I know what it is like to be in Washington, DC when a cold wind is blowing and the city is paralyzed under one inch of snow. Although it was not quite that bad yesterday I thank Larry Klayman and the people who put up with the cold and attended Larry Klayman's 2d Revolution.
Read more
Bruce
'WASHINGTON — Former Reagan Justice Department lawyer Larry Klayman hopes the 19th of November will rank with the 4th of July, someday.
He called the day the beginning of “The Second American Revolution.”
...
About 200 hardy patriots concerned about the direction of the country gathered on a sunny but chilly day to hear speakers call for two goals: The renewal of America and the resignation of President Obama.
...
But, the attorney suggested the remedy is in the hands of ordinary Americans.
“In the style of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and others who have changed history and reclaimed freedom, Americans have no choice – as the three branches of government have completely abdicated their representation of citizens’ complaints. The government needs to fear that the people will rise up if things do not change in Washington, D.C.,” he declared.
...
Standing nearly in front of the White House, former Sen. Gordon Humphrey, R-N.H., warned, “We are on the doorstep of tyranny, and that is not an overstatement.”
...
With a candor the crowd appeared to find refreshing, Lyons described exactly why he believes “the rules of engagement are crazy” in Afghanistan.
The admiral noted how U.S. military personnel cannot stop an Afghan man from sodomizing a five-year-old boy or from beating his wife, because of “our need to be sufficiently sensitive to their 7th century values.”
...
Joseph Farah, WND editor and CEO, also addressed the crowd. He began by saying he’d been wondering where all the Americans have been during this time of “growing tyranny we are seeing in America today.”
In the following video of his speech, Farah explains why he believes Obama is not the problem, but merely the symptom of a much deeper problem – and why, when Obama is gone, America will not be automatically cured of what ails the nation:
...
Charles Strange began by declaring, “The first casualty of war is truth,” something he may know better than most anyone else.
He recounted the heartbreaking story of the death of his 25-year-old son, Michael, an NSA cryptologist supporting the ill-fated SEAL Team VI mission Extortion 17 that Lyons had mentioned.
Strange and Klayman have filed a lawsuit accusing Vice President Joe Biden and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of revealing that SEAL Team VI carried out the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, making the team vulnerable to retaliation.
...
Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack called it, “My kind of rally – a bunch of ‘crazy’ people who believe in God, the Bible and the Constitution.”
The former lawman, who was named the National Rifle Association Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for 1994 and member of the NRA Hall of Fame, claimed he was the first sheriff to sue a sitting U.S. president.
He also said he was the first person to sue former President Bill Clinton on a “nonsexual matter.”
...
Regarding America’s destiny, the man of the cloth said a “‘true restoration’ will not come from a political messiah. It is in our hands.”
Carl asked Americans to “imagine what would happen if we trusted God and humbled ourselves before Him.”
...
“God is calling us to return to prayer,” she added, then enunciating her words carefully, she closed with, “May America bless God, again.”'
Showing posts with label Sheriff Richard Mack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sheriff Richard Mack. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Sheriffs plan to put feds back in their place
Good for Sheriff Richard Mack! It's about time people are standing up for the Constitution, especially our sheriffs.
Read more
Bruce
'Sheriffs and peace officers from across the country will be meeting with likeminded supporters for a national convention focused on one goal: restoring constitutional rule in the United States of America.
...
Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, “In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement."
...
CSPOA maintains a growing list of – at last count – 18 state sheriffs associations and over 450 sheriffs across the country already taking a stand against what they perceive as attempts by the Obama administration to enact unconstitutional gun-control measures.
As WND reported, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among those after telling a local radio host the federal government is “going to have a problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.
...
Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told WND he supports sheriffs taking a tough stand.
“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt said. “There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”'
Read more
Bruce
'Sheriffs and peace officers from across the country will be meeting with likeminded supporters for a national convention focused on one goal: restoring constitutional rule in the United States of America.
...
Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, “In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement."
...
CSPOA maintains a growing list of – at last count – 18 state sheriffs associations and over 450 sheriffs across the country already taking a stand against what they perceive as attempts by the Obama administration to enact unconstitutional gun-control measures.
As WND reported, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among those after telling a local radio host the federal government is “going to have a problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.
...
Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told WND he supports sheriffs taking a tough stand.
