Testimony For SB-1487 Iconic African Species Protection Act

By:  Sam Jojola

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary

In late June, I was humbled when asked to testify before the California State Assembly in Sacramento in support of the above critical legislation initially proposed by Senator Henry Stern.  I am very thankful for Judie Mancuso, Founder, CEO and President for Social Compassion In Legislation (SCIL) who believed in me and asked me for my support in SB-1487.

Nicholaus Sackett, a Sacramento attorney who is instrumental in SCIL’s continued success with legislative issues also provided key testimony for SB-1487.

Two opponents who represented interests of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Safari Club International (SCI) also testified.

For years I have felt like a voice in the wilderness echoing concerns based on my professional expertise and opinion of the illicit wildlife trade’s continuous and unabated expansion across the globe.

2nd Amendment….all that stands between you and the one world government

Marti Oakley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The 2^nd Amendment is all that has kept this increasingly tyrannical government from turning on us with full force. Its far easier to establish a one world dictatorship when the country you are trying to overtake has no means to fight back. There will continue to be mass shootings until we forfeit our 2^nd Amendment…….then just as suddenly as they appeared, the mass shootings will stop. Except…..those committed by the government.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the American public increasingly distrustful of government on all levels, the “war for your rights” is in full swing. The recent event in Orlando is the new catalyst for pushing for gun control, and those weak-kneed individuals who still believe government exists to protect them and keep them safe are whining and crying all over the net, in local newspapers and of course, mainstream media.

While MSM in particular attempts to paint those who resist the attempts to undermine the 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as “right wing extremists” and, “religious bible thumping fanatics”, I can assure you nothing could be further from the truth. I live in a heavily Democratic area and I know of no one…NOT ONE PERSON…who will not defend this right, and who would not fight to keep it. The intentional efforts to separate and divide the public so that we fight one another rather than focus on the real threat to safety in our communities, runs none stop.

Gun rights protected, criminals prosecuted An alternative to a gun control bill

GOCRA Posted: 06 Mar 2013 07:42 PM PST   Today, DFL Representative Debra Hilstrom and a bipartisan coalition of legislators and sheriffs introduced a new bill which will address the very real issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, without infringing on the rights of law abiding Minnesota gun owners. Republican Rep. Tony Cornish, the House’s leader on gun rights, joined Hilstrom at the press conference to speak in favor of the bill. Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson, Press conference YouTube video View the press conference on YouTube The bill’s co-authors comprise more than half of the representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, in the Minnesota House. There were so many authors that Rep. Hilstrom had to introduce three identical bills to fit the names of all the co-authors! HF1323 focuses on forcing government departments to quickly and accurately report criminal convictions and mental health and chemical abuse commitment data to the state and federal background check systems. The bill also add a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership for perpetrators of certain violent domestic felonies, and makes it easier for counties to prosecute the straw purchasers that the federal government won’t. GOCRA is proud to have worked with Rep. Hilstrom, Rep. Cornish and the NRA to craft real solutions to real problems. The bill has been referred to Rep. Michael Paymar’s Public Safety committee. Unfortunately, Rep. Paymar has suggested that he won’t give the bill a hearing, preferring instead his own bill, HF237, which includes many infringements of your rights, including universal registration disguised as background checks. Please call and email Rep. Paymar, and insist that HF1323 be heard without delay. Representative Michael Paymar (DFL) – Chairman 651-296-4199 E-mail: rep.michael.paymar@house.mn The bill will also need a Senate companion bill. Please call YOUR senator and ask him/her to sign on as an author of this important legislation. We’ll have more later, including a breakdown of every element of the new bill. Please forward this email to gun owners and civil rights supporters, and ask them to sign up at http://www.gocra.org/join.html

To kill the 2nd Amendment: The overthrow of the Constitutional Republic

Marti Oakley  ©copyright 2013 All Rights Reserved

Follow @MartiOakley

________________________________________________________________________

It was with a great deal of sadness and disappointment that I viewed clips of Obama shilling for the United Nations Global Small Arms Treaty (ban) and even more disappointing to see police officers and sheriffs lined up behind him as he smiled and sold his attack on the 2nd Amendment.  I predicted back before the election that the UN Small Arms Treaty would be shelved until after the election, only to make sure Obama didn’t get a political black eye that might have turned the tide against him.  Sandy Hook made the perfect opportunity to bring UN Small Arms mandates out into the public after the election. But you are not supposed to realize that the Obama wish list for gun control and eventual confiscation comes right out of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

With most all the gun owners of America poised and ready to fight back against any infringement on the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, Obama appeared in Minnesota Monday claiming that the NRA members support his attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Uh….no they don’t! And neither do the majority of us out here who don’t even own a gun.  All the fake public polls, all the talking points delivered via MSM, will not change the fact that as Americans, we are well aware of the federal governments historical desire to disarm us.

The Disclose Act coming to the House floor!

*Note: Remember to send your own letter!  Petitions and multiple copied mailings (form letters) are counted as only (1) by the receiving agency or congressman.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Downsizer Dispatch downsizer-dispatch@downsizedc.org

Remember, the Disclose Act will harm your ability to fire and replace your elected representatives. The bill will come to the House floor as early as TOMORROW – Thursday, June 24. Please send Congress a letter opposing this terrible violation of the First Amendment:

What More Proof Do We Need That the NRA Isn’t What it Claims to Be?

I have been writing, for some time, now, on Second Amendment issues and, in particular, about the fact the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a Trojan horse organization that has no interest in protecing the Second Amendment. I have presented a solid case here, before, that shows the NRA has, for seventy-five years, not only refused to call for the repeal of all existing gun laws (which is the only way to truly save the Second Amendment from further infringement), but that they have, in case after case, actually backed more gun control laws.

Usually, though, the NRA will attempt to disguise their actions by occasionally appearing to oppose some new gun law, now and then, just to keep up appearances. This is usually enough to fool their supporters who blindly continue to believe that the NRA is fighting for their rights. Funny thing, though; if that’s what the NRA is truly doing, then why are our Second Amendment rights almost gone now, as compared to decades ago?

Well, in yet another moment in its history in which its members should be finally made aware that the NRA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the NRA has mysteriously remained mute on the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, a gun rights opponent, has ruled, in lower court cases, that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, for one thing. Need I remind Ms. Sotomayor that the Constitution – of which the Second Amendment is a part – is the law of the land and overrides all other laws? No state, according to their constituional limitations, may pass laws that are in violation of the Constitution, anymore than the federal government may do so.

While, supposedly, Senate Republicans were hoping that the NRA would have something to say about Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court, strangely enough (or not), the NRA has stayed out of the issue, claiming it’s waiting for the Senate confirmation hearings. This should be interesting. I’ll wager right here and now that Sotomayor is appointed to the court no matter what the NRA may have to say about it. It’s already a done deal behind closed doors.

The NRA is NOT on Our Side

I have written here, before, that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been, for the last seventy-five years, backing legislation that perpetuates the infringement of the Second Amendment, all while posturing as the “protectors” of it. I have shown, through various evidence, that this is so and I have become aware of yet another indicator.

I’m referring to a brief article from Associated Press (AP), which was put out this morning about an event scheduled for today in Oxford, Mississippi. This is a speaking engagement at the Ole Miss Federalist Society (based at the University of Mississippi) and the speaker is to be Sandra Froman, former president of the NRA. The title of her speech is to be  “Gun fight at the Supreme Court.”

There are a few things about this seemingly innocuous event that got my attention. The first was that the Ole Miss Federalist Society is a chapter of the Federalist Society, an organization that was founded in 1982 for “law and public policy studies” and supposedly consists of “conservatives and libertarians,” though we know there are many – and many in high positions of power within our government – who use the same labels and are anything but conservative or libertarian. The Federalist Society is also composed entirely of lawyers and law students (in the student chapters, of which Ole Miss is one of many). So, basically, the Federalist Society is a think tank.

