SaveOurGuns.com

A MUST SEE!!!!!
Dutch MP's anti-Quran film debuts on Web
17-minute 'documentary' juxtaposes images of Islam's holy book with terror attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 27, 2008
9:30 pm Eastern

ž© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Defying the wishes of the government of the Netherlands, a Dutch MP has posted his 17-minute documentary on the Quran, juxtaposing images of Islam's holy book with terror attacks and bombings by Muslim extremists.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, released "Fitna," an Arabic word meaning strife, on the political party's website today, but it disappeared a short time later due to "technical difficulties," reported the London Times.

The film is currently viewable on the British video-sharing website, LiveLeak.com, in Dutch and English.

Wilder, an outspoken critic of the "Islamization" of the West, released the film after weeks of debate couched in terms of free speech and religious bigotry as well as fears of violence like that following the Danish publication of cartoons depicting Muhammed.

Wilders said he understood Muslims could be upset by the film but said that was not his purpose in producing it.

"It remains widely within the framework of the law ... My film was not made to provoke violence," he said.

Plans to put the film on the Internet were briefly stalled earlier this week when the domain registrar, Network Solutions, refused to host Wilder's Internet domain.

That controversy, as well as threats by Muslim groups to seek an injunction, did not deter LiveLeak.com, which issued the following statement:

"LiveLeak.com has a strict stance on remaining unbiased and allowing freedom of speech so far as the law and our rules allow. There was no legal reason to refuse Geert Wilders the right to post his film and it is not our place to censor people based on an emotive response."

(Story continues below)

The film has been condemned by Wilder's government. The Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, called it irresponsible after rioting Muslims killed over 50 people following publication of the Danish cartoons.

"The film equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation," Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, said.

"We believe it serves no purpose other than to offend," he added.

Early critics had expressed fears Wilder would show a copy of the Quran being destroyed in his film but the ending offered a slight surprise.

As someone leafs through the Quran, a sound of tearing is heard.

"The sound you heard was from a page [being torn out] of the phone book. It is not up to me, but up to the Muslims themselves to tear the spiteful verses from the Quran," the screen text read. "Stop Islamization. Defend our freedom," it concluded.

The Bill of Rights are not granted to you. They are pre-existing God given rights! I read another lawyers article and it is amazing how ignorant people are. If the King grants you a right, then he (it) can take it away. A mere reading of the history of the Bill of Rights (actual source documentation) will clearly show the facts.

Woman Warned for Speaking Spanish at Work
A cell phone assembly line worker says she is afraid she could lose her job for speaking Spanish at work.

Julie Rios said she has received verbal and written warnings for talking in her native language, even though, she said, she was not informed about the rule when she was hired.
...

Despite the policy, Rios claims some workers on the assembly floor can't speak any English and need others to translate. She also said that her coworkers who don't speak Spanish have not complained to her about her speaking another language.

"I don't think it's right. I have the right to speak whatever language I want They knew we were Mexicans," she said. "They shouldn't have hired Mexican people."

Comment: If you like mexico so much and identify so greatly with it then get out of the USA! Speak English.

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'And every other terrible instrument'
In a "move that surprised some observers," the Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday, attorney Alan Gura, appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the federal guard who sued the District of Columbia in 2003, claiming he feels unsafe because he's not allowed to keep his guns at home, "appeared to concede large chunks of his argument, moving away from an absolutist position on gun rights."

"He concurred, at one point, with Justice Stephen Breyer that a ban on machine guns or plastic guns" (whatever those are) "would be constitutional because those weren't the kind of arms normally carried by members of state militias in the early days of the United States."

Was it a failure of nerve under pressure, or did somebody get to this guy?

The statement above is like saying "freedom of the press" doesn't apply to newspapers printed on modern, high-speed electric presses -- only to handbills printed one at a time on an old-fashioned hand-cranker, because that's the only kind they had back in Ben Franklin's day.

Under such a rule, you could forget about the First Amendment protecting the free-speech rights of ministers (or anybody else) broadcasting over TV and radio -- didn't have any of that stuff back during "the early days of the United States," either.

Nor did they have the revolvers or semi-automatic pistols you were supposed to be arguing for, Mr. Gura. (1836 and 1894, respectively.)

The National Rifle Association, America's largest gun control organization, tried to seize control of this case early on, filing motions with the court to replace attorney Gura, et al, with their own chosen litigators, hoping to water down the impact of a possible adverse ruling by rushing to reassure the court that it's still OK to "enforce all existing gun laws."

Defenders of the Second Amendment had their hopes raised when attorney Gura resisted that move. It now appears the NRA need hardly have bothered.

Why go to the trouble of getting the Supreme Court to rule on whether the Second Amendment says what it says, and then offer to help the gun-grabbers pleasure themselves in court, selling out our God-given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear machine guns, which was still legal as of Monday, albeit the BATF has tricked up ownership with a rat's nest of regulations and driven the price through the roof by illegally banning both importation and new manufacture?

