Florida Oath Keepers

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:35:00 +0000

The Spirit of Party

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:02:00 +0000

“There are not two political parties in Washington, D.C., just two wings of the same bird of prey.”

October 23, 2014

When I started my radio talk show back in 1994--and for the next six years hosting the show--I was considered a hero by conservatives everywhere. Between my leadership position with the Moral Majority back in the 1980s and my radio talk show in the 1990s, I walked shoulder-to-shoulder with practically every notable conservative leader, including Christian leaders, one could think of. I traveled the country speaking with, and for, the most visible conservative leaders in America. I became friends with a host of U.S. congressmen and senators, not to mention several State governors. I even sat at the “king’s table” with President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. I was one of the “darlings” of conservatism. Just about anybody who was anybody was a guest on my show.

I only mention all of that so readers can understand my background--along with the “rest of the story” that brought me to where I am today.

Back in those days, I fell right in lock-step with the left-right paradigm: Republicans were good; Democrats were bad. And even if the Republican was downright bad, he wasn’t as bad as the Democrat. That doctrine was sacrosanct and unassailable. And I believed that malarkey as much as anyone.

I started smelling a rat in 1996 when the GOP anointed Bob Dole as the next “conservative” Republican who was going to lead us to the Promised Land. I knew Dole well enough: he was anything but a conservative. In fact, he joined the likes of Richard Nixon and now John Boehner who say that they have never read the Republican Party platform. Boehner has gone so far as to say that he doesn’t know anybody who has read it. He probably told the truth there. The vast majority of Republican leaders in Washington, D.C., have not read it, don’t care what it says, and give no heed to it. I knew in my heart that Bob Dole would be a horrible President, and that he would NOT give a hoot in hades about obeying the Constitution. Plus, I had developed a great respect for and friendship with Pat Buchanan, who was an ardent conservative constitutionalist. So, I was supporting Pat’s presidential candidacy.

There is so much I would love to tell you about the rest of that primary, but let me fast forward to the end of the season. Toward the end of that 1996 GOP primary season, the congressman that my radio talk show was largely responsible for helping get elected, Joe Scarborough, came to me and pleaded, saying, “Chuck, I’m the only Republican congressman to not have already endorsed Dole. I’ve held out for as long as I can. Pat can’t win the nomination. It’s over. Dole will be the candidate. We have to rally behind Dole in order to beat Bill Clinton. You have to help me.”

I caved. For the sake of “party unity” and “defeating Bill Clinton,” I totally capitulated. Remember the sacred doctrine: Republicans are always good guys, and Democrats are always bad guys. And if even if the Republican is a bad guy he is not as bad as the Democrat.

So, there I was, standing next to Senator Bob Dole and Congressman Joe Scarborough at a press conference at the General Aviation office at the Pensacola, Florida, regional airport publicly endorsing the Republican Bob Dole for President of the United States. Albeit, I was still wearing my Pat Buchanan lapel pin. My defiance wasn’t dead, only crippled.

As I walked to my car after the press conference, I felt sick. I mean, totally and thoroughly sick. I had betrayed my convictions and my conscience, and I knew it. I vowed then and there that I would never again support a candidate---any candidate, no matter what his or her party label--for any public office that I did not believe in my heart would at least be faithful to the essential principles of liberty upon which our country was built.

For the next four years I marched forward with my radio talk show extolling the principles of liberty as loudly as I knew how. Mind you, the bitter taste of my compromise stayed in my mouth. It never went away. Still hasn’t. In addition, the next four years afforded me great opportunity to awaken to a host of truths, including the truth that both major parties in Washington, D.C., were actually not all that different. I came to realize that what Pat Buchanan had said was really true: “There are not two political parties in Washington, D.C., just two wings of the same bird of prey.”

One of the highlights of that awakening came when I interviewed David Schippers, who was the lead counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. He told me that as he pleaded with Republican leaders in the Senate (Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, etc.) to look at the evidence that his legal team had gathered, one of the “good guy” Republican senators said, “David, we don’t care if you have a video tape of the President raping a woman, then standing up and shooting her dead, we are not going to vote to remove this President from office.”

