Friday, February 20, 2004

Good Books on Organic Gardening in a Small Area

One of the most important steps one can take towards self-reliance is to learn to provide your own food. I have some excellent links on this site that will help you toward that end. One of my favorite sites is Sustainable Urban Living The site shows in great detail what can be done with very little garden space.
Here, I am simply providing you with some of the best books I have found on setting up your own organic garden. If money is a concern, I suggest going to or and trying to find used copies. Some of these books are difficult to come by so you might want to check with or - happy gardening!

How to Grow More Vegetables... than you ever thought possible on less land than you can imagine - by John Jeavons. According to Mother Earth News, this is the best plain-language explanation of Biodynamic/French Intensive gardening techniques they've ever seen.

The New Complete book of Self-Sufficiency - by John Seymour.
If I could only have one book on self-sufficiency, this would be it - hands down. John Seymour is the master.

Best Ideas for Organic Vegetable Growing - Best Ideas to harvest Top Quality Vegetables in Your Home Garden...Organically - by The Editors of Organic Gardening
Published in 1969 by Rodale Books, it is probably in your public library.

Botanicas's Organic Gardening - The Healthy Way to Live and Grow
I think I picked this up a Costco. Beautiful and useful, but not the best "how to" book I have found. For that, go with one or both of the first two.

How to Grow World Record Tomatoes - A Guinness Champion Reveals His All-Organic Techniques - by Charles H. Wilber

Cash From Square Foot Gardening - Abundant harvest, healthy finances, healthy families - by Mel Bartholomew
It essentially shows how to make a small fortune by applying the principles of Biodynamics.
A useful book because the writing and illustrations make it easy for anyone to follow. May be in your public library.

Ortho's All About Greenhouses - How to choose the greenhouse that's right for you; Plans and instructions for building 10 different styles; State-of-the-art equipment for maximum success; Complete growing techniques for professional-quality plants.
A small greenhouse, heated by your compost heap, could easily extend your growing season by two months and nearly double your harvest.

The Pathetic Resistance Movement

I have heard folks boast that there are millions of average citizens who would take up arms against a tyrannical government if it "came down to that". I believe this to be a gross overestimate. I would be shocked if there are even as many as 200,000 "average citizens" willing to face the "police state" in an armed conflict. Even if they dare, the superior weapons and tactics of our trained law enforcement troops would slaughter them mercilessly.

However, if some 200,000 chose to act "independently" with no computer messages, no phone calls, and no one to rat them out - they could wreak incredible havoc and literally scare the crap out of all those who have become so comfortable taking liberties with our liberties.

I remember watching a movie called "Scared Straight" when I was a kid. The idea was to show high school students the unvarnished truth about what prison life was really like in hopes that it would deter them from a life of crime. I think the independent citizen movement might have the same effect on politicians.

Obviously, I would never advocate such behavior, but I don't believe that anyone could argue with the effectiveness of such actions.

If those responsible for the vilest acts against our inalienable rights began having 'accidents' after particularly egregious violations - I believe that it could have an almost immediate impact on others in the political community. Of course, I doubt that such freethinking men exist. Most citizens have too much respect for life and fear of hell to even contemplate such an idea. Only governments seem capable of such atrocities. But, that appears to me to be the most effective way to turn the situation around with a limited number of resisters.

In regards to "give up and hide" I don't consider "creating a free zone" or finding 1000 acres and creating a community with like-minded families, 'running and hiding'. I call that embracing freedom. How long are 'freedom fighters' willing to risk their freedom for people who have repeatedly expressed to them in no uncertain terms that they trust the government, that they want the government to take care of them, that they want stricter gun regulations, that they think freedom fighters are extremists and nuts for condemning the public school system and gun regulations. If you want me to be brutally honest, the world might be a far safer place and have a much brighter future if we left these folks to their own devices. If a handful of freedom-seekers created a place (or places) where they could live free, them might act as a beacon to others seeking freedom and might inspire other groups to emulate their efforts. If fellow travelers are sincere and come to join them to the benefit of the community, all are better for it. If some come with the intent to jeopardize that "free zone", then force sufficient to stop them in their tracks would be justified.

Because these communities would be largely self-sufficient, a good percentage of that populace would not be required to pay taxes and have no need of government funding. They would therefore be 'invisible' or unimportant to the government.