Where did our government goons get the right to field machine guns, if it wasn't delegated to them by the people? How could we delegate a right we don't have?

Peruse pp. 66-69 of Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed." Federalist after Federalist vowed their proposed new government could never impose tyranny on these shores "while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights" (Hamilton, Federalist No. 29), that any encroachments on our liberties by the new government "would be opposed (by) a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands" (Madison, Federalist No. 46).

"Who are the militia?" asked Tench Coxe, friend of Madison and prominent Federalist, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788. "Are they not ourselves. ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Does any of that sound like the Founders meant that banning peasant ownership of handguns or machine guns would be OK if our rulers consider them "particularly dangerous"? Dangerous to whom?

Thus encouraged by the guy who was supposed to be on our side to ignore all these sacred assurances and guarantees, Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr. "said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun control laws," the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

Why? If the court's job isn't to free us from laws which violate the plain language of the Bill of Rights, what is it?

Imagine Earl Warren back in 1954 saying "he favored a narrow ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, one that would not cast doubt on the survival of our segregated school system as a whole."

A five-member majority seemed willing to hear the arguments for freedom. Instead, they were encouraged to humor the concerns of simpering socialists like Stephen Breyer, mewling that "we give leeway to cities and states to work out what's reasonable in light of their problems."

Imagine the outcry if the justice had offered cities and states "leeway to decide what's reasonable" in banning churches or censoring newspapers or installing "white and colored" drinking fountains.

"Eighty thousand to 100,000 people every year in the United States are either killed or wounded in gun-related homicides or crimes or accidents or suicides," Justice Breyer droned on. "In the District, I guess the number is somewhere around 200 to 300 dead and maybe it's 1,500 to 2,000 people wounded. Now, in light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets, a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?"

Disassembled, unloaded rifles aren't worth much in an emergency. Only an idiot would make a long-range rifle his first choice for home defense in an urban area.

Attorney Gura replied that folks must own handguns so they'll know how to use them when they report for military service.

Imagine how much more powerful it would have been to ask, in turn, "Are you saying the Constitution would stand if criminals killed 100 people per year in this city due primarily to the war on drugs -- a domestic tyranny which is within your power to end tomorrow as a violation of the Ninth Amendment, by the way -- but we have to start giving up planks in the Bill of Rights if they kill 150 or 175?

"Some of those deaths were felons killed during commission of their crimes. I assume you wouldn't disarm the police officers who shot them? Meantime, the crime rates you refer to have blossomed under the current gun control regime. The crime rates were much lower 100 years ago, when any citizen could legally carry a concealed handgun.

"John Lott has shown in his book 'More Guns, Less Crime' that on every occasion where an American county 'allowed' more law-abiding citizens to bear arms, violent crime went down. If the stick-up artist who's accustomed to knocking over old ladies at the ATM knows the chances are now higher that the little old lady has a .45, he's going to seek a different line of work.

"So if we were here seeking a pragmatic solution to those crime rates -- which we're not, because your job is just to make sure the legislature obeys the Bill of Rights -- then the pragmatic solution you seek, by a happy coincidence, would be precisely what we're asking you to do: Throw out all the gun laws. Take us back to the peaceful America we had 100 years ago. Enforce the Second and 14th amendments."

But attorney Gura didn't say anything like that. He said the court can ban machine guns, because his client doesn't have a machine gun.

There's a firm defense of principle, for you.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/.

With the Supreme Court about to render a decision, there is a lot of lengthy discussion. However, citizens should remember that the Supreme Court is without actual power to alter the 2nd Amendment. From this perspective, a decision which changes the "unalienable right to keep and bear arms", and its original purpose, would be null and void. On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, any such decision would be "enforceable" since the government would use force, indeed deadly force, to enforce the terms of any wrongful decision. Remember, the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens retain their power through force of arms (as a last resort) to regain their freedoms in the event that the government becomes tyrannical / oppressive. Any government intent on tyranny and oppression would welcome a decision that declares that the right is an individual right, but then effectively guts such finding with the caveat that it is subject to "reasonable" regulation or "compelling state interest" standards. Ultimately, in the event of tyranny and oppression, it comes down to force of arms as was the case of the American Revolution. The order of King George to disarm the citizens was being enforced, and obviously was deemed a very "compelling" state interest from the perspective of the King. Of course, that "compelling" state interest of disarming the citizen "subjects" on April 19, 1775 was resisted when the government troops were met with deadly gun fire. Remember, it was after such that the framers drafted the 2nd Amendment and it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Recall that this is the unalienable right which protects all of the rest of the Bill of Rights and freedoms from tyranny and oppression. It provides meaning to the provision of the Declaration of Independence that the People maintain the power to "alter or to abolish" the form of government. During the American Revolution, we the people rose up in armed combat against a tyrannical and oppressive government using the same type of arms used by the military of the tyrant. Black robes don't need to tell us what the words mean.

