It Has Happened Before
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

    I have sat in a cafe eating and listened to people talk and say some of the most stupid things because they don't know any better.

    Not long ago I heard a conversation about the govern ment killing its citizens. One fellow mentioned that he had heard that such was the case concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing. The other man said: "You don't really believe that Right-Wing crap, our government would never kill its own citizens."

     Well this man was either totally ignorant or he does not know anything about the history of the United States; because the federal government has been killing its citizens ever since this coutry was formed.

     I suppose the first ones would be those in the whisky rebelliion; because they didn't want to pay taxes. So the government sent an army to make them pay. This was within 10 years of when our forefathers had fought against England and gained our independence, partly BECAUSE OUR FOREFATHERS DIDN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES.

     I could name many other cases but I will just present the following which happened after World War I, when the government killed the brave men who had fought a world war, (sic) supposedly to keep us free. And the reward they got was being killed and beaten to death by the federal government with other army personel, lead by General Douglas McArthur.

     I believe this was a blot on his otherwise great record. For there is no doubt that he was a very great military leader. Along with George S. Patton. However Eisenhower gained his repretation and position as a five star general because he was screwing Roosevelts daughter.

    At any rate if you think the government will not turn the military on you when the time comes, and that many of the soldiers will shoot you then read and weep because so many will die in the coming years.

     You have read my posts and know that I cut no slack about anyone whom I perceive to be traitors to our God, our Redeemer, Savior, and King, and country. And many times I have related how the Jews have betrayed our country, and so they have, 95 percent of all the traitors ever caught and convicted of treason were Jews. But the truth must be told, some of them were caught because other jews turned them in and helped convict them sometimes at the cost of their own lives.

    This just proves that the elite jews care noting about the so-called lesser jews, and will sacrifice them in a heart beat, to gain more power and money. The same is true of the so-called HoloHoax, there were no 6 million jews murdered in the camps run by the Germans. Many jews were murdered by jewish camp guards but you never hear them tell that part. That is why so many people dispise them so much. Because they will protect these elite, like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, Warburgs and others of their ilk and stupidly priaise them because they killed many times more White People.

    In the war to come, they will be destroyed by their own elite, and what is left will be destroyed by the victorious armies, because their hatred will be so incensed in them that they will spare none.

     You say it can't happen here! Well it has already happened in America. The following article written by Neal Knox and published in Guns & Ammo Magazine, September 1989 issue, p. 32: "It was clear that all the government had to do was wait. The multitudes of demonstrators in the immense government square had shrunk to a few thousand, and more were drifting away every day. But the hardliners were determined that the demonstrators shouldn't escape unscathed; such protests could lead to open rebellion and violent revolution-like the one that had created the present government. With the heads of government divided and wavering, the Army decided to act. Obeying the orders of the president, the commanding general of the army lined up his forces facing the demonstrators and ordered them to disperse. The demonstrators didn't think the Army would attack. It did. Tanks rolled into and across the demonstrators' ramshackle huts. Marching soldiers with fixed bayonets and assault rifles and tear gas followed the tanks, clubbing, bayoneting and shooting those assembled.

     The Army later said the demonstrators rioted; the general claimed armed soldiers were attacked. Many of the demonstrators were wounded; the number who died will never be known - the government claimed it was only one. The commanding general declared that the demonstrators were driven by 'the essence of revolution,' and that it was 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' that the demonstrators had been about to seize control of the government.

     The commander was Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

     The place was Washington, D.C., not Beijing.

     The date was 1932, not 1989.

     The 'assault rifles' were bolt-action Springfield Model 1903s, not AK-47s. The peaceful demonstrators weren't students in Tiananmen Square demanding the equivalent of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances. The demonstrators on the Washington mall and nearby Anacostia already had those rights; their problem was that they used them. They were Americans - World War I veterans, thrown out of work by the Great Depression (created by the Federal Reserve), lobbying for government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.

     No, the attack on the Bonus Marchers, bad as it was, wasn't the brutal mass murder unleashed upon the students in Beijing. The American people wouldn't have tolerated it - and had the means to stop it. What happened at Tiananmen Square was the kind of ruthless tyranny that has occurred in other lands throughout history, and is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared might be done by the powerful central government they were creating under the United States Constitution. That's why the people refused to ratify that Constitution until it was amended to guarantee certain individual freedoms known today as the Bill of Rights. That's why the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly and petitioning the government were backed up by the Second Amendment guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. And when, during debate on the amendment, some senators attempted to limit the right to apply only to 'the common defense' which is what some people today say it is, the Senate rejected it. That piece of 'legislative history' clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to be an individual right; not merely a 'collective right' of states to have militia.

 Most of the world's constitutions, even the Constitution of Soviet Russia, contain beautiful words promising freedoms that only U.S. citizens enjoy. The reason, as unintentionally acknowledged by the anti-gun crowd, is that only in the United States do individual citizens have such relatively free and unfettered access to firearms. But instead of glorying in that unique freedom, and the freedoms it guarantees, some in the Establishment are attempting to eliminate it -- with too much success.

 The nation existed for 150 years without any federal gun laws. The National Firearms Act, attempting to tax out of existence machine guns and short-barrelled shotguns (the bill originally included handguns) was enacted in 1934. Don't kid yourself that the reason was Thompson-toting hoodlums like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. The real reason was the fear put into the Establishment by those Bonus Marchers, and the March 7, 1932 march on the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, where police killed four and wounded 50.

     The government's fear was summed up by one of the co-sponsors of a bill to ban private possession of 'military weapons whose only purpose to kill people.' During the hearings he blurted it out: 'What scares me is the thought of those veterans going against the police; Vietnam veterans know how to use those guns.' The legislator was testifying in Maryland hearings earlier this year (1989) on a California-type bill banning the possession of AK-47s rifles and other military-style semi-automatics...New Jersey State Police Col. Clinton Pagano, a determined advocate for prohibitive gun laws, has said many times that 'gun control is people control.' He is exactly correct. That objective never changes, only the excesses used to promote it. The first major gun control push in this country wasn't 'to control crime,' it was to control freed slaves. The first Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), so proudly cited by anti-gun 'liberals,' held that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' meant only that it could not be infringed by the Congress, that the Second Amendment did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent freed slaves from possessing guns and attending political meetings.

     The next major wave of 'gun control' was supposedly to deny guns to 'anarchists' -- which was a code name for immigrants; during the waves of immigration around the turn of the century. For the first time the criminal element began actively using and promoting 'gun control' as a means of disarming potential victims.

     Immigrant shopkeepers, accustomed to being bullied by thugs, corrupt police and government in Europe, had willingly paid 'protection money' to the thugs who helped support New York's corrupt Tammany Hall political machine. But their American sons began to arm themselves and began to fight back with guns, which inspired Tammany politician 'Big Tim' Sullivan to push through the 1911 law which bears his name, requiring police permission to possess a handgun. Immigrants, like blacks in southern states which enacted purchase permit laws, needn't apply. The U.S. didn't have a patent on people control through 'gun control;' according to recently released government papers researched by retired West Yorkshire Constabulary Inspector Colin Greenwood, the British government deliberately exaggerated reports of armed crime to justify their 1919 law requiring firearms licenses. The real intent wasn't to control armed crime (which was much lower then than now), but an effort to check the Irish Republican Army. During the late 1930's, firearms registration laws were enacted in most of the European countries that didn't already have them. They were legislated in the guise of 'crime control,' but proved to be of great 'people control' benefit to the invading German Army, and subsequently to the invading U.S. and Russian armies. In the U.S. in 1938, the national government required gun dealers to be licensed, and required records to be kept on handgun buyers. But more restrictive 'gun control' was promoted under a novel excuse: 'keeping guns out of the hands of Fifth Columnists.'

     Incredibly, in the spring of 1941, a year after gun owner lists were known to have been used by the Nazis to disarm occupied nations, gun registration laws were pending in 40 U.S. state legislatures.

     World War II put a stop to U.S. 'gun control' efforts, as did returning GI's who had seen how such laws had been used to enslave occupied nations - and decimate the Jews. But the debate began again in the 1960's. This time the excuse was to keep 'Saturday Night Specials' out of the hands of 'juvenile delinquents' who were supposedly buying guns by mail order. A new law eventually passed after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy -- but most observers agree it was not those murders, but the race riots that gutted and burned cities from coast to coast which provided the final votes for the Gun Control Act. It wasn't really crime control, for the firearms crime rates have more than doubled since its passage; it was people control.

     Throughout the 1970's, the major efforts were to ban 'Saturday Night Specials,' which were at times defined to include two-thirds of the handguns made. But most of the laws that were passed only eliminated the unsafe junk, which had the predicted effect of upgrading the crooks' armament to equal or better that of the police -- for which the anti-gunners have avoided taking credit, but which they are using to pass even more laws.

     In this decade, we've seen the Supreme Court decline to consider the clearly unconstitutional outright ban on handguns in Morton Grove, Illinois. We've seen Congress ban armor-piercing so-called 'cop-killer' bullets which had never killed a copy, and we've seen non-existent 'plastic guns' banned. In each case the technique was the same: to solve a non-existent problem with a broadly defined bill that banned much, much more than the guns or ammo which created the supposed 'problem.' The latest such assault is the attack upon semi-autos, which follows the same pattern. While waving around the AKs, they attempt to ban your M-1 Carbine, Remington 742 and Winchester 100. Because that expanded definition ploy has become so obvious, the sponsors pulled back to 'only' ban about 50 models under the new California law, while giving the anti-gun attorney general the power to easily ban more by going to the courts. In Congress, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum's (D-OH.) bill would ban three dozen, Sen. Dennis DeConcini's (D-AZ.) would ban a dozen -- but the actual number in the initial list isn't important, for once the dam is cracked, it is relatively easy to pour more through. Not even the most dedicated gun-banner truly believes that semi-auto bans such as California's new law, or the ones pending in Congress, will affect the flow of drugs. Nor is it true that 'assault weapons' are suddenly 'the guns of choice' of criminals. Since a semi-auto ban can't prevent isolated acts of insanity; since large- capacity magazines are important only when someone is shooting back; since criminals do not prefer 'assault rifles,' then why the ban?

 We know why Mexico prohibits private ownership, even temporary importation by hunters, of all firearms chambered for military cartridges. They make no secret of their fear of revolution. We know why Poland had a registration and licensing law on all firearms -- so when the government declared martial law on December 14, 1981 they could immediately suspend all gun permits and call in all guns. We know why Soviet Georgia required all rifles and shotguns to be registered -- so when their troops killed dozens of protestors with poison gas in Tbilisi earlier this year (1989) the government could seize some 66,0000 guns in only a few hours.

 We know why the Chinese government won't allow their people to have any form of the AK-47, but why won't the government of California allow Californians to have them, unless registered to allow easy confiscation? Why do President Bush and Sen. Metzenbaum want to deny them to Americans? Do they, or any other official of the U.S. government, believe that they have something to fear from an armed citizenry? If they do fear the people, perhaps it is with reason. And many of us would like to know what that reason is. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights gave us the Second Amendment as an insurance policy to make certain that a Tiananmen Square massacre could never occur in America. In recent weeks, in watching the powerful television scenes from Beijing, we have witnessed what can happen when the people have no freedom insurance. I'm not truly worried that U.S. Army troops and tanks are about to be unleashed upon Americans. But don't tell me it can't happen here -- because it has already happened here!"

horizontal rule

     "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause." (Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
 
Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin

horizontal rule