John is an old friend. He is a combat veteran and well versed on our country's heritage. He was last interviewed by the Outpost of Freedom (OPF) in September 1995 (Sons of Liberty #18). Our discussion, then, was about the Murrah Building bombing and McVeigh's choice of targets.
I was talking with John just a few days ago and we were discussing the events in Kosovo. I asked John if he would do another interview, which we completed this evening.
OPF: Well, John, Welcome! And, it's good to talk with you again.
JOHN: Thanks, Gary. Good to be able to discuss things, again.
OPF: John, the other day, when we were talking about doing this interview, you mentioned that there might be some things that we could learn from the KLA. Why don't we start there?
JOHN: Okay! Well, a couple of years ago we talked about McVeigh targeting the federal building. As I said, then, we should target the sources of the problem. Although the government is the problem, the Federal Reserve System is the source of the power and influence that directs the government.
We should also look at the front line soldier in the war. You realize, I know from your writings, that you believe that we are at war. I think that McVeigh made that same sentiment very clear. Gary, you are a veteran. When you were in combat, was your target the government buildings of North Vietnam?
OPF: No! In my role, the target was the person trying to shoot me. I wasn't really a combat soldier. I was an airplane crew chief. We conducted no offensive actions, except by aerial/radio support or targeting. Risk generally came from when the aircraft or the airfield was attacked. Maybe even in convoy. So, any target I had presented himself.
JOHN: Well, I think you have the idea. Whether you were an offensive or defensive soldier, your primary target is the front line enemy soldier. Now, I mentioned the KLA on Kosovo. As you have pointed out in some of your articles, the KLA was assassinating policemen in Kosovo for nearly two years. The Serbs attempted to retaliate, but were looked on as the bad guy – at least by people like Clinton. But, face it, for nearly three years the KLA continued to kill police at every opportunity. The also killed the paramilitaries and Serbian Army, whenever the opportunity presented itself. The had the government frustrated to the point that the government had to start attacking people even remotely suspected of being KLA or harboring them.
OPF: John, I think that if that happened here, many would claim that it was the government doing it just to encourage public support to pass more laws against guns.
JOHN: Yes, I've read a lot of that recently. The High School shootings seems to have really fueled that fire. But, think about it. Is there any patriot that couldn't be charged with a crime? Is there any person that couldn't be charged with a crime? Passing those laws is just feel good sort of thing. You've written about how you still have all of your rights. As you said in your articles, you pity the cop that thinks you don't still have the right to bear arms. Those friends of yours, George and Lynda, they weren't willing to give their rights up. They knew they still had them, but the government, with the power they have behind them, will deny those rights whenever they want. So, what good does another law do? I've often wondered if the naysayers that constantly espouse not acting to restore our lawful government are working for the unlawful one. Do you think that the Founders would have submitted to such illogical arguments? Where do you think that we would be, today, if they had?
OPF: You're right. The hard core of the Founders were Sam Adams, John Hancock and James Otis. The rest, even Washington, had constantly plead for negotiated solutions. There was, always, opposition to any form of force. But, if I remember correctly, the Sons of Liberty and other small gangs, even in the Southern colonies, would take more aggressive action – especially against tax collectors.
JOHN: That's right. The tax collectors could call the King's soldiers to seize property, if taxes weren't paid. The soldiers, however, worked only under the direction of the civil authority. They didn"t make decisions, use their rifles, or any force, unless directed to by the Governor or an agent of the King. It was those agents who directly affected their lives that were the front line troops – the enemy which was first sought out and slain.
OPF: But, wait a minute. There weren't that many killings. Most of the activity was against property, houses, offices, etc., wasn't it?
JOHN: Yes, it was, but there was little regard for life. If they were going to burn someone's house down, they usually vandalized it and then set it afire. They didn't make anyone leave, or physically remove them. If they stayed in the house, it was at their own risk. And, many died in those fires. Also, many died of the tar and feathering they received. But, times have changed. Very few colonists were killed by the King's forces. Quite a bit different, today, wouldn't you say?
OPF: Yes. But, well, do you really think that there will be support for killing cops?
JOHN: There was in Kosovo. The Albanians were willing to put up with quite a bit, and seldom, if ever, turned in a KLA member. That's why so many civilians were killed by the Serbs. If they had a group of people and knew that at least one was KLA, if the others didn't talk, they killed them all. It didn't seem to break down the fortitude of the Albanians. It seemed to strength their resolve.
OPF: So, do you think that it would have the same effect in this country?
JOHN: Gary, you know that there are still some who want to blame everything on the government. You know that there are a lot of people who think that things will change through the voting process. I've seen many articles on the Internet where people still believe that if they can circumnavigate the judicial maze, they can get justice. Are you asking me if those people will support the kind of action that is necessary to get our country back? To them, the answer is, No!
But, remember that two hundred years ago only a small handful believed that force would remove the burden the King had put on the people. Once the reality struck home that force would be method of change, they reconsidered their old ideas – and supported the cause. But, remember, too, that it was a very slow process. It never was a majority then, and it will never be a majority to effect this sort of change.