I have nearly conceded to the idea that the majority cannot be saved. Why do I want to go down with the sinking ship at the peril of my own family? My first obligation is to myself.
Just as I am opposed to welfare - something for nothing - I am opposed to risking my well being for those who don't deserve - or desire - it.

I am only too happy to help those who are willing to try to help themselves, but I have only distain for those who feel entitled to the fruit of others' labors. When the sheeple realize that the freedom fighters are right, it will be too late to help them anyway.

I think that the truth is that people have become too comfortable planning and complaining to ever get off their butts and defend themselves. But, I could be wrong.

- Anonymous '04

Guns and Roses, (with thanks to pigs, too.)

In a small community in the foothills of the Rockies lived a group fifteen
feisty and fiercely independent elderly women, each occupying her own little
rough cabin, each tending her own plot of ground, although the crops varied
from cabin to cabin.

None of these women were younger than seventy, and all had wise eyes that had
seen much of the world and its good and evil. Each owned her small plot of
ground, having acquired the right to live upon her own land through trade of
various kinds.

One woman had been a storekeeper for the early tie hack camps, and had put by
a dollar a month until she converted those hoarded bits to gold pieces. When
she married, she and her newly-freed husband purchased a dab of land on trade
from the local tribe, and over the years, had spent their time when not
working the store in building up a nice, snug cabin.

Another woman had taken in the laundry and mending of the tie hacks, and had
hoarded her coins as well, until she fell in love with a drover and they
settled down to keep company for the rest of their lives.

A third woman had been a belle and a flirt, and her chosen line of work had
paid her well, as women were scarce in the rough timber camp. When she
married the camp cook, she also acquired his three children and a small garden
patch behind a cabin, the cabin sorely in need of a year of cleaning. She, a
versatile and good-natured madam, was up to the task.

Another woman had been the local distiller. Her Scots husband had brought
barley with him from the Highlands, and after learning that there were other
things to eat in this new land, she discovered that with a bit of work, the
added value of pouring long-changed barley into glass jars for sale to the
camps and taverns provided her with a good life. This was after her husband
was trampled to death by a runaway team of coach horses he had attempted to

Each of the fifteen women had a skill and trade to share with the others, and
their voluntary trading kept them all comfortable and safe in their small
community, among the long-abandoned larger structures. With their memories
and company, they had a happy and peaceful life there in their beloved

One day, they looked down the dusty road to see a handsome man on a beautiful
dun gelding riding up to their little remote community. Dressed in gray, he
sported a silver badge on his coat.

All the women advanced to their front porches, staring with welcoming smiles
at this unexpected visitor, for few ventured up to this tiny remnant of former
times, and fewer still came well dressed and so handsome. As the man
dismounted form his horse, he asked to speak to Mrs. Hegwood, and she stepped
forward, thinking it must be some news, carried by a passing traveler,
arriving from her distant daughter, now living far off with her husband in a
large town in another state.

But no, instead, he pulled from his inside coat pocket a bit of paper, and
handed it to her, while informing her that she had four hours to clear her
personal effects from her home, as the cabin and ground would be sold at
auction in a few days for unpaid taxes. Little did the women know that the
successful bidder on tax auctions was this man’s cousin, recently retired as
tax assessor after many years of unremittingly raising the land taxes of
remote landholders.

As Mrs. Hegwood began to cry, the retired madam rushed to comfort her, and
offered to return to her home to bring over packing materials and assist in
the effort to gather up photos, hairpins and such. The madam raised her eyes
to the other women, all struck dumb with shock and fear, all realizing they
had never paid taxes nor received any notice, but knowing that such seizures
were possible under “government.”

“Go,all of you, and gather your personal packing materials and come back and
let us help our dear friend! There isn’t much time, and we must all work
together!” Slowly, one by one, the other women nodded and made their way back
to their cabins. In a few minutes, they returned, each carrying a basket,
box, carton or sack, each laden with packing materials and grim faces.

As the handsome man in gray settled in the cabin’s sole rocker, the women
sidled into the small structure, each nodding politely and with apparent fear
as they entered the door.

