Citizens’ Grand Juries is a key to getting our country back from the corruption that has grown like a cancer in all three branches of our government. Larry Klayman has had some recent and impressive success.
Read more
Bruce
'With this slide toward government power enabled by the judiciary, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that I must move outside of “the corrupt system” and instead use the God-given rights our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us: the Citizens’ Grand Jury. And, just this week, as reported by WND, as Citizens’ Prosecutor I appeared before a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Fla., to seek the criminal indictment of President Obama and Vice President Biden for their having illegally breached and compromised U.S. national security. See www.citizensgrandjury.com. After presenting evidence of probable cause that the crimes had been committed, the Citizens’ Grand Jury, comprised of 16 jurors, returned a true bill of indictment at 6:02 p.m. last Monday. Obama and Biden will now be put on notice of the criminal charges against them and be provided with an opportunity to plead guilty or not-guilty at an arraignment. They then will be tried before a people’s court. I am confident that they will be convicted. This is just the beginning of our use of Citizens’ Grand Juries and other legal and peaceful means to reclaim our nation from the cancerous hold of our government officials.'
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
'Fast and Furious' Probe Clears Holder, Faults ATF and Justice
It sounds like we may never know about what Eric Holder did and what he knew.
Read more
Bruce
'Operation "Fast and Furious," the controversial undercover operation that allowed U.S. guns to be walked into Mexico, was a "risky strategy" that did not "adequately take into account the significant danger to public safety that it created."
That was the conclusion today from the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half.
The OIG investigation found that Attorney General Eric Holder was not aware of the strategy and tactics used in "Fast and Furious," and turned up no evidence that Holder tried to cover up the operation, or mislead Congress about it. Holder was held in contempt of Congress earlier this year for allegedly withholding documents about DOJ's "Fast and Furious" investigation from congressional investigators.
...
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the leading congressional critics of DOJ's handing of "Fast and Furious," issued a statement today, saying, "Operation Fast and Furious was the height of irresponsibility on the part of a number of people from the ATF Phoenix field office all the way up to the Justice Department headquarters. And, we still don't know the full extent of any White House involvement because they refused to be transparent and provide documents requested by the Inspector General. It's clear that both the ATF and the Justice Department failed to provide meaningful oversight of Operation Fast and Furious."'
Read more
Bruce
'Operation "Fast and Furious," the controversial undercover operation that allowed U.S. guns to be walked into Mexico, was a "risky strategy" that did not "adequately take into account the significant danger to public safety that it created."
That was the conclusion today from the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half.
The OIG investigation found that Attorney General Eric Holder was not aware of the strategy and tactics used in "Fast and Furious," and turned up no evidence that Holder tried to cover up the operation, or mislead Congress about it. Holder was held in contempt of Congress earlier this year for allegedly withholding documents about DOJ's "Fast and Furious" investigation from congressional investigators.
...
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the leading congressional critics of DOJ's handing of "Fast and Furious," issued a statement today, saying, "Operation Fast and Furious was the height of irresponsibility on the part of a number of people from the ATF Phoenix field office all the way up to the Justice Department headquarters. And, we still don't know the full extent of any White House involvement because they refused to be transparent and provide documents requested by the Inspector General. It's clear that both the ATF and the Justice Department failed to provide meaningful oversight of Operation Fast and Furious."'
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
One Judge Overturns the Wishes of the Voters in Wisconsin
Your not going to believe that this is possible in America.
Read more
'When we elect a president, we also elect judges, bureaucrats (who stay long after a president’s term/terms of office), laws he gets passed, and executive orders. Consider what just happened in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin was a battleground that put public sector union workers in a bargaining position that allowed the unions to use the power of government to line their pockets and those of their members.
This sweetheart relationship was bankrupting the state. Republican Governor Scott Walker decided to take on the unions. Te governor and the Republicans won. The union thugs were angry can called for recall elections. Gov. Walker and most of the Republicans who were up for the recall won. The electoral process worked. The people elected to office made the laws that they were put in office to implement.
The state budget was saved.
Now we learn that a single judged has thrown out the entire process. “A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.” While the judge was not a federal appointee, there is a lesson here. Judges can overrule the will of the people and elected representatives.'
Read more
'When we elect a president, we also elect judges, bureaucrats (who stay long after a president’s term/terms of office), laws he gets passed, and executive orders. Consider what just happened in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin was a battleground that put public sector union workers in a bargaining position that allowed the unions to use the power of government to line their pockets and those of their members.