OPF: What sort of people would look favorably on this sort of action?
JOHN: The people that I know look favorably on action. You don't read about all of the bombings and events that are going on, every day. It is only when the press can play something up that they do. You've read about the hundreds of bombings that occur in this country, each year. Do you read about them on the Internet? There is probably at least one bombing every day in this country, but nobody finds out about them, except maybe those that live in the same town. They know that these bombings and attacks against police are going on. Nobody seems to get caught, unless they make a stupid mistake. But, that's not the real point of this type of action.
OPF: Yes, I've read the annual reports that point out how many bombings there are every year. I've wonder, but, I guess I realize that the press doesn't cover it unless it serves a purpose – and, the police and FBI don't want to know how many unsolved bombings there are. It seems like when they can ID [identify] someone, then it hits the press. But, you say that this is not the point. What is the point of this?
JOHN: Well, from a tactical standpoint, let's suppose that you are a policeman. What happens when policemen start getting shot in random attacks?
OPF: I would guess that they would probably start putting two officers in a car to protect against it.
JOHN: Right! And, many places have put two men in every patrol car. But, what happens as it continues, and becomes even more common?
OPF: I think that I'm beginning to get the picture. If I took the job cause it paid well and gave me power, I would have second thoughts if the risk became too great.
JOHN: You got the idea. If people were to start Popping Cops, then cops would start to think twice before they continue don the force. Of course, there would probably be an over-reaction to this, at first. They might be more aggressive thinking that would protect them. But, then, maybe that is what s happening now. I think, though, that they are just under-qualified for their jobs. The government has put so many cops on the street that they have got to be running out of qualified people. Just like any profession – You're a Surveyor. Could anybody be a surveyor with proper training?
OPF: Well, they could probably pass the exams, but there are a lot of people who have passed the exams, gotten registered and still aren't very good surveyors,
JOHN: Do you think that the same is true with cops?
OPF: Well, some of the cops I know seem to have a good attitude for their work, but, they are arrogant and stick together. They will stick up for a friend, whether he is a cop, or not. I guess, though, that there has got to be a limit, like you said, as to how many people are qualified to be good cops. But, then, you know that I don't believe that there is any such thing as a good cop.
JOHN: How many of those you know are really willing to risk their lives to help people?
OPF: Heh! I don't think that I know any that would match the mold that existed years ago.
JOHN: So, do you think that they might find other work if the risk became too great?
OPF: I would think that that would be very likely. You said "Popping Cops". That comes out to "PC". I just realized the irony of it.
JOHN: Can't think of a better way to describe it! But, back to where we were. What would happen, then, if cops were getting taken out, one at a time, here, there, all over the country? One in Detroit, a few days later, one in Chicago, a few days later, one in Miami and one in Dallas, each time, different bullets, different MO [Modus Operandi], nothing similar except the result – another dead cop? Any cell could do one job every six months. The likelihood of getting caught would be almost non-existent.
OPF: You heard about this guy, Benjamin Smith, in Indiana, didn't you?
JOHN: Yes. He was a [loose] cannon. There have always been people like that. It seems like they have a death wish, and no sense.
OPF: Wouldn't Popping Cops have the same consequence?
JOHN: No! The difference is targeting. That's what we were talking about. Everybody would know, whether they admitted it, or not, why it was happening. It wouldn't be murder, it would be killing. Killing the enemy, just like in war. That is the objective, isn't it?
OPF: Yes. But, if the enemy is the government.
JOHN: Did you read Jack McLamb's Vampire Killer 2000?
OPF: Yes, a number of times.
JOHN: Who is always there if there is an IRS seizure, a federal service of process, and even around the perimeter at Waco? Cops are the tools, the front line, the cannon fodder for the government. If they seize the rifles in California, who will seize them? Should we concern ourselves with them just because they haven't participated in a direct action? Should we not shoot enemy soldiers who haven't, yet, shot at us? Are troop trains of raw recruits military targets?
OPF: I se what you mean.
JOHN: Gary, remember, a long time ago, you told me that you used to look at cops and wonder if there family would miss them? Then, after Waco, you told me that you didn't care, anymore. What their families would feel?
OPF: Yes, and I think that I still feel the same. But, then, I'm supposed to be asking the questions!
JOHN: Okay. Ask away!
OPF: Well, I guess I'm sort of at a loss, right now. This is a lot to digest. I guess that most of it has been there, all along, but I've never really thought it out like this.
JOHN: I think that most of us who really want the country back have all of those pieces inside. Our conversation the other day got me going on it, again. I think that time, you know, in history, in life, has a part of what makes sense, or not. Our conversation brought up the same thoughts I'd had before, but hey came together in a different way. Kept trying to resolve it, but it kept coming out the same way. I think that is how man and history is supposed to work.
OPF: John, I'm going to have some more questions, I'm sure, as time goes on. Are you gonna be willing to answer more about this, later on?
JOHN: Sure. I don't know if I'll have answers to all of your questions, but I'll try. Same rules.
OPF: Okay. John, Thanks, very much. Again, you've provoked a lot of thought. Thanks! Stay safe!
JOHN: You, too!