Those who own firearms and practice with them enough to be considered proficient in their use, most likely choose good weather in which to practice; light conditions are optimal and a good comfort level is maintained. Sure, you can hit that silhouette at 25 ft with both hands the majority of the time with optimal conditions with your favorite handgun. You can also hit that target at 300 yards with your battle rifle, sometimes putting all your shots in a small group when conditions are great; fine indeed if your attack occurs only during the daylight with no wind and the temperature hovering around 72. How many know how they will perform these tasks when faced with darkness, heavy wind, freezing temperatures or blowing snow? Better yet, how many know how their equipment will perform in less than ideal conditions?

If you can be 100% certain you will only be faced with a life-or-death self-defense situation when conditions are ideal, stop reading now; the following will be of no interest to you.

Monday and Tuesday here in the Rockies witnessed blizzard conditions with 1—2 feet of snow, blowing winds sometimes reaching 50 mph and temperatures near zero. While most folks thought this the best time to hunker down with a good book or movie, I got together all of the firearms, ammo and equipment that I might have to use to defend my life and/or the life of my family and headed for the range. I’m sure any who witnessed me entering the range that day were comforted in the thought that I was totally insane. When the 5-hour session was over, I was very cold and miserable, but I knew how both my equipment and I would function in that environment. I viewed the experience as a variable somewhat mastered.

The things that can be learned about ones firearms and equipment in terrible conditions could be the edge one needs to stay alive at some point in time and most useful when it becomes necessary to provide food for the table. Calculating for point of impact with projectiles down range in a 50 mph wind with numb fingers and blinding snow presented a real challenge. Then, to try all of the tactical sights on targets at less than 100 yards was quite an experience. Which ones work and which ones do not was a question that was answered for me along with what reticle performs best in blizzard conditions. Which action on what rifle actually froze up and would not function at all? What firearms lubricants held up in those conditions? What trigger guards were of adequate size to handle a gloved finger? All questions I had answered for me that would not have occurred had I not taken the time to train in those conditions.

Some time back I spent equal time in training in the desert around Tucson Arizona in the month of June. Again, not everything performs as advertised in a 100-degree plus environment, most of all the owner of the equipment. Taking the necessary time to train in all environs in which one could possibly find themselves is vital. Equipment, physics, physiology and how they relate to your ability to function in a stressful situation are invaluable pieces of knowledge. Once you possess this knowledge, you increase your confidence to deal with any situation ten fold. Confidence and mental preparation will see one through many situations where the ignorant will fail to survive.

Training with your chosen equipment in optimal conditions is fine and should be done on a regular basis to become as proficient as possible and to understand exactly how your equipment functions. This should include being able to make adjustments and repairs as might be required and assembly and disassembly of your chosen firearm. Having necessary spare parts is also a must. Say you have a bent charging handle on your AR platform; do you know how to replace it? What about replacing a broken firing pin?

Equally important is knowing and understanding how you and your equipment function in extreme environments. Once you understand how everything works, take it all out during extreme cold and heat; try them in a pouring rain and windy conditions; disassemble and assemble in low-light situations without giving away your position. All of the above could be the determining factors in whether you and your family are able to survive an attack or able are to provide food for survival if/when the situation demands.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

It would appear those who call themselves "public servants" believe the people they supposedly serve have become dissatisfied with their job performance and will resort to some form of civil disobedience, which will necessitate military intervention. According to the article, Obama believes the reason for this civil unrest to be an expected "implosion" of this country’s financial systems. Should these events occur, members of the military would be forced to decide whether they would support their government, which gave hundreds of billions to government cronies in the financial sector, or their country.

A prudent man would speculate if the government so fears coming civil unrest, will they move to seize firearms throughout the country and use these military forces along with law enforcement to do so? I believe the answer can be found in the events surrounding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Government forces there not only seized firearms from private citizens but also relocated many citizens against their will.

Millions of Americans have prayed for the safety of the military as they fight the government’s wars all over the planet. Many believe the military to be defending the country from enemies that would take our weapons and our freedoms. What will their actions be when the US military becomes that enemy? Will the military willingly participate in such acts? Such are questions the future holds.

The government has spent decades defining those who oppose its unlawful exploits as enemies of the state. Those who can or will not differentiate between the government and the country have fallen hook, line and sinker for this demonization of those who demand the government operate within the constraints of the Constitution and moral law. Most of those who blindly support the illegal actions of the government have been bought and paid for with the taxes of those who actually produce something. Unfortunately, primary among those bought-and-paid-for entities are law enforcement and the military.

Both political parties have conducted this demonization of true Patriots. While the democrats have been traditionally anti-gun and liberty, the republicans bought into the program with the fascist Patriot Act and the illegal, unconstitutional War on Terror. The two dominant political parties in this country are two wings of the same vulture: blatant in-your-face socialism. There are no answers to our problems to be found in either political party.

Many on the right have bought into the ideas expressed by leaders of the military that all who oppose the state and its illegal agenda should be treated no differently than the "insurgents" the military has been facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nowhere is that better illustrated than here where a law enforcement publication is advocating military tactics promoted by General David Petraeus be used against those whom the state defines as its enemies. While the article in Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement speaks specifically of gangs and drug activity, don’t forget the Department of Homeland Security has defined millions of patriotic Americans and veterans as possible domestic terrorists in its report sent to LE agencies on April 7th of 2009. If you wonder if you fit the definition of possible domestic terrorist, you should check here.

If the report is correct and Obama is moving to strengthen USNORTHCOM with anywhere near the numbers mentioned, indicates the fedgov fears its own citizens much more than it fears al Qaeda. Either the government is anticipating a total financial breakdown, there are plans to confiscate firearms, a new false flag event is in the works, or any combination of the three. Either way, they plan on this event occurring before spring of 2010.

On the minds of many Americans and politicians is exactly how will the military and law enforcement react if told to confiscate firearms or move American citizens to FEMA camps.

Consideration must be given to the militarization of law enforcement entities in this country over the past few decades and our gradual decline into a police state, thanks to the bogus War on Terror. That being said, some police blogs such as this one indicate not all law enforcement personnel are on board with these illegal and corrupt practices. When considering possible actions of military personnel one must be aware of the felons and gang members who became part of the military when recruiters were falling short of their goals. Nothing could be better for a felon or a gang-banger than to actually be ordered to commit crimes with impunity. At some point in time, any true American serving in the military will be forced to ask themselves exactly what and whom they are defending and exactly what became of the "home of the free?"

What will be the reaction of the soldier from Colorado who is confiscating guns and placing so-called domestic terrorists in detention camps in Ohio when he gets word other soldiers are doing the same to his family and friends back home? Who will soldiers and law enforcement officers side with when push comes to shove: the government who has given over a trillion dollars to their cronies in the financial industry, failed to provide their brother/sister veterans competent medical care, denied disability benefits, denied compensation for treatment as prisoners of war, placed single parents in confinement and taken their children, or their family and friends who have lost their jobs and are seeing their homes and farms foreclosed by the same bankers who received huge bonuses from the bailout money? If military and law enforcement personnel begin to side with the citizens, will the fedgov call in United Nations forces to subdue those who cherish personal freedom and will fight to retain it?

Regardless of which series of events occur, Americans will be the losers. Brace yourselves and prepare, this is going to get real ugly.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

Everyone, with the possible exception of those who still believe answers to our financial woes can be found within the democrat or republican paradigm, know that eventually those economic issues will lead to chaos in this country. When that happens, some 40 million plus who have been told by politicians that they are "entitled" to the property of others will use whatever means available to forcibly take that which they want. The logical scenario will see these folks banding together, most likely in roving bands. They will use numbers and force to steal what others who have seen this coming have set aside for themselves and their loved ones. This criminal activity very possibly could happen with the blessing of the government, for those who are stockpiling food, water, guns and ammunition are already being demonized. The Lever Act of 1917 gave government control over food and fuel storage amounts; it can and will happen again.

Using the events that occurred after Hurricane Katrina as a template, one can see that those who were armed were able to secure themselves and their property on several occasions by simply displaying a firearm when confronted by these roving bands of criminals. Of course after this happened the government moved to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens. Simply stated, the criminals in government moved to protect their brotherhood among the street gangs and criminal element by disarming law-abiding citizens. This explains in vivid detail why the government continually seeks to disarm the public: it is easier to steal from and enslave those who are unarmed. Considering the police in New Orleans became thieves themselves continues to blur the distinction between government employees and thieves.

Several factors should go into the selection of a battle rifle; there are many platforms and calibers available and strong consideration should be given to the environment in which one believes they will operate when events lead to chaos in this country. What is the maximum range one can actually see and determine if a possible target is a threat? Is one’s environment urban or rural? Is there a chance the environment could be fluid due to attempts to move about in both environs? What is the experience level with rifles and engaging targets at distance?

Bolt-action rifles are more inherently accurate at long-range than semi-autos, especially in the larger calibers. Semi-auto rifles offer greater firepower and magazine capacity as a rule. Lever action rifles are accurate and shoot well at short to medium range, (200 yards max) mainly due to caliber selection. If one were to determine the maximum range at which they believe they would encounter someone bent on mayhem at 300 yards or less, lever guns and smaller calibers could suffice. Consideration should also be given into the amount of time a person is willing or able to devote to practice. To master a battle rifle at distances over 400 yards requires a great deal of time, effort, and projectiles down range. I have been shooting long-range battle rifles for over 50 years and certainly do not consider myself a master.

For the great majority of people interested in a battle rifle I suggest the AR-15 platform for several reasons. The platform is extremely accurate for a semi-auto. Five shot groups at 100 yards measuring less than an inch are certainly not uncommon with this rifle with some quality time at the range. Extreme accuracy can be expected if one is willing to spring for an upper designed for that type shooting. If this tweaks your interest, check out White Oak Precision here. When one thinks of an AR-15, usually the immediate thought as to caliber is the 5.56 NATO round or the .223. What I consider to be the greatest advantage is the number of calibers available in this platform with the purchase of an "upper" in different calibers which can easily and simply be attached to your existing AR-15 lower. While I consider the .223 round to be marginal for a self-defense round, the firepower, accuracy and availability of ammo makes it a must-have. There are a wide variety of uppers in different calibers, many of which can be found here. This gives the shooter the capability of several calibers with the purchase of only the basic AR-15 lower assembly. My personal choice for the off-the-shelf AR platform is Rock River Arms. I have a Rock River lower with uppers in .223 and .458 SOCOM. As previously stated the .223 for accuracy and ammo availability and the .458 for sheer knockdown power out to 200 yards. Due to the availability and price of the ammo to feed the .458, I reload my own. I like this combination for I can use the same magazines for .458 that I use for the .223. For those who choose to have some longer range capabilities for their AR platform I recommend the 6.8X43 or 6.5 Grendel calibers, which provide longer-range capabilities. With the new available ammunition and for those who reload, the Grendel gets the nod in my estimation.

While the original platform for the AR was the AR-10 in .308, uppers and lowers for this weapon are not interchangeable with the AR-15 platform. The AR-10 is a fine choice for those who like the AR but desire the versatility of the 7.62X51/.308 round. Also available is the FN/FAL configuration. This too is a fantastic rifle with great dependability and accuracy.

My personal choice in a battle rifle in .308 caliber is the M1A made by Springfield. I own more than one with full size and carbine versions known as the M1A SOCOM, which has a 16" barrel and composite stock. The .308 is a most effective round out to 800 yards and beyond with an accomplished rifleman. Again, this caliber and platform is harder to master than the AR platform in .223. While the ideal situation is to have a caliber and platform in which one could engage an adversary at a greater distance than they could engage you, being able to hit that target is of primary importance. Again, a couple of hits with a .223 are far superior to 8 misses with a .308.

If one is available, a M1 Garand is also a very effective battle rifle. While limited in firepower due to the 8-round "clip," the 30-06 caliber is very effective at ranges up to 1000 yards and has been battle tested for almost a century. Owning an original M1 Garand allows one to own a piece of history and a fine battle rifle as well.

Of course there is the choice of the venerable AK-47. Packing more knockdown power than the AR-15 in .223 and at greater range, it is the favorite choice of many. At one time the cost of the firearm and the availability of cheap ammo made this a great choice. The increase in price of both the weapon and ammo over the past couple of years now brings this choice into the price range of the AR platform. The discussion of which weapons platform (AR/AK) is the best battle rifle began over 40 years ago and is still the subject of some great conversations.

Having the ability and the equipment to engage, at distance, roving bands of criminals who are bent on stealing, confiscating and imposing their will on others could prove an invaluable asset in the coming months. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

While this article should provide some basics on selection of equipment for long range shooting, the challenges are many if one seeks to become proficient with such equipment. To that end, I am teaming up with a friend and fellow long-range shooter, Mr. James Lawson, in a series of articles dealing with optics, ballistics, bullet trajectories, wind, temperature, relative humidity and shooting uphill and downhill for those who are interested. The first of these offerings should appear shortly.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

Seeing as how government testimony could be impeached in any court not operated and controlled by the state as originating from a pathological and habitual liar, we can assume we will never be privileged to the truth in this matter, but it would be informative to have the following questions answered; questions I am sure we will never hear asked by the MSM.

We know Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech with a degree in biochemistry from the school’s Center for Applied Behavior Systems, most likely on the taxpayer’s dime. While at Virginia Tech did Hasan have any associations with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); was he in any way associated with them since his graduation, if so, in what capacity? DARPA states on its website, "DARPA programs focus on high-risk research that will have payoffs that could provide dramatic advances in military capabilities." DARPA has been rumored to be associated with the MKULTRA program of mind control and Virginia Tech. Cathy O’Brien stated in her book, Trance-Formation of America that “Virginia Tech is good for two things, engineering and mind control.” and that “most of the east coast M.K. Ultra Mind Control experiments happened in this DARPA facility.”

Another question that deserves an answer is, "Exactly what position did Major Hasan hold in the U.S. Army’s PSYOP community and how did that relate to his dealings with his patients? Also, what was Major Hasan’s position with the US Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and how did this relate to his duties with the Army’s Warrior Combat Reset Program? Did Major Hasan’s assignment to Ft. Hood have anything to do with a program the Army initiated to "electronically prepare" soldiers for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan?

The number of suicides and murders seen in returning veterans is at an all time high. These numbers have been downplayed and underreported. Have there been any reports within the military dealing with what commanders feel could lead to an inability to continue to prosecute the wars? Recently a report was published stating a significant number of 17—24-year-olds to be unfit for military service. The lack of a qualified pool for entrance into the military will lead to a continuation of multiple redeployments that will lead to more and more suicides, murders and rapes among returning veterans. What steps are being taken to electronically or medically deal with these problems and what was Major Hasan’s role in these programs?