This sweetheart relationship was bankrupting the state. Republican Governor Scott Walker decided to take on the unions. Te governor and the Republicans won. The union thugs were angry can called for recall elections. Gov. Walker and most of the Republicans who were up for the recall won. The electoral process worked. The people elected to office made the laws that they were put in office to implement.
The state budget was saved.
Now we learn that a single judged has thrown out the entire process. “A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.” While the judge was not a federal appointee, there is a lesson here. Judges can overrule the will of the people and elected representatives.'
Saturday, June 2, 2012
More Obama treason!
How much more will we put up with before Obama is brought to justice?
Read more http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/more-obama-treason/
Bruce
"So it came as no surprise when I opened my copy of the New York Times last Friday to find yet a new front-page article leaking previously classified information about our intelligence communities’ efforts to slow down Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry."
Read more http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/more-obama-treason/
Bruce
"So it came as no surprise when I opened my copy of the New York Times last Friday to find yet a new front-page article leaking previously classified information about our intelligence communities’ efforts to slow down Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry."
Friday, May 18, 2012
Eric Holder to face contempt charges?
Eric your time is up. Go somewhere else and prepare your defense. Get out of our faces. You made a joke of the Department of Justice.
Read more http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/eric-holder-to-face-contempt-charges/?cat_orig=us
Bruce
"Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is publicly circulating a briefing paper and draft contempt-of-Congress resolution against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Department of Justice’s stonewalling in the investigation into the gun-walking scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious.
True to form, Holder is shrugging off the threat and calling foul.
...
As the draft contempt resolution makes clear, Fast and Furious was not a “rogue” operation carried out by one regional ATF office; it was considered a flagship operation in the Obama administration’s war on gun trafficking to Mexico. The operation was part of a DOJ “Strike Force” involving the FBI, DEA, ICE and DHS under the control of the DOJ and U.S. attorney’s office."
Read more http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/eric-holder-to-face-contempt-charges/?cat_orig=us
Bruce
"Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is publicly circulating a briefing paper and draft contempt-of-Congress resolution against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Department of Justice’s stonewalling in the investigation into the gun-walking scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious.
True to form, Holder is shrugging off the threat and calling foul.
...
As the draft contempt resolution makes clear, Fast and Furious was not a “rogue” operation carried out by one regional ATF office; it was considered a flagship operation in the Obama administration’s war on gun trafficking to Mexico. The operation was part of a DOJ “Strike Force” involving the FBI, DEA, ICE and DHS under the control of the DOJ and U.S. attorney’s office."
Friday, April 6, 2012
5 former New Orleans cops get stiff sentences in Katrina bridge shootings, cover-up
I'm glad to see this after the way the New Orleans police aggressively implemented martial law after hurricane Katrina.
Bruce
"Five former New Orleans police officers were sentenced to long prison terms Wednesday for their roles in the shootings at a bridge that left two civilians dead and four others wounded in the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Bruce
"Five former New Orleans police officers were sentenced to long prison terms Wednesday for their roles in the shootings at a bridge that left two civilians dead and four others wounded in the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Georgia Supremes accused of being 'sham'
Sounds like it's my way or the highway in Georgia.
Bruce
'An attorney working on a case challenging Barack Obama’s name on the Georgia 2012 presidential election ballot says the state’s “laws and courts are a sham” and protect the powerful against the powerless.
...
“This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”
He noted that the justices had the request for a week, but waited until there was no time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of the injunction before releasing their order.
“If we had been given one or two days we could have filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court. … I’m sure that the Georgia Supreme Court is aware that Justice [Clarence] Thomas would have been our next step, had we had time to file another motion. The Georgia court ensured that such review was not possible by waiting until the last day to rule before our motion became moot.”'
Bruce
'An attorney working on a case challenging Barack Obama’s name on the Georgia 2012 presidential election ballot says the state’s “laws and courts are a sham” and protect the powerful against the powerless.
...
“This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”
He noted that the justices had the request for a week, but waited until there was no time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of the injunction before releasing their order.
“If we had been given one or two days we could have filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court. … I’m sure that the Georgia Supreme Court is aware that Justice [Clarence] Thomas would have been our next step, had we had time to file another motion. The Georgia court ensured that such review was not possible by waiting until the last day to rule before our motion became moot.”'