If you read their own website, the Federalist Society seems innocuous enough, until one considers the very name of the organization implies that it continues the same thinking as the original Federalists who wrote and sponsored our constitution – which, as I have also written of before, replaced our original (and far superior) constitution, The Articles of Confederation in 1787.

As I have also pointed out before, the Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others) were agents of the Rothschilds of London. Their assigned task was to subvert the young republic of the United States of America and to bring it under the control of the Rothschilds’ growing web of debt-based central banking that later captured England and has since enslaved the world. The Anti-Federalists were well aware of the international banking cartel and did everything they could to stop the Federalists from scrapping the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with a constitution that would suit the interests of the cartel. Failing in that attempt, they at least managed to get the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments inserted into the new Federalist Constitution.

As it turned out, the Federalists, unfortunately, got their way and we were saddled with a new constitution in 1787 that provided, for the first time, for a central authority (the President) and which, more importantly, also provided for the possibility of a central bank to be established. The Articles of Confederation had ensured that neither of these could ever happen by providing that the executive powers of the government should reside with Congress, which was directly answerable to the people, and by providing that the original thirteen states could coin their own money, thus deliberately avoiding the possibility of a central bank.

If anyone questions that the Federalist Society supports the same international banking cartel today, then I suggest you have a look into the World Federalist Association (WFA), as well.

The World Federalist Association is an international globalist think tank that is closely allied with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. It seeks, as do the CFR, Trilateralists and Bilderbergers, the establishment of a world government and is the main body heading the World Federalist Movement. Former CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, noted globalist himself, spoke before the World Federalist Association during the Clinton years.

So, what does all this have to do with the NRA? Well, you might ask why it is that a past president of the NRA – an organization that claims to defend your right to be armed – is speaking to impressionable young law students at a meeting of the Federalist Society, an organization that is (contrary to its own propaganda) most probably engaged in political subterfuge aimed at establishing a world government. Frankly, I’m not surprised, given that the NRA has had seventy-five years in which to find a way to repeal the mountain of laws that have violated the Second Amendment (something you would think they’d be attempting to do), yet has not even called for their repeal in all that time.

One might also wonder why it is that the Federalist Society was founded at Yale – home of Skull & Bones.  Are you beginning to connect the dots and see the big picture? Consider that the Federalist Society had been a “gateway” into the judiciary and the Justice Department of the Bush administration. Given that Barrack Obama now appears to be continuing all of the same programs established by the Bush administration – inlcuding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as toture and extraordinary renditions, as well as the agenda of his CFR/Trilateralist handlers – it seems quite likely this gateway still exists, as well.

But, getting back to the NRA, I remind you that Mississippi is among several states alleging to “declare sovereignty” from the federal government, while at the same time, passing legislation that will pave the way for gun confiscations during martial (though the bill – now law – that enables this was presented to the public as a “protection” against confiscation). The NRA supported this bill.

Gun Control & The False Left-Right Paradigm

To read the news, lately, it would seem that we have the so-called “liberal left” gun grabbers on one side vs. the “conservative” Republican “defenders of the Second Amendment” on the other, which of course, includes the National Rifle Association (NRA). No other version of the debate over gun control is ever offered or publicized by the corporate-controlled mainstream media. Thus, the debate is framed in a false perspective in which the only options are to either favor gun control or to favor less of it – while leaving the bulk of it in place. What the public doesn’t understand is that this still violates the Second Amendment.

There is a third option, one that lies outside the false left-right paradigm, and that is the Constitutionalist option, which would demand the full repeal of all gun laws. This is the only option that is truly in support of protecting the Second Amendment. Anything else simply allows the Second Amendment to remain eviscerated – if not to remove it entirely.

As I have written before, one doesn’t compromise with our inalienable rights. The moment we begin to do so is the moment we have kissed those rights goodbye. That moment was allowed to occur seventy-five years ago, with the passage of the first gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the fallout from that act has been accumulating ever since – with the full blessing of both “sides” of the false left-right paradigm.