March 17th 2008

An Open Letter To US Marshal Judicial
Security Inspector David A. Meyer
By Aaron Zelman, Founder and Executive Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.JPFO.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) have recently become aware -- through what amounts to a rather circuitous and highly sinister threat from you, Mr. Meyer -- of a relatively new federal law that calls itself "The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007".

This perfect example of typical police state legislation -- which you pressured Ryan Horsley, a defendant in a recent BATFE case, into sending us -- says that whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information available about a "covered official", or a member of his or her immediate family, supposedly "with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence" against him, her, or it will be fined, imprisoned for no more than 5 years, or both.

What it boils down to is that publishing names, addresses, phone numbers, or other information attached to (just to name a handful of examples) the federal thugs who murdered the Branch Davidians and destroyed their church, members of Randy Weaver's family, or (had this law been in place then) the troops who assaulted the Warsaw Ghetto and the guards at the Nazi concentration camps, is now forbidden. In short, Mr. Meyer, it has been made a felony to identify one's criminal oppressors.

Since JPFO has never done anything even remotely like anything specified above, the information you ordered passed along to us -- obviously with the intent of doing a little intimidating of your own -- can only be interpreted as an attempt to shut us up, made on behalf of the notoriously lawless Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It was directed at JPFO, we assume, because we have exposed BATFE's criminal behavior on countless occasions, requested its investigation by the FBI, and called for its abolition. Under the Second Amendment, Mr. Meyer, the mere existence of the BATFE is an infringement of the right to own and carry weapons, and is therefore illegal.

Now it comes as no surprise that BATFE would want us silenced. Those who comprise it, and their predecessors, have been enforcing an unconstitutional gun law cribbed from the Nazis for the last four decades, since 1968.

See http://www.jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm and see the original letter from The Library of Congress admitting that they translated the Nazi weapons laws for the late Senator Thomas Dodd, author of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Nor does it come as any surprise that a federal agency infamous for its racism -- their "Good Ol' Boy Roundup" being the best known example -- would have a problem with Jews and guns. Their hatred and resentment for a Jewish civil rights organization that is exposing their criminality is obvious. But we wonder why a U.S. Marshall would be willing to carry their water and become publicly associated with them.

Or is it you, Mr. Meyer, who has a problem with Jews and guns?

Would you care to tell us what it is?

Judging from both their activities and their expressed attitudes over the years, BATFE's highest objective is to violate -- and to ultimately obliterate, under color of law -- the highest law of the land, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. This especially included the Second Amendment and now, apparently, they're going after the First Amendment, as well. This is an egregious affront to every enduring principle of American liberty.

It seems especially hypocritical when the anonymity -- and with it, the impunity -- that BATFE demands of its victims is contrasted with government's insistence that ordinary citizens be increasingly fingerprinted, retinal-photographed, DNA-recorded, stripped of their personal and financial privacy entirely, and affixed with electronic leashes of various kinds including the so-called "Real ID" system. Government has installed surveillance cameras everywhere -- some can even see through people's clothing -- and devices for peering through the walls of their homes in blatant contempt for the 4th and 5th Amendments.

And yet its agents strive to retain their anonymity and avoid responsibility for their acts. This reminds us of yet another morally questionable practice of many federal, state, and local police agencies: since when did American cops start wearing masks? Isn't it the badguys who wear masks, Mr. Meyer? Aren't they properly anxious to conceal their identities to avoid responsibility for their criminal acts?

Could government's masks be revealing something about government?

There is no room, Mr. Meyer, for secret police in an open society. No gun-toting government employee should ever be allowed to appear in public in civilian clothing, but should be required instead to wear a distinctive uniform on the job, complete with his or her name and badge number in six-inch reflective letters on the back and in three-inch letters on the chest. It should be a felony for any "law enforcement officer" to conceal his or her face, even with protective headgear.

Understand that, as outlandish as that idea may seem right now, the more threatening agents of the government make themselves appear, the more frequent and brutal the operations they carry out, the more people whose rights they crush beneath their jackboots, the more reasonable the idea will seem to our increasingly frightened fellow citizens.

We strongly suggest, Mr. Meyer, that you obey the law, instead -- the real law, that is -- and either start enforcing the Bill of Rights exactly like the highest law of the land that it happens to be, or that you quit now and find some employment more appropriate to your talents.

You might even get yourself a copy of our 85-minute movie The Gang http://www.thegangmovie.com -- another of JPFO's many efforts to shine the light of day on government wrongdoing -- to see more clearly the kind of criminals who have you running errands for them.

In any case, next time you have something to say to us, don't harrass somebody like Ryan Horsley. Say it to us.

Sincerely,

Aaron Zelman

Founder and Executive Director

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home | Articles | Campaigns | Network | Books, Videos, Apparel | About JPFO

Mirror Site: JPFO.net
All Rights Reserved 2006 JPFO

P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 | jpfo@jpfo.org