Once inside, however, the first, a small woman of eighty-three, quickly went
to the stove and poured a fresh cup of hot coffee for the man, and took it out
to him, where she remained, chatting while he sat, the man in gray not
offering her the only seat, his hat tilted back but not removed.

The others, wasting no time, quickly drew out from the packing materials their
respective pistols, and checked for full loads, although had any of them found
an empty chamber, all would have been shocked at the carelessness.

“We can’t all miss, even if our hands are shaking,” said Mrs. DuBose, the
retired shop keeper, “this is a simple recipe, just the basic Three Esses – 3
Ss – and although others may follow, they will have no proof he ever arrived.”

As the women stepped out to the cabin porch, each hid her weapon in the folds
of her apron or calico dress. When Mrs. MacGregor, the barley farmer, said
the word recipe, the man in gray fell off the porch with thirteen holes
riddled through his frame. The blood soaked into the ground, where it would
soon be spaded for a late-planted rose bush.

Across the hills, the echoes of the gunshots died slowly, but such noises were
both common and expected in this part of the country. Hauling out shovels, a
small wheelbarrow and several beautifully-honed axes, several women loaded the
gray-clad body and headed downhill for the ham and bacon farm of Mrs. Black.
Two women stayed to turn the earth to receive a rose bush to be transplanted
from a cabin further up the path. Other digging would take place at
scattered intervals along the community pathways. Other, deeper pits in the
woods would later receive any shards of bone left after the hogs finished
their grisly meal.

“We have all done it,” said Mrs. Hegwood, “and I thank you, for if we do not
stand together against tyranny and thugs, they will mow us down one by one.
Property rights must be protected by the community, or no property rights are

“Yes,” chimed in Mrs. Black, wiping her hands on her apron after a rinse at
the well, ”government is always the thug, and we need only stand together to
keep our individual property rights safe from trespass and seizure. I like
this simple recipe we thought up those many years ago, the first time they
sent someone to take our homes – the three Esses – Shoot, Shovel and Shut up.
How many has it been so far? Not more than ten, I think. We may need to
order more rose bushes soon. I'm going to go finish baking my cookies.”

IloiloM. Jones, January 31, 2004

An Example of a Police State in Action

KABA Writer Investigated for
Questioning Civil Authority

Police say Investigation

from Angel Shamaya

February 19, 2004 -- Did
you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil authorities in California
challenging their hypocrisy results in a police investigation that includes not
only calls from detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming to
your home?

That's what happened to longtime gun rights
activist and professional writer David Codrea this week. What follows is a link
to the investigation-inspiring letter, a detailed description of what transpired
and a description of how trying to get our own answers from the investigators
resulted in unwillingness to respond to our simple, reasonable inquiry.

Before you read this, you should know a little
bit about David Codrea. He lives in Redondo Beach, California with his wife and
two young sons. He's been active in the gun rights community for over a decade.
He's a professional gun writer for such magazines as Guns & Ammo, most
recently published in their HANDGUNS
Feb/March 2004 issue
. He's a featured writer for and has held a seat on KABA's Advisory Board for years. He
co-founded and the now
disbanded pro gun media-campaigning organization, Citizens of America. He
spearheaded the Petition for the Enforcement of the Second
and was one of a handful of insiders helping hone and tighten the
legal writing done in the Silveira v. Lockyer
Second Amendment lawsuit the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear. David
Codrea cares about freedom, and he works within the confines of "the
system" to help defend gun owners and their rights.

Earlier this week, Codrea wrote
a letter
to San Francisco's Mayor, a superior court judge and the SFPD acting police
chief. The letter was rhetorical in nature and pointed out the inconsistency in
San Fran's civil enforcement strategies. Civil authorities are sitting by while
thousands of same-sex marriages are performed in contravention of State law. In
his letter, to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some laws while enforcing
others, Codrea rhetorically (and humorously, might I add) asked what would
happen if he chose to violate a different law -- the ban on carrying a firearm
for self-defense. Read the letter for yourself, right here:

As a result of that letter, SFPD launched an
investigation of Codrea that included a call from an inspector at SFPD and a
visit to his home by police in his local California community. According to SFPD,
it is "an ongoing investigation." What follows is a description of
Codrea's experience, in his own words. Below that is a description of additional
research done on behalf of in an attempt to determine what
exactly has happened here -- and why.


