JPFO now backing gun control?

So says David Codrea about the once-noble organization from which TZP sprang. (And for which Codrea, yours truly, and several other TZP volunteers once wrote before JPFO was sold into the hands of a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer gun-control bill.)

Even if this is just yet another case where the poor guy handling JPFO’s alerts was left to scramble for material on his own without guidelines or caveats, this does appear as if JPFO endorses the latest “no due process” nonsense that’s coming from both anti-gunners and the more spineless of supposed Second Amendment supporters.

(H/T ML)


9 thoughts on “JPFO now backing gun control?”

  1. I had urged one of (my) Senators to vote against such folly. He sent me a reply in which he stated his strong support for the second amendment and then, of course, goes on to say that he therefore supports the secret lists bills. He stated that the act in Orlando was homegrown.

    My reply:

    “Dear Senator Alexander, I received your reply to my requests to reject gun control and reject secret lists of Americans. I’m not happy, at all, with you.
    There is nothing “homegrown” about walking into an entertainment venue, shouting alla akbar and shooting 100 people. The Orlando attack is not the result of an American or even Judaeo-christian ideology. The ongoing attacks are based on a foreign belief that is antithetical to what we are. This is radical islamic terrorism conducted as an act war against the American people. Until you recognize these facts, your lack of understanding or refusal to publicly state the obvious, makes you ignorant or a liar. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. You, are why we are losing this war.
    Putting law abiding Americans on a secret list in order to fight imported radical islamic jihad is treasonous. You are a coward.
    P.s. We are, by no means, on a first name basis.”

    And so, my guess is, that he will expect my vote soon. Pffft.

  2. “Even if this is just yet another case where the poor guy handling JPFO’s alerts was left to scramble for material on his own…”

    Sounds more like Gottliebian “compromise” to me.

  3. Still waiting for that open and informative exchange with the Gauleiter from Seattle (with a little, ghost-writing help from his Propaganda Minister in Scottsdale, no doubt). It should prove scintillating… if I do not die of old age, first.

    1. “Informative exchange.” But you no longer have to wait, Y.B. Mr. Gottlieb already gave us an extremely informative exchange last year. His portion consisted of him promising repeatedly to answer TZP questions, then repeatedly ducking out of ever doing so.

      Heck, I consider that extremely informative.

  4. IMHO Alan Gottlieb with his promotion of 591 doomed the anti 594 forces by splitting their resources thus assuring the passage of the gun control measure 594 (this was documented by the Independent Washington State Freedom Foundation after the election btw).

    Gottlieb IMHO is the worst type of “Judenräte” in that he pretends to be on our side as he comprises our rights away!!!!

    IMHO If you follow Gottlieb you are doom to end up on a cattle car!

  5. The following is NOT a comment on David Codrea, who I admire and follow, OR his association with Oathkeepers, but I must raise the possibility of another good organization gone bad, one I belong to. I made a good faith attempt to address this issue confidentially, and no response was forthcoming.

    Another question: Is Oathkeepers propagating anti-Semitic claptrap with it’s sponsorship/participation in the documentary “Mainstream”?: At this point I’m still a member. I queried Stewart Rhodes personally over a week ago on this, and never received a response. Some of the clips available of this film are pretty off putting, particularly statements made by Sam Chew and Chuck Baldwin. Silence from Stewart does not help. I don’t think Oathkeepers holds some of these age old guilt by association Jew baiting beliefs as an organization, but this crap is over the line:

    Chuck Baldwin’s brand of replacement theology. Does Oathkeepers support this view? If they do, I’m OUT. Why do they include a statement on the biblical validity of the Jewish state in a film supposedly about the media?

    1. Mr. Ramsay, I regret that I cannot follow your first link, but knowing the spiritual poison of such sentiments in many freedom organizations, I can surmise what it holds. Furthermore, I got a feel for the “Mainstream” movie in a matter of a couple of minutes. Alex Jones? ’nuff said.

      On the second issue… the Lubavitcher Rebbe; Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (a true tzadik, and thus arguably better informed than Mr. Baldwin on these matters) subtly differentiated between the secular, modern, State of Israel, which is (understandably) rife with legitimate qualifications as to it’s nature and actions, and the “Land of Israel”, and it’s inhabitants; (partly, and part of) the “People Israel”.

      For a far deeper understanding of this, I would refer those interested here:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *