Thursday, April 9, 2009

Time for a Closer Look















"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny."
"Where the government fears the people, you have liberty."


Time for a Closer Look

by Michael Gaddy



For several decades the state and its willing accomplices in the media and talk radio have marginalized and demonized anyone who alleges involvement of the state in illegal activities or conspiracies to provide false information to support its illegal wars and other agendas. Those who do so are referred to as "conspiracy nuts" or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society members. (K.O.O.K.S)

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.

April 8, 2009
Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Michael Gaddy Archives



Links referenced within this article

Michael Gaddy
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/mailto:michael.d.gaddy@gmail.com
FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi is a great example
http://www.zpub.com/notes/fbi-shame.html
a law taken almost word for word from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm
involvement in the promotion of this vile law
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/moses-1.htm
economists at LRC
http://www.mises.org/events/113
armed IRS agents
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
send him mail
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/mailto:michael.d.gaddy@gmail.com
Michael Gaddy Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy-arch.html



Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy55.html



The unorganized militia is defined by Article 1, Title 10, US Code, Chapter 13, and Section 311. Which states, in part, "...all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45." In essence we are all Militia, whether you like it or not. The Founding Fathers sought to establish the militia as a safeguard against tyranny in government. Tyrannical governments fear an armed population. That is why there are many in our government who restrict our God given right to self defense; without our arms, the Militia has no teeth.

No comments:

Post a Comment