Monday, January 2, 2012
For Christmas, Your Government Will Tell You When It's Legal to Kill You. Just Kidding: It's Classified
You are a US citizen to be killed without a trial or a conviction per order of the President. Is it a good idea for the President, especially Obama, to have this power?
Bruce
"In the wake of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the DOJ has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times asking for the legal basis for the American program of targeted drone killings of U.S. citizens off the field of battle."
Bruce
"In the wake of the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the DOJ has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from the New York Times asking for the legal basis for the American program of targeted drone killings of U.S. citizens off the field of battle."
Friday, December 23, 2011
Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over
Instead of seeing that justice is done, the useless courts continue to come up with their bullshit about "no standing". 2-minute video of Justice Thomas.
Bruce
'Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.
"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number."
"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.'
Bruce
'Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles with all of the current case claims.
"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth certificate, valid Social Security number."
"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.'
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Congress called on to investigate Department of Justice
Having Eric Holder running the DOJ is like letting the fox run the hen house.
Bruce
'The newest case his organization has taken on is the arrest and sentencing of Border Patrol Agent Jesus "Chito" Diaz for lifting the arms of a drug smuggler while he was handcuffed.
WND reported earlier that U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking an explanation for the federal government's actions.
"It's amazing to think that the federal government and the Justice Department in particular, under your leadership, continued with a case against one of our nation's own Border Patrol officers that ended with an excessive two-year prison term for restraining a smuggler," Hunter wrote.'
Bruce
'The newest case his organization has taken on is the arrest and sentencing of Border Patrol Agent Jesus "Chito" Diaz for lifting the arms of a drug smuggler while he was handcuffed.
WND reported earlier that U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking an explanation for the federal government's actions.
"It's amazing to think that the federal government and the Justice Department in particular, under your leadership, continued with a case against one of our nation's own Border Patrol officers that ended with an excessive two-year prison term for restraining a smuggler," Hunter wrote.'
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Justice Department Sues South Carolina Over State's Strict Immigration Law
Here we go again with Eric Holder's do-nothing DOJ.
Bruce
'"If the feds were doing their job, we wouldn't have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level," Rob Godfrey said. "But, until they do, we're going to keep fighting in South Carolina to be able to enforce our laws."'
Bruce
'"If the feds were doing their job, we wouldn't have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level," Rob Godfrey said. "But, until they do, we're going to keep fighting in South Carolina to be able to enforce our laws."'
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians - 5/9/2011
On May 9, 2011 Obama claimed he was setting up a legal process to imprison US citizens, "prolonged detention," without having any charges filed, a trial or a conviction. Rachel Maddow has an 8-minute video. If there is something you don't care for in the Constitution, just ignore it! That's the way he operates.
There is also a 6-minute video of FEMA prisons ready for occupancy.
Bruce
"There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached."
"Justification for actions are taken in EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656.
Read the text here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html ]
A portion of the highlights are:
Management, control, and allocation of all usable waters from all sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. Control, acquisition of real property. Mining of strategic and critical and other nonfuel minerals for national security emergency purposes. Stockpile strategic and critical minerals. Military assistance to civilian law enforcement authorities. Registration and inquiry, and mortuary services and interment. The use of Federal penal and correctional institutions and resources. Enforcement plans to respond to civil disturbances. Management and control of civil transportation resources and systems, including privately owned automobiles, urban mass transit, intermodal transportation systems, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Management of all Federal, State, city, local, and other highways, roads, streets, bridges, tunnels. Control of people entering and leaving the United States. Claimancy for materials and equipment for public water systems. Provide by induction, personnel that would be required by the armed forces. Methods for interment of the dead."
There is also a 6-minute video of FEMA prisons ready for occupancy.
Bruce
"There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached."
"Justification for actions are taken in EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656.
Read the text here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html ]
A portion of the highlights are:
Management, control, and allocation of all usable waters from all sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. Control, acquisition of real property. Mining of strategic and critical and other nonfuel minerals for national security emergency purposes. Stockpile strategic and critical minerals. Military assistance to civilian law enforcement authorities. Registration and inquiry, and mortuary services and interment. The use of Federal penal and correctional institutions and resources. Enforcement plans to respond to civil disturbances. Management and control of civil transportation resources and systems, including privately owned automobiles, urban mass transit, intermodal transportation systems, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Management of all Federal, State, city, local, and other highways, roads, streets, bridges, tunnels. Control of people entering and leaving the United States. Claimancy for materials and equipment for public water systems. Provide by induction, personnel that would be required by the armed forces. Methods for interment of the dead."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Democracy is not freedom
We should be careful in defining and choosing our legal terms. "Equal justice for all" is what we want in the United States.