I was at work yesterday afternoon when my wife called me. There was a message on our answering machine from "Inspector Walsh" of the San Francisco Police Department asking me to call and leaving his number. Of course it was about the letter, so I called him back, curious to know what he wanted, but mindful that I should be extremely careful speaking to the police. First, I checked the internet, to make sure the area code and prefix number he gave matched SFPD's.

I got his voicemail, found out his first name was "Peter," and left a message, saying I assumed he was calling in response to my satirical article, and gave him my cell phone number. He called me back within 5 or 10 minutes.

I should explain that the following is my best recollection. The words won't exactly match what was said, but the intent will. I assume it is standard procedure for him to have recorded the
call -- I didn't ask and he didn't volunteer. Perhaps he will correct any misstatements or faulty recollections on my part.

I also debated internally whether I should call him at all, or only speak through an attorney. I decided I would try handling things by myself first, as I had done nothing
criminal -- plus, I figured if I escalated it to legal formalities, they could opt to do the same, and I didn't want to have cops show up at the time and place of their choosing, especially if it would impact my livelihood.

He said he was, indeed, calling about the letter, and explained that it was routine to investigate communications where a potential threat existed because they get all kinds of letters, emails and calls from all kinds of people. He said he got the "gist" of what I was saying in my letter, but wanted to follow up with me.

He asked if I owned an AR-15. I replied that if I did, I'd not be inclined to answer that question and waive my Fifth Amendment rights, and if I had something to hide, why wouldn't I just lie about it? But then I told him I wouldn't lie to him, and said "No," which is the truth.

He asked if I intended to come to San Francisco armed and enact the scenario in my letter. I told him of course not, that my letter was obviously rhetorical and designed to point out the hypocrisy and lawlessness of San Francisco government ignoring state laws that they don't want to obey, yet using the law to enforce those, such as disarmament edicts, that they perceive being to their advantage.

He asked if I had communicated with anyone else, received any emails from supporters who might want to join me in coming armed to SF City Hall (and generally waive my Fourth Amendment rights). I told him "No," and that if I ever received a communication from someone urging me to engage in illegal activities I would assume that person to be an agent provocateur trying to entrap me.

I told him that a check of my published writings would prove to him that I have always gone out of my way to urge people to use lawful and peaceful means of redress, even when it looks like the system is abandoning us, and mentioned my involvement in the
Silveira case.

I also remember telling him that the point of my letter was to attack the lawlessness of the mayor's and other officials' actions, and really had nothing to do with any philosophical position on gay marriage, and that I encouraged gays to realize that they have a right to keep and bear arms to protect their lives and liberty.

I told him my questions in the letter were obviously rhetorical, that I was obviously making a point, and he again admitted he got the "gist" of it, but asked what if someone else didn't, and acted on it.

I told him there is a lot of emotion being generated over Mel Gibson's upcoming "The Passion of the Christ," and I really hoped no altercations broke out between protestors and moviegoers, but that it wouldn't be Gibson's fault if they
did -- that we can't be afraid to express strong and controversial political statements because someone might misinterpret our intent and act improperly.

He explained several times that it was just routine to follow up on things like this, that his job was apolitical, and they just have to investigate. I told him I understood that, and hoped he also understood what a chilling effect a police response to political speech created.

He indicated I did not sound like a threat and sounded "intelligent".

I was left with the impression that they were probably not going to put much more energy into
it -- although I would be surprised if they haven't checked my background, records and gun purchases, and wouldn't be surprised if a judge didn't consider the circumstances probable cause to tap into my phone and
internet. But anyone who is an activist is an automatic target, especially if it's about something that scares the hell out of civil authority (people with guns!!!), and I've felt there's probably a good chance the government has been doing that for some time.

He told me he had also asked the Redondo Beach Police to drop a message off at my home as backup to the message he left on my machine, so to just ignore the message they delivered. We then said our goodbyes.

The tone throughout was polite, but guarded. There was a bit of fencing going on, he probing to see if I sounded like a threat or to see if I could be prodded into saying anything incriminating, and me trying my best to protect my interests yet still present myself as candid and truthful.

My wife called me about an hour later to say that the RBPD had sent two black and whites to our house. Two officers came to the door. She informed them I had already spoken to the Inspector. One officer called into dispatch and they confirmed this and left.

