fact that they want nothing to do with traditional American conservatism. Like the original Nazis, they seek to replace the traditional right with their racial hogwash.

The antifa crowd has a very similar agenda with regard to American liberalism. These goons and thugs oppose free speech, celebrate violence, despise dissent and have little use for anything else in the American political tradition. But many liberals, particularly in the media, are victims of the same kind of confusion that vexed so much of American liberalism in the 20th century. Because antifa suddenly has the (alt-)right enemies, they must be the good guys.

They’re not. And that’s why this debate is so toxically stupid. Fine, antifa isn’t as bad as the KKK. Who cares? Since when is being less bad than the Klan a major moral accomplishment?

In these tribal times, the impulse to support anyone who shares your enemies is powerful. But it’s a morally stunted reflex. This is America. You’re free to denounce totalitarians wherever you find them — even if they might hate the right people.

 

 

 

Get the US out of the UN – H.R. 193

Leave a reply

115th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 193

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017

Mr. Rogers of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Smith of Missouri, and Mr. Massie) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1945.

(a) Repeal.—The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) Termination Of Membership In United Nations.—The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.

(c) Closure Of United States Mission To United Nations.—The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.

(a) Repeal.—The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80–357) is repealed.

(b) Withdrawal.—The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate termination of United States membership and withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment, in accordance with sections 2 and 3, respectively. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

SEC. 5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) Termination.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force.

(b) Terminations Of United States Participation In United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.—No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.

SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

(a) Withdrawal From United States Government Property.—The United Nations (including any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations) may not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.

(b) Diplomatic Immunity.—No officer or employee of the United Nations (including any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations) or any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such individual. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.), or in any agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party, including the agreement entitled “Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations”, signed June 26, 1947 (22 U.S.C. 287 note), and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, entered into force with respect to the United States on April 29, 1970 (21 UST 1418; TIAS 6900; UNTS 16), shall not apply to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, to the officers and employees of the United Nations, or of any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, or to the families, suites, or servants of such officers or employees.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION IN THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION.

The joint resolution entitled “A joint resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor”, approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79–565, 22 U.S.C. 287m et seq.), is repealed.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1973.

The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is repealed.

SEC. 9. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

The joint resolution entitled “Joint Resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an appropriation therefor”, approved June 14, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 290), is repealed.

SEC. 10. REPEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS.

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any participation in any conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out.

SEC. 11. REEMPLOYMENT WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVICE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights of employees under subchapter IV of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployment after service with an international organization.

SEC. 12. NOTIFICATION.

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations of the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date that is two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

What is Masculinity?

Leave a reply
Published on Oct 19, 2014

What is masculinity?
This short video introduces author Jack Donovan’s “gang theory of masculinity” and the four “tactical virtues.”
For more in-depth definitions of strength, courage, mastery and honor and the challenges facing men today read The Way of Men — which has now sold over 12,000 copies.

How Socialism Ruined My Country

Leave a reply
Published by PragerU on Mar 30, 2017

Is Bernie Sanders right?
Are people living under socialism better off?
Brazil is a good case study. Felipe Moura Brasil, a journalist and Veja magazine columnist, explains how his country has fared under socialism.

Many American millennials seem to be drawn to socialism.
They came out in big numbers for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primaries. They rail against capitalism on their college campuses. They wear Che Guevara t-shirts to signal their socialist virtue.

I know a lot about socialism. I live in Rio de Janeiro and I work throughout Brazil as a journalist for a popular magazine.

In the early 2000s, Brazil’s economy was growing rapidly.

The government had enacted economic and monetary reforms and divested holdings in some state-run companies, giving the private sector more room to breathe.

Inflation—a chronic problem in Brazil—was dramatically reduced.

Foreign investors poured into the country, eager to catch a portion of our expanding economy.

The future seemed promising.

But today, our economy is in shambles, unemployment and debt are massive and powerful politicians are being investigated for involvement in the largest scandals of fraud and corruption in the country’s history.

What happened?

In 2002, a socialist politician named Lula da Silva ran for the presidency. He was a socialist, but painted himself as a modern, cool kind of socialist. He would be the politician who would heal national divisions and unite everyone. He even had a nickname, “Lulinha paz e amor”, which means “Little Lula peace and love” in Portuguese.

But the old message about the need for income redistribution to decrease inequality was still there. The media, academic elite and celebrities assured Brazilians that by transferring the money from the rich to the poor, the poor could finally be richer.

But the only ones who really got rich were Lula and his corporate and political friends.

It only got worse under his successor, Dilma Rousseff.

The socialists increased government spending, deficits, and debt. They called it a stimulus.

They increased the minimum wage and the benefits of social programs. They called it social justice.

They increased the salaries and retirement benefits of the civil service. They called it investing in the future.

They handed out thousands of jobs in the government and state-owned companies as favors to their political allies. And they called it good governance.

It worked for a while. Socialism always works at the beginning.

But government spending just kept going up and then Lula’s socialist paradise fell apart, and the economy fell with it.

The outcome: from 2008 to 2015, government spending grew nearly four times as fast as tax revenue.

The economy shrank 3.8 percent in 2015, the worst result in 25 years.

That same year, a World Bank survey found Brazil’s economy to be one of the world’s worst. Out of 189 countries, we were the 16th hardest place to open a business, the 60th most difficult nation in which to register property, and the 12th most complex place to pay taxes.

Economically and morally, the almost 15 years of socialist policies have greatly harmed Brazil. We also remain among the world’s leaders in murder and robbery, and we rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of education and health care.

JPFO – Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Leave a reply

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States and “to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone”. The group was founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman in 1989.
The JPFO interprets the Second Amendment as recognizing a pre-existing natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It is based in Hartford, Wisconsin.

JPFO takes the position that an armed citizenry is the population’s last line of defense against tyranny by their own government. The organization is noted for producing materials (bumper stickers, posters, billboards, booklets, videos, etc.) with messages that equate gun control with totalitarianism. The most famous of these are the “All in favor of Gun Control raise your right hand” materials, which features a drawing of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.
The organization also attempts to prove that genocide is linked to gun control, by showing that most countries where a genocide has taken place had gun control first.

Members do not have to be Jewish. The only membership requirement is that you be a “law-abiding citizen,” by “obeying the Bill of Rights.”

JPFO’s political positions

The JPFO is probably most noted for its claim that parts of the text of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were translated from Nazi legislation.
The German Weapons Law, which existed before the Nazis came to power in 1933, was altered on 18 March 1938 by the Nazi Government.
The JPFO’s claim is based in part on the fact that the 1968 GCA introduces the “sporting purpose” test to distinguish different types of weapons, similar to the “sporting purpose” test that existed in the German law in question.
Senator Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials and had reviewed copies of the Nazi Germany firearms laws, and in 1968 requested translations of these from the Library of Congress.

Bernard Harcourt, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, in discussing this fundamental proposition advanced by the JPFO, notes, “On January 13th, 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928) a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme.”  Harcourt continued, “To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide”, but he concluded that the firearms laws were not central to implementing the Holocaust.

Attorney and author Stephen Halbrook, in his law article “Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews”, asserts that German arms laws were extremely lax, and even under the 1920 “Law on the Disarmament of the People”, only items such as grenades and machineguns were banned and small arms such as rifles and pistols remained in common use. Valery Polozov, a former advisor to the committee on national security in the Russian Duma, claims in his book “Firearms in Civil Society” that Germany did not in fact have comprehensive gun control legislation up until 1928, which created the legal framework later built upon by the Nazis. Halbrook did clarify in the first sentences of his article that, “Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive. However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust.”

All credits to: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia