The following link entitled “” is a documentary about the liberal agenda into change America to a communist state through the infiltration of Marxist and socialist philosophies into every aspect of life in America. The film documents the details of this plan to change the country by citing the long list of agendas of communists and socialists for America.
Related links are listed below:
In President Obama’s “” speech, the Senate was criticized for not approving of the new bill for gun control, and were blamed for being intimidated by a minority of voters who would no longer support the various senators if they approve of the new gun measures. But is this really the case? President Obama claims that the bill would not violate any constitutional rights. But can this claim be taken serious? Could the Senate, and their alleged fear of a minority of voters, actually be the reason for the lack of cooperation with Obama’s gun control agenda? Or is it more likely that the president’s stretching of the laws, and his changing of the laws, to work in favor of radical liberal agendas has cost him credibility with many Americans, who now are convinced that the president has little to no concern for the constitution, and, therefore, cannot be trusted, nor cooperated with, in cases of gun laws, and constitutional rights?
There have, in fact, been times when the president has violated American’s trust, and has shown himself to be a radical liberal, who is willing to work in secret against the people of the U.S. and engage in subtle doubletalk, in his speeches, to fool unsuspecting people into thinking that he is only trying to do what’s best for the country. Examples of these would be his administrations’ labeling of Christians as possible domestic terrorists, the many promises which he both made and broke in his first term, his willingness to work with the U.N. on gun safety, his efforts to have the unjust law of the NDAA passed, which allows for American citizens to be detained for an indefinable amount of time without first committing a crime, his radical support of, the Islamic Brotherhood controlled, Egypt, his weak stance on real terrorism, his radical liberal, socialist, healthcare bill, and the Give Act, just to name few.
Therefore, the Senates lack of willingness to submit to “common sense” in regards to Obama’s gun measures cannot be perceived by these same American’s, who no longer have any confidence in Obama as a fellow American, but instead, is now viewed by them as a communist, or communitarian, as negligence, and fear of a minority of voters. Instead, to these Americans, who are not liberals, the Senate’s lack of cooperation should be viewed as true common sense, and gratefully welcomed.
In short, only true Americans, who do not violate traditional constitutional values, can be cooperated with, and trusted, by the country on gun control laws, and not radical liberals, who use Saul Alinsky tactics to manipulate ignorant people into radically changing the country for the worst.
Related articles are listed below:
The claims in the articles below suggest a hidden agenda for the institution of marriage. It is an agenda to change, and ultimately destroy, marriage. The articles reveal a forgotten side of the gay rights movement that the mainstream media is not reporting, yet is still an issue today. This issue is a deep rooted determination, among gay activists, to be liberated from traditional relationships, and from the traditional institution of the family.
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio [RN Podcast] show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there —
because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
Most homosexuals don’t want to ‘marry’ or adopt, French homosexual leader admits
The co-founder of a new French homosexual organization, Homovox, says that most homosexuals do not want to marry or adopt children, and are not supporters of the socialist government’s proposed legislation to create homosexual “marriage.”
French lesbian Nathalie de Williencourt says she decided to create the group as a result of her frustration over a vocal homosexual lobby that has been unquestioningly accepted as the mouthpiece of all of the country’s homosexuals.
The homosexuals Williencourt knows “don’t have any desire to marry nor to adopt.”
“They don’t feel represented by activists that they haven’t chosen, who steal the stage from a silent majority,” she told the French magazine Christian Family. “Many feel belittled, mistreated by this array of demands that stigmatize them.”
Homovox, which was established in November of last year, has created a website displaying testimony by numerous homosexuals who disavow the push for homosexual “marriage.” Willeincourt says that the organization marched on Sunday with up to one million other French citizens protesting the proposed legislation.
The gay radicals of the past didn’t want equality: they wanted liberation, and thought marriage was oppression
Some overexcited observers are describing last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as the glorious endpoint to nearly 50 years of agitation for gay rights. Finally, and courtesy largely of David Cameron, New York City’s Stonewall rioters of 1969 and the daring organisers of Britain’s first-ever Gay Pride parades in the early 1970s have seen their dreams of equality come true. They had a dream, those early warriors for homosexual rights, and now that dream is a reality. Let us rejoice!
There is only one problem with this narrative – it is the biggest load of bunkum. It glosses over the fact that those early gay radicals were not
remotely interested in getting married, or in winning equality, the only thing that today’s super-square gay campaigners and their cheerleaders go on about. The Stonewall radicals wanted liberation, not equality, and they wanted to destroy marriage, not buy into it. The Gay Liberation Front that emerged out of the Stonewall riot insisted that “complete sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished”.
It was pretty clear that one of the social institutions that would have to be done away with was marriage. A Gay Manifesto, an influential radical pamphlet published in 1970, described marriage as “a rotten, oppressive institution”. In Gay is Good, lesbian activist Martha Shelley’s explosive and much-loved 1972 booklet, homosexuals were described as “women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and the nuclear family structure”. As for Britain’s early Gay Pride get-togethers – they viewed marriage and the family as “a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children”. To depict last night’s passing of the gay marriage bill as a victory for these early campaigners is a bit like saying the nuking of Hiroshima was the joyous outcome of CND marches.
Writing in 2002, on the 30th anniversary of Britain’s first Gay Pride parade, Peter Tatchell said: “There were no calls for equality; our demand was liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it.” So in essence, the gay marriage campaign of today, with its drab demand that
homosexuals be granted equal access to the social institution of “rotten, oppressive” marriage, represents not the fulfilment of early gay radicals’ demands but the warping of them, the stomping of them into the dirt of history. It is a well-known fact that most radicals end up going straight, eventually donning a suit and tie and accepting a fat wage packet in return for tempering their ideals. But the gay movement, in switching from loathing marriage to longing to enter into it, and from demanding that the state get our of their lives to pleading with the state to officiate their relationships, has performed an about-face that is unprecedented even in modern radical politics.
Related Articles are listed below:
WorldviewWeekend.Com –
Topic: Brannon explains why he is thankful for the Baby Boom generation of Christians and what will it mean for the church if the Lord does not return before this generation goes on to glory? Topic: Home-school publishers and private Christian schools are conforming to federal education standards tied to United Nations. What many of us that were writing and predicting in regards to Goals 2000 and America 2000 some twenty years ago is now coming to pass. Topic: A U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training report describes evangelical Christianity as examples of religious extremism. While Christians that stand for Biblical truth will be persecuted according to 2 Timothy 3:12; is it possible that the rhetoric of some of the New Religious Right plays right into the hands of the government? Topic: Hear the audio of what is reported by Right-wing Watch to be a talk show host for the American Family Association and Radio Network. In this audio this host makes a statement that Brannon believes could give the government cause to label Christians as extremists when such statements are made. Brannon also believes the statement by this talk show host is a very poor witness to the unsaved world and a bad example to other Christians. Brannon describes that such a statement might reveal a real problem with how many self-professing Christians think. Brannon explains why such a statement is completely unacceptable and should be rejected and seen for what it is.
To listen to the program, click on the link entitled, “Commentary on Common Core Curriculum“.
Related articles are listed below:
RT.Com –
A senior lawmaker told Reuters the Cyprus model may not be an isolated case, and is perhaps a future template in dealing with troubled European banks.
The new template is now likely to turn into a full-scale EU law, letting taxpayers off the hook in case a bail-out is needed, but imposing major losses on bigger savers on a permanent basis.
“You need to be able to do the bail-in as well with deposits,” said Gunnar Hokmark, member of European Parliament, who is leading negotiations with EU countries to finalize a law for winding up problem banks, Reuters reported.
“Deposits below 100,000 euros are protected … deposits above 100,000 euros are not protected and shall be treated as part of the capital that can be bailed in,” Hokmark told Reuters, adding that he was confident a majority of his peers in the parliament backed the idea.
The European Commission has written the draft of the law, which now awaits approval from eurozone member states and the parliament on whether and when it can be implemented. It’s been reported, the law is planned to take effect in the beginning of 2015.