I do find it bizarre that civil authority is so fearful of an armed citizenry that if they feel there is any chance of it happening, their response is to send armed men. It also confirms my opinion of the corrupt gangsters in charge of San Francisco's city
government -- ready to use the force of law to advance their agenda, but publicly flout the law when it doesn't.

David Codrea

February 18, 2004


On behalf of, I asked Brian Puckett to contact Peter
Walsh -- the officer who conducted the phone interview of David Codrea regarding his article.
We published Codrea's letter, and we have a vested interest in this matter.
After all, we publish the email addresses of various public servants from time
to time, encouraging The People to share their thoughts. We'd like to know if
doing so is now considered justification for investigations being launched
against our members.

Puckett called Walsh and left a message on the afternoon of Feb.
17. He left another message on the morning of Feb. 18. He finally received a callback
on Wednesday afternoon from an SFPD employee in the public relations department.
Puckett wasn't sure if it was an officer or not.

The SFPD "public relations" person indicated that he couldn't answer any questions about the case since it was an "ongoing

"I made certain we were talking about David Codrea," reports Puckett,
"to which he responded in the affirmative. I was able to ask two general questions, but he wouldn't answer any questions that remotely touched on this investigation."

Among the general questions Puckett
asked that the SFPD official was willing to answer: "What is the Special
Investigations Division?" of which Peter Walsh is a member.

The response was that they "investigate protection [security?] matters, bomb threats, gang related matters, and hate crimes."

The only other question SFPD's "public
relations" person would answer is this:

"If a person were investigated by the Special Investigations Division, how could that person find out what the final results were, or get any documents related to that investigation?"

The response was that he would have to "contact the investigating officer".
"Peter Walsh, in this case?" asked Puckett. And the SFPD PR guy said yes.

According to Mr. Puckett, per SFPD's public
relations department, the intent of the
SFPD interview of Codrea -- and the subsequent visit by two black and whites
at Codrea's home -- was, supposedly, "to determine if Codrea was threatening someone in San Francisco."
Again, read the letter if you haven't done so, and decide for yourself if the
letter genuinely merited such strong-arm tactics:


Following are the questions Brian Puckett
wanted to ask, most of which were stonewalled:

1. Exactly what is the special investigations
unit? (This question was more or less answered.)

2. Who ordered the investigation?

3. Who asked that the Redondo Beach black and
white units be sent to Mr. Codrea's house?

4. Why were two units sent?

5. Why would Redondo Beach take time out for
such a questionable mission on the word of a distant police dept.?

6. Did the SFPD actually view this as a
credible threat to someone?

7. Is any further investigation of this writer
contemplated? (This has been answered as it is claimed to be an "ongoing

8. Is this investigation of the kind that SFPD
might have a writer's or reporter's -- or specifically Mr. Codrea's -- phone or
phones tapped?

But civil authorities who send police cars to
your house for writing a rhetorical letter don't have to answer questions,
apparently -- even when their actions amount to harassment and intimidation.


On a personal note, since San Francisco police
are in the mood to investigate armed political activist-writers around here --
with all the extra time they have while ignoring massive group violations of
state laws -- I'd like to invite them to read the following and respond:

Message to Police & Other Law
Enforcement Personnel from

That was published in our "Messages
to Police Officers" archive
on 9/12/2000 and has not been edited since.
So much time has passed I don't recall if I authored it or if it was a joint
effort between myself and others. But I certainly take full responsibility for
it. And I look forward to reading a thorough and thoughtful response from anyone
associated with the San Francisco Police Department -- especially acting police chief Fong,
Peter Walsh and San Francisco's new mayor.

Finally, on behalf of myself, David Codrea and, I want to make one thing very very clear. Codrea's
letter to the San Francisco investigation-launchers was not a statement about
whether or not California's law banning same-sex marriages is right or wrong. If
that had been his intent, we would not have published it; the issue is too
divisive to get into considering that it's not our issue. Sexuality issues are not our issues, nor will
they ever be our issues. Our issue is the right of the people to keep and bear
arms in defense of themselves, their loved ones, their community, the state and
our nation. Our Inclusion
is very clear. The gun
rights community is divided enough as it is without trying to get everyone to
agree on not only gun rights but a host of other things. In conclusion, as you
read our Inclusion
, just know this: David Codrea inspired it, and the text was taken
from a very similarly-worded policy of inclusion he created for
The Inclusion Policy has been published at the following
page for two or three years now, and it will stay there as long as we

Angel Shamaya

Founder/Executive Director

(928) 522-8833

An Open Letter from David Codrea

Disregarding Laws We Oppose

An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority

By David Codrea

February 16, 2004

Dear Mayor Newsom (, Judge Warren
( and Acting Chief Fong

Mayor, I see you are authorizing city employees to perform homosexual marriages, Judge Warren, you are allowing them to proceed, and Chief Fong, you are allowing California law, as enacted by a vote of the people, to be publicly and repeatedly broken without making any arrests. 

I'm not commenting on that issue, per se, so much as observing that you are all three instigating and abetting the violation of that law. 

Judge Warren, you went so far as to state that you couldn't issue a restraining order to halt the marriages because, as Reuters reported, "there was not enough evidence presented showing that immediate damage would be done by allowing them." 

Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma. 

You see, I also belong to a group that is forced by social prejudices to keep a low
profile—often times to hide my choices and practices lest I suffer disapproval and ultimately, life-threatening persecution by the state. 

I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style. 

I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer. 

We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic* prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more. 

Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you. 

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit. 

Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this. 

So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all? 

How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you? 

Please let me know if I have your support. 


David Codrea

* Credit and gratitude to the peerless Col. Jeff Cooper for coining this term.


Message to Police and Other Law Enforcement Personnel from

Originally posted here -

Message to
Police & Other Law Enforcement Personnel



There has been a growing rift between citizens
and law enforcement for a long, long time. Let's end it. Let's come together.
Citizens don't want cops to disarm them, and cops don't want to be thought bad
or wrong for disarming them when the law says they are supposed to. We see the
catch 22, and so do you. Let's talk about it.

We know the issue is a very hot and sometimes
emotional one. We do our best to understand the law enforcement (of bad gun
laws) position, and we have published articles from law enforcement on this site
that suggest some things that are hard for liberty-loving citizens to hear - or
agree with. We will continue to
present your side of this frustrating situation - until we find a resolution
that honors and supports both law enforcement and the citizenry. We don't expect
it to be a simple, cookie-cutter "answer" either; we know it's not as
black and white as we would like it to be.

But you're a law enforcement officer, you
have a place on this website to help bring this issue to a resolution point, and we are asking
you to help to that end. Say what needs to be said. Don't edit yourself and your
true feelings. Let's have it. We will publish you far and wide. None of us in
the citizenry has all the answers, and you can probably say the same thing, too.

If we don't put the cards on the table, the
media will continue to divide us, and peace and unity on the issue will require
even more work to attain than it will if we get busy and get the conversation
under way right now.

We welcome articles on any of the following
from you as an officer of any type of law enforcement organization:

  • How do you feel about cops being used as
    political pawns in the disarmament game? How has this pattern affected you
    as a cop, and how do you recommend we reverse the trend?

  • How do you feel, as a pro second amendment
    cop, about citizens lumping you in with the cops who don't respect citizens'
    rights to keep and bear arms - and where do you personally draw the
    line?  (We understand that the "line-drawing" regarding not
    enforcing bad gun laws is dangerous to tackle publicly if you want to keep
    your job, so we will gladly publish anything that could infringe on your job
    anonymously. As a pro RKBA law enforcement officer, WE want you to keep your
    job, too.)

  • What recommendations do you have about how
    to reach the national community of law enforcement with information that
    will yield support for the right to keep and bear arms AND for cops who know
    that most gun laws are wrong and will not enforce them?

  • A rebuttal to Dear
    Peace Officer
    would be wonderful. (We know it's controversial. This whole painful issue is
    controversial, and the media is dividing cops/citizens more every day. We
    are looking for a law enforcement person to intelligently address what is
    brought up in this challenging article.)

  • A rebuttal to Law
    Officer: Are you an American, or a hired thug?
    would also be most helpful and welcome. As a law enfocement officer,
    you surely know that many lawful, peaceable and long-suffering gun owners
    are feeling much the same way this author was feeling at the time of writing
    this article. What can you say in response?  We'd like to hear it.