“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt said. “There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”'
Friday, January 11, 2013
Sheriffs CAN Block Federal Gun Control
The county sheriffs are America's freedom's last hope.
Read more
Bruce
'“A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it is the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds starting banning and confiscating guns.
Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriff’s enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun control law.
He won. And since then he’s been at the front of a movement that highlights the responsibility of local sheriffs.
Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.
It’s not complicated, he said.
“Gun control is illegal and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”'
Read more
Bruce
'“A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it is the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds starting banning and confiscating guns.
Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriff’s enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun control law.
He won. And since then he’s been at the front of a movement that highlights the responsibility of local sheriffs.
Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.
It’s not complicated, he said.
“Gun control is illegal and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”'
Saturday, January 7, 2012
We the People Have Been Betrayed…Once More!
Good for Wayne Merc for keeping us informed. Three cheers for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Richard Mack for spearheading investigations and educating the public on the Constitution.
Bruce
"The following is a brief list of unlawful actions, orchestrated by the federal government, which have finally become so apparent that they can no longer be denied! It is a matter of public knowledge:
The case of the Gunrunner incident,
undeclared wars in Libya and Yemen
Trillions of dollars of bailout funds given to unknown foreign principals
The DOJ dismissing cases based on racial bias,
The DOJ cover-up: Racketeering (new)
The failed efforts to protect our borders,
A suit filed against the state of Arizona and
Mr. Obama’s fraudulent use of a deceased person’s Social Security number
The most recent affront to the American people is the submission by Mr. Obama of a fraudulent birth certificate that he was using to attest to his eligibility to even hold office.
And now we add the NDAA Military Detention bill where Congress has disabled one more protection for Americans, (Posse Comitatus; see below) enabling Mr. Obama to use the military to detain American citizens without due process. This in addition to also selecting any American for extermination based on his word alone."
Bruce
"The following is a brief list of unlawful actions, orchestrated by the federal government, which have finally become so apparent that they can no longer be denied! It is a matter of public knowledge:
The case of the Gunrunner incident,
undeclared wars in Libya and Yemen
Trillions of dollars of bailout funds given to unknown foreign principals
The DOJ dismissing cases based on racial bias,
The DOJ cover-up: Racketeering (new)
The failed efforts to protect our borders,
A suit filed against the state of Arizona and
Mr. Obama’s fraudulent use of a deceased person’s Social Security number
The most recent affront to the American people is the submission by Mr. Obama of a fraudulent birth certificate that he was using to attest to his eligibility to even hold office.
And now we add the NDAA Military Detention bill where Congress has disabled one more protection for Americans, (Posse Comitatus; see below) enabling Mr. Obama to use the military to detain American citizens without due process. This in addition to also selecting any American for extermination based on his word alone."
Friday, January 6, 2012
Sheriff Richard Mack announces lawsuit against SPLC, run for Congress
Good for Sheriff Mack. I wish him well.
Bruce
"Sheriff Mack, who successfully challenged the 1993 federal Brady handgun control act in a landmark case that went all the way through the United States Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of constitutionally limited government and a critic of federal usurpation and abuse of police powers."
Bruce
"Sheriff Mack, who successfully challenged the 1993 federal Brady handgun control act in a landmark case that went all the way through the United States Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of constitutionally limited government and a critic of federal usurpation and abuse of police powers."
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tea-party letter asks Sheriff Joe to probe Obama's eligibility
Trying to get action out of Congress or the courts or the FBI has proven futile, but as Sheriff Richard Mack has pointed out, a sheriff answers only to the people. "The County Sheriff - America's Last Hope" is Sheriff Mack's excellent book. I am confident that Sheriff Joe Arpaio will uncover the truth about Obama's past.
Bruce
Bruce
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sheriff Mack Power of the County Sheriff
One of my heros speaks out. "Nothing supercedes the Constitution." 11-minute video.
Bruce
Part 2 11 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsBcTpXqqMw&feature=related
Part 3 11 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJ8cWUhWso&feature=related
Part 4 7 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7D0en8drQ&feature=related
Part 5 7 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfDzLl0I-18&feature=related
(copy these links to your browser link window if your player doesn't link automatically.)
Bruce
Part 2 11 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsBcTpXqqMw&feature=related
Part 3 11 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJ8cWUhWso&feature=related
Part 4 7 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7D0en8drQ&feature=related
Part 5 7 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfDzLl0I-18&feature=related
(copy these links to your browser link window if your player doesn't link automatically.)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Sheriff Richard Mack and Judge Napolitano speak out about Columbia raid
Another unconstitutional police raid.
Bruce
Bruce
Friday, April 2, 2010
From My Cold Dead Fingers - Sheriff Richard I. Mack
I have quoted from a 2006 book, FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS, Why America Needs Guns, by Sheriff Richard I. Mack, which cites Executive Orders Obama may declare if he declares a national emergency. There may have been others since 2006.
Bruce
“During a declared national emergency, Executive Orders --- already recorded in the Federal Register and treated by Congress as the “law of the land” --- can be ordered (by the President) into effect at any time. A sampling of Executive Orders meant to apply under this condition include:
Order No. 10995: All communications media seized by the Federal Government.
Order No. 10997: Seizure of all electrical power, fuels, including gasoline and minerals.
Order No. 10998: Seizure of all food resources, farms and farm equipment.
Order No. 10999: Seizure of all kinds of transportation, including personal cars, and control of all highways and seaports.
Order No. 11000: Seizure of all civilians for work under Federal Government supervision.
Order No. 11001: Federal takeover of all health, education and welfare.
Order No. 11002: Postmaster General empowered to register every man, woman and child in the U.S.A.
Order No. 11003: Seizure of all aircraft and airports by the Federal Government.
Order No. 11004: Housing and Finance authority may shift population from one locality to another.
Order No. 11005: Seizure of railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities.
Order No. 11490: Combines most of the above and adds the authority to regulate the amount of personal money that may be withdrawn from banks, or savings and loan institutions.”
Bruce
“During a declared national emergency, Executive Orders --- already recorded in the Federal Register and treated by Congress as the “law of the land” --- can be ordered (by the President) into effect at any time. A sampling of Executive Orders meant to apply under this condition include:
Order No. 10995: All communications media seized by the Federal Government.
Order No. 10997: Seizure of all electrical power, fuels, including gasoline and minerals.
Order No. 10998: Seizure of all food resources, farms and farm equipment.
Order No. 10999: Seizure of all kinds of transportation, including personal cars, and control of all highways and seaports.
Order No. 11000: Seizure of all civilians for work under Federal Government supervision.
Order No. 11001: Federal takeover of all health, education and welfare.
Order No. 11002: Postmaster General empowered to register every man, woman and child in the U.S.A.
Order No. 11003: Seizure of all aircraft and airports by the Federal Government.
Order No. 11004: Housing and Finance authority may shift population from one locality to another.
Order No. 11005: Seizure of railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities.
Order No. 11490: Combines most of the above and adds the authority to regulate the amount of personal money that may be withdrawn from banks, or savings and loan institutions.”
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Another state to feds: Take your gun regs and stuff 'em
"Utah has become the third state to adopt a law exempting guns and ammunition made, sold and used in the state from massive federal regulations under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and supporters say about 30 more states have some sort of plan for their own exemptions in the works."
It's about time to get back to the Constitution as Sheriff Richard Mack has explained. Not just about firearms but states vs. an overreaching federal government into all areas of our lives.
Bruce
It's about time to get back to the Constitution as Sheriff Richard Mack has explained. Not just about firearms but states vs. an overreaching federal government into all areas of our lives.
Bruce
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sheriff Mack States' Rights
Sheriff Richard Mack helps county get its bridge fixed by telling Army Corps of Engineers to butt out.
Bruce
Bruce
Sheriff says he'll undermine gun ban
Shades of Sheriff Richard Mack. Sheriff James Alderden will not enforce a gun ban. Instead he will issue concealed gun permits and not prosecute anyone with one.
Where do these educators get off regulating guns, anyway?
Bruce
Where do these educators get off regulating guns, anyway?
Bruce
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Sheriff Richard Mack
Sheriff Mack has become a sort of hero to me. He follows a peaceful but legal means to "just say no" to the federal agencies overreaching into his county. The feds cannot tell a state government or its people what to do. They can withold federal dollars, but he says for every hundred dollars going from the state to the federal government only about four dollars is returned to the state! The county sheriff is the local guardian of citizens constitutional rights in that county as decided in a recent Supreme Court case against the Brady gun control bill. Please make it a point to watch Sheriff Richard Mack whenever you can. Think of what federal programs happen in your county. The IRS comes to my mind.