“What we’ve done last night is what I call pushing back the risks,” Dijsselbloem told Reuters and the Financial Times hours after the Cyprus deal was struck Monday.
After speaking to reporters, news outlets prolieferated Disselbloem’s ‘Cyprus as a template’ commentary, which sent markets into a spook and tanked many trading indexes. Analysts took the rhetoric as a signal Cyprus was not a unique case, and other Euro economies, could be next.
Now Dijsselbloem is eating his words and defended himself saying he doesn’t even know the English word ‘template’, but he was simply describing the process itself.
“If there is a risk in a bank, our first question should be ‘Okay, what are you in the bank going to do about that? What can you do to recapitalise yourself?’ If the bank can’t do it, then we’ll talk to the shareholders and the bondholders, we’ll ask them to contribute in recapitalising the bank, and if necessary the uninsured deposit holders,” he said.
Though the word ‘template’ wasn’t explicitly used, his comments still indicate he doesn’t think Cyprus is a one-time deal.
The International Monetry Fund and German officials back the new template and see it as a more sustainable approach to battling the sovereign debt problems that spread like a virus in financially weak members of the eurozone.
Economist Yanis Varoufakis believes the situation in the rest of the eurozone is not looking good after the “basic principle” of a banking union and solidarity throughout the eurozone has been jeopardized.
“As long as even a small probability of losing their money is present and persistent, the capital flight from the periphery to the core of the eurozone is going to continue unabated and this is going to constantly undermine the integrity of the eurozone,” Varoufakis told RT. “Suppose you are a depositor in Spain… Even if there is a small probability in your mind that something similar could happen with your insolvent Spanish bank, and they are insolvent after all, why would you keep money in your Spanish bank account and not transfer it to Frankfurt, to Deutsche bank, let’s say? There is no reason why you shouldn’t transfer it to Germany.”
Related articles are listed below:
The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the first treaty on the global arms trade, which seeks to regulate the $70 billion business in conventional arms and keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful U.S. pro-gun lobbying group that has opposed the treaty from the start, said it was a sad day for the United States, which joined the vast majority of U.N. member states by voting for the pact.
Iran, Syria and North Korea cast the sole votes against the treaty. The same three states last week prevented a treaty-drafting conference at U.N. headquarters from reaching the required consensus to adopt the pact.
The official U.N. tally showed 154 votes in favor, three against 23 abstentions, though diplomats and U.N. officials said the actual vote was 155-3-22. They said Angola was recorded as having abstained, though it had attempted to vote yes.
Iran, which is under a U.N. arms embargo over its nuclear program, is eager to ensure its arms imports and exports are not curtailed, while Syria’s government is embroiled in a two-year civil war and relies on arms from Russia and Iran, envoys said.
North Korea is also under a U.N. arms embargo due to its nuclear weapons and missile programs.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the vote, saying the treaty “will help to keep warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and their like from acquiring deadly arms.”
The treaty will be open for signature on June 3 and will enter into force 90 days after the 50th signatory ratifies it. Mexican U.N. Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba told reporters it normally takes two to three years for a treaty to come into force, but said he hoped it would happen sooner in this case.
Major arms producers China and Russia joined Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries in abstaining. Although a significant number of countries abstained, putting the treaty to a General Assembly vote was the only way its supporters could get it adopted after the treaty conference collapsed last week.
NRA: ‘A SAD, YET TELLING, DAY’
Many of the countries that abstained, among them India, complained the treaty favored exporting over importing states. Russia said Moscow would take a hard look at the treaty before deciding whether to sign it.
Several delegates told Reuters the treaty’s effectiveness would be limited if major arms exporters refused to sign it.
The United States, the world’s No. 1 arms exporter, voted in favor of the treaty despite fierce opposition from the NRA, whose lobbying wing – the NRA Institute for Legislative Action – issued a statement condemning the U.N. vote.
“This treaty disregards the Second Amendment to our Constitution and threatens individual firearm ownership,” said Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA. “It is a sad, yet telling, day when the president of the United States and his administration refuse to defend America’s Constitution on the world stage.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement the U.N. adopted “a strong, effective and implementable Arms Trade Treaty that can strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”
“Nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” he added, referring to the U.S. Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms.
The NRA has vowed to fight to prevent the treaty’s ratification by the U.S. Senate when it reaches Washington.
Syrian U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari repeated that his government opposes the arms trade treaty because it does not ban the sale of weapons to non-state actors and “terrorists” like those it says are active in Syria. The civil war there has claimed at least 70,000 lives, according to U.N. estimates.
Syria routinely refers to rebels trying to oust President Bashar al-Assad as “terrorists” backed by foreign governments.
The treaty does not ban transfers to armed groups, but says all arms transfers should be subjected to rigorous risk and human rights assessments first.
British Prime Minister David Cameron hailed the vote as a “landmark agreement that will save lives and ease the immense human suffering caused by armed conflict around the world.”
SCRUTINY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Mexico issued a statement on behalf of 98 U.N. member states saying, “an effective implementation of this treaty will make a real difference for the people of the world.”
U.N. member states began meeting on March 18 in a final push to end years of discussions and hammer out a binding international treaty to end the lack of regulation over cross-border conventional arms sales.
Arms control activists and rights groups have said a treaty was needed to halt the uncontrolled flow of arms and ammunition that they say fuels wars, atrocities and rights abuses.
The Arms Trade Treaty aims to set standards for all cross-border transfers of conventional weapons. It would also create binding requirements for states to review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure that arms will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism or violations of humanitarian law.
“The agreement of the Arms Trade Treaty sends a clear message to arms dealers who supply warlords and dictators that their time is up,” said Anna Macdonald of the global development group Oxfam.
The main reason the arms trade talks took place at all is that the United States, the world’s biggest arms trader, reversed U.S. policy on the issue after President Barack Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.
Related articles are listed below:
The oldest report of communism can be found in the writings of the Greek philosopher, Plato, and has been both implemented and perfected by the Jesuit order of the Roman Catholic church. The resurrection of communism took place in Paraguay of South America in the 17th, and 18th, century, in what is known as the Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay. The Jesuit Reductions were brought about because of Romes interest in making Catholicism the dominate religion of the indigenous region. At the same time, the Spanish colonies were enslaving the natives, and no conversions to Catholicism were taking place, nor were their any clergymen who spoke the language of the natives. To solve this problem, the Jesuits decided to employ radical conversion tactics to win over the natives to the religion of Rome, such as promising freedom from slavery, and equal status with Spaniard colonists, if they would agree to convert to Catholicism.
Within a short time, the number of converts numbered in the tens of thousands, and continued to grew exponentially. These converts lived in colonies controlled by Jesuits, who enforced communism as their form of governance. This fact is also affirmed by Roman Catholic history, as stated below:
The economic system of the Reductions
The economic basis was a sort of communism, which, however differed materially from the modern system which bears the same name, and was essentially theocratic. “The Jesuits”, writes Gelpi y Ferro, “realized in
their Christian commonwealth all that is good and nothing that is bad in the plans of modern Socialists and Communists.” The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques, who allotted it to the families under them. Agricultural instruments and draught-cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house, called abamba, i.e. “own possession.”
The communist regime of the Jesuits has also been affirmed by the following author:
The Revolutionary Movement – A Diagnosis of World Disorders by J. Findlater (1933)
Giovanni Battista Nicolini’s History of the Jesuits (1854) P. 303 –
When once the Jesuits had raised up a generation so devoted and obedient, they then brought into operation their system of government, and made a successful attempt to realise that republic preconceived of old by Plato, and which, with perhaps more interested views is held out to us by the Socialists of our own day. In fact, their form of a republic was nothing else than that Communism which the famous Cabet is now trying to establish in nearly the same regions; the only difference being, that the Jesuits substituted themselves for the state or community.
In the 19th century, the Jesuit philosopher, Luigi Taparelli, who coined the term “social justice”, implemented the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to be the voice of Rome in regards to the social changes that were taking place. Taparelli’s writings heavily influenced Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which was an open letter that addressed the condition of the working classes, and amounted to the affirmation of socialism, as opposed to the traditional approach to communism, wherein private property is excluded. Out of this Catholic Socialist’s philosophy has come a theology of work, which is currently being taught to Roman Catholics in the West. For more information on Rerum Novarum, click on the link entitled “Rerum Novarum – Catholic Social Teaching“.
This teaching on social justice can also be seen in the 20th century with the rise of “Liberation Theology“, which was started by the Dominican Priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino., who attempted to reinvent the gospel of salvation into a more earth-based, works based, salvation, which is not centered on salvation from the bandage to sin, and the wrath of God, but, instead, is centered in the troubles, and injustices, of the poor, wherein converts must work to save the world from the plight of poverty, and oppression.
Aspects of the “social justice” philosophy can be seen today, such as “The Collective Salvation of the Superior Group” mentality, which can be seen in fanatical religious groups, such as the New Apostolic Reformation, who have a strong emphasis on liberation theology, and even dominionism. Another would be IB’s “World Peace” Indoctrination, wherein student around the world are being taught how to be world citizens, who work together for world peace. Alice Bailey & The Christian World Servers are yet another example of this due to the fact that they claim to be working together for the good of mankind. In this way, All Roads Lead to Rome for the good of mankind, because all religions, and even Protestant leaders, are coming into union with Rome for this very purpose, and is building a dominate world church, which author, Brannon Hows calls a “Religious Trojan Horse“.
These radical views of communism, and “social justice” are rooted in Roman Catholic philosophers for the intentions of advancing the kingdom of Rome, and not the good of mankind. Though Rome promises peace, its goals are deception, and enslavement for the world, just as it enslaved the Holy Roman Empire. Those who are seducing, and deceived by its teachings, and false hope for world peace, will be greatly disappointed.
1Thessalonians 5
1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.
2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.
3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.
Daniel 9
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
Revelation 17
1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters,
2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”
3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.
5 And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
7 But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.
10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.
13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.
14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.
18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
2Thessalonians 2
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
With the US raising their debt ceiling, are we in a global bail-out bubble that will eventually burst? This doc offers a fresh insight into the greatest economic crisis of our age: the one still awaiting us.
The financial storm that has rocked the world began brewing in the US when congress pushed the idea of home ownership for all, propping up those who couldn’t make the down payments. When it all went wrong the government promised the biggest financial stimulus packages in history and gargantuan bailouts. But what crazed logic is that: propping up debt with more debt? “They’re giving alcohol to a drunk: it just sets him up for a bigger hangover.”
The author of a report on Australia’s sweeping gun reform program that was instituted after a mass killing in 1996 says the United States would have many fewer deaths by dramatically decreasing the number of households with guns, the Sydney Morning-Herald reported.
The National Firearms Agreement — reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort — cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.
The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.
The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.
In August, following the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who instituted the NFA, wrote in the Melbourne daily The Age that the United States should follow in Australia’s footsteps.
“Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996,” he wrote. “It will be the continuing responsibility of current and future federal and state governments to ensure the effectiveness of those anti-gun laws is never weakened. The U.S. is a country for which I have much affection. There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit. But when it comes to guns we have been right to take a radically different path.”
Andrew Leigh, as an academic at the Australian National University, published research in 2010 on the NFA and found that the gun buyback program lowered the proportion of Australian homes with guns from 15% to 8%.
”Our gun buyback took about a fifth of our guns out of circulation but it approximately halved the number of gun-owning households,” Leigh, who is also a Labor party MP, said, the Morning-Herald reported. ‘If the U.S. could dramatically decrease the number of households with guns, it would have many fewer deaths.”
Would the unarmed citizens of Australia agree with this assessment? To hear their opinions on this matter, click on the link entitled “Australia Protests Gun Ban Wake Up American Your Next“.
A 2011 study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center of the Australian program noted that while 13 gun massacres (involving the death of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, there had been no massacres since.
READ: The full report on the Australia gun buyback program
Leigh said that he does not foresee any retreat from the policy by major parties, although the Australian Party has vowed to fight for shooter’s rights if it gains seats in the Senate next year.
Australian native Rupert Murdoch, who is now a U.S. citizen, has strongly echoed the calls for new
restrictions on automatic weapons, citing the Australian example.
After the Sandy Hook massacre on Friday, Murdoch wrote on Twitter: ”Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy.”
That, says the Morning Herald, prompted a none-too-subtle comment from Australian Liberal Malcolm Turnbull about Murdoch’s U.S. cable network. “I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it.”
In his 2010 report, Leigh wrote that there were several important factors in assessing the extent to which the result of the Australian gun buyback program could be extrapolated to other countries.
Among them:
President Obama on Wednesday tapped Vice President Biden to lead an administration-wide effort looking at gun control and other measures in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week.
“The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing,” Obama said.
The move marks the first concrete step by the White House toward crafting new firearms restrictions. The president did not announce any major policy decisions on Wednesday, but said the task force of Cabinet
officials and outside organizations led by Biden would submit legislative proposals to him no later than January.
Some lawmakers, in the wake of the tragedy, have called for a broad-based response, looking at everything from mental health to school security to American culture. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in a call soon joined by others, proposed a national commission examining the entertainment industry and particularly video games.
Obama and top administration officials suggest the response to the Newtown, Conn., mass murder could include a range of recommendations. But the focus, given the debate that has accelerated on Capitol Hill in recent days, is likely to be gun control.
The president said Wednesday that he chose Biden to lead the task force in part because of his role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Obama spoke favorably of the ban, as well as proposals to strengthen background checks and ban high-capacity magazines. The president tried to walk a line between assuring Americans that gun rights would largely be protected, while making the case for some new restrictions.
“The fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible,” he said. “But you know what — I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.”
Obama said he would use “all the powers” of his office to prevent more tragedies. “We won’t prevent them all, but that can’t be an excuse not to try,” he said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the administration will craft proposals for Congress to consider over the next few weeks. He said a “strong” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also important.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama is “actively supportive” of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D-Calif., push to bring back the assault-weapons ban. He also said the president supports closing the so-called gun show loophole.
Gun-rights advocates have started to push back on the swift call for more firearms regulation. The National Rifle Association, after remaining silent in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, released its first — albeit brief — statement on Tuesday, and announced it would be holding a major press conference on Friday.
The White House sees some urgency in formulating a policy response to the shooting, even as Obama and his top aides are consumed with averting the looming fiscal crisis before tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January.
As many pro-gun lawmakers have called for a greater focus on mental health issues and the impact of violent entertainment, aides say Obama also prefers a holistic approach.
“It’s a complex problem that requires more than one solution,” Carney said Tuesday. “It calls for not only re-examining our gun laws and how well we enforce them, but also for engaging mental health professionals, law-enforcement officials, educators, parents and communities to find those solutions.”
Still, much of the immediate focus after the shooting is on gun control, an issue that has been dormant in Washington for years. Obama expended little political capital on gun issues during his first term, despite several mass shootings, including a movie theater attack in Aurora, Colorado, in the midst of this year’s presidential campaign.
The White House has begun to signal that Obama may be more proactive on gun issues following the murders of the elementary school youngsters, ages 6 and 7.
The policy process Obama announced Wednesday was expected to include input from the departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The heads of those agencies met with Obama at the White House on Monday.
Glenn Beck has reiterated his surprisingly lenient stance on same-sex marriage in a new interview.
In a conversation with Penn Jillette, Beck stopped short of endorsing marriage equality, but nonetheless argued against government involvement in personal affairs.
“Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people,” he said. “I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that’s the Constitution.”
He then noted: “The question is not whether gay people should be married or not, the question is why is the government involved in our marriage?”
It’s not the first time the author and former Fox News host has expressed a less-than-rigid view of same-sex marriage. In 2010, Beck told Bill O’Reilly that he didn’t believe allowing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples to tie the knot posed much of a threat to the country.
Beck even quoted Thomas Jefferson in his argument: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”
2Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
slaveofjesuschristdotme 