  • A rebuttal to Three
    Cheers for Lawless Cops
    would be great, too.

  • We also welcome any other articles from you
    as a law enforcement officer that will further
    stimulate new ideas and insights about how to
    align cops and the citizenry while also protecting and serving the rights of
    the people to keep and bear arms.

Thank you for taking the time to read this
message, and thank you for investing some time helping us get the right message
and the truth distilled and disseminated.  We respectfully ask that full articles submitted
edited before you send them, please -- and you can submit them by clicking

In Liberty,


LEO - Are You and American or a Hired Thug?

This story was orignially published here -

Officer: Are you an AMERICAN or a HIRED THUG?

by A Texan

All law enforcement officers (LEOs) know that there is a growing push to disarm the American public. The anti-gun, anti-American socialists working in national,
state and local governments are engaged in an all-out effort to outlaw firearms
in the United States, and the “mainstream” news/communications media are helping with biased or selective “reporting” and pure anti-gun propaganda.

LEO, you know what the Bill of Rights says, and you know that for over 200 years U.S. citizens have had a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. That includes
the right to bear handguns, shotguns, and rifles – including military type
rifles. That has NEVER changed, and NEVER WILL change, no matter what
unconstitutional citizen disarmament “laws” are passed.

Think about this, LEO: the people pushing for civilian disarmament are the very people who hate you: they are the “intelligentsia”, the “news media”, the
liberals, the anti-cop lawyers, and virtually all of the Democrat party
leadership. If they have their way, you will be disarmed when you retire. You
and your family will be forbidden to own guns. But as you know, criminals will
still have their guns. And they will use them on you, your family, and your

The question for you, LEO, is this: are you going to help destroy your own country?
Help make it safe for criminals? Are you going to help track down, jack up,
arrest, and imprison your fellow citizens who break the latest gun control
“laws”? Will you “just follow orders” when it comes to confiscating
guns? Do you value your paycheck more than your country and your Constitution?
If the answer to any of the above is yes, then you aren’t an American. You
aren’t really a LEO. You’re a hired thug and a traitor.

We all know about the BATF and their specialty: working to destroy the Second Amendment and any other part of the Bill of Rights that gets in their way.
We’ve seen the evidence: from the top down, they are misfits, misanthropes,
and lowlifes. They are persecutors and murderers of their countrymen. Haters of
“niggers”, “spics”, “Jews”, “slant-eyes”, “rag-heads”, and
after WACO you may as well throw in “Christians”. They don’t give a damn
about America, the law, or the Constitution. Like brainless robots, BATF agents
will follow any order. Any BATF agent would fit perfectly and interchangeably
into a Nazi SS regiment. A question for you LEOs: are you a part of their unholy
crusade on armed citizens? If so, you aren’t an American. You aren’t really
a LEO. You’re a hired thug and a traitor. 

Every day that you enforce illegal citizen disarmament “laws”, you turn good
citizens against you. The best, most decent, most self-reliant of your
countrymen watch you drive by in your patrol car, see you sitting in a
restaurant at lunch break, and they have begun to fear you, and therefore hate
you. Soon the same citizens who would have gladly come to your aid in an
emergency will look the other way when you need help. Good citizens and
criminals—in the end both will hate you.

Once again, all LEOs know that Americans have always had the right to bear arms.
Everyone knows that the elitists want to disarm all citizens, including you. So
are you going to work for the very people who hate you and hate America, or are
you going to resist?

You may ask, How can I resist? Here is how: Don’t arrest decent citizens when you find them carrying concealed firearms or disobeying some “law” regarding
transporting guns. Don’t arrest citizens who own an “unregistered” militia
rifle (what the government calls an “assault weapon”). Warn those who are
about to be targeted for a raid. Erase files, lose records. Sabotage the careers
of the thug-types you work with. Become suddenly “sick” if asked to assist
the BATF or if asked to join in any raid involving gun laws. If you have to,
refuse orders to take part in such actions. You can always get another job, but
you can’t get another soul.