And now the writeup.
Bruce
'Can the county sheriff save the Constitution? Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who became front-page news when he filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Bill, is calling on sheriffs to reclaim lost freedoms.(LAW ENFORCEMENT)
The New American - October 12, 2009
Patrick Krey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, is not afraid to ruffle some feathers in order to halt what he considers violations of the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly referred to as the Brady Bill), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on February 28, 1994. A provision of the Brady Bill compelled state and local law-enforcement officials to perform mandatory background checks. Mack, then a Graham County sheriff, was outraged. In response, Mack gained distinction by being the first sheriff in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Brady Bill. The lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the provision was indeed unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment principles of federalism.
Now Mack is once again making headlines with his latest effort to stand up for the Constitution. In a 50-page booklet entitled The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope (available from his website www.sheriffmack.com), Mack concisely explains what he believes is the proper role of law enforcement, as well as how your local sheriff can be the last line of defense for the U.S. Constitution. Mack passionately argues that real change is not going to come from Washington, D.C., but instead from local county sheriffs who finally stand up and stop being pawns in the federal government's unconstitutional schemes. "We must start at home, in our counties, in our own 'spheres.' We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children. Sheriff, you are the people's sworn protector. You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attache case."
In an interview with TUE NEW AMERICAN, Sheriff Mack explained what his goal was with writing this booklet. "My goal is to educate sheriffs to their proper authority and their standing as the ultimate check and balance for the people in their county. If we are going to get back to those principles upon which our country was founded, then the county sheriff has to be involved in that process. That's where we are today. We don't have anywhere else to turn, so why not turn to the guy who promised to do just that?"
Why just 50 pages? Mack explains: "I know law enforcement and I know sheriffs; they're not going to get involved in anything that's too long. They can read this really easily and there's no excuse not to read it." Mack has started a campaign via his website to distribute one booklet to each sheriff in the United States. "We have about six states covered right now. We're going to keep moving and identify sheriffs in the country who have the guts to fulfill their constitutional duty."
The County Sheriff: Hope for America
Mack's experience with fighting federal gun-control legislation of the mid '90s was quite the learning experience for him. "So here's the U.S. Congress making an unconstitutional gun-control law, requiring a county official to enforce it and pay for it, and then threatening to arrest him if he refuses! What a government!"
Looking back on the episode, though, Mack wishes he handled things differently. "In retrospect ... I wish I had never filed it. The most effective and inexpensive measure that should have been taken was for all the sheriffs of Arizona to simply send the Brady Bill back to Congress with a CC to the White House and with a strongly worded explanation as to why the Brady Bill, or 20 more just like it, would have no place in Arizona." Mack suggests that a non-complying county sheriff would be a much more efficient and effective way to restore constitutional governance to the land of the free than endless legal challenges in federal courts filled with politically appointed lawyers. "Sheriff Nixon from Lincoln County, Montana, did just that. He didn't join our lawsuit. He just said, 'No, I'm not enforcing the Brady Bill,' and he didn't. We won a major landmark monumental decision but the sheriffs in this country have the authority to say 'no' to the federal government and that's what we all should have done."
Who Is Sheriff Richard Mack?
Mack, who started his law-enforcement career in the Provo police department in Utah during the late '70s, doesn't mince words when it comes to describing his personal transformation from a standard police officer to a committed constitutionalist. "I was ... a by-the-numbers jerk.... We had to write tickets and lots of them. We needed arrests and felonies and DUIs and druggies in jail and our efforts supported in the newspapers. I got caught up in all of this and loved it. We literally justified our existence--on the backs of citizens." Then in the early '80s, Mack went undercover for a one-year assignment in narcotics, and it got him to question the entire war on drugs. "What was this all for? Why did so many people have to go to jail because of marijuana, especially when it was less harmful than alcohol? Is law enforcement really about public service, or public harassment?"
His soul searching, combined with years of research, led him to the following conclusion: "I am now totally convinced that the 'Drug War' is a farce. It provides no benefit to the public and actually makes the drug problem worse." This personal epiphany didn't just stop at the issue of drug prohibition but also extended to the entire method of using law enforcement as a revenue-raising tool for government. "I got fed up with the numbers game in law enforcement and with the idea that we, the police, were here to force people to wear their seat belts and to have their papers [license, registration, insurance, inspection, etc.] in order before they could freely go about their lives."
Mack looked at the way law enforcement was being handled and didn't see public servants searching for the truth or advocating the rights of the accused. Instead, he saw a system contrary to what he in his heart believed to be right. "It is a corrupt system based on 'win-loss' records. Principles of freedom and equality are bypassed in order to concentrate on the money-generating numbers and plea bargains. If innocent citizens get nailed in the process, then it is ... considered collateral damage." Mack didn't just see abuses being perpetrated at the state level but also at the federal level in a much more flagrant and blatant manner.
Greatest Threat to America: The Federal Government
What does Sheriff Mack view as the biggest threat facing America today? Global warming? Terrorism? The swine flu? Again, Mack pulls no punches and states exactly what is on his mind. "The greatest threat we face, as a nation, is our own federal government." Mack's opposition to federal overreach is not limited to just when Democrats control the levers of federal power. Mack staunchly opposes rightwing overreach. He vigorously objects to an interventionist foreign policy, as well as abusive national-security tactics applied domestically. "The elitists of Washington, D.C., including those of both major parties, have turned America into a socialistic democratic dictatorship. We are a police state and welfare state all rolled into one enormous gluttonous debt."
Sheriff Mack does not see a bright future for America if we don't turn back the clock on the expansive growth of government. "It is a mathematical certainty that the bigger the government, the smaller the freedom. You cannot have huge government and abundant freedom simultaneously."
Saying "No" to the Feds
For those who are absolutely fed up with the constant violations of the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Mack's proposition to nullify federal overreach by just saying "no" is entirely practical advice.
The notion of state interposition, or state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, is a concept as old as our Republic; Mack's proposal to extend it to the county sheriff level merely adds a new decentralist twist. Could such a proposal possibly work? Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center and an expert on the subject of state nullification, believes that it could. Boldin told THE NEW AMERICAN, "It's my opinion that the best way to resist the federal government and its incessant violations of the Constitution is not to continually try to 'vote the bums out' every election season, but instead, to virtually ignore it. Nullification, simply saying no to federal laws outside the scope of their constitutionally delegated authority, is the path to liberty for this country. It's powerful, it's peaceful, and it works, as can be seen in the state-level revolt against the Real ID Act of 2005. In 2007, multiple states passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that it was unconstitutional. Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation, and earlier this month the Obama administration announced that it was looking to 'repeal and replace' the controversial law."
Has the time come for such action? Boldin believes that the time has definitely come. "James Madison, in his report of 1800, said that interposition must not be employed 'either in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions.' And he was quite right. But, with the massive amount of constitutional overreach coming from the federal government, choosing one overreach to resist is like shooting fish in a bucket."
The Next Step
What kind of feedback has Mack received from other sheriffs who have read his book? "Sheriffs from Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Washington, and Wisconsin have all voiced overwhelming support and ... are getting more on board every day." The only type of negative feedback he has received is from "a couple [of sheriffs] who have expressed reluctance, but most of those just boil down to whether or not they have the guts to do it. I think most of them know this is true but just don't want to be the tester to see if it really works."
Indeed, as Mack is quick to point out, "There are already several examples of sheriffs and local governments standing against federal intrusiveness." Mack highlights an incident in Nye County, Nevada, where the local sheriff told federal agents that if they tried to confiscate cattle from a local rancher, he would arrest them. The feds backed down and the cattle remained. Mack explains, "For federal officers to come in to the county and take over in any respect is the epitome of usurpation, and he who is the rightful steward of the county needn't tolerate any such usurpations whatsoever."
As far as federal legislation requiring the action of local sheriffs, Mack asserts that "they're entirely meaningless and have no way of being enforced unless [the county sheriff] says so." Mack argues that the worst that can happen is that the sheriff will lose out on some federal funding.
Mack himself acknowledges how very revolutionary his proposal is, but argues that it is vital to preserve our freedoms. "I know this all sounds radical. Standing for freedom has always been labeled as, radical, but 'extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,' to quote Barry Goldwater."
Mack stands firmly by his warning that for "the tyrant to win ... the only thing that has to happen is for the nation's police and sheriffs to be convinced that all laws must be enforced."'
And now the writeup.