While so-called Democrats have historically campaigned openly for more and tighter gun controls – if not the outright banning of guns – thus, playing the role of the “bad guys” in the debate (depending upon which side of the false left-right paradigm you look at it from), the “opposing” side – the so-called “conservative Republicans” – have played their “good guy” role, pretending to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, while voting in favor of many gun control laws and never demanding the repeal of the hundreds of existing gun control laws. Thus, the so-called “right-wing,” with its tough-sounding anti-gun control rhetoric, creates a facade of standing up for our constitutional rights, all the while supporting policy that leaves gun control intact and even allows it to continue growing.

As I have pointed out before, the NRA – the nation’s oldest and most vocal (as well as best funded) “gun rights” organization is the tip of the spear on the phony “conservative” side, having pretended for seventy-five years to be fighting against infringement of the Second Amendment while, at the same time, endorsing more laws that violate it. Even when they are endorsing laws that give the appearance of “lifting restrictions” or of “granting rights” to gun owners, they are still knowingly supporting gun control, as that is what these laws truly are. The only thing that is necessary to restore the Second Amendment – and the only action that will do so – is to repeal all the laws that violate it, in the first place. The NRA has never advocated this. Instead, they have played their role in the false left-right paradigm, pretending that asking the government to not infringe the Second Amendment quite so much as they have been is somehow a “victory” for gun owners. It is not. Anything short of full repeal does not serve the interests of anyone but the gun grabbers and until all gun control laws have been repealed, we will always remain vulnerable to the specter of gun confiscation.

While the gun control advocates of the so-called “left” are perfectly obvious (they’re supposed to be. That’s their role), not as obvious and, thus, even more dangerous to our liberties, are those on the so-called “right” who make the pretense of being defenders of the Second Amendment. It is harder for a dumbed-down public to see through their charade and to realize that both “sides” serve the same agenda.

One example of this is Rep. Mary Fallon (R-Oklahoma), who serves my district. I have met Mary Fallon, just before her election to Congress. This was before I had awakened to the horrific fact our own government staged 9/11. Once I was aware of this and had begun researching the New World Order, I found, among many things, that Mary Fallon was among those to have supported the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Fallon is but one of many in Congress who are engaged in the same sort of subterfuge.

This morning, I read an article by Rep. Fallon, in which she refers to herself as a member of the NRA and pledges that she will “continue to support the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”She is playing her role to the hilt, arguing against the passage of H.R. 45, a massive bill that will greatly infringe the Second Amendment, but then, she’s supposed to argue against it, as the NRA is appearing to do, as part of the act. Later, as usual, there will be an NRA-backed “compromise” version of the bill that will fly through the Congress, mark my words. The result: the NRA and its supporters on the phony “right” will appear to have, once again, gallantly defended the Second Amendment and they will even be lauded for having achieved a “great victory” for the Second Amendment by allowing a slightly less dangerous version of yet another gun control law to come into existence, further violating the Second Amendment. This is how they operate. By pretending to fight against further restrictions, they are actually approving them, and the NRA has been doing this for decades.

Of course, the public doesn’t know enough about “our” Constitution to realize that it is the Federalist Constitution of 1787 that laid the groundwork for the rise of a large central government with a central bank and that our original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was replaced by it for exactly that purpose. The Articles of Confederation didn’t necessitate any amendments to protect our rights because it was written to protect them all, in the first place and provided a far superior system of checks and balances for doing so. The Federalists, who were agents of the Rothschilds – the international bankers who sought (and still seek) to rule the world through the control of its money supply – had a mission to accomplish for their masters in London and that mission was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a constitution that guaranteed the eventual growth of central government power. We see the result of their success all around us today.

Governments have, historically, never relinquished their power willingly and the biggest threat to a fascistic government is an aware, armed populace. The founders knew this and they also knew that, unchecked, our government would become just as despotic as every government before it had. Thus, the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to secure our existing right to self-defense.