Which will it be, law officer? Will you stand with the patriots for your country and your Constitution? Or will you work for the elitists, the power-hungry, the
America-haters, the cop-haters, the socialists, the Democrat party, the haters
of the warrior spirit, the soft and effeminate liberals who send you to do their
dirty work of subjugating real Americans? You decide. And if in the end you help
disarm your countrymen, thereby helping the criminals in the government and the
criminals on the street, and thereby helping destroy your own country, then I
hope your soul rots in hell.



Timeless Quotes

"…all men are...endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights… whenever…Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the is their Duty,
to throw off such Government…"
--Declaration of Independence

"Guard...the public liberty.
...Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever
you give up that force, you are ruined
--Patrick Henry

"what country can preserve its
liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people
preserve the spirit of resistance
. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
--Thomas Jefferson

"This Constitution...shall be the
supreme Law of the Land
; the Contrary notwithstanding... 
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers...shall be bound by support this Constitution…"
--U.S. Constitution

"As civil rulers...may attempt to
tyrannize, and as the military forces...might pervert their power...the people
are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private
--Tenche Cox

"…the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
--Amendment II

"No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States..."
--Amendment XIV

"An unconstitutional act is not law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been
--Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425

"We just enforce the laws. If you
don’t like the laws, lobby your representatives to change them."

--Sheriff of Kern County, California, after local & federal cops shot gun
dealer Darryl Howell to death in his store in a raid over "illegal"

"It was the law. We were just following
--War criminals on trial at Nuremberg

"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience
to God."
--Thomas Jefferson


I am beginning to believe that the core problems that we face can not be fixed in the voting booth. Well, they could - but I don't believe that they ever will be. I belive that local politics still has a chance, but national politics is too far gone. I believe that folks need to start learning to become more self-reliant. I am not suggesting that complete self-sufficiency is the goal for everyone - or even that it is possible for most people - but I believe we can all begin to take steps towards self-reliance.
What would you do...
If your car stopped working?
If your electricity went our for a month?
If there was an event that prevented trucks from delivering food to your town for a month?
If the public schools closed for a month?
If your public water supply was believed to be tainted?
Everyone's answer might be different, but the truth is that most people have stopped learning to be self-relieant. When I was growing up, my father could fix anything. He could work on cars, houses, take car of animals, and rarely if ever needed to go to a doctor. Today, most people in their 30's and 40's don't even have a full set of tools, let alone know how to use them. Most people today get all of their food from a grocery store and have no garden or potted plants that provide any fruit or vegetables. I contend that we all need to plant a garden, start accumulating tools, and start learning how to do things for ourselves. I believe that it is only a matter of time before we will all finding ourselves needing to know how to do things for ourselves. Even if I'm wrong, I belive that we need to keep the information available and continue to teach future generations how to survive in less than perfect conditions. Knowledge is power. Imagine having the satisfaction of knowing that even in the most dire situation, you would be able to take care of yourself and your family.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Diatomaceous Earth

For pets, people, farm animals, and your garden. I first heard about DE from Wally Tharp. A few weeks later, I walked away from 20 years in the telecom industry to begin distributing it throughout the US. The best way to learn about DE is to visit my web site -
- But be careful...learning about DE changed my life.

Welcome to Free West

Free West - Two words that have been rattling around in my head for a while. I believe that there is a growing freedom movement afoot and that a large faction of that movement will be settling in the west - Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho. Whether enough folks will get together and try to make one of these states the hub or if all three states will try to attract as many folks as possible is unclear to me right now. New Hampshire was recently selected as the winning state of the Free State Project of which I was a part. Although New Hampshire was one of the states that I had elected to "opt out" of, I struggled with the idea of moving there anyway - even though I had no formal obligation to move. After much reflection, I finally decided that I would not move. My reasons will be discussed in a future post.

Right now, I guess I should start with a quick intro. I started this space to publish my random thoughts and ideas in hopes that others would have easy access to these pearls of 'wishdom'. Mostly, I will be discussing ideas for freedom, self-sufficiency, and organic gardening. I realize those few ideas encompasses a wide number of topics, but that's what makes if fun - and interesting. At times, I will discuss political issues that I find note worthy, but I will try not to make this reflective of any political party. If there is a particular issue that you want to get my take on, you may find the answer here. If not, send me a message and I will address that issue in the blog. I consider myself a strong constitutionalist with libertarian (almost anarchist) tendencies. These views are my own, and will be candid. Enjoy. Your feedback is welcome.