The Department of Homeland Security contacted a Soviet company called Psychotechnology Research Institute in 2007 in its never-ending search to ferret out terrorist suspects. Ironically, this was the same company contacted by the FBI in an effort to assist with the siege at Waco, and was also the entity that was tasked with dealing with Russian soldiers suffering from PTSD upon their return from Afghanistan. The question must be asked, were any of the techniques now being employed by the US military, specifically by Major Hasan, acquired from this Soviet company? Was the software made by this company known as Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology (SSRM Tek) a part of any treatment of American soldiers? It has been reported Russian soldiers being treated with this technology experienced not a remission of battle memories but instead an immersion in those memories which caused several of them to become very violent resulting in the deaths of over 30 of their fellow soldiers.

The great majority of information concerning mind control as a military tool and the cooperation of the Soviets with our military and its efforts at mind control are shrouded in secrecy.

Americans have a right to know what techniques and experiments are being used on their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who have, or will, experience the horrors of war.

The thought the government would not engage in such activity is preposterous. One need only look before and during the Vietnam War to see what mind control experiments were being conducted, many times against the will of the soldier involved. There is presently a lawsuit filed by attorney Gordon Erspamer in January in Federal District Court in San Francisco against the Army and CIA on behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and six former soldiers who claim to be survivors of these experiments. Found here is the actual proof these experiments were conducted.

Are we to believe that somewhere between these mind control experiments on both civilians and soldiers, both then and now, the government has acquired a moral compass concerning what it will and will not do to those it considers to be nothing but indentured servants and guinea pigs? Americans can blindly accept the lies of government and continue providing their children to the monster, or begin to demand answers to questions like those posed above.

How long will we continue to compile evidence for Henry Kissinger’s claim that "Soldiers are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns of foreign policy?"

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

First is the report the perpetrator was dead and then hours later the revelation that he was still alive. Exactly how long does it take to determine if a person is dead or alive? Could it be no one knew whom the shooter or shooters were and a story had to be concocted for public consumption? What happened to the two other "suspects" that were detained? What did they do to qualify as suspects and more importantly, what information surfaced that led to their release? One of the suspects reportedly stated he "was with the shooter."

Second is the number of victims from a single shooter. Let us not forget this shooting did not occur at the mall, it occurred on a military installation where the victims had been trained in military tactics and some were combat veterans. We are to believe they did nothing to stop a single shooter and he was allowed to reload several times and continue shooting and the only thing that stopped him was the arrival of a police officer after the gunman had gunned down over 40 people?

And how so very convenient for the state, a perpetrator who was both anti-war and a Muslim; just doesn’t get any better than that. Could this be an example of following the philosophy of Rahm Emanuel on dealing with a crisis?

Third was the shutting down of communications in and around Ft. Hood for hours. While the Army and the media will explain this in various scenarios, it also provided the Army with a chance to create whatever story it was they wanted to provide the public on the terrible tragedy. Of course we all know the Army would never distort or lie about the facts involving the deaths of innocents. Well, there is that My Lai thing. People on the ground have told me cell phone towers were jammed to prevent unauthorized dissemination of information after the shooting. Again, the Army would not want any information contrary to the company line emerging from this disaster.

All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused "red flags" to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the "suspects" who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. Yeah, right. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? Going back to the 9/11 paradigm, we see the same evidence exhibited: the state had prior warnings but did not act on them. This proves unequivocally the government is either incompetent or complicit in both events. Yet, the state would have us all unarmed and depending on them for protection.

President Obama pledged, "to get answers to every single question about this event" but he also promised an end to signing statements, a transparent government, no more torture of detainees, and many more lies.

There has been speculation on the Internet that the shooting could have been a revolt against the Army from soldiers faced with stop-loss and multiple combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is no evidence to support this theory, there is also no evidence to support the official Army version of events. Suicides among military personnel and veterans are at alarming levels, yet the Department of Defense does more to hide these facts than it does to deal with them.

The last thing the state can let happen is an awakening by its enforcement arm (military and LE) that they are nothing but tools of oppression and in fact, slaves to the monster they serve. While the military is trained and encouraged to kill and bomb in the name of the state, they are forbidden the means of protection for themselves and their loved ones once they are outside the killing zones designated by the state.

All is not normal inside the military community. This is not just seen in our military, instruments of oppression in other countries are revolting as well.

While it is doubtful we will ever learn the truth of exactly what happened at Fort Hood, we know with a degree of certainty the truth will never be revealed by the Army or the media. Could this have been a false flag event to divert the attention of the American public from the debates and planned demonstrations against the health care fiasco? Could it have simply been another MK Ultra event to further demonize the anti-war element in this country and to lay another crime at the feet of the current villain du jour: Muslims? Could there be a connection between this alleged shooter and his fellow Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, other than an oblique reference to Cho having a Muslim influence?

One must always ask this question when faced with a story that is issued and controlled by the State: Cui Bono? Wonderful, is it not, the state is empowered with the unique ability to investigate its own lies and the power of the media and academia to demonize any who would question its veracity, and the support of Boobus, whose livelihood depends on the state’s power to redistribute the wealth of the nation from producers to parasites.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

If one is to enslave a people and get them to participate in the process, logical, cognitive discourse must be replaced with emotional claptrap. It must become all about how a person "feels" about a subject rather than how they view the subject intellectually. Everything in our society today, by design of course, is based on emotion. TV shows and movies are filled with heart rendering music and dialogue; 24-hour news networks ply the heartstrings with one emotional story after another. Public education is centered on emotions; that is why History has been replaced with Social Studies and Physics and Chemistry have been replaced with diversity studies and "green" everything. Facts must never get in the way of emotions if the state is to be properly served.

How else could the peoples of a country believe that one could atone for the mistreatment of a race over a century ago by punishing members of another race today, none of whom were alive when the persecution took place? How could the burning of a city and the killing of its inhabitants during the War for Southern Independence be looked upon as a crime while the burning of portions of an entire state and the rape and killing of its inhabitants be seen as morally acceptable? How, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, can a group of people believe the police can protect them from crime, when five minutes of the evening news in any metropolitan area proves the opposite? If one is to believe the propaganda of the state, one must never let facts get in the way; emotions must rule in all decisions.

Decades ago I labored under the belief that if I educated myself on facts, figures and statistics, I could debate those who believed in gun control and might even be able to convert some of them to the truth. I was puzzled and disappointed when my intellectual arguments made no impression at all with those who were even willing to discuss the subject. It was when I began to push the point with many of them that I saw the anger and emotions come bubbling to the surface. At the time I remember discussing this with my grandfather and can still hear his response in my mind: "Son, don’t try to make sense of people who don’t have any." But, I still could not understand; many of the folks I had been debating were well educated. It was then I learned that being educated does not confer any degree of common sense.

Gun control advocates today generally fall into one of two groups. On the one hand are those who deal with the issue emotionally, while members of the other group have an agenda. Approaching members of either group with intellectual ammunition is a completely wasted effort. I saw the futility of discussing the issue with those who can only address the issue emotionally several years back. I was under contract to provide personal security for a group of software engineers and mathematicians from Europe as they were touring the American Southwest. Over dinner one night in Old Town Sacramento, the subject of discussion was the then recent events at Columbine High School. The consensus of the group was Americans must be mad to allow private citizens to own firearms. Although I did not bring up the subject, I relished the opportunity to provide these mathematicians, those who deal in absolutes and axioms, with facts and figures to support my case. One lady in particular was most vocal in her position and she and I eventually became the only two in the discussion, with the others seeming content to just listen. I felt that I was able to counter each point the lady made with facts and statistics proving her points to be incorrect or based on false assumptions. Finally, she said in frustration, "I don’t care how many facts and figures you present, you are never going to change my mind." We have all encountered this mindset. Any attempts to reach these folks with the truth will always prove fruitless. Do not continue to waste your time.

This is the problem we face in not only gun control but in many other facets of the quest for liberty. The indoctrination embraced by the public schools, the media, and of course politicians, has taken many people into the abyss of situational ignorance. The other group, those with an agenda, is also easy to identify. Most of these are politicians or employees of government. If they advocate openly their belief that only the police and military should be armed, they are criminals, plain and simple, and should never be trusted on any issue. Those who seek to justify their criminality with some humanitarian approach are simply criminals who want their crimes to appear less invasive and therefore justified. They, too, are to never be trusted on any issue. Many times you will encounter employees of the government who will simply avoid any direct answer to questions concerning their oaths or their willingness to follow orders when those orders are criminal in nature. An answer such as "that will never happen" is simply an avoidance of admitting they will do whatever they are told to do because their paycheck depends on it. Put these folks on your enemies list as well.

Patriots and gun rights advocates, please stop sending your hard-earned money to gun rights groups who exist solely to lobby those in power to do that which they have sworn a sacred oath to perform. If someone, after taking such an oath, has to be wined and dined, taken on junkets, or in other ways influenced into doing that which they swore an oath to do, they too are your enemy. They are nothing but political whores selling themselves, your rights, and their country to the highest bidder. Eventually, someone will offer them more money than the gun rights folks can afford to match. Can you imagine paying your minister to stop pursuing your wife, molesting your children, or paying your neighbor to not break into your house? Anyone who must be paid to do that which is right will at some point be paid more to do that which is wrong. Support only those who will not compromise on basic rights. Others are living high on your money and have consistently supported compromises of your basic human rights. Also, look at their results; after collecting untold millions, are our rights more or less secure? Never fall for the old socialist argument of "look how much worse it could have been had we not been here."

Those who advocate gun control as a means of enslaving the people will never be influenced by an intellectual argument, presentation of facts and figures, or a simple plea to do that which is right. Those who are influenced into making decisions based on their emotions are now being motivated by a stronger emotion: fear, the fear that what we have been telling them for years is true. Countless thousands of folks who previously did not own a gun, have been purchasing guns and ammo at a record pace. Actions by this criminal government have awakened some of the sheeple where our intellectual arguments have failed.

Don’t waste your time, money or efforts on "educating" those who believe in gun control. This criminal government is doing it much better than we ever could.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

The question is: why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Now that time has erased the emotions of retaliation for the events of 9/11 and our country elected a new leader who campaigned on the principle of bringing an end to our involvement in these costly wars, why the call for more troops? Could it be we are again simply following the dictates of the power cabal as Major General Smedley Darlington Butler so eloquently outlined in his outstanding work, War is a Racket?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of our quest for empire over the past six decades realizes that Obama’s contemplation of whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply those who control him providing Obama with the opportunity to look "presidential." The decision to send additional troops was reached prior to the situational comedy of General McChrystal’s leaked "confidential report" to the Washington Post and Obama’s National Security Advisor’s public admonishment of McChrystal’s failure to follow the chain of command. All of this is nothing but a well-rehearsed, though poorly camouflaged hoax. Additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan within a very short period of time and Obama really has no say in the matter. The question is: why?

Could it be the US-installed puppet government in Afghanistan has new suitors who represent a very real threat to the United State’s control of Afghanistan and her abundant natural resources? Is the entry of Russia and Chinese influence into Afghanistan the real reason for the need for more troops? Russia reportedly made its entry back in 2007 with the reopening of its embassy in Kabul. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Ivanov, met privately with President Karzai and offered military assistance through the Collective Security Treaty Organization. (CSTO) The CSTO is made up of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Russia is the driving force in this organization, as one might understand, due to the economic and military weakness of the other members. There were meetings with CSTO delegation in Kabul and neither the US nor the UK were invited. Were the US/UK coalition (NATO) allowed to solidify its position in Afghanistan, it would create a territorial split between Russia, China and Iran. Russia will do whatever is necessary to prevent this growth of power and influence in the region, I believe.

Moscow is certainly concerned with the Pentagon’s plan to deploy Special Operations forces into the Central Asian States to conduct "foreign internal defense missions." This translates into increasing military activity, which is better known as the "spreading of democracy," by military force.

NATO, following the CFR-introduced agenda, is campaigning for increased cooperation with Moscow in the region to "facilitate the fading of Russia’s lingering imperial ambitions." These are the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the NATO report. Surely, Putin will see through this smokescreen.

Russia has also cancelled all of Afghanistan’s Soviet-era debts and is moving to help Kabul rebuild the Afghan infrastructure. The increase of trade between Afghanistan and Russia, which was at the $190 million mark in 2008, is also a move to create a vision of Russia as an ally to the people of Afghanistan with the US and NATO appearing as the foreign invader.

What has prompted the governments in Moscow and Beijing to converge with the forces of NATO in Afghanistan? Is it purely a protectionist strategy or are those governments there for the same reason we initiated the war in 2001: an abundance of natural resources?

China has made its moves to secure as many of the natural resources located in Afghanistan as it can. Almost one year ago, in November of 2008, China, acting through the China Metallurgical Group Corporation and the Jiangxi Copper Company, secured the Aynak Copper Mine in Logar Province. This copper mine is reported to be the largest in the world and has been basically inoperative since the Soviet Invasion in 1979. China has agreed to a 2.9-billion dollar investment in the infrastructure of the area including a power plant and possible railroad into Pakistan. If I were an Afghan citizen, whom would I support in my country, a nation that is actually contributing to a better life or one that is indiscriminately bombing my fellow citizens?

Now, when it appears our puppet Karzai may have been influenced by a better offer from Russia, China, or both, the Obama administration, strongly supported by the neocons, is seeking to perhaps replace Karzai with a new election, suddenly proclaiming the election the US just supervised to have been corrupt. Members of both political/criminal parties now openly support the war in Afghanistan as being necessary to our national defense, with the question being, not, do we send more troops to Afghanistan to bleed and die for oil and minerals, but how many? I’m sure our influence in NATO will bring about the necessary conclusions in order to facilitate our attempt to replace our own political puppet. Karzai has obviously jumped the traces of US control by participating in meetings outside of the US political purview with China, Russia and even in this agreement, which included Iran and Pakistan. The construction of this pipeline was due to start last month. Russia and China see this new pipeline as crucial to their retention of power in the region and will make the necessary military movements to insure their investments.

Financially crippled due to our continued wars for empire and the printing of billions of new dollars to repay political cronies in the financial world has left us in a precarious position in Afghanistan. We will try to counter the financial prowess of China, to whom we owe billions and their military ties to Russia with the blood and lives of tens of thousands of new US military forces. When China calls in our financial markers, and they will if challenged, what will become of our country? We are about to escalate a war we cannot win. How long will it be before Americans care more for the lives of their children than they do for the state and refuse to participate in the madness?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

Every two years in this country there exists a mania we call elections where those involved in the electoral process work endless hours and spends billions of dollars in an effort to put "good" men/women into elected offices. This, each person believes, will improve/change the government apparatus and everyone will be better served. This is analogous to believing that if one could place the right person on my Harley it would perform the tasks of a dump truck. The machine (government) can only accomplish that which it was designed to do: all governments, in their evolutionary process, eventually turn on their progenitors; the machine eventually rules the individual, no matter what "safeguards" have been put in place.

Nowhere is that more evident than where we are today in this country. No matter who is elected to operate the machine, the machine continues in its quest to destroy all it considers adversarial to the goal of total control and domination.

The writings of LeFevre tell us that man has long been fascinated by the phenomenon of the government apparatus and seeks to rationalize the continued corruption with one of two explanations. Either the people elected to run the machine were/are evil, or if the proper "safeguards" had been installed, "they would have escaped the evil their government was busily engaged in inflicting upon them." I believe this perfectly describes our present dilemma, for those who voted for Obama wonder at how the campaign promises he made have been forgotten or the changes made were not what they expected. The opposition believes Obama to be an evil person. No matter how evil a person might be, as an individual they are unable to visit such tremendous evil on the world, without the power government provides. In turn, electing "good" people to run a gangster device will never deliver the hoped for product. LeFevre asks the question: "…then how does it happen that so many administrations of good men have been able to do so many evil and harmful things to their subjects?" As a country, we widely differ on exactly what administration has been good or bad. There are millions who believed George W. Bush to have been a "good" president, while millions believe Obama to be accomplishing "good" things, yet both have visited tremendous evil on the world, including their own supporters.

Individuals in this world have less freedom, are more and more controlled and coerced by government and continue to be robbed of the fruits of their labor, yet all this has occurred under the administrations of the "best" our country has to offer each election cycle, from both sides of the political spectrum. Isabel Patterson in her book, The God of the Machine, provides what she believes to be the answer. "…What good does it do to have a saint of every conceivable virtue operating a guillotine? Personally, the man may be above reproach. He may have the highest of morals and ethics. He may be imbued with a passion for doing good. But the mechanism he is hired to operate cuts off heads. He may dislike to cut off heads. He may weep with true sorrow whenever a head falls into the basket. But he was hired to pull the rope that lets the knife drop. And when it comes down, off comes the head. That is the way the tool works."

This methodology is, in part, accomplished with government’s admonishment there is a higher purpose in life than being an individual. Ironically, this rebuke always comes around to serving the machine. John F. Kennedy said to "ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." It was not the country we were being asked to put foremost in our lives, but the machine. The government and its willing shills in the media and academia have been able to cloud the difference between the country and the government so that in the minds of many, they are inseparable. That is why, in today’s world, all who oppose the machine have been deemed "domestic terrorists." The spirit of individuality, or just wanting to be left alone, cannot be allowed to flourish, but must always be seen as the enemy and therefore destroyed.

People create government to control that which they fear. The machine enjoys its continued growth and strength to the spirit of fear among the people. Different people fear different things; in a great number of instances that fear is of people who think or act differently or ideas with which they disagree. The machine therefore evolves into a mechanism that seeks control over everyone and everything. Limited government is an illusion. Safeguards put in place to limit the scope and range of government are gradually eliminated as more fearful entities appear, or are created, requiring continued growth of the machine. Franklin was correct; trading freedom for security leaves the people with neither. The constant meddling in the affairs of other countries produces enemies of the machine and are converted into objects of fear for the people. Here we have the vicious cycle; more enemies require a larger and more powerful machine, which produces more and more enemies to fear.

Individualism and the wish to just be left alone by those who do not wish to control others is the mortal enemy of the machine. If the individual can exist without this desire to control others or seek power over them, the need for the machine no longer exists. The government machine’s survival depends on convincing the people that the anointed among them, selected during the electoral process, can indeed take the government back to a less intrusive and more friendly status. Throughout our history, this has never happened.

People decide to become involved in government for basically two reasons. They either want the power and control over others and the wealth that brings, or they believe by becoming involved in government they can limit the power of the machine. These folks, no matter how well intentioned, become the "priest with a machine gun." The machine continues to control and destroy the lives of others, while the "good" person in government pulls the trigger.

The machine will continue to create items of fear for the people. The fear of an economy going bad brings on illegal bailouts and controls of the economy that have the opposite effect intended and provide untold riches to supporters of the machine. This creates more fear among the people and enlarges the machine. The fear of being unable to pay for needed medical care creates fear that could give the government vast control over the people and their remaining money. The fear of the dreaded Communist, Muslim or person of different skin pigmentation, creates fear in the people and grows the machine’s arm of oppression: the military, law enforcement and the new scourge of private contractors. The fear of a pandemic in the form of some new exotic disease (created in a laboratory) brings the ability to control the masses with unneeded and potentially harmful forced vaccinations. When the machine seeks unparalleled growth, it creates false flag events to terrorize the population, bringing on new and more terrible laws and regulations, again to eliminate its greatest threat, the individual.

The machine has legions of faithful followers who willingly steal, intimidate and even kill for their paychecks, monies stolen by the machine from the production of their victims through intimidation and threat. These people are nothing but whores who care not for any oath they might have taken, but instead enjoy their unlimited, unrestrained power over their fellow citizens. These people will come after your guns, violate your rights, force you to be inoculated with harmful vaccines, steal your money and private property and place you in a detention facility if you dare resist, and be proud of the accomplishment. These people are not elected, but will always remain the real force of the government machine. Those elected to public office become the easily replaceable figurehead. It is accomplished every election cycle.

History teaches the machine always collapses under its own weight and corruption. Its loyal supporters are rewarded for their service with executions. The question is: how many freedom loving, liberty-seeking individuals must give up their freedom and/or their lives before this happens?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

~ Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

On November 4th 2008, millions of Americans went to the polls believing the "change" they were voting for included a scaling down and the eventual end of the wars of empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. The voter’s voice had been heard in the 2006 elections concerning their feelings towards these illegal and immoral wars, but now was their perceived chance to change the view from the top. Instead of a scaling down of the wars, the new administration has brought about continuation of these wars for empire that includes escalation in Afghanistan and the shuffling of forces in Iraq. This shuffling consists of the withdrawal of some military assets while increasing the number of private contractors. The bottom line is still the same.

The paradigm of Republican (right) versus Democrat (left) politics in America has led this country to the calamity of total socialism and the loss of individual rights. Since I have been of voting age, this has been the scenario. Nixon had to be elected to free us from the tragedy that was the Vietnam War; Jimmy Carter was elected to free America from the debacle that was Watergate; Reagan was elected to free the nation from the indecisiveness and economic blunders of the Carter Administration; Clinton was elected to change the economic policies of Reagan and George the First; George W. Bush was elected to bring us back from the nausea of Clinton’s constant and overwhelming personal issues; Obama was elected to stop the illegal wars and the infringements on personal freedoms, the very core of the Bush Administration. Tragic is it not that each and every political savior has led us deeper and deeper into the abyss? Obama is no different. Voting for the lesser of two evils has brought us the promised product: evil.

A great majority of Americans refuse to accept the fact both parties are controlled by the same power cabal, just as Professor Carroll Quigley pointed out in his book, Tragedy and Hope. Instead, they embrace the concept of party politics over those of individual freedom and liberty. The paradigm of supporting your party or candidate of choice, even when they are involved in unconstitutional and/or criminal activities, takes on greater priority than supporting the Constitution or liberty itself. Party first, regardless of the crimes committed, has relegated this country to being led by criminals and the loss of individual liberty.

Long ago, the ruling elite determined the greatest threat to its goal of one world government was sovereignty and self-determination. In order to accomplish their goals they realized the two parties must have the appearance of being adversarial while maintaining the stated objective. They decided to adopt the military strategy of divide and conquer. Diversity and the hyphen became their weapons of choice. Americans could not be seen as all being under the same umbrella politically, so they had to be divided. Calling some Native-Americans and others African-Americans or Jewish-Americans assured polarity among the citizenry and eliminated unity of purpose. Initiating these divides along racial lines was a master stroke; now anyone who opposed the illegal or unconstitutional programs of another faction could be marginalized by insisting their opposition to the criminal acts was based on racism.

The attack on the Confederacy became a necessity. Not only did the government of the South in 1861 express as its purpose the quest for sovereignty and self-determination, they also represented a revolt against oppressive taxation as a tool of control. Revising history to show the South was motivated by racism would obscure from future generation the true goals of the Confederacy and their willingness to defend, with their very lives, the ideal of self-determination. Even then, some of the leaders of the Confederacy could see the goals of the ruling elite. General Patrick Cleburne would say, "It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision…" Today, the goals of tyranny have been reached, for many, even those who trace their ancestry to the South, have denounced the war that killed nearly 700,000 Americans, many of them non-combatants, as a war to perpetuate slavery. In actuality, the message delivered through the pages of history to those who believe in the right of self-determination is: if you dare challenge the right of government to control your life, you will be hunted down and eliminated.

History is resplendent with the demonization of those who have sought the right to determine their own fate without the interference of government. American Indians were referred to as savages and red devils, while those who supported the Confederacy were referred to as rebels and traitors. Today we are simply referred to as terrorists, which is true, because the very idea of an individual living a life free of government interference and control terrifies those of the ruling elite. Ruling the world without the willing compliance of those ignorant enough to fight, die and provide the sweat of their brows would become impossible.

It is my opinion that the election of Barack Obama may have been our last chance to secure freedom and the rights of the individual. Before you quit reading in disgust, hear me out. Had John McCain been elected, we would have continued with our illegal wars and other fascist doctrine. Republicans would have continued the chant that we were being "protected" from future calamities such as 9/11, that infringements on our liberties, such as the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorizations Act were necessary to keep the war, "over there" and to stop Domestic Terrorism. The Democrats would have continued with their anti-war rhetoric and posturing. Basically, the rush to pure Socialism would have continued at the normal frog-boiling pace. With Obama, we have now the same fascist doctrine of illegal aggressive wars and infringements on liberty combined with in-your-face Marxist Socialism.

Those who voted for Obama believing it would end the wars have now seen they were conned; those Middle-Class Whites who voted for Obama to salve their feelings of latent racism have seen race used as a defense of tyrannical theft and ever enlarging government and its quest for total control of our lives. The possibility of the loss of the right to possess the tools of liberty have led millions to the purchase of firearms and ammunition, many for the first time. In the month of August 2009 alone, over one million requests to purchase firearms were received at the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of the FBI. The rumors of vaccines and laboratory prepared viruses prepared as a tool for population control and the threat of military and law enforcement forced vaccinations have alarmed millions. "Obama" and "Change" bumper stickers, once quite numerous in my rural part of the world, have all but disappeared. In other words, a mentality of resistance to the combined forces of Fascism and Marxism seems to be taking shape.

The power elite and their shills in the media will continue to proclaim as racists any who would oppose the socialist criminal takeover in this country. The advocates will refer to this criminality as a religious experience, but they will also offer up their "opposing views" commentators in an attempt to quell active protests. Having someone in the media who represents the view of the opposition has become standard operating procedure for the media. When Clinton was in office, we had Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity; when Dubya was in office the opposition found solace in Olbermann; now the opposition finds a new friend in a much richer and suddenly reformed Beck. Believing one has a proponent in the national limelight keeps many on their couches and out of the streets.

Believing there to be a political solution to the mess we are now in is folly indeed. The government owns the entire game: political parties, the congress, elections, law enforcement, the military, the courts and the ability to forcibly take whatever it wants under the fear of death. Our opinions and concerns mean nothing. Writing letters to these thugs is a waste of time. If they cared about our opinions, the banks would never have been bailed out nor the latest Supreme Court Justice confirmed. The opinion of the people no longer matters; live with it.

It was rumored that during the Dubya administration, a congressman in a western state voiced his written concern to the administration concerning the departure of the Republican Party from its core beliefs and supporters, especially those who supported the Second Amendment and opposed abortion. Supposedly, this representative received a memo from the desk of Karl Rove stating: "Do not concern yourself with those who support the Constitution and oppose abortion, they have nowhere else to go."

Folks, face the music, advocates of liberty and self-determination have nowhere else to go.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if and when I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have the right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe?

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change.

In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas and Hezbollah.

If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege.

I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights.

An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?

What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.

What a masterstroke it was for the state to get Boobus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the "reasonable" restrictions of his masters. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!

If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the state, bought and paid for.

Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.

Resistance, anyone?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

There are quite a few questions you should ask yourself before you make your purchase. What is the application, or in simpler terms, how will I use this firearm? Will I be carrying it concealed? Will I only use it at home? Do I live in the city or on several acres? How much time to I have to devote to practice? What is my experience level with firearms? How much of my personal resources do I have to spend on this purchase? And of course, the ultimate question: if forced to, can I take another human beings life? If you cannot honestly answer the ultimate question in the affirmative, forget the others and take up karate.

If you intend to carry your weapon concealed, you can rule out the shotgun, the AR-15 and the M1A. If you live in an urban environment, plan to carry concealed or open carry (allowed in some states) you will probably be in the market for a handgun. The handgun is the smallest firearm you can have. It is great for home defense and for carrying on your person. Since the majority of personal attacks occur within 10—15 feet, according to FBI statistics, bringing a long gun (shotgun or rifle) into play in this scenario is difficult and presents a great opportunity for your assailant to disarm you.

There exists a great choice in handguns that provides the unique ability to fire either a .410 shotgun round or the 45 Colt center-fire round. This handgun is made by Taurus and is called "The Judge." It comes in blue or stainless finish and a choice of several barrel lengths. A .410 shotgun round would be devastating at short range and best of all would not penetrate inner walls within the house unless hit at very close range. .410 shotgun ammo is usually readily available although .45 Colt ammo is harder to find, due mainly to its use in Cowboy Action Shooting. Please note there is a difference between .45 ACP and .45 Colt firearms and ammo and they are not interchangeable!

While the size and weight of the "Judge" make it impractical for concealed carry for many, the potential devastation of five rounds of .410 shotgun rounds make it ideal for home defense and a nightmare for any potential carjacker when carried in your automobile or truck.

A great choice in the small handgun, designed especially for concealed carry, is the Kel-Tec or its basic twin, the Ruger LCP in .380 ACP. Both can be easily concealed in a pocket or purse and delivers quite a blow with +P ammo. I would not recommend a steady diet of the +P ammo in either pistol as it places a great deal of stress on the firearm components. Practice with standard ammo and use the +P when carrying the weapon for self-defense.

The caliber of your chosen handgun is much less important than your ability to hit the target and correct any malfunctions of that firearm under duress. After all, one hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 Mag.

Many are the arguments and discussions on the best caliber for self-defense. Often mentioned are tests fired into gelatin and various other materials. While this gives a general idea as to bullet performance, the only thing that really matters is how that particular round performs on actual live targets. (In the development of the .45 ACP, rounds were actually fired into human cadavers long before it became politically incorrect to do so.) Some even tout one bullet weight over another as in a preference for the 124-grain 9mm rounds over the 117-grain rounds or the 125-grain .357 round over the standard 158-grain round. Since most acts of self-defense in which a firearm is deployed occur at 10 ft or less, I find this argument to be superfluous. I can assure you a potential rapist or home invader will not be able to tell anyone the difference between the choices of bullet weights in the various calibers after being hit by either. Most critical in self-defense situations is the ability to hit your target under the most stressful situation you will ever encounter.

History shows Federal Law Enforcement (FLE) chose to abandon the 9mm round after the failures of that round in the shootout in Miami. Many returning veterans I have spoken with voice similar concerns with the 9mm’s performance in the basic issue sidearm, the M9 Beretta.

Special Operations units in the US Military have retained the .45 ACP sidearm in several configurations. Kimber built a special .45 ACP in the 1911 configuration for the Force Recon unit of the U.S. Marines called the "Warrior." Other units have employed the .45 ACP in other configurations such as the Heckler and Koch USP model along with traditional 1911s.

The .40 caliber S&W (Smith and Wesson) round came about allegedly due to female agents of FLE being unable to qualify with the 10mm or .45ACP rounds because of heavy recoil. Smith and Wesson created the .40 caliber round to maintain the 10mm bullet configuration with a shorter casing; all this at a cost to the taxpayer of something over 7 million dollars. While this round is currently employed by a large number of law enforcement entities, it is still referred to by many as the .40 Short and Weak.

Then, there is the choice between revolver and semi-automatic. I recommend a revolver for those with very limited experience firing a handgun. All you must do to engage a target is pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. Up until recently most revolvers did not have a safety. Revolvers come in a wide choice of calibers. Again, stay with that which has proved reliable in the past.

I readily admit to being a huge fan of the 1911 in .45 ACP. If I had one handgun and one round of ammo to take down a bad guy, it would be the Springfield 1911 in .45 ACP that has been a dear and close friend for a very long time. I have seen the damage this round can do to a human body. How can you not like a firearm that has proved itself over a century in battle after battle and shootout after shootout? When possible the Springfield is my carry weapon with the Kel Tec .380 as a back up. On rare occasions it is just the little Kel Tec.

If you wonder about durability and reliability take a look here as Todd Jarrett puts 1000 rounds of ammo through a Para Ordnance 1911 in slightly over 10 minutes. This same firearm eventually fired 5000 rounds without a malfunction. That, my friend, is reliability.

While it is true there have been bad guys that have taken a hit with the .45 center of mass and not gone down, the same could be said of all calibers. In contrast, all calibers have recorded one-shot kills. In many cases, an assailant has consumed alcohol, drugs or both prior to perpetrating an act of violence. When they feel no pain, a shot must shut down the nervous system to stop the violent act. Ironically, the .45 ACP was designed to do just that against the Moro Warriors in the Philippines in the early 20th century; prior to that the .38 and the .45 Colt had proven ineffective in stopping them in battle. The Moro Warriors had a ritual before battle that included the consumption of Cocaine, which raised their pain threshold.

As for long guns for self-defense, the odds-on favorite is the shotgun. While there are many who recommend the pump-action, usually in 12 gauge, I prefer the semi-auto instead, specifically the Benelli M4. Anyone who has survived their first firefight knows, to survive you must make yourself a very small target. Therefore, I prefer to get to the prone position where practical/available. The pump-action shotgun requires one to roll on to their back to recycle the shotgun after firing which can cause one to lose sight of their adversary; not a good thing. The semi-auto allows one to keep firing from the prone position, keeping ones eyes on the target.

Quite a few people that I know have opted for the M-4/AR-15 platform for their home defense weapon. This selection allows one to have a high capacity weapon available with lethal capabilities. The downside would be the round penetrates most walls at close range. This weapon also provides the means to engage a target at up to 350 yards should that need arise. Beyond that range one would need either a combat style rifle in the M1A, AR 15 type in .308-caliber configuration or a bolt-action rifle in a caliber capable of longer ranges. The bolt-action type hunting rifles are usually a good buy right now for most have opted for the rifles such as the AR15 and the M1A.

The bottom line is choosing a weapon that fits your needs. If you are only going to have a firearm in the home and/or your mode of transportation, or for concealed or open carry, stay with the handgun. I can assure you carrying a shotgun or rifle to and from your car each morning and evening in an urban environment is going to bring you attention you do not need and bringing it to bear in time of emergency will be challenging.

Find a firearm that is comfortable to shoot, easy to maintain, and fits your budget. Get properly trained and practice, practice, practice. Whether it be a .22 or a .44 mag, it doesn’t mean a thing if you cannot consistently hit your intended target (with either hand) clear your weapon if a malfunction occurs in a stressful situation and reload in that same scenario.

Last, but not least, remember, in today’s economic times a firearm is also a good investment. I’m sure their value has outperformed your 401K in the past year and when the economic tsunami hits you will be able to trade extras for necessities.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

H.L. Mencken saw through the rhetoric and prose of Lincoln’s brief speech to the core issue: it was the Confederates who were fighting for the right of determination, not the government of Lincoln, the same government now in full blown war against liberty and individual rights.

Kenneth Royce, aka Boston Tea Party, presents a compelling case that our Constitution was designed to allow all of the criminal acts now being perpetrated on the people of this country in his book "Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s shocking alliance with big government."

Professor Tom DiLorenzo outlines the plans of Hamilton to subjugate the producing class with a central bank and mercantilism, a curse that lives with us today, but being fought valiantly by Congressman Ron Paul and the courageous Austrian economists at LRC.

In the America in which we now live, the government is totally corrupt; this includes the courts, the judges, the prosecutors, and those paid to "serve and protect." They all have taken an oath to "protect and defend" but set about immediately to destroy the object of their sworn allegiance. Those of us who cherish and tenaciously hang on to our human rights are now seen as "domestic terrorists" and a threat to their criminal enterprise.

Recently, I received an email from a reader who asked if I "advocated the overthrow of the U.S. Government." I replied that I did not wish to overthrow anything; the government was imploding on its own and as a free man I had no need of government or any of its programs and it is a thoroughly corrupt government that is determined to overthrow liberty and enslave us all.

Government and liberty cannot exist on the same plane; government will continue to accrue power and the resources of others until liberty can no longer survive. Government is the enemy of liberty, as liberty is the enemy of government. Big government must destroy liberty or cease to exist.

The government that Lincoln represented is the same government that robbed the American Indian of his land and his pride, enslaved him on a reservation and relegated his ancestors to a life of poverty and dependence on its master for the "commodities" of life.

The American Indian, with free health care, free dental care and free eye care has a life expectancy far below those who pay their own way?

It is Lincoln’s government that enslaved the Black race with a system of "entitlements" and dependency, the end result being mass poverty and crime. Many Blacks live now on that great Federal Plantation.

Black on Black crime in America is a national tragedy, but Black leaders would rather focus on racism, both theirs and that which they create. They convince their constituents they have a right to the property of others. It gets more votes and fills more bank accounts than focusing on crime, gangs, teenage pregnancy and broken families. Black leaders actually endorse the enslavement of their own race.

There are many Blacks in America who have not bought into the scam. They are honest and work hard for what they have. They are the true victims their leaders have ignored.

Lincoln’s government shut down the opposition press; today they own it. Now they work tirelessly to control the free exchange of ideas on the Internet.

Lincoln and his war criminals sought not only to defeat the South and their quest for self-determination but also to eliminate the people themselves. No one said it better than the man responsible for the heralded "March to the Sea," General William Tecumseh Sherman, when he wrote to his wife, "extermination, not of the soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people."

Lincoln’s criminals pillaged, plundered, burned and raped their way across the South for the better part of four years. Civilians (Black and White) were the favorite targets; Atlanta and Savannah Georgia; Jackson and Meridian Mississippi; Harrisonburg, Dayton and Bridgewater Virginia, all came under attack even though no Confederate Armies were present at the time of the attacks and barbarism.

When one looks at the government’s body of work as it pertains to those who dare resist tyranny, how can one ever doubt the ability of that government to shoot 14-year-old children in the back, a mother in the face, burn men, women and children in their church, falsely imprison the innocent, lie about wars in which tens of thousands have died and lie about terrorist acts and who was responsible.

To believe for a moment we have government of the people is unfathomable. The people were overwhelmingly against the TARP bailouts; yet we got them anyway. Large portions of people in this country do not believe in infanticide; yet we kill thousands of unborn every day. There is a great deal of opposition to those nominated to the Supreme Court; yet those who claim to disagree with the appointments overwhelmingly approve them.

This government has decreed those who believe in the rule of law; the right to self-determination; the right to defend themselves; veterans who have or might awaken to the tyranny; those who support political candidates who oppose criminal government and those who believe killing a living being to be murder, the enemy.

Because of my beliefs and my thirst for liberty, they have branded me a "domestic terrorist." If that means I oppose tyranny and corruption, then I am damn proud to be one.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

The majority of what passes for firearms training today centers around approval for concealed carry (CCW) permits. I find it hard to believe that those who hate and fear the state are willing to submit themselves to the authority of the state when it comes to their right to defend themselves. CCWs exist as revenue producing programs for the state and those it sanctions as trainers. It also provides the state with a database of what they consider to be "domestic terrorists" and/or their greatest threat. To beg and pay the state for permission to do that which one already has the right to do is beyond the pale.

The very idea that only those sanctioned by the state have the right to defend themselves should be repugnant to all who claim to cherish freedom.

Firearms instructors teach from theoretical or practical experience. The vast majority of instructors have never been in a situation where they were forced to defend their lives or the lives of others with deadly force. They teach theory, that which they have read or studied. The advantage of being taught by an instructor with practical experience is obvious. Would you rather your pilot have actual flight experience or someone who has only read a manual on flying? Staying the night at Holiday Inn Express does not work in this situation either.

Firearms instructors who actively support politicians who do not support the Second Amendment are not worthy of your time or your money. Many of the "premiere" firearms trainers continue to politically support the "lesser of two evils," while proclaiming true 2A supporters such as Ron Paul to be unelectable. These people are simply shills for the state.

Firearms instructors who profess undying allegiance to the right to defend oneself from personal attack and tyrannical government who support a candidate such as Bush or Condoleezza Rice is analogous to a man professing his wife to be faithful because she is only sleeping with three other men!

Very few are the firearms instructors today who teach comprehensive self-defense, mental preparation, threat assessment, engaging multiple threats, situational awareness, firing while injured and instinctive shooting from actual experience.

One recent trainee, a beautiful lady from South Florida, told me her total rounds fired when qualifying for her CCW was seven; and they call that training. She readily admitted she was keeping her firearms under lock and key in a closet because she felt unprepared to use them, even though the state, with the issuance of a CCW, had judged her qualified to do so. The state and its vetted instructor had their money and could care less whether the lady was properly trained to defend herself in a life-threatening situation.

Preparing to defend yourself or your loved ones with a firearm should be given the most serious consideration. If you would not trust your money to Paul Krugman; your religious beliefs to Pat Robertson; your foreign policy to Dick Cheney; the future of this nation to Obama or the right to defend yourself to Charles Schumer, why would you trust your self-defense training to someone who teaches based on theory and supports the lesser of two evils when it comes to politicians?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

“All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately … The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon … must be regarded as an enemy of the national government.” ~ SA Oberfhrer of Bad Tolz, March 1933.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these states … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.” ~ Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

Messiah Obama, Eric Holder, Bobby Rush, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Sarah Brady can choose not to own a firearm; that is their right, though at least one of them felt the need to own one. I choose to own a gun for many reasons that I will touch on in this article. Those listed above do not have the right to deny me ownership of a firearm; I don’t care how many fools voted for them or who they know at Diebold who can illegally manipulate a voting machine.

We are living in an age and time where those who claim to be against violence are more of a threat to individual liberty and freedom than any gun owner. These autocrats seek to disarm his/her victim before they move to enslave those of us they view as subjects.

I have owned firearms for over half a century. I received my first gun, a bolt-action; single shot, .22 caliber Remington rifle for my ninth birthday. (I still have it) A year later, I received a single shot 16 gauge Iver Johnson shotgun. Many a rabbit, quail and occasional grouse became meals for the family, directly because of those two firearms.

Prior to owning my own firearm, I was taught by my grandfather that a gun was a tool, just like a hammer, an axe, or any other farm implement. I was taught they were to be properly maintained and never misused or abused. Safety in all tools and their operation were emphasized and violations of those policies led to a severe lecture and in some cases memory enhancement with what my grandfather referred to as a "two-handed" limb.

I remember looking into my grandparents bedroom and seeing a rifle on the wall, a shotgun in the corner and a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson top-break revolver on the nightstand, strategically located between a one quart Mason jar of Moonshine whiskey and a large tin of Prince Albert tobacco. The Moonshine and Prince Albert remained in that location for as long as I can remember. Early in high school I finally found the courage to ask my grandfather why they were there. He told me of his younger years and drinking enough Moonshine to "float a battleship" and of smoking since he was "just a nubbin." He said he discovered later in life that both habits were causing him considerable problems so he decided to quit cold turkey. He bought the Moonshine and the Prince Albert and placed them in a prominent location, because, "boy, you can’t quit something if you don’t have any."

Some of my fondest childhood and early adult memories focus on hunting trips and shooting with my grandfather; we spent many a wonderful autumn day in the backwoods. Today, when I take out any of the firearms I had or used on those hunts, it takes me back to those wonderful days and times and memories of my beloved and sorely missed mentor.

In my younger years, I remember a night when my grandfather was visiting a sick relative and I was awakened by my grandmother and instructed me to "get the shotgun and come a running, something is after the chickens." I readily and without remorse, dispatched that varmint as he sat there with a squawking chicken in his mouth. There were other occasions when I felt a great deal of mental anguish when I was tasked with putting a seriously injured or sick farm animal "out of his/her misery." I was taught I had an obligation to that animal, just as I had been taught to take "ethical" shots on game animals. Such were the lessons of my childhood, many of them centered on firearms.

Invariably, visits from friends or relatives will include at least one day of shooting at the range, or across our back pasture at wood or paper targets. Several of our children’s friends and acquaintances have learned the basics of shooting at our home. Even those who have been indoctrinated by the schools or media to abhor firearms eventually come around and get into the fun and competition of shooting.

Like L. Neil Smith, I have a passion for well-made firearms; I love to hold them, disassemble, reassemble, clean and just appreciate them, as one would works of art. To look at the firearms of John Moses Browning and not recognize the genius of the man is hard to imagine. At one time, almost every weapon employed by this country’s fighting man saw its origins in Browning’s accomplishments and expertise. I also have a passion for the Smith and Wesson blue steel revolvers, Colt Single-Action-Army revolvers, old military style weapons and rifles capable of extreme accuracy at long distances. I sometimes spend hours cleaning my military rifle collection, wondering to myself what stories each could tell. When you are holding an old Springfield Model 1898 or an original M1 Garand, you are holding a piece of American history.

I enjoy spending hours developing the skills necessary to put a group of bullet holes very close together at 800, 900 and 1000 yards. Wind, relative humidity, controlled breathing, ballistic coefficients and several other factors come into play each and every time I go out in search of perfection.

Our elected and appointed criminals have destroyed our constitution; stolen our country’s wealth; created rampant racism by polarizing the races; openly admitted to voting for legislation that adversely impacts millions without ever reading it; attempted to destroy a complete culture (Southron) because it does not fit their criminal agenda; infested their ranks with sanctimonious moral midgets who cannot control their carnal cravings; totally corrupted the criminal justice system, putting the innocent behind bars while protecting criminal cronies; imprisoned hundreds of thousands for committing "victimless" crimes; installed political and social activists in black robes; lied this nation into illegal, immoral wars that killed and maimed millions, many of them our own misguided citizens; turned our local, state and federal police into elements that would make Heinrick Himmler and Uncle Joe Stalin proud; made ignorant boobs of our children with their socialized, Marxist educational machine, and done all within their power to destroy all vestiges of our republic.

Now, these moral cowards insist the only way this nation can remain safe is to turn over to them the only tool we have left to insure liberty, because they believe themselves to be of some higher moral and intellectual plane.

I consider those in power as I do any other criminal. I would never turn over my weapon to the bank robber, murderer or rapist, therefore, I will never relinquish my right to keep and bear arms, nor my wonderful memories and experiences involving firearms to a bunch of bottom feeders in three-piece-suits or uniforms and badges.

I would not want to explain that failure in judgment to my grandfather. He would never understand if I voluntarily sold myself into slavery.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

On July 27, 2009, a parole hearing will be held for Leonard Peltier. Mr. Peltier has served 33 years in federal confinement for a crime I believe he did not commit. The preponderance of evidence supports my belief. Peltier’s last parole hearing was held in 1993.

Leonard Peltier is not in prison for killing the two Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Agents as is alleged, he has been incarcerated for 33 years because he belonged to a group (American Indian Movement) that dared to challenge the federal government and their lies. When one has the audacity to challenge the fedgov, he/she becomes a target for malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, witness tampering and illegal imprisonment. Leonard Peltier has experienced all of these in the extreme.

AIM was founded in 1968 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 1972, AIM staged a "Trail of Broken Treaties" march that terminated in Washington, D.C. They simply marched to demand a series of treaties that had been signed between various American Indian Tribes and the fedgov be honored. A revolutionary idea is it not to demand the fedgov honor its promises! The fedgov negotiated with AIM, not to honor the treaties, but to end their occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building, which was rapidly becoming a major embarrassment for the government.

The fedgov promised to "look into AIM’s grievances." Like the previous treaties, this promise too was broken.

AIM quickly became the target of the FBI; the agency’s corrupt and illegal activities in this matter are well documented.

On June 26th, 1975, two FBI agents, supposedly in pursuit of a thief who had stolen a pair of boots, entered the Jumping Bull Ranch (private property) on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. They were in civilian clothes, driving an unmarked car. This act in itself is suspicious, for the FBI is tasked with investigating felonies on Indian Reservations and their pursuit of someone who had stolen a pair of cowboy boots does not ring true. Most FBI agents consider themselves above pursuit of a common thief. Perhaps this was a ruse to check out members of AIM who were camped on the Jumping Bull Ranch.

There is no record of who fired the first shot, or why the firing started. A family with children reportedly yelled they were under attack and many present at the time rushed to their defense. When the shooting stopped, the two FBI agents and a young Indian laid dead. All were shot through the head. Ironically, there has never been an investigation into the murder of the young Indian.

In what, almost two decades later, would be seen at Ruby Ridge and Waco, the FBI surrounded the area with SWAT teams and agents. Reportedly, for the next few days FBI agents terrorized local residents with no-knock raids and home and property searches, all without warrants.

While there will be some who question my assertions of illegal activities by federal agents, I would suggest any who fall into that camp read this 10 part investigative article on federal law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct. This quote from that article tells it all: "They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions, a two-year Post-Gazette investigation found."

Without any corroborating evidence, warrants were quickly issued for Leonard Peltier, Darrelle "Dino" Butler, Bob Robideau and Jimmy Eagle for murder. Prosecutors would later drop the charges against Eagle when it was proved he was not even on the reservation the day of the shooting. Since no warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, someone lied to obtain the warrant on Eagle. Why, then, should anyone believe the facts presented in the warrants for the other three?

Butler and Robideau would stand trial separately from Peltier because Peltier had fled to Canada. The FBI reverted to standard operating procedure (SOP) by demonizing the suspects before their trial in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Local authorities were told by the feds that large groups of AIM members/terrorists (they love that word) would be descending on the town. Employees in the Court House were told to prepare for shooting incidents and the seizing of hostages by marauding Indians.

The trial began on June 7, 1976 with Judge Edward McManus presiding. McManus, under vigorous objections of federal prosecutors, allowed a broad range of evidence to be introduced. Testimony was given concerning the "Reign of Terror" in and around Pine Ridge Reservation and the FBI’s tactics operating under their COINTELPRO directives.

During the trial, a federal witness admitted to being threatened into changing his testimony by FBI agents and to have provided testimony as instructed by those agents.

The jury returned a verdict of innocent, ruling there was no evidence shots fired by Butler and Robideau killed the two FBI agents and furthermore, their return fire was an act of self-defense.

Leonard Peltier was captured in Canada in 1976 and extradited to the US. The affidavit for extradition was one of three prepared by the FBI. In the affidavit finally filed with the Canadian government, focus was directed towards eyewitness statements from Myrtle Poor Bear, who claimed to have been Peltier’s girlfriend and present at the time of the shooting. It was necessary for the FBI to provide this testimony to the Canadian authorities, for it was their (Canada) legal position the FBI did not have enough evidence to warrant extradition.

It is important to note that Poor Bear later sought to recant her testimony (she claimed she was coerced and threatened by FBI agents) and appear as a defense witness at Peltier’s trial. The trial judge ruled she was mentally incompetent and could not be called as a witness. The fedgov today admits Poor Bear was not present at the Jumping Bull Ranch on the day of the shooting. They obviously fabricated evidence and suborned perjury to facilitate Peltier’s extradition.

In March of 1977, Leonard Peltier was found guilty of the murder of two FBI agents and given two life sentences. Peltier was found guilty without any witness testimony placing him as the shooter of the two agents. Exculpatory ballistics evidence was withheld and the new judge refused to allow testimony showing FBI tampering or witness intimidation. In short, Peltier was found guilty on the same testimony that set Butler and Robideau free. The difference was in the evidence that was allowed by the judge in Peltier’s trial.

Famed attorney, William Kunstler, would discover in 1982, in a telephone conversation with Judge Edward McManus, (who had presided over the Butler/Robideau trial) that McManus, not Benson, had been scheduled to try the Peltier case. Judge McManus had been astonished, he said, to find himself arbitrarily removed in favor of Judge Benson.

There exists zero evidence that Leonard Peltier was responsible in any way for the deaths of those two FBI agents. He has spent the last 33 years in confinement because the fedgov found it necessary to cover its crimes and malicious prosecution and to "get" someone for the deaths of two agents who were operating outside of the law and their oath to "uphold and defend" the constitution.

When President Reagan and Soviet Premier Gorbachev discussed human rights and political prisoners, Mikhail Gorbachev evoked a wave of protest from the U.S. press when he responded to Reagan’s “human rights agenda” by suggesting the U.S. clean up its human rights violations, citing Indians in general and Leonard Peltier in particular.

I enthusiastically support the immediate release of Leonard Peltier and the prosecution of those who wrongfully caused his imprisonment. What I do vehemently oppose is the allegation by many American Indians that Leonard Peltier was convicted and imprisoned because of the color of his skin and that President Obama, himself a victim of racial prejudice, will move to pardon Peltier. Is it not absurd to claim the elected leader of the "free world" to be a victim of racial prejudice? Does his white half discriminate against his black half?

I would remind those who believe Leonard Peltier was targeted because of the color of his skin that Samuel Weaver, who was shot in the back by federal agents at the age of 14, was white. It was a federal agent (FBI agent Lon Horiuchi) who later shot his mother, Vicky, in the face, as she held Samuel’s younger sister; both were white. Although there were several minorities among the men, women and children incinerated or shot by federal agents at Waco, the majority of the 82 who died were white.

Indians, your fight is with the federal government, not a race of people. To allow your fight to be framed by those who profit from the polarization of the races is pure folly and plays into the federal government’s hands; it is possible Leonard Peltier will remain in prison as long as the race card is employed, because, to do so benefits those who put him there.

It is obviously hard for American Indians to challenge and lay at the feet of the federal government the blame for the above listed atrocities, considering a large number of American Indians are in the employ of the fedgov. The great majority of Indians employed by the fedgov have those jobs because of "Indian preference" hiring policies. Simply stated, many have these jobs, not because of their qualifications for the job, but because of the color of their skin. Has the fedgov purchased the right to wrongfully imprison Indians because they provide many of them with a paycheck?

Is it not racism when one reads the following in published employment ads: "We are an equal employment opportunity employer (EEO), Indian preference observed?" Does this mean a less qualified person should have the job if they are of the preferred skin tone? (Would Indians accept this practice in their brain surgeon; they accept it in those who teach their children.) It is impossible to claim racism when one claims preference in anything because of the color of their skin. Only the federal government could get away with claiming racism while practicing racism!

It is imperative all races stand together for justice and place the blame for corruption and criminality where it belongs. A thorough reading of the investigative articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will show the victims of fedgov misconduct and criminal activity to be of all races; a large number of them white.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

The Best of Michael Gaddy

In a great number of instances, communications has been the Achilles Heel of the resistance in Iraq. They have learned to constantly change their modes and methods of communication in order to keep their opponents off balance.

The cell phone is the easiest and most preferred method of communication in use by the modern day 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) participant; it is also the easiest to exploit. First, remember SIM cards are exploitable and can and will be used against you. It is possible to exploit a SIM card in 30 seconds without the holder even knowing it, once your opponent has your phone number. All that is needed to pinpoint location with a cell phone is 2 towers for those who do not have a phone with GPS. There are also technologies that allow the government to create false towers that seek out your phones specific signal and will allow them to troll around an area until they get a hit, and then it will lead them right to your location. These techniques have been developed, tested, and used effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the opponent needs is your number, which gives them the specific signal to your phone.

Counter measures are simple; never ever keep the phone on, or the battery in. Never store numbers in the phone, always use throwaway cell phones and change them often. Set up prearranged talk times, and always talk on the move. Never talk in your home, or while you are stationary. Never ever send text messages, and always talk in code on the phone. Hard line to hard line is the best way to call if you can still find a pay phone.

Radios of any kind are the same as cell phones, but will get you located quicker. The opponents expect them to be used, and almost always have their ears on. Today’s military units have the ability to listen and pinpoint the point of broadcast of any type communication device and jam it. Unless you hardwire your area of operations (AO) with WWI field phones, keep your messages short, sweet, and move quickly after you broadcast.

I warned here of new members to your group who advocate violence or offer to provide weapons and/or explosives. Also be extremely cautious of any members of your group who are gone for any period of time or those you know have been contacted by the authorities. Even the most loyal can be coerced with threats to family, etc.

Read and study 4GW tactics and strategies; these tactics have yet to be defeated in modern military history. I highly recommend the series of books written by Colonel John Poole on the subject. The Colonel’s works reveal a detailed history of 4GW and a wealth of information that could prove invaluable.

Author, Patriot, and LRC reader, Matthew Bracken, has written a trilogy of novels on probable scenarios concerning civil unrest and its complications. There is a wealth of information that can be gleaned from his works, as well as some disturbing possibilities. Matt has laced his writing with interesting characters that makes for an informative, entertaining, though sometimes alarming read.

Those who prepare, educate and equip for the coming chaos will be those most apt to protect themselves and their families. Remember, those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

In an earlier article here, I mentioned my friend Kit’s admonishment that we must "bunch up" to survive the coming calamities, sage advice indeed. While this bunching up can be accomplished in many ways, the community level works best. In a community of like-minded individuals, help is much closer, tasks can be shared and individual talents much better implemented.

Having someone in your group with basic medical skills will be a necessity. If no one presently has those skills, enrolling in an EMT course at a local Community College will prove invaluable. Make basic medicines a part of your cache.

Those who find themselves in an urban environment should consider moving. While you may believe you need to remain there for the income, is it really worth putting your life and family at risk? Urban environments have a much larger concentration of criminals and government employees, both of whom will prove to be your enemy.

Essential to survival are food and water; have ample supplies of both. Store what you eat; canned goods are great. My personal choice is freeze-dried foods; my favorite brand is Mountain House Foods. A good selection can be found here.

I know many will stress the importance of shelter, but I do not believe that to be as important as food and water. Learn to construct an improvised shelter. You may be forced to leave your home. Have caches of supplies stored away from your home, but accessible should they be needed.

Many believe it critical to have their home debt free. As long as personal property and real estate taxes exists, no one truly owns their home. With income tax revenues presently down over 30% due to economic conditions, it is only a short time before the state institutes a federal real estate tax to compensate for the lost revenues. Then we will see government seizure of private property that may in fact be the trip wire that leads to the breaking point for many.

A good question is, what will become the medium of exchange when the dollar has no value? Any new currency with the backing of government will prove equally worthless. There are many among us who have invested in precious metals. I believe these metals will be valuable once civil chaos subsides, but during the initial stages of civil unrest and governmental tyranny, they will be virtually worthless. Who would be willing to trade food, water, guns or ammo for a piece of metal in a chaotic environment? Necessities will become the medium of exchange.

Ample supplies of guns and ammo are a given, not only for personal use, but for barter as well. A serviceable firearm and a supply of ammo will trade for much more than an ounce of gold.

Critical to survival will be the selection of those with whom you intend to weather the storm. There are many who will talk the talk, but when it comes time to stand in the breach, few will prove worthy. Be especially suspicious of those whose dedication has vacillated in the past, and those who still believe there to be a political solution to the problems we now face in this country.

Be especially wary of infiltrators to your group. Should any new face appear and immediately advocate any form of violence and offer to provide explosives or weapons not normally available, get away from that individual.

Train, train, train and then train some more. If you do not have the necessary skills for survival, find a qualified teacher. While those who teach theory can provide some useful skills, those who have actually survived, either as military personnel (actual combat vets) or through other life experiences will prove to be your best instructors.

Communications offer a real challenge. Cell phones will quickly become a liability when civil unrest occurs. All cell phone communications can/are monitored, either through the National Security Agency or the Army Network Enterprise Command (NETCOM)/US Army Signal Command/United States Army Intelligence Center located at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona. In addition, a great majority of cell phones can now be tracked through tower usage or onboard GPS capabilities. Your cell phone can tell fedgov agents your exact location even when it is turned off. Ham and Citizens Band (CB) radios may provide an acceptable alternative form of communication.

Census takers for the upcoming census have been tasked with providing GPS coordinates for each residence in this country. An individual who recently completed census training told me they were taught when/if anyone complains about them being on private property, they are to remain on the property and contact local authorities, for they are "government employees and authorized to be anywhere they are sent in performance of their duties." Damn that Fourth Amendment to the Constitution!

One can only speculate as to what local authorities will do when they arrive on scene, but my bet is they will support their fellow "government employee" over the private citizen. Local law enforcement agencies have a miserable track record when it comes to standing up for the Constitution and rights of the citizen.

While many will fail to see anything ominous about the fedgov securing GPS coordinates for each of our homes, my first thought went to the number of weapons systems now employed by our military, including JDAM bombs, that use GPS coordinates for payload delivery. The question remains: why does the fedgov need GPS locations for our homes when they have conventional addresses? Is there a new form of mail delivery in the works we have not heard about?

One must remember when considering the above that those of us who support the Constitution, have supported Third-Party candidates (read Ron Paul), demand accountability in government and have served the state in its unconstitutional wars, have been deemed enemies of the state. We all know what the state proposes to do to its enemies, real, or imagined!

Prepare my friends, prepare. Opposing the state’s unrelenting march to fascism/Marxism is going to demand preparation.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

For two consecutive election cycles, 2006 and 2008, the American electorate voted against the illegal, immoral wars of the Bush administration. Now that we have a Bush clone in a darker skin tone, no one seems to care about the killing, maiming and torturing. To the hypocritical voters in America, the crime is irrelevant, it only matters whose criminal is pulling the trigger.

The "change" since the election, as I see it, is: a much larger national debt, ever expanding wars in the Middle East, a greater threat to personal liberty, a huge increase in gun sales, a national shortage of ammo, and rapidly increasing fuel prices. Is that the "change" Americans voted for?

The control the state is able to maintain over its citizens is directly proportionate to its ability to create fear in those citizens. Therefore, to defeat the war on terror, all we have to do is stop being afraid of the state’s villain du jour. To increase our personal freedoms and liberty, we must stop fearing the state. When one ceases to look through eyes clouded with fear, the state and its weaknesses are exposed.

The government spends billions of taxpayer dollars creating and sustaining a perpetual fear level, with the mainstream media (MSM) more than a willing partner.

Recently, we were inundated through the government and MSM with the possible threat of a pandemic associated with "Swine Flu." This threat gained very little traction with the populace.

The FBI and NYPD have informed us we have been saved from another terrorist attack by their great work. The shills in the MSM will never examine the dynamics of this case. First, we have a group of people angry because the fedgov is killing people they care about with their illegal and immoral wars. Agents of the fedgov then infiltrate this group. Obviously, to become trusted by this group, these agents must profess to share the group’s feelings, emotions, and dedication of purpose. These agents then offer to provide the explosives and weapons necessary to carry out a terrorist attack. Did the fedgov agents choose the targets and tactics as well? Just how much of the entire plan was that of the agents involved as opposed to those they duped? Members of the group are provided (inert) explosives and weapons by these agents and then promptly arrested for having them and attempting to carry out the act the agents participated in creating; a classic case of entrapment.

The entire purpose of this case was to create fear in the population and the (mistaken) belief we are being protected by the state, a classic case of creating a problem and then appearing to be the solution.

Three incidents that created enormous fear of the boogeyman du jour were the Oklahoma City Bombing, TWA 800, and of course, 9/11. I will not discuss the issue of whether the government was involved in either of the above, but there is credible evidence here, here, and here that the government’s version of the events are highly suspect and certainly would not hold up under the scrutiny of a totally independent (non-governmental) investigation.

Many believe the government incapable of conducting, or being involved in, any false-flag operation involving the possible deaths of American citizens. I offer as exhibit (A) Operation Northwoods, and Exhibit (B) evidence from the 1993 WTC bombing.

The state has one powerful tool at its disposal to control the masses: fear. A minority can control and enslave a majority only as long as the majority fears the minority. The state will do whatever it takes to maintain that control. The state lied about the circumstances of the attack on Pearl Harbor; they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident; they lied about the Oklahoma City bombing; they lied about TWA 800; they lied about Ruby Ridge; they lied about Waco and they lied about 9/11. The very essence of government is fear and the lie.

There will be another event such as those mentioned above when the state feels it is beginning to loose control of Boobus, it needs the premise for a new war, or reason to expand the ones it now has. When it happens, will you run their lies up the flagpole, or demand the truth, refute the lies, and expose the liars?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

Henry Clay, whose protégé was Abraham Lincoln, said of the American Indian, ” The Indians’ disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. I do not think them, as a race, worth preserving.” Clay saw the Indian as an impediment to the desires of the state: acquisition of the lands possessed by the American Indian.

Clay’s beliefs and political goals led to the forced relocation of Cherokees from the mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia to Oklahoma during the winter of 1838. Over 20,000 Cherokees were dragged from their homes, which were then plundered and burned. They were force marched, most of them barefooted, to Oklahoma during the dead of winter. Over 4,000 Cherokees died on this march. To the Cherokees it became known as the “Trail of Tears.”

Abraham Lincoln would instigate, promote, and conduct a war that would consume the lives of more than 600,000 Americans. The purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery, as is claimed by idolaters of the state, but to secure the property of citizens of the South, a confiscatory seizure of their monies known as the Morrill Tariff. Lincoln would reveal his intention to invade the South to secure these monies and his lack of concern for slavery in his First Inaugural Address.

To accomplish this seizure of assets, the citizens of the South would have to be demonized; war criminal General William Tecumseh Sherman and his wife proved most adept at this: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” His wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”

Professor Tom DiLorenzo superbly documents the Sherman family’s demonization of both Southerners and Indians here.

Another Lincoln war criminal, General John Pope, said of the Santee Sioux immediately before his campaign against them, “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.” Ironically, Lincoln ordered Pope to subdue the Santee Sioux when they revolted in 1862. The revolt occurred when the government refused to pay the Sioux monies promised for the sale of millions of acres of their land.

General Pope once proclaimed that his "headquarters would always be in the saddle," to which Stonewall Jackson, responded, "His headquarters are where his hindquarters ought to be." This could certainly be said of the leadership of all government projects.

After the Sioux were subdued, trials of 303 captured males were immediately held. The trials of each lasted approximately 10 minutes and all were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged.

In December of 1862, 38 Santee Sioux were hanged on the orders of President Abraham Lincoln, elsewhere known as the "Great Emancipator." This was the largest mass hanging in American History. The remaining Sioux were expelled from Minnesota. The Santee Sioux learned a brutal lesson about standing in the way of the state in its conquests of property that belongs to others, and believing the state to be honorable in its promises.

Repeatedly, throughout our history, the state has demonized, most often using its lapdogs in the media, those it intended to war against. From Red Savages; to Rebels; to Krauts; to Japs; to Slopes; to Dinks; to Towel Heads, a concentrated effort was introduced to dehumanize the state’s real or concocted opponents.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), The Missouri Militia Report and Virginia’s Homegrown Terrorism Report have unleashed an attack designed to demonize and dehumanize opponents of tyranny. The unclassified lists of those viewed as potential threats and terrorists includes opponents of abortion, groups opposed to illegal immigration, third-party political supporters, supporters of the Second Amendment, those stockpiling food, water, and ammunition, constitutionalists, veterans, critics of the United Nations and One World Government, and anyone fitting the "Right-Wing Extremist" profile.

Conspicuous in its absence in DHS’s report is any mention of Maoists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, or National Socialists as a terror threat. In short, our government exhibits no fear of socialism/fascism. It only fears those who would hold it accountable to the Constitution and rule of law.

What we know from the Department of Homeland Security and its Fusion Centers, now located in at least 25 states, concerning whom the state views as its enemies, is alarming indeed. What should be of even greater concern is what we don’t know that is contained in the classified section of their reports to LE agencies around the country. Information is classified to keep information from the enemy; why is the American public not allowed to see who else this government considers to be its enemy and how it intends to deal with the problem?

It is time to pay attention. We have been named as the state’s enemy. There undoubtedly is a plan in the works to deal with us. Are members of the mentioned groups already targeted for action? I have recently received information from California that some cities there have declared any member of a motorcycle club to be a gang member. What is the origin of this determination? I can assure you one of the strategies that will be employed by the state is "divide and conquer." It is absolutely imperative we unite on this issue. Note the words of Pastor Martin Niemller are relevant today:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Kit, a dear friend and true Patriot, said to me recently, "We are going to be forced to bunch up if we are to survive." This is sage advice.

The economic wheels are about to run off the wagon called the state. Civil unrest and chaos will ensue. Patriots and Constitutionalists have been deemed the enemy. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

The Department of Homeland Security issued a report on April 7th titled, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The unclassified part of this report is an open admission our government is a criminal enterprise. While the American Idol faithful will have trouble connecting the dots, the admission is thinly veiled, but there nonetheless.

One can determine the character and integrity of individuals and governments by examining the entities they refer to as their enemies. The United States government now says it is threatened by, and will protect itself from, the following: Those who believe in the constraints of constitutional government; those who believe in state sovereignty; a belief in the right to keep and bear arms; those who abhor state sponsored infanticide; those who fear the ramifications of illegal immigration; alleged "white extremists"; the fear of an "economic turndown"; those who oppose state control of their lives and veterans returning from the state’s illegal and immoral wars.

The "unclassified" version of this report is an admission of criminality on the part of the state and the fear of the demand for enforcement of the rule of law by its citizens. What is in the "classified" section is certainly more damning to the state and a stronger admission of criminality and the fear of an informed citizenry, otherwise, why would they hide its content?

By law, information can only be classified to protect national security objectives. The question is: whose national security objectives are best served by this assessment, and are these national security objectives contrary to constitutional law?

Most revealing is the inclusion in this report of returning veterans, those trained by the state to deprive others of their lives and rights.

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

While Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has backed off the veterans as threats issue, and openly apologized, anyone who believes she was sincere in that apology needs psychiatric care. If placing veterans on the list was not intentional and purposeful, then why were they on the list in the first place?

Perhaps someone with the state is cognizant of history, or perhaps there is a natural fear by those in the employ of the state of anyone who possesses the training and experience to stand forcibly for their rights as defined in the constitution.

In revisionist history, the Battle of Athens is overlooked and/or forgotten by many. In 1946, folks in McMinn County, Tennessee, suffering under a criminal local government and a refusal by state and federal authorities to address the corruption, took up arms to reclaim their rights. Many of these folks were veterans of WWII and had recently put their lives on the line in combat against oppressive government in Europe and the Pacific and refused to tolerate the same in America.

Possibly mentioned in the classified portion of the warning to law enforcement from Homeland Security about "extremist groups" were motorcycle club members. I have received information from several members of these clubs with stories about harassment from law enforcement since the Homeland Security warning was made public.

It appears club members, wearing colors, but riding alone, have been stopped and questioned, even to the point of having their bikes confiscated on totally trumped up charges. One such club member told me he was told by the cops who stopped him, (3 cars) that guys like him "are on the list" of suspected terrorists. This reader is a member of a club whose membership is made up almost entirely of veterans.

"Left-Wing Extremists" are conspicuous in their absence from any terrorist warning lists. Could that be because they are currently in elected offices or otherwise employed by the state?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

With the exception of the Vietnam War and its protest activity, all of the above events played into the hands of the state and its never-ending efforts to disarm private citizens. While the only common denominator in the University of Texas shooting involved the use of mind altering drugs by the shooter, the three assassinations were similar in accusations of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involvement was alleged in each of them.

It was reported that President Lyndon Johnson was moved by the University shooting to move for stronger gun control; the facts of the case supported just the opposite. After Whitman killed his mother and wife by stabbing them to death, he went to the University Tower where his next victim, Edna Townsley, a receptionist, was butt-stroked with a rifle, which led to her death. Whitman had in essence killed three people before he pulled the trigger the first time.

When victims began to fall from shots fired by Whitman from the University Tower, several civilians secured weapons from their cars and began to return fire at Whitman along with police on the scene. The combined efforts of these civilians and the police forced Whitman to shoot from waterspouts, greatly limiting his ability to acquire additional targets. Had it not been for the deployment of private arms by civilians, the toll of lives lost and those wounded would have been much larger. Yet, the state used this tragedy to move for more draconian firearms possession limitations on private citizens.

Conspiracy theories abound concerning the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. As mentioned above, the CIA is mentioned as possibly being involved in all three. We do know the CIA lied about aspects of the JFK assassination. Lies are usually told to hide the truth; what truth was the CIA covering up for 40 years, and why? Why did the CIA withhold evidence from the Warren Commission and defy court orders?

Did the CIA use their "controlled" sources in the media to demonize and ridicule any who found irregularities in the "Pablum" force-fed to the masses concerning the assassination? An April 1st 1967, CIA dispatch, declassified through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) in 1976, advised the CIA’s "assets" in the media on "Countering criticism of the Warren Report." These "assets" were instructed features and book revues to be "particularly appropriate" for this purpose. These controlled media sources were to "answer and refute" those critical of the state’s explanation of events by claiming "financial interests" and to allege they were "hasty and inaccurate in their research" and "infatuated with their own theories." These CIA stooges in the media were instructed to emphasize in their reporting, "no new significant evidence has emerged," and there was no consistency of thought among the critics. Critics were to be discredited by claiming they were "wedded to theories before all the evidence was in." Also used was the claim consistently heard about all possible conspiracies involving the state: "Conspiracy on such a large scale would be impossible to conceal."

The FBI, Secret Service, and the Dallas Police Department withheld evidence from the Warren Commission. As the commission had no investigators of its own, and depended entirely on the above-mentioned agencies for evidence, the credibility of the report must be questioned.

If questioning the veracity of the state’s official report on the JFK assassination and the withholding and suppression of evidence by those tasked with pursuing the truth makes me a "conspiracy nut," pass the tinfoil.

Credible allegations of CIA involvement in the Robert Kennedy assassination can be found here. Please note CIA Agent George Joannides’s alleged involvement in both the Kennedy’s assassinations.

Allegations of CIA and other state agency’s involvement in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. have been made by aides and members of the King family. Coretta Scott King said, “There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband…" Dexter King, son of Martin Luther King Jr., who met with James Earl Ray before his death and stated he believed Ray did not kill his father, also stated his father was assassinated “because he challenged the establishment.” Dexter King also referred to the official investigation and findings as “the most incredible cover-up of the century.”

Martin Luther King Jr. had been under surveillance by the FBI, CIA and Army Intelligence for an extended period of time before his assassination because he supposedly represented a threat to national security. His phones were tapped, he was under continual surveillance, his rooms were bugged and his followers infiltrated. Yet, he was assassinated in plain sight and none of the above agencies had a clue as to the plans or movements of the assassin.

The FBI was assigned the task of investigating the assassination of the man they considered a threat to national security and a subject of their "dirty tricks" associated with COINTEL-PRO activities.

Author Alex Constantine, in his work, Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America, has exhaustively documented the CIA’s influence in the media through Operation Mockingbird. When a government agency has the ability to control the content of information disseminated to the masses, is that not a form of mind control?

The state used all of the above highly questionable events to propose and pass the 1968 Gun Control Act. The wording of this piece of legislation was taken almost word for word from the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act. The 1968 GCA is not the state’s only connection with Nazi programs. How many are familiar with the CIA’s connection with Nazi war criminals?

Let me see now; The 1968 Gun Control Act is a re-do of the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act; The CIA had a Nazi war criminal connection from its very inception; The CIA is alleged to have involvement in several high-profile assassinations in America; The CIA uses its rented mules (Operation Mockingbird) in the mainstream media (MSM) to demonize and marginalize anyone who seeks to investigate the irregularities in the state-issued reports of these assassinations and other possible covert actions; Our form of government has morphed from a republic to in-your-face fascism, and anyone who believes there is a connection between the state and mass shootings is a conspiracy nut!

When the only alternative Boobus utilizes in his search for truth is text messaging, a six-pack and American Idol, what chance is there he would even recognize the truth, or for that matter, even care?

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

To believe the state is never involved in illegal conspiracies would require one to believe the state incapable of criminal behavior and Julius Caesar was killed in a random walk-by knifing.

A theory is defined as a guess or conjecture; therefore, once one piece of actual evidence is discovered, a theory no longer exists; it becomes a possibility. The problem Tin-foil hatters face is the lack of any subjective review of that evidence. The state is always in charge of "officially" discovering evidence. When those outside of the state’s influence discover evidence the government has somehow "overlooked," then an "impartial" panel is commissioned to investigate that evidence. The problem is, the impartial panel is always appointed by the state and populated by those with close connections to the state apparatus. Need I say more than the 9/11 Commission, or the Commission led by former Senator John Danforth tasked with investigating the tragedy called Waco?

Even in the event these commissions find wrongdoing by state employees, there are never any prosecutions of those responsible, even when the crime they commit is murder. FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi is a great example. Therefore, it is obvious those who represent the state operate with impunity and/or the state sanctioned "license to kill."

Perhaps the state believes only private citizens are capable of carrying out criminal conspiracies; after all, over 40% of those in federal custody are there for "conspiracy" to commit a crime. But when one mentions the state and criminals, are they not being redundant?

Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.

First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.

Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.

Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?

Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.

Has the state gained from any of these very suspicious shootings? Of course they have.

After the political assassinations in the 1960s, the state, operating with the fear and outrage of the public, was able to foist on the America the wonderful 1968 Gun Control Act, a law taken almost word for word from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Former NRA President Charlton Heston’s involvement in the promotion of this vile law is a story in itself.

While there are many writers who believe the state is presently too concerned with the economy to concentrate on laws prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, I believe, that because of the economy, the state will be forced to actively pursue draconian firearms legislation as a priority.

As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.

When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?

Is the state capable of killing to achieve its goals? One could always ask Randy Weaver and the Waco survivors, not to mention the families of tens of thousands of soldiers and millions of Vietnamese and Iraqis.

In future writings I will detail the similarities of mass killings perpetrated by Charles Whitman, Patrick Purdy, Klebold and Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jiverly Wong, and the evidence that takes state involvement from guess and conjecture to a possibility.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

Shown here, on a CBS special, is video proof of the lies and disinformation by CBS, US and Mexican authorities. Anderson Cooper and Janet Napolitano are either ignorant or complicit in the myth that M-203s, RPGs and hand grenades are readily available to the American gun consumer. Most intelligent folks, and those without a state sponsored agenda, realize these weapons are usually only available to the military.

This week, Secretary of Homeland Defense, Janet Napolitano, announced a new plan to curb the alleged flow of weapons from the US into Mexico. This program, which will cost the overwhelmed US Taxpayer another 700 million dollars plus, includes machines that employ what is referred to as "virtual strip search." This plan will supposedly slow down the number of guns traveling south from the US to the drug cartels in Mexico. If this program has the same success rate as the government’s efforts at stopping the flow of contraband north into the US, the Mexican drug cartels will have nuclear weapons by the end of April!

While not stated as such, I am sure this will eventually morph into "the war on guns." Funny, is it not, every time our government "declares war" on something, it always increases exponentially! Whether it is poverty, drugs, terrorism or guns, when the state declares war, rapid growth and expansion of that which is the object of that war is inevitable.

Napolitano stated, "70% of the weapons in the hands of the drug cartels are coming from the US." The implication is obvious she is referring to private gun owners. The MSM sucks up this propaganda like a large-mouth bass takes a worm, and regurgitates it to Boobus without ever questioning the truthfulness behind the claim. Neither Mexican, nor US officials, has ever produced an ounce of proof to back up these wild accusations.

Wednesday, on MSNBC, in an interview by Andrea Mitchell, New York Congressional Representative, Nita Lowey stated 97% of the guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels originated in the US. Representative Lowey, in her support for a new Assault Weapons Ban, alleges these firearms are coming from the American gun owner. She is correct in her assertion many of the firearms being used by the cartels are coming from Americans. They are, but, from the American taxpayer, not the American gun owner!

The fact is: the Mexican authorities have refused to release the serial numbers of weapons confiscated from drug cartel members. Releasing the serial numbers would implicate the corrupt governments of the US and Mexico and their involvement in arming the drug cartels.

Considering the above, it is my belief the Mexican drug cartels are procuring a large percentage of weapons from the world’s largest supplier of these weapons: the United States government!

The type of weapons confiscated and the unwillingness of those involved to supply weapon serial numbers is a clear indicator.

Because of the "narco-wars," the US government supplies the Mexican military with arms and training. The Mexican military has trained at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, and the arms budget from the US to Mexico is in the billions.

Drug profits realized from the sale of drugs in the US by Mexico’s violent drug cartels are estimated to be as high as 40 billion dollars per year. With that amount of money, is there any question as to the ability of the cartels to purchase military weapons provided by the United States government from corrupt Mexican government officials and members of their military?

In the mid 1990s, U.S. government statistics revealed at least six billion dollars a year was spent by the cartels in bribes and payoffs to officials in the Mexican government and military.

In February of 1997, the Clinton Administration announced it was certifying the Mexican government as a "full ally" in the war on drugs. Clinton’s Drug Czar, Army General Barry McCaffrey, described Mexican General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, who headed up the Mexican National Institute to Combat Drugs (INCD) as a "man of absolute unquestioned character."(Emphasis added) Shortly after McCaffrey’s statement, Rebollo was arrested for taking bribes from one of the largest drug cartels in Mexico. Rebollo had been present at secret meetings involving the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

When speaking of drug cartels and military weapons, one would be remiss in not covering the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and their decades-long involvement in worldwide drug trafficking. The evidence produced at the Iran Contra hearings proved the CIA was involved with smuggling cocaine in order to fund the Nicaraguan Contra Army. Is there any question they are involved with the Mexican drug cartels and perhaps facilitating their procurement of military weapons, or better yet, trading arms for drugs?

In 2007, then President George W. Bush, with help from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was able to get legislation passed that would provide Mexico with at least 1.4 billion dollars for Mexican military and police forces.

In May of 2008, Kristen Bricker wrote of Plan Mexico, "Plan Mexico will provide resources, equipment, and training to the Mexican government, police, and military. It will not give Mexico liquid funds. The US military, government agencies such as USAID, and US defense contractors such as mercenary firms and weapons manufacturers will receive funding to carry out Plan Mexico. Plan Mexico is yet another bill to line the pockets of the military industrial complex."

Our government is certainly aware of the rampant corruption within the Mexican government and military, yet we continue to provide them with money, military weapons and training, including all of the military weapons mentioned earlier in this article and shown in film clips by the mainstream media as proof positive we need a new Assault Weapons Ban. (AWB)

Our corrupt government, cooperating with Mexico’s equally corrupt government, has embarked on a campaign to deprive American citizens of the means to defend ourselves from tyranny, screening their own involvement in arming violent criminal drug cartels. We can weakly submit, or stand for truth and liberty; the choice is ours.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

I would never be so presumptuous as to advise anyone as to what action he or she should take when this event occurs. This is a most critical decision that requires much thought and consultation with those (family/friends) who would have to live with the aftermath of such a decision.

Americans, over the past few decades, have become so accustomed to having decisions made for them by the state, it becomes second nature to ask others to make, or help make, vital decisions. We have lost a great portion of our individualist mentality and morphed into the collective mindset.

I wrote in an earlier article "…it is not the gun in the hands of a freeman the tyrant fears, but the spirit of the man who possesses it." The fact a man/woman owns the means of resistance, is, in itself, a tremendous threat to the tyrant who would use his elected/appointed position to steal, that which belongs to others, or to disarm his intended victims. The mindset of resistance to tyranny is much more powerful than any firearm. A freeman, dedicated in his pursuit of liberty, will find a way to resist oppression and slavery. The history of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Sobibor death camp are prime examples.

King George III feared the members of the Clergy in the colonies because of their spirit of resistance. He often referred to them as the "Black Regiment." King George did not fear their means of resistance; he feared their spirit and determination, and the followers they could reach with their message of freedom. The government has little to fear from the Clergy today, for most have become shills for the state.

The state fears the message of freedom and liberty as much or more than they fear firearms in the hands of true Patriots. The message of individual and economic freedom from those such as Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Walter Block, Butler Shaffer, Will Grigg, Karen De Coster, Justin Raimondo and a number of others are more feared by tyrants than you and I with our firearms.

The bottom line here is: if you have now, or have ever owned a firearm other than one seen as designated for "hunting," or you have written or been outspoken about the usurpations of the state, when the tripping point is reached, the state will see you as a threat. Of course you may be able to buy yourself back into good favor by "ratting" out your fellow Patriots. A great number will succumb to this temptation, especially those who were more than willing to vote for the lesser of two evils when a man of integrity and liberty, Ron Paul, was the alternative.

History teaches, equal or greater levels of paranoia by those in positions of authority always accompany the invasive moves against liberty and the rush to tyranny by the state. The quest for liberty will be seen as a grave enemy to "authority." Anyone in possession of the spirit and means to demand their rights will be dealt with accordingly. Even those who acquiesce to the threats and surrender their rights will need to be re-educated before re-entering the mainstream of what is left of society.

While I cannot offer advice as to what actions anyone should take when we who love liberty are seen as the enemy of the state and actions are taken to seize any means of resistance to slavery, I can suggest the examination of history and totalitarianism for possible answers.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If… if… We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ……….. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

~ Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918—1956

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

Depending on others for personal protection masks the belief by many that they are of a higher station in life; that those of a lower social level and therefore inferior in stature and value should be responsible for their personal protection. They believe their lives and property to be more important than the lives of members of law enforcement and the military.

Many are unaware that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect the individual in society. The court ruled as late as June 27th 2005, in Castle Rock v Gonzales, that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection for herself, or her children, even though she had obtained a restraining order against her husband Simon. Simon Gonzales subsequently abducted their three children, murdered them, and was killed by police after shooting into the police station window. Ms. Gonzales called the police after the children were abducted, but, the police, believing Simon Gonzales to be non-violent, did nothing. Perhaps, had the police enforced the restraining order, the children would be alive today?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police have no obligation to defend the individual. Beginning with South V. Maryland in 1856 and several subsequent rulings on the subject, the court has ruled, "…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Emphasis added. Yet, the state and its myriad civilian supporters persist in the belief the individual in society should be disarmed, stating the police are there, should anyone need protection.

Today’s economic problems have revealed the true purpose of most law enforcement personnel in our country: revenue collection. Apprehending killers, rapists and robbers does not contribute to the coffers of law enforcement and their governing bodies; they are, in fact, costly to the agency involved. Unconstitutional law enforcement checkpoints, where a great majority of DUI citations, license, registration, and insurance violations are issued, are vital to the state in the collection of revenue. In today’s economic times, many departments have detailed officers from personal crime assignments to activities that are revenue producing. This takes the law enforcement emphasis away from protecting citizens. To the police, manning checkpoints or speed traps is much more important than answering a prowler call or a call concerning a restraining order’s enforcement.

The court has ruled that any "protection" provided by law enforcement will be of a collective nature rather than an individual one. Therefore, as individuals, we must come to grips with the reality of protecting our loved ones, and ourselves, with little to no dependence on those in law enforcement. For that reason, we must never allow the state to remove from our possession the tools required for that critical task.

Even on the collective level, law enforcement has proved to be relatively ineffectual in protecting those who pay their salaries. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Rader and Coral Eugene Watts managed to take the lives of at least 177 innocent people without ever firing a shot. The police were only able to investigate after the fact in these cases. I’m sure that was of little consolation whatsoever to the victims, or their families.

So ineffectual are the members of law enforcement and the military, they have repeatedly been unable to protect those whose lives are in their hands 24 hours a day. John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar al-Sadat and many others in history are proof positive the state cannot protect those they are tasked with protecting.

Depending on the military for personal protection would definitely be a misplaced trust. Need I say more than 9/11? Billions and billions for defense of the country and, according to the questionable government account of what was basically an act of mass murder, 19 men with box cutters brought down the icons of the American financial network and the headquarters of the U.S. Military, killing thousands in the process. All this was accomplished at the reported cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Rumors abound concerning the military being used by the state to seize firearms and control American citizens should there be civil unrest or natural disaster. The actions of the National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans are certainly indicative of what we can expect from the military as relates to personal protection. If anyone still maintains any doubt the military will be deployed to American streets in the event of civil unrest or national emergency, check this out.

The military has morphed from the "protection of our country" paradigm to one of the enforcement arm for the state. In fact, the military has failed miserably in abiding by its prime directive: "upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic." Arguably, the military has become the tool of the Constitution’s domestic enemies.

Effective personal protection can only be obtained through the efforts of the individual. Private firearms ownership, proper training, perfect practice, and the mindset to use them all are vital. To believe otherwise is elitist, ignorant of reality, and could eventually prove fatal.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

It is true that Bill Clinton stated in his biography that the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 because of the party’s support for gun control. It is also true Al Gore very possibly lost the presidential race in 2000 because he was unable to carry his home state of Tennessee, many believe because of his anti-gun stance. Had he won Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered. But that was then, and this is now; the political and economic climate is much different today.

It is also true that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has, for the time being, shown no spoken interest in pursuing an Assault Weapons Ban in the House of Representatives. Pelosi, who comes from a predominantly antiwar district has consistently voted a pro-war stance, routinely betraying her base of support. She is also a professing Catholic who supports abortion and openly lies about the tenets of her faith. Exactly how much credence can we give to anything she says she will, or will not do?

There was a rumor early in the George W. Bush administration concerning Karl Rove, who many considered to be the brains of the GOP. Supposedly, a party operative questioned Rove on how the GOP should position itself on certain issues in order to cater to the GOP base of anti-abortionists and pro 2A voters. Rove reportedly said to the operative, "We need not concern ourselves with those voters; where else are they going to go?" Whether the rumor is true or not matters little, for the results are evident: in the 2008 Presidential election the GOP offered as their candidate a pro-choice politician with an F— rating on the 2A from Gun Owners of America. Of course the folks at the NRA jumped into the election fray with total support for McCain. How could McCain’s opponent have a lower score than F—; didn’t Obama claim to support the 2A too? I’m sure the anti-abortion voting crowd was just as duplicitous in their support of candidates.

The bottom line is: there is no support in the Congress for the Second Amendment, certainly not enough to override any attempt by those in power to disarm American citizens. Ron Paul and a very few others, will stand strong in defense of our rights, but like trying to stop the "bailout," the effort will fall short. To place one’s right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property in a political body populated for the most part by those who steal and lie as a normal function of everyday life is dangerous in the extreme.

Many gun owners, especially those in attendance at the recent S.H.O.T. Show in Orlando, were beside themselves with glee over the DC v Heller Supreme Court decision. In actuality, this decision, a 5—4 vote, does very little to actually support the 2A other than state what the 2A defines, with the caveat that even then it is subject to "reasonable" government restrictions. Libertarian gun rights advocate L. Neil Smith puts it very well.

"Although many gun rights advocates mistakenly believe that the recent Heller Supreme court decision was a victory for our side, in fact it authorizes all manner of infringements — in the form of "reasonable" regulation — on the individual right to own and carry weapons."

Are we the people ever consulted on what constitutes "reasonable" when it comes to our rights; do we have a say in the implementation of "reasonable" restrictions on our freedoms?

What Heller actually accomplished was to establish a climate of never ending litigation to determine what is reasonable to those in political positions to make such determinations. The Heller vote was 5—4, which means that four of the Supreme Court Justices disagreed with our right to own and possess the tools necessary to defend ourselves; indeed, a precarious position for liberty. Basically, our rights depend on the capricious nature of one bureaucrat.

Another serious mistake 2A supporters could fall into would be to believe that the Obama administration will be too busy with the economic storm to move for draconian firearms legislation. The chaos that will result from the Keynesian economic approach now being employed by this administration will eventually lead to the rapid breakdown of law and order as the desperate and criminal-minded seek to secure the property of others. The state will then convince Boobus the only way to stop the violence will be to seize all privately owned firearms. Magnify the chaos and violence in the aftermath of Katrina by thousands of US cities and the picture should become clear. The state’s answer to the violence in New Orleans was to seize the firearms of law-abiding citizens. It will happen again.

The mentality of those who believe their salvation/safety lies in the state was clearly illustrated by a vendor at a gun show I attended this past weekend. A private citizen was walking around with a Heckler and Koch model 91 slung on his shoulder with a for sale sign attached. The vendor, resplendent with his NRA Life-Member hat, asked the man if he had had any offers to purchase the rifle. He stated that he had received several offers to purchase, but none of the prospective buyers wanted to complete the formal federal paperwork required on gun show property. The vendor promptly responded that anyone who feared a government background check was obviously a criminal and/or a terrorist and had something to hide. He was obviously of the opinion that the state will never use these records of purchase when they decide to confiscate firearms from those who "legally" possess them.

Supporters of the 2A best come to their senses and realize very quickly that the only support we have for the right to keep and bear arms is ourselves. Depending on others, especially politicians and judges will prove fatal. In the words of Karl Rove, "Where else are we going to go?" The fall at the end of the ride is going to be rough.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

To many Americans, calling the state on its many crimes when their chosen candidate/party is in power automatically places one in the enemy camp. Freedom, liberty and the Constitution have been swept away in the flood of party politics. Nowhere is the folly of allowing party politics to frame the debate on freedom better illustrated than in Lew Rockwell’s newest, The Left, The Right, and the State.

The belief that an answer to the problems now facing this country can/will be found in Washington, D.C. is totally insane. Washington is the home of criminals, those who rob with a gun, and those who rob with unconstitutional laws and regulations. Begging/lobbying either to change their ways is madness. At least, the criminal who robs with a gun does not claim to be a public servant and doing so "for the children."

It is my belief, our last chance at subverting the criminality occurring within the federal apparatus known as the federal government is the reclaiming of the rights of the people and the repudiation of overreaching federal tyranny as defined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. This movement, which is now gaining a foothold in many states, is referred to as the State Sovereignty Movement.

Oklahoma State Representative, Charles Key authored HJR 1003, which passed the Oklahoma State House by the vote of 83-13 on February 19th. The following is the official summary from that piece of legislation,

"A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution."

New Hampshire has introduced similar legislation, HCR6, based in part on Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, according to NH State Representative, Daniel Itse. Itse can be seen here being interviewed about this legislation by Glenn Beck. Refreshing is it not to hear an elected official say he does not have an office, but does have a "drawer." How much better off we would be if that were true of all politicians. Perhaps that is one of the reasons state legislators are more responsive to the people in their quest for liberty than those who inhabit the black hole where freedom goes to die inside the Beltway.

At least 20 states now have some form of state sovereignty bill, either introduced, or in the process of being introduced at this time.

It is imperative that we, as citizens of our states, become involved in promoting similar legislation. If our state is not presently considering such a stand, we must encourage the proposal of state sovereignty legislation and support state legislators who have the courage to introduce/support constitutional legislation and stand behind the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is totally delusional to believe the DC crowd will ever again be responsive to the will of the people.

Now would be the perfect time for organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) to cease all support for national politicians and direct their monies and efforts towards passage of these State Sovereignty pieces of legislation. If they refuse to do so, we should take that as an indicator of their actual motives concerning our 2A rights and their hidden allegiance to those who seek to disarm the people. Both organizations have actively supported politicians who have declared by word and action their opposition to our God-given rights defined in our Constitution. Bush and McCain certainly come to mind as two that have recently received their support.

It is imperative we understand, just because a large number of states pass this legislation, the government will still, most likely refuse to honor the wishes of the people to cease and desist the efforts to rob us of our liberty and our money. A quick look at the atrocities Lincoln visited on the South will illustrate what we can expect from those in DC when we re-claim our constitutional rights and move to de-fund the monster.

I highly recommend Professor DiLorenzo’s works on Lincoln and his illegal war, along with, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. Both authors totally debunk the popular theory that the unconstitutional war that claimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans and was instrumental in the polarization of the black and white races was fought over the issue of slavery.

If there still exists a political solution to the problems we the people presently face, this could be our last hope. If a majority of the states were to pass such legislation, we would send a very clear message that the American people have awakened and intend to seek redress of their grievances with the out of control federal bureaucracy.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

Our new US Attorney General/Race Agitator, Eric Holder, last week used a bright shining lie in his advocating the introduction of a new Assault Weapons Ban. (AWB) He stated:

"Putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

What a crock; believing the fantastically wealthy drug cartels actually secure their weapons from America is analogous to taking a hamburger to a steak dinner. The drug cartels use their millions, if not billions, to purchase some of the finest weaponry that can be had, far exceeding the firepower of their state-armed opponents in both Mexico and the US.

One of my sources in federal law enforcement in the El Paso area stated it was common for his forces to be totally outgunned by members of the cartels. To believe these weapons came from weapons that are currently legal in this country is preposterous and an obvious lie.

Mr. Holder has no fear of armed drug cartel members; his fear is a well-armed citizenry awakening to the tyranny now running rampant in our government!

The vehicle most likely to be used by these tyrants to inflict us with more of their unconstitutional crap would be a remake of HR 1022, legislation that was introduced back in 2007 and has already been through several required committees. This onerous piece of legislation would prohibit from private ownership such vile weapons as the Ruger 10/22 and Hi-Point carbine. I can assure you any drug runner worth his salt would be embarrassed and laughed out of the hood were he to appear with either of these weapons!

Of course also outlawed with this proposed legislation would be any high capacity (hi-cap) magazines for both rifle and pistol. I have yet to have any of these bureaucrats explain to me how the 11th round fired is much more dangerous than the first 10. I am also sure none of these idiots have witnessed Doug Koenig, Rob Leatham, or Todd Jarrett do rapid-fire pistol shooting with multiple magazine reloads.

A February 20, 2009 State Department memo stated, “…with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades.” Everyone with the exception of new presidents and attorney generals are aware neither automatic weapons nor grenades are legal in this country. But, this is what we must endure when we elect "anointed" people to high office.

Obviously lost on our new administration is the fact drug cartels with millions of dollars at their disposal have no trouble buying mayors, police officers, judges and even presidents; I’m sure obtaining weapons including grenades, fully automatic weapons, and rocket launchers present no problems.

To believe the illegal confiscation and outlawing of legally obtained weapons from those who believe in their God-given right to protect what is theirs, is ignorance in the extreme, or the simple desire to protect tyrannical government officials as they move to deprive citizens of their freedom. Any other reason stated by these criminals is a damnable lie.

Jefferson said, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands" How did this country evolve from the wisdom of Jefferson to the ignorance, prevarication and tyrannical tendencies of Obama and Holder? We have only ourselves to blame. We were warned!

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

Attorney General and race-baiter Eric Holder erroneously believes a new AWB would stop the flow of guns into the hands of drug smugglers in Mexico. If he can’t, with all the power of the state, stop the flow of drugs into this country, can he really believe an AWB would keep firearms out of the hands of millionaire drug cartels who have no regard whatsoever for the current laws?

Mr. Holder cares not if criminals have guns; he just wants to make damn sure those who love liberty are totally disarmed and unable to protect what little property they have left! Soon we will hear from the state those who possess firearms are somehow latent racists. Actually, James Wolcott, blogging at Vanity Fair, wrote the following:

"No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo — they’ve got ransackers running wild in their imaginations too. I urge these people to confront their racial fears,…"

The coming economic storm created with the "bailout" mentality now infecting our elected morons and the lapdog media, which the Heritage Foundation predicts will bring on 85—95 percent confiscatory taxes visited on the producers in our society, obviously has those in power concerned. The Obamatrons know that with that rate of taxation social order will disappear, and history proves masters prefer their slaves unarmed.

Glen Beck, who supported the huge growth in government under Dubya, is now claiming he has seen the chaos coming for years and openly discusses the breakdown of societal order and possible armed revolution, in the MSM.

Many in this nation have been preparing for such an event. Firearm and ammunition sales are at an all time high, with many weapons that fall into the government’s definition of assault weapon disappearing in availability and rising rapidly in price when available. A friend in North Carolina phoned this weekend to tell me he waited in line for an hour to get into a local gun show. Another friend in Tennessee had a similar story. Most ammo and reloading supplies are in short supply nation wide.

My personal choice in "assault weapons," the M1A SOCOM, has disappeared from Internet firearms auction sites and most gun shop racks. The AR-15, M4 platform is seeing huge sales and similar lack of availability.

Many wonder out loud what those in the military will do, when, not if, the government moves to confiscate those nasty black guns from American citizens. If they have taken the time to reflect on their oath of enlistment in which they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the answer should be obvious. Any enemy of the Constitution should immediately become the enemy of those sworn to defend it. Nowhere in the oath is a commitment to support the government.

Many also wonder if there will be a "defining" event that will precipitate the call for total confiscation, a false-flag operation or another mass public shooting of civilians, perhaps even children, by a mentally unstable individual, heavily into prescription drugs.

For several years I have been of the opinion there is no political answer to the coming unrest in this country and the subsequent move to seize firearms from the populace. I have written often of my total lack of faith in the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their belief in "compromise" with the enemy as a means of retaining our God-given rights. I have never understood why we beg from man (the state) for that which is already ours! When the NRA’s belief in compromise led them to promoting the growth of the state apparatus used to deny our 2A rights, (BATFE) my beliefs were confirmed.

While I once also supported Gun Owners of America, (GOA) and still believe them to be honest and sincere in their support for the 2A, I find their approach to be based on convincing politicians to do what is morally and constitutionally right. We all should realize "that ain’t gonna happen."

Loving liberty will not be sufficient in the coming hard times. Gun owners, constitutionalists, and believers in freedom are going to be faced with some life-changing decisions. Again, to quote my grandfather, "we are going to be forced to put some wheels on our prayers."

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives

The release of Worley’s album in April of 2003 was perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. In order to hasten release of the album, Worley’s record label recycled several songs from a previous album in order to have a full compliment of songs in time for the release. The song, Have You Forgotten, became the national anthem for neoconservative sycophants such as Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and played on the totally false connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

"I hear people saying we don’t need this war
But, I say there’s some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn’t get to keep ‘em by backing down
They say we don’t realize the mess we’re getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?"

Worley’s passionate but untruthful conflation quickly soared to the top of the musical charts. Radio stations across this country played it incessantly. One could only guess how many young Americans made their way to military recruitment offices with the song’s lyrics ringing in their ears.

Now, thousands of American lives; too many mangled minds and bodies; tens of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis; billions of misplaced/misspent dollars; a failed economy and six years later, reality and cognitive discourse has replaced the emotional disconnect of Worley’s work.

While I am sure the singing group Restless Kelly has not realized the financial success of Darryl Worley, at least they have the comfort of being truthful in their musical offering concerning the state’s immoral wars. But, alas, lies are much more profitable than the truth where the state and its idolaters are concerned.

American Blood, by Restless Kelly:

"Johnny can’t drink ’cause Johnny ain’t twenty-one
Ya but he’s eighteen and he’s pretty handy with a gun
they sent him off to a foreign land gave him a new pair of boots and thirteen grand and he came back home with american blood on his hands

george is a real go getter and he’s runnin’ the show and he should have known better but his old man told him to go he sits at home with his feet on his desk while the boys got their’s in the sand
a million miles away with american blood on their hands

johnny can’t walk but the medic says he’s o.k. to fly
and the newspapers tell us he’s a hero and a hell of a guy
they sent him up to washington for a photo op with a smoking gun
he’s got a purple heart and american blood on his hands

now George stands up on a boat proudly waving the flag
he says the hard part’s over and we knew it wouldn’t be so bad
but roadside bombs and six long years were never really part of the plan
what’s a couple thousand more with american blood on their hands

now johnny can drink all day ’cause he’s twenty-three
he donated his legs to the worldwide land of the free
he cries God bless america but God damn uncle sam
while he stares through the tears with american blood on his hands

black gold for silver stars
cold hard cash for armored cars
the brass ain’t fightin’ but they’re sure as hell taking a stand
and they’ll have to live with american blood on their hands"

Watch and listen as they perform the song here. Thanks to Reckless Kelly for their courage.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Michael Gaddy Archives