The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the Constitution, not by “the founders,” as we were told in our government run schools, but by the seldom mentioned Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist Constitution, to begin with and who insisted upon protecting our rights by adding a Bill of Rights and the ten Amendments to the Federalist Constitution. The two factions fought tooth and nail over this, the Federalists fighting to exclude these additional measures, as they were not aligned with the objectives of their corporate masters in London.

For all we know, the Anti-Federalists may well have been role-playing, just as the NRA and the Republicans are today. They succeeded in getting a Bill of Rights and the ten amendments added to the Constitution, but, obviously, that wasn’t sufficient to prevent the rise of a centralized totalitarian state, for the Federalist Constitution itself laid the groundwork for that centralization, despite the addition of the Bill of Rights and the ten amendments. Perhaps, as today, that was also by design. We may never know the truth.

The Great Second Amendment Con Job – Part II

In the first part of this series, I exposed the phony “march on Washington” planned for next year by several “gun rights” groups, including the NRA. In fairness, I acknowledged that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (one of the event’s sponsors) seems to genuinely be a legitimate organization that opposes restrictions to the Second Amendment. While I made an attempt to verify Gun Owners of America’s stance, as I have known them to also be such an upstanding organization, I could not, at the time, find a clear indication of their stance on concealed carry laws while examining the latest version of their website. In my estimation, this would indicate whether they accept compromises of the Second Amendment or not. This is, in my opinion, the true litmus test of all who claim to “defend” the Second Amendment, for, if one truly defends the Amendment, then one must, without reservation, oppose any and all alterations of it, which would include all gun laws that are now on the books, as well as any that are proposed. Some call this an “extreme” position, but, if defending the Constitution as the founders wrote and intended it is “extreme,” then, yes, I am an extremist and damned proud of it.

In any case, I want to focus, in particular, on the NRA, at this point, because I believe it to be the most egregious offender when it comes to misleading gun owners about their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Continuing in that vein, I did further research into the NRA’s backing of several gun control laws:

• 1934 National Firearms Act, which was the “Mother of All Gun Control Laws,” was supported by the NRA. This law, which clearly violated the Second Amendment, has been allowed to stand for 75 years and is the foundation upon which further erosions of the Second Amendment have been built.

• Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, AKA the Hardy Law: This law was passed in May 1986 to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 (scroll down the page in this document to read a 1968 article in the NRA’s publication, The American Rifleman to see how they defended their position on the Gun Control Act), which was illegal, in the first place, as it violates the Second Amendment. Even though Hardy “liberalizes” the Gun Control Act of 1968, it is the NRA’s enthusiastic support of Hardy – as opposed to demanding the full repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that is suspicious. Again, if the NRA is truly a “defender” of the Second Amendment, as it claims to be, then why does it consistently support layer upon layer of additions to the existing accumulation of gun control laws, all of which violate the very Amendment the NRA claims to defend?

• Mississippi SB2036 is a recently passed bill (mentioned in the first part of this article) which sneakily promised to “protect” gun owners in Mississippi from firearms confiscations in the event of martial law. Aside from the ominous overtones of this bill (how does Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant know there will be martial law in Mississippi?), the bill, as passed into law, only describes the conditions under which the state may confiscate guns, rather than protecting gun owners from such confiscations, as the Lt. Gov. and the media reported the bill would do. Of course, the NRA supported this bill, as well.

• H.R. 2640, or the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Pat Leahy and backed by the NRA, is a bill that adds “a massive expansion of the NICS check, otherwise known as the Brady Registration Act.”

People who claim to protect something – whatever it may be – usually act accordingly. In other words, they act to protect whatever it is they deem needs protection. People who claim to protect something and then act to undermine protections for it are called, at best, liars. When the people in question are a multi-billion dollar budgeted organization with millions of members who claim to protect a fundamental part of our nation’s founding document and the freedoms it represents – and then act to undermine that very same document by supporting the continual addition of laws that violate it, they are called, at best, traitors.

The Supreme Court & the NRA’s Response

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.