Bruce
'Can the county sheriff save the Constitution? Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who became front-page news when he filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Bill, is calling on sheriffs to reclaim lost freedoms.(LAW ENFORCEMENT)
The New American - October 12, 2009
Patrick Krey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, is not afraid to ruffle some feathers in order to halt what he considers violations of the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly referred to as the Brady Bill), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on February 28, 1994. A provision of the Brady Bill compelled state and local law-enforcement officials to perform mandatory background checks. Mack, then a Graham County sheriff, was outraged. In response, Mack gained distinction by being the first sheriff in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Brady Bill. The lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the provision was indeed unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment principles of federalism.
Now Mack is once again making headlines with his latest effort to stand up for the Constitution. In a 50-page booklet entitled The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope (available from his website www.sheriffmack.com), Mack concisely explains what he believes is the proper role of law enforcement, as well as how your local sheriff can be the last line of defense for the U.S. Constitution. Mack passionately argues that real change is not going to come from Washington, D.C., but instead from local county sheriffs who finally stand up and stop being pawns in the federal government's unconstitutional schemes. "We must start at home, in our counties, in our own 'spheres.' We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children. Sheriff, you are the people's sworn protector. You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attache case."
In an interview with TUE NEW AMERICAN, Sheriff Mack explained what his goal was with writing this booklet. "My goal is to educate sheriffs to their proper authority and their standing as the ultimate check and balance for the people in their county. If we are going to get back to those principles upon which our country was founded, then the county sheriff has to be involved in that process. That's where we are today. We don't have anywhere else to turn, so why not turn to the guy who promised to do just that?"
Why just 50 pages? Mack explains: "I know law enforcement and I know sheriffs; they're not going to get involved in anything that's too long. They can read this really easily and there's no excuse not to read it." Mack has started a campaign via his website to distribute one booklet to each sheriff in the United States. "We have about six states covered right now. We're going to keep moving and identify sheriffs in the country who have the guts to fulfill their constitutional duty."
The County Sheriff: Hope for America
Mack's experience with fighting federal gun-control legislation of the mid '90s was quite the learning experience for him. "So here's the U.S. Congress making an unconstitutional gun-control law, requiring a county official to enforce it and pay for it, and then threatening to arrest him if he refuses! What a government!"
Looking back on the episode, though, Mack wishes he handled things differently. "In retrospect ... I wish I had never filed it. The most effective and inexpensive measure that should have been taken was for all the sheriffs of Arizona to simply send the Brady Bill back to Congress with a CC to the White House and with a strongly worded explanation as to why the Brady Bill, or 20 more just like it, would have no place in Arizona." Mack suggests that a non-complying county sheriff would be a much more efficient and effective way to restore constitutional governance to the land of the free than endless legal challenges in federal courts filled with politically appointed lawyers. "Sheriff Nixon from Lincoln County, Montana, did just that. He didn't join our lawsuit. He just said, 'No, I'm not enforcing the Brady Bill,' and he didn't. We won a major landmark monumental decision but the sheriffs in this country have the authority to say 'no' to the federal government and that's what we all should have done."
Who Is Sheriff Richard Mack?
Mack, who started his law-enforcement career in the Provo police department in Utah during the late '70s, doesn't mince words when it comes to describing his personal transformation from a standard police officer to a committed constitutionalist. "I was ... a by-the-numbers jerk.... We had to write tickets and lots of them. We needed arrests and felonies and DUIs and druggies in jail and our efforts supported in the newspapers. I got caught up in all of this and loved it. We literally justified our existence--on the backs of citizens." Then in the early '80s, Mack went undercover for a one-year assignment in narcotics, and it got him to question the entire war on drugs. "What was this all for? Why did so many people have to go to jail because of marijuana, especially when it was less harmful than alcohol? Is law enforcement really about public service, or public harassment?"
His soul searching, combined with years of research, led him to the following conclusion: "I am now totally convinced that the 'Drug War' is a farce. It provides no benefit to the public and actually makes the drug problem worse." This personal epiphany didn't just stop at the issue of drug prohibition but also extended to the entire method of using law enforcement as a revenue-raising tool for government. "I got fed up with the numbers game in law enforcement and with the idea that we, the police, were here to force people to wear their seat belts and to have their papers [license, registration, insurance, inspection, etc.] in order before they could freely go about their lives."
