Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Law Enforcement dudes - ever heard of this book?

I just finished that booklet by Sheriff Mack. I hope everyone buys a copy of it! The 2nd half of the book was a lot better than the first half where he lays the foundation. Mack has some great solutions for our current Constitutional crisis.

He said to stop contacting Congress because they don't give a crap. Our first line of defense is the County Sheriff. Sheriff Joe Arpaio wrote the blurb on the back of the booklet and obviously follows Mack's advice.

If you didn't read the original post on this, Mack is a retired cop. He was police, undercover narc, sheriff and FBI during his career. He wrote a booklet called "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope." The office of sheriff is elected by the people alone and is not subject to federal enforcement. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution and law enforcement (LE) swears an oath to uphold it.

He said we can no longer depend on the federal government to provide protection and security for the well being of its people, either Democrats or Republicans. "Our American Republic has been replaced by a corrupt system of political correctness. The founders of America warned us repeatedly in their writing and their intent to avoid gun control, a welfare state, a police state, entangling foreign alliances, a grandiose and omnipotent central government, enslaving taxation, paper money not backed by a gold and silver standard and the list goes on."

He said the political platforms of both major parties have promoted each and every one of these socialistic or communistic ideals, that our country was specifically established to prevent.
He said JFK and Reagan's mottos are almost comical today, so far are we removed from them. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" and "Government is not the solution to the problem, gvt is the problem."

Who will protect the average everyday American from the abuse of the IRS or any other alphabet soup bureaucracy in Washington? He explains how DC is corrupt, the IRS shouldn't constitutionally exist and tells us of all the illegal Gestapo tactics IRS has used against people.

He explains how LE should not be following "laws" when they are unconstitutional and how LE answers to no one in the Fed. Some police have been doing whatever state legislators or supreme court rulings mandate, but that is abdicating their role as part of the executive branch and to keep their oath to uphold to the Constitution. "The Federal government did not hire us (LE), they cannot fire us and they can't tell us what to do."

He gives examples of the Sheriff protecting the people instead of furthring corruption. One was a case in Nye County, NV, where the Sheriff prevented IRS agents from seizing cattle from a local rancher. Another was when a WY sheriff made a policy that all federal agents have to check with them first before they can make arrests, serve papers or confiscate property because Feds (INS) asked local LE for help to round up innocent family they thought were illegals. Ended up they were American citizens.

Anyway, you have to read it to understand the proof he gives and what he found in his LE career.

The book is 8.5 x 6", 8 or 9 bucks, only 50 pages and takes about two hours or less to read the whole thing.
http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php...y-richard-mack
 
Last night Sheriff Mack spoke here and there were 500 people attending. The man is awesome. Toward the end, when Mack asked if there were any sheriffs in the group, one sheriff from another county stood up and said that he would pledge to uphold the constitution and the whole group stood up and gave him an ovation for a really long time. People are really fired up about our tyrannical government and they're not going to put up with it anymore.

Our Left of Left newspaper had an ACCURATE article about Mack. (He had spoken in Polson the day before.) The guy who wrote the article did a great job of just reporting the facts.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/07/07/news/local/news02.txt
 
After reading Sheriff Mack's booklet, I summarized where he gets from the Constitution that the sheriff has the authority to say no to the Fed.

Mack wrote of the origin of the sheriff, "elected by, for and of the people. He is not appointed, he is not a bureaucrat, he does not report to the town manager or to the city council. He reports directly to the people and is answerable to them and them alone. For the sheriff to allow anyone or anything to violate the rights of his boss would be dereliction of the highest order."

He explains that any peace officer in the US must swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Some officers will say "I'm just following orders" like those at the Nuremberg Trials said and that just because something is a law doesn't mean it is right. He believes law enforcement (LE) is part of the Executive branch of government (see below). He said to LE "You do your job and your duty; you keep your word to your constituents and defend them from all injustice, even if it's from legislators, judges, or federal agents. Or if we so choose, we can continue to go along with the smooth hypocrisies of DC bureaucrats and turn our backs on our citizens...The federal government, the White House, or Congress do not hire us, they cannot fire us, and they cannot tell us what to do. Therefore, their legislation aimed at the sheriffs or any other officer of the counties in this nation, are entirely meaningless and have no way of being enforced unless we say so." (Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Mack are friends and Arpaio follows this)

He makes the following points from the constitution. Why do we need a permit for a gun when it is our constitutional right to bear arms? Why do we need a permit from the police to "peaceably assemble" when that is our constitutional right? Some states require firearms be registered with the gvt but probable cause is required by the 4th amendment and due process of law is set forth in the 5th.

He said the Founding Fathers intended multiple checks and balances. Nothing supersedes the Bill of Rights.

None of these gvt agencies were meant to be based on the enumerated powers granted under the Constitution: EPA, FCC, OSHA, Dpt of Education, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, INS, BATFE, HUD, BIA, SEC, DEA, Fed Reserve, Forest Service, BLM or IRS.

These are the parts in the const that he says gives the sheriff his authority:
Art VI para 3 "all executive and judicial officers, both of the US and the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution..." and that sheriffs are part of the Executive branch of gvt.


He said article 1, sec 8 gives the feds a very limited sphere along with the 9th and 10th amends of the Bill of Rights.

He also quoted Justice Scalia when he (Mack) and Jay Printz won at SCOTUS against the Brady Bill when Scalia quoted 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 with its own sphere." The feds must stay within their proper "sphere" and it's our job to make sure that they do just that. A point to emphasize once again is the original intention by our Founders to maintain the federal "sphere" as small and impotent. Scalia also emphasized "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitutions structural protections of liberty, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Fed gvt will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Madison's wisdom is thus employed once again, "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different gvts will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."
========
What he said sounds accurate, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
I wish I knew someone who was enough of an expert on the Const. to be able to validate his interpretation of it.

Slut, you're a poli sci major - do you have any ideas?
 
Premium Features



Back
Top