See other Resistance Articles
Title: It Is Getting Very Serious Now - Are You One of Janet Napolitano's Terrorists?
Source:
Chuck Baldwin
URL Source: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090512.html
Published: May 13, 2009
Author: Chuck Baldwin
Post Date: 2009-05-13 12:18:26 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: None
Views: 643
Comments: 22
First, it was a Missouri Analysis and Information Center (MIAC) report; then it was a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report; now it is a New York congressman's bill. Each of these items, taken on their own, is problematic enough; taken together they portend "a clear and present danger" to the liberties of the American people. It is getting very serious now. As readers may recall, the MIAC report profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone "militia members": including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration. The MIAC report prompted a firestorm of protest, and was eventually rescinded, with the man responsible for its distribution being dismissed from his position. The DHS report profiled many of the same people included in the MIAC report, and added returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as potentially dangerous "extremists." As I have said before, it is very likely that when all of the opinions and views of the above lists are counted, 75% or more of the American people would be included. Yet, these government reports would have law enforcement personnel to believe we are all dangerous extremists that need to be watched and guarded against. If this was not bad enough, a New York congressman has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deny Second Amendment rights to everyone listed above. According to World Net Daily, May 9, 2009, "A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans a potential 'threats,' could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others--any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential 'extremism.' "Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any 'known or suspected dangerous terrorist.' The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is 'appropriately suspected' of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general 'has a reasonable belief' that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism. "Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill's language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being 'dangerous.'" WND quotes Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt as saying, "By [DHS] standards, I'm one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano's terrorists. This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they're all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009." Pratt was also quoted as saying, "Unbeknownst to us, some bureaucrat in the bowels of democracy can put your name on a list, and your Second Amendment rights are toast." He went on to say, "This such an anti-American bill, this is something King George III would have done." Now that DHS has established both a list and a lexicon for "extremists," it looks to Congress to confer upon it police-state-style powers through which these individuals may be disarmed and eventually done away with. Rep. Peter King is accommodating this goal with H.R. 2159. Let me ask a reasonable question: how long does anyone think it would be, after being profiled by DHS and denied the lawful purchase of firearms, that those same people would be subjected to gun confiscation? And how long do you think it would be before DHS began profiling more and more groups of people, thus subjecting them to gun confiscation? This was exactly the strategy employed by Adolf Hitler. The Jews were the first people denied their civil rights--especially the right to own and possess firearms. Of course, after disarming Jews, the rest of the German citizenry was likewise disarmed. And we all know where that led. I'm not sure how many of the American people realize that it was the attempted confiscation of the colonialists' cache of arms in Concord, Massachusetts, that started America's War for Independence. Yes, my friends, it was attempted gun confiscation that triggered (pun intended) the "shot heard 'round the world." And now it would appear that, once again, a central government is on the verge of trying to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms. I am told that as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms, totaling some 270 million privately owned firearms nationwide. I would venture to say that the vast majority of these gun owners would find themselves matching the DHS profile of a potential "extremist." I wonder how many gun owners realize the way they are now being targeted by their government, and just how serious--and how close--the threat of gun confiscation has become? If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.) This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated? As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.
It Is Getting Very Serious Now
by Chuck Baldwin
May 12, 2009
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
Yes I am. Next question please :)
Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
I say 30% or more refuse to give them up. That would be near 3 million people who refuse. That works for me.
Is he really, really, sure?
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Not this Mothers SON! We best be circlin the wagons.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
"Purported" by whom??????? Either tell us who "purported" it or shut the fuck up. Could it be that this was something he got from alex jones? Sounds like it to me. I declare shenanigans on Baldwin. Lying sack of shit. Things are bad enough without having to make things up and lie. .
It's a forum post, not a doctoral thesis. Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Baldwin did qualify with this: Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.
The smooth criminal transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama
If we are denied 'permission' to buy guns from a BATFE-approved gun dealer, then we can only rail against the bureaucrats in D.C. who deny the sales. A more serious question might be just who would actually attempt to go door-to- door and round up our guns?? Local police?? FedGov agents backed up by local police??? This assumes that local police will go against the Constitution and their oath to defend it.
_________________________________________________________________________ I missed that. My apologies to the board. I was wrong. .
It's a forum post, not a doctoral thesis. Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ODIN demands that we stay armed. How are we going to get into Valhalla if we aren't? It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
The devil's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist. His next biggest lie is that no one knowingly follows him. The very top do. Most others do so unknowingly.
God is always good!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Anyone who thinks that they will be spared because they cooperate is wrong. They may be left alone a little while longer but once these monsters have complete control then the mass culling begins. They want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent. Let me repeat this they want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent. They want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent. They want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I want to reduce it 100%. We just differ on who gets reduced. .
It's a forum post, not a doctoral thesis. Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
We just differ on who gets reduced. mindreader bump
Yes, and this needs to be amplified more; too many are totally unaware of that part of their agenda. It is real....
"The 'uniter' has brought the entire world together - to despise and deride us." lodwick
Hammer-wielding Vikings wearing Doc Martens kicking it with Thor!
Stylish yet authoritarian. Odin approves....
_________________________________________________________________________ Don't forget to pass the Mead! It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
This statement was "reported" by Sorcha Faal ... Bullshit artist extraordinaire.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
I'm not familiar with Faal, at least by name. It seemed like quite a bold statement. But, nothing would surprise me these days. At some point it is very possible that a report like this will be 100% correct. I expect that will be sooner than most expect. Besides, I never did like that SOB Kissinger anyway. I would not put it past him to say it in a private meeting.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Are You One of Janet Napolitano's Terrorists?
#2. To: Brian S, bluegrass, noone222, IndieTX, Jethro Tull, Itistoolate, christine, litus, farmfriend, deasy, HOUNDDAWG, X-15, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, flintlock, rotara (#0)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership?
#3. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#2)
#4. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge."
#5. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
#6. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, Baldwinian bootlickers, All, *Black Ops - Psyops* (#0)
If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago.
It's a fine line between being too specific and long winded and therefore too irritating to bother to read, and being too cryptic and therefore too irritating to try to interpret.
#7. To: PSUSA (#6)
#8. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#9. To: christine, All (#7)
It's a fine line between being too specific and long winded and therefore too irritating to bother to read, and being too cryptic and therefore too irritating to try to interpret.
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
I say 30% or more refuse to give them up.
#11. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
#12. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, *libertarians* (#0)
but the sheiks would shriek and the barons would bellow if hemp was made legal...and people became mellow
#13. To: REDPANTHER (#0)
PING
#14. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, all (#2)
#15. To: Original_Intent (#14)
They want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent.
It's a fine line between being too specific and long winded and therefore too irritating to bother to read, and being too cryptic and therefore too irritating to try to interpret.
#16. To: PSUSA (#15)
I want to reduce it 100%.
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
They want to reduce the population by at least 80 to 90 percent.
#18. To: Flintlock (#10)
#19. To: Deasy (#18)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#20. To: Deasy (#18)
...... kicking it with Thor!
#21. To: phantom patriot (#4)
Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge."
#22. To: noone222 (#21)
This statement was "reported" by Sorcha Faal ... Bullshit artist extraordinaire.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest