Click the link to enjoy the podcast:
Welcome to the channel of Anna Perdue. Look for the link below the podcast and make sure to upload the podcast, so you can multi-task while hearing the message. You may also open the link and scroll over and select your favorite platform: Apple, Spotify or Google, then look for the channel “Anna Perdue”.
A HUGE SHOUT OUT to: James R, Michelle V, Mark Z, Leonard L, Dave O, Carolyn C, Derren J, Angela E, Karen C, Daniel B, Jolie R, and Kristin S, for your donations to the channel. If you are interested in helping this channel, you can do so by clicking the DONATION LINK found on my website at annaperdue.com. Another way to support this channel is by checking out this offer from my latest sponsor:
The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!
This letter was written to the Orange County Register August 4, 1999 in Australia.
"It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars.
And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (changed drastically in the past 12months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly."
Surprise, surprise! How can this kind of result occur when the "superior" intellects of governments worldwide have told us repeatedly that gun ownership and gun availability are the reasons so many shooting deaths occur, and why so much crime occurs. Leftist Liberals shout the same tired slogans, telling American's night after night after night that we could achieve Paradise on Earth if we would only force everyone to give up their guns. The Liberal Mass Media is also pouring forth the same nightly nonsense.
Of course, once a lie is big enough and repeated often enough, many uninformed citizens of every Western country on earth will begin to believe that at least some truth must be contained within the lie. 
Australians turned in more than 57,000 firearms to authorities in 2017 during a national gun amnesty.
The three-month amnesty was the first since Australia's landmark response to a mass shooting in 1996.
It aimed to reduce the number of illicit weapons by allowing people to hand them over without fear of prosecution. The government said the amnesty deal had made the nation safer. NOTE: The government said... Who is now safer? The people? ...or the government? 
Recently, President Joe Biden announced in a nationwide address that employers with 100 or more employees would be required to activate forced mandates all employees or require weekly testing.
Biden’s announcement set off a firestorm on social media, with some citizens praising his plan and some fiercely opposing it and promising legal action to stop it. However, these mandates and passports are bringing up another issue gun owners have been warning about.
Gun owners are concerned that these passports and mandates will be linked to Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders that are the law in over 15 states already, and both Democrat and Republican lawmakers pushing them at the Federal level. Chris Dorr, Executive Director for Ohio Gun Owners said his members are very concerned the government will use a list of non-compliant citizens to label them as “dangerous” and use Red Flag laws to confiscate their firearms.
Dorr also said, “We have seen the government over the last year couple of years attempt to obliterate our freedoms at every turn, and they would do it if we let them. Red Flag laws have been sweeping the country in an effort by the government to disarm citizens who they arbitrarily classify as ‘dangerous.’
Now, with Biden’s speech attacking the ‘non-compliant’ and treating them as though they are existential threats to our society, what’s to stop them from using those who refuse to compromise their bodies from being considered dangerous? What’s to prevent them from adding gun owners who are protecting their rights to their bodies to a list of people who would be Red Flagged and disarmed?” 
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination. Herein lies the problem. Since today; most judges are politically compromised, it is dangerous for many of the current judges to issue such an order.
The presiding judge will base the consequence on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. What if the judge determines the gun owner is a political threat to an upcoming election? Refusal to comply with the order of surrendering any gun weapons is punishable as a criminal offense. The gun owner may or may not have the weapons returned upon subsequent hearings.
Remember, many of the political prisoners sitting at the DC Gitmo are considered terrorists. Although, we have seen most all who are in their solitary confinement cells are upstanding Patriot Christians, they are now considered by our rogue government as enemies-of-the-state. These good people would certainly fall short in a gun weapon return hearing. Orders issued under "red flag" laws, also called risk-based gun removal laws, are known by several names, including:
Extreme Risk Protection Orders: (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Vermont, and Colorado – NOTE: each of these states are EXTREME LEFT states); then while we are on EXTREME: Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders in New Mexico – another Lefty state); Risk Protection Orders (in Florida – hmmm...Broward County must have gotten a hold of that one);
Gun Violence Restraining Orders (in California – an UBER LEFT state); risk warrants (in Connecticut); and Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm (in Indiana). As of April 2020, 19 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of red-flag law. Do you see the trend? 
President Joe Biden proposed a new “health” project that has little to do with health and everything to do with expanding the surveillance state. At his “State of the Union” speech, Biden announced the $6.5 billion project to be part of the National Institutes of Health. It would be similar to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and would be called Health Advanced Research Projects Agency-ARPA or HARPA.
Of course, the proposal received bipartisan applause showing once again there are no principles in the Republican Party and no fundamental understanding of the role of government. Biden said HARPA would “develop breakthroughs to prevent, detect and treat diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes and cancer.”
However, what HARPA would really be is a fusion of the national and health “security” apparatus which would be headed not by any health expert but rather a technocrat from Silicon Valley, Eric Lander who has been nominated by Biden for the director of the office of science and technology policy. Lander, by the way, has ties to Jeffrey Epstein and racist eugenicists.
It would effectively advance the government’s goal to create an office of precrime, like that seen in the Minority Report. And the project is not a new idea, it was proposed by Biden’s predecessor former President Donald Trump in 2019.
“This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain ‘unacceptable’ social behaviors,” wrote John Whitehead for the Rutherford Institute.
“Incredibly, as part of a proposal considered by the Trump Administration, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting ‘signs’ of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.” 
In August of 2019, politicians used the tragic events of Dayton and El Paso to take away your rights to self-defense. Democrats and Republicans alike joined forces to pass sweeping regulations that could serve as a death blow to the Second Amendment. Despite his rhetoric claiming he protects the gun rights of Americans; former president Donald Trump became a cheerleader for this removal of our self-defense rights by implementing the red flag laws. During an earlier speech, Trump claimed that the “left is coming for your guns,” and he’s correct. But so is the “right”, and in many ways so did Trump.
In February of 2018, after the tragic shooting in Parkland, FL, President Donald Trump took to national television to betray his oath to the Constitution and his supporters and famously said, “take the guns first, go through due process second.” It seems politicians forgot what our founding fathers set up for “We the People”. 
It has been argued that the Second Amendment is an anachronism intended only to protect a state's right to maintain a militia, and therefore individuals cannot claim its protection as a personal right. The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
But in speaking of "a well-regulated Militia," the Amendment merely states a reason for recognizing the people's right to be armed, not necessarily a purpose for and limitation on that right. An armed citizenry was recognized as advantageous to a free State. If the Amendment were meant merely to guarantee a State the right to maintain a militia, the last half could just as easily have stated "the right of any State of this Union to permit their citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But this is not a State's right; it is a People's Right which they may claim in both their collective and individual capacities. In an age when the sense of community is strained and in many cases absent, the idea of citizens viewing themselves as a part of the people may seem out of place. But our founding documents often speak of actions and rights that belong to the people collectively.