Mack looked at the way law enforcement was being handled and didn't see public servants searching for the truth or advocating the rights of the accused. Instead, he saw a system contrary to what he in his heart believed to be right. "It is a corrupt system based on 'win-loss' records. Principles of freedom and equality are bypassed in order to concentrate on the money-generating numbers and plea bargains. If innocent citizens get nailed in the process, then it is ... considered collateral damage." Mack didn't just see abuses being perpetrated at the state level but also at the federal level in a much more flagrant and blatant manner.
Greatest Threat to America: The Federal Government
What does Sheriff Mack view as the biggest threat facing America today? Global warming? Terrorism? The swine flu? Again, Mack pulls no punches and states exactly what is on his mind. "The greatest threat we face, as a nation, is our own federal government." Mack's opposition to federal overreach is not limited to just when Democrats control the levers of federal power. Mack staunchly opposes rightwing overreach. He vigorously objects to an interventionist foreign policy, as well as abusive national-security tactics applied domestically. "The elitists of Washington, D.C., including those of both major parties, have turned America into a socialistic democratic dictatorship. We are a police state and welfare state all rolled into one enormous gluttonous debt."
Sheriff Mack does not see a bright future for America if we don't turn back the clock on the expansive growth of government. "It is a mathematical certainty that the bigger the government, the smaller the freedom. You cannot have huge government and abundant freedom simultaneously."
Saying "No" to the Feds
For those who are absolutely fed up with the constant violations of the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Mack's proposition to nullify federal overreach by just saying "no" is entirely practical advice.
The notion of state interposition, or state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, is a concept as old as our Republic; Mack's proposal to extend it to the county sheriff level merely adds a new decentralist twist. Could such a proposal possibly work? Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center and an expert on the subject of state nullification, believes that it could. Boldin told THE NEW AMERICAN, "It's my opinion that the best way to resist the federal government and its incessant violations of the Constitution is not to continually try to 'vote the bums out' every election season, but instead, to virtually ignore it. Nullification, simply saying no to federal laws outside the scope of their constitutionally delegated authority, is the path to liberty for this country. It's powerful, it's peaceful, and it works, as can be seen in the state-level revolt against the Real ID Act of 2005. In 2007, multiple states passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that it was unconstitutional. Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation, and earlier this month the Obama administration announced that it was looking to 'repeal and replace' the controversial law."
Has the time come for such action? Boldin believes that the time has definitely come. "James Madison, in his report of 1800, said that interposition must not be employed 'either in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions.' And he was quite right. But, with the massive amount of constitutional overreach coming from the federal government, choosing one overreach to resist is like shooting fish in a bucket."
The Next Step
What kind of feedback has Mack received from other sheriffs who have read his book? "Sheriffs from Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Washington, and Wisconsin have all voiced overwhelming support and ... are getting more on board every day." The only type of negative feedback he has received is from "a couple [of sheriffs] who have expressed reluctance, but most of those just boil down to whether or not they have the guts to do it. I think most of them know this is true but just don't want to be the tester to see if it really works."
Indeed, as Mack is quick to point out, "There are already several examples of sheriffs and local governments standing against federal intrusiveness." Mack highlights an incident in Nye County, Nevada, where the local sheriff told federal agents that if they tried to confiscate cattle from a local rancher, he would arrest them. The feds backed down and the cattle remained. Mack explains, "For federal officers to come in to the county and take over in any respect is the epitome of usurpation, and he who is the rightful steward of the county needn't tolerate any such usurpations whatsoever."
As far as federal legislation requiring the action of local sheriffs, Mack asserts that "they're entirely meaningless and have no way of being enforced unless [the county sheriff] says so." Mack argues that the worst that can happen is that the sheriff will lose out on some federal funding.
Mack himself acknowledges how very revolutionary his proposal is, but argues that it is vital to preserve our freedoms. "I know this all sounds radical. Standing for freedom has always been labeled as, radical, but 'extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,' to quote Barry Goldwater."
Mack stands firmly by his warning that for "the tyrant to win ... the only thing that has to happen is for the nation's police and sheriffs to be convinced that all laws must be enforced."'
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The States Can Stop Obama - 10/28/2009
The States Can Stop Obama
by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)
2009 Oct 28
By now we have all heard the clichés and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.
The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity, and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.
So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are
misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.
by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)
2009 Oct 28
By now we have all heard the clichés and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.
The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity, and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.
So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are
misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)