Bruce
'As our system of justice progresses from "equal justice for all" to one of "equity" or Social Justice, our Republic mutates into a collectivist state and the fall of America proceeds apace.'
Bruce
'As our system of justice progresses from "equal justice for all" to one of "equity" or Social Justice, our Republic mutates into a collectivist state and the fall of America proceeds apace.'
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Soldier overseas? No voting for you
Don't look for Obama's Eric Holder to do his job. If the Dept. of Justice doesn't like a law, it just gets ignored!
Bruce
Bruce
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Department of Injustice
ACORN voter registration fraud. Voter intimidation at the polls by The Black Panthers and it's all blown off like a parking ticket by Eric Holder who works for the "transparent" organization of "honest" Obama.
The video segments take about 25 minutes. Unbelievable. Who cares about your right to vote without intimidation? Not key people in the Justice Department!
Bruce
The video segments take about 25 minutes. Unbelievable. Who cares about your right to vote without intimidation? Not key people in the Justice Department!
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."'
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Ongoing Effort by the US Justice Foundation
"FORCE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA TO PRODUCE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS!
MAKE HIM PROVE WHETHER HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT!
It really is very simple: If you're questioned about your qualifications, just show your birth certificate! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen... IF HE HAD THE DOCUMENTS!
Barack Obama could simply put the issue to rest right now by releasing his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE... but he WON'T! He refuses to do so! Instead, he has had teams of attorneys all over the country, fighting "tooth and nail" to thwart the efforts of the United States Justice Foundation, and our allies in a number of states, to compel him to produce an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, as well as other documents, and to prove whether he is Constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States!
Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can make us STOP our lawsuits to force him to produce that certificate, as well as other documents, that could resolve this issue once and for all! DON'T LET HIM DO IT!
Mr. Obama's legal team is doing everything that it can, in both of our California cases (one in federal court and one in state court), to make sure that no one ever sees his actual birth certificate, his college records, and other documents that can help resolve this Constitutional crisis. News reports say that over $1.7 million has been spent by Obama in campaign funds fighting these suits. No one knows how much has been spent in taxpayer dollars.
We're fighting back - we have filed appeals of the California state court and California federal trial court case decisions."
MAKE HIM PROVE WHETHER HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT!
It really is very simple: If you're questioned about your qualifications, just show your birth certificate! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen... IF HE HAD THE DOCUMENTS!
Barack Obama could simply put the issue to rest right now by releasing his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE... but he WON'T! He refuses to do so! Instead, he has had teams of attorneys all over the country, fighting "tooth and nail" to thwart the efforts of the United States Justice Foundation, and our allies in a number of states, to compel him to produce an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, as well as other documents, and to prove whether he is Constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States!
Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can make us STOP our lawsuits to force him to produce that certificate, as well as other documents, that could resolve this issue once and for all! DON'T LET HIM DO IT!
Mr. Obama's legal team is doing everything that it can, in both of our California cases (one in federal court and one in state court), to make sure that no one ever sees his actual birth certificate, his college records, and other documents that can help resolve this Constitutional crisis. News reports say that over $1.7 million has been spent by Obama in campaign funds fighting these suits. No one knows how much has been spent in taxpayer dollars.
We're fighting back - we have filed appeals of the California state court and California federal trial court case decisions."
Sunday, January 24, 2010
How We're Killing Our "Living Constitution" - 5/8/2009
It is clear to me that we need to reset some of the Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution, such as interstate commerce means whatever you want it to mean. In the process we need to ignore the rants and ravings of the liberal press, like Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been ignoring us since Obama "took" office.
Bruce
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted May 08, 2009
While President Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying he wants judges with "empathy" for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal:
Getting judges who will ratify an expanding scope of the power of the federal government and a declining restraint by the U.S. Constitution.
This is consistent with everything else Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long record of alliances with people who reject American society's fundamentals.
Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges interpret the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.
They called this "a living Constitution." It has in fact been a dying Constitution, as its restraining provisions have been "interpreted" to mean less and less so that the federal government can do more and more.
For example, the Constitution lets private property be taken for "public use" — perhaps building a reservoir or a highway — if "just compensation" is paid. That power was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2005 when it "interpreted" this to mean that private property could be taken for a "public purpose," which could include almost anything for which politicians could come up with the right rhetoric.
As for "just compensation," that is often about as just as "separate but equal" was equal.
As for "empathy" for the less fortunate, it is precisely lower income and minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately bulldozed to make way for upscale shopping and entertainment centers that will bring in more taxes for politicians to spend to get themselves re-elected.
This process of "interpreting" the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism.
As a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining "judicial activism" to mean something different.
By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a "judicial activist."
The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution — justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — are now called "judicial activists." It is a verbal coup.
Politicians such as Sen. Patrick Leahy and law professors such as Cass Sunstein and many in the media measure how much of a judicial activist a judge is by how many laws that judge has declared unconstitutional. Sunstein, incidentally, is among those being mentioned as a nominee for a post on the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not "interstate commerce," there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
When the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 vote that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, it was saying something that most people would consider too obvious for words.
But it was considered outrageous that the Supreme Court recognized the obvious and refused to rubberstamp the sophistry that let Congress pass laws dealing with things that the Constitution never authorized it to deal with.
Incidentally, carrying a gun near a school was something that states had the authority to deal with, and most states had already banned it.
What is at stake in Supreme Court nominations is the power of the federal government.
"Empathy" is just camouflage, a soothing word for those who do not look beyond nice-sounding rhetoric.
Bruce
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted May 08, 2009
While President Barack Obama has, in one sense, tipped his hand by saying he wants judges with "empathy" for certain groups, he has in a more fundamental sense concealed the real goal:
Getting judges who will ratify an expanding scope of the power of the federal government and a declining restraint by the U.S. Constitution.
This is consistent with everything else Obama has done in office and is consistent with his decades-long record of alliances with people who reject American society's fundamentals.
Judicial expansion of federal power is not really new, even if the audacity with which that goal is being pursued may be unique. For more than a century, believers in bigger government have also been believers in having judges interpret the restraints of the Constitution out of existence.
They called this "a living Constitution." It has in fact been a dying Constitution, as its restraining provisions have been "interpreted" to mean less and less so that the federal government can do more and more.
For example, the Constitution lets private property be taken for "public use" — perhaps building a reservoir or a highway — if "just compensation" is paid. That power was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2005 when it "interpreted" this to mean that private property could be taken for a "public purpose," which could include almost anything for which politicians could come up with the right rhetoric.
As for "just compensation," that is often about as just as "separate but equal" was equal.
As for "empathy" for the less fortunate, it is precisely lower income and minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately bulldozed to make way for upscale shopping and entertainment centers that will bring in more taxes for politicians to spend to get themselves re-elected.
This process of "interpreting" the Constitution (or legislation) to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean, no matter how plainly the words say something else, has been called judicial activism.
As a result of widespread objections to this, that problem has been solved by redefining "judicial activism" to mean something different.
By the new definition, a judge who declares legislation that exceeds the authority of the legislature unconstitutional is called a "judicial activist."
The verbal virtuosity is breathtaking. With just a new meaning to an old phrase, reality is turned upside down. Those who oppose letting government actions exceed the bounds of the Constitution — justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — are now called "judicial activists." It is a verbal coup.
Politicians such as Sen. Patrick Leahy and law professors such as Cass Sunstein and many in the media measure how much of a judicial activist a judge is by how many laws that judge has declared unconstitutional. Sunstein, incidentally, is among those being mentioned as a nominee for a post on the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court in 1995 declared that carrying a gun near a school was not "interstate commerce," there was consternation and outrage in the liberal press because previous decisions of the Supreme Court in years past had allowed Congress to legislate on virtually anything it wanted to by saying it was exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
When the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 vote that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce, it was saying something that most people would consider too obvious for words.
But it was considered outrageous that the Supreme Court recognized the obvious and refused to rubberstamp the sophistry that let Congress pass laws dealing with things that the Constitution never authorized it to deal with.
Incidentally, carrying a gun near a school was something that states had the authority to deal with, and most states had already banned it.
What is at stake in Supreme Court nominations is the power of the federal government.
"Empathy" is just camouflage, a soothing word for those who do not look beyond nice-sounding rhetoric.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Decision to Carry
This decision to carry a weapon is a big one. You believe that the police cannot respond fast enough when an attacker is threatening or shooting at you or your family or friends, so you carry a weapon. There will be time later to call 911 and show them the location of the body.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
The link gives you some encounters that happened. Look at archived stories too. Give it some thought.
Bruce
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
The link gives you some encounters that happened. Look at archived stories too. Give it some thought.
Bruce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)