Schippers, a lifelong Democrat, was absolutely stunned. You can imagine. Schippers was a tough, no-nonsense, right-is-right, law-and-order kind of guy. He was the guy who took on the Chicago mafia--and won. He was an honest Democrat who was willing to unveil the criminality of a corrupt Democrat. Now he was watching a group of Republican senators in Washington, D.C., make the mafia look like good guys.

Schippers wrote a book of the whole sordid ordeal called, “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.” It was published by Regnery Publishing. If you’ve never read it, you should do so immediately. The real story will shock you. And you will discover that, no, the Republicans are NOT always good guys--or even the “lesser of two evils.”

Enter the 2000 presidential elections. By now, my eyes were much wider open than they had been four years ago. But when G.W. Bush first ran for President, he said all of the right things. He said he was pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-less government, pro-Bill of Rights, etc. So in 2000, I supported G.W.

I’m still doing my radio talk show (and by now I was writing this column); I’m still a conservative hero; I’m still basking in the “success” of being a conservative Republican “darling.”

But that’s when the fun started! It didn’t take very long to realize that G.W. Bush was as phony as a three dollar bill. He was no “conservative.” He was not pro-liberty, pro-Bill of Rights or anything of the kind. G.W. Bush was Bill Clinton on steroids! Bill Clinton tried to pass what became known as the USA Patriot Act, but couldn’t get it done. Bush passed it with ease. He signed the Military Commissions Act into law; he gave America an unconstitutional national police force known as the Department of Homeland Security. Bill Clinton never attempted and could never have accomplished such things. G.W. Bush introduced the “preemptive war” doctrine to America. He invaded nations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. He signed a law authorizing U.S. federal agents--or even military troops--to seize American citizens on U.S. soil and incarcerate them indefinitely without a subpoena or court order of any kind, without habeas corpus, without legal counsel, or any other requirement of justice guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. In truth, everything that Barack Obama is using today to abuse the power of the presidency, he borrowed from G.W. Bush.

So, by 2002 and 2003, and with the bitter taste of Bob Dole still gagging me, I made a decision: I will no longer protect and support Republicans for the sake of “party unity” or for the sake of “he’s not as bad as the Democrat.” No! In truth, it dawned on me that many times Republicans were WORSE than Democrats. From now on I was going to be faithful to my convictions and to the truth as I understood it.

Many of these “pragmatic political scientists” view politics as nothing more than mathematical formulas, test tube experiments, and lab rats. They will support and endorse any formula, no matter how evil the immediate process might be, in order to obtain their supposed “greater good” objective. They recognize absolutely nothing moral or immoral as it relates to politics. It is just “science.” Nothing is right; nothing is wrong; it’s all about putting in the right formulas in order to obtain some lofty, utopian, long-term objective.

In theological terms, the above is called “moral relativism.” In philosophical terms, it is called, “the end justifies the means.” In military terms, it is called, “might makes right.” In business terms, it is called, “what’s good for General Motors is good for America.” And it’s all a bunch of horse manure!

Republican shills will accept practically any evil committed by Republicans under the rubric of the “lesser of two evils” mantra. Democrat apologists will do the same for their fellow Democrats. In truth, party loyalists from both the Republican and Democrat parties in Washington, D.C., are giving America the royal SHAFT.

Our first and greatest president, George Washington, tried to warn us about this danger in his masterful “Farewell Address.” Washington said that the “spirit of party” (meaning, the preoccupation with, and loyalty to, political parties) was our “worst enemy.” He said it was “sharpened by the spirit of revenge,” and that it “perpetuated the most horrid enormities.” He said that the “spirit of party” led to “a more formal and permanent despotism.” He said the leaders of political parties would be elevated “on the ruins of public liberty.” He said it is “the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Washington went on to say that the “spirit of party” “agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.” He said it “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.” He said the “force of public opinion” must always “mitigate and assuage it.” Then, Washington ended this section of the address saying, “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”

Every warning George Washington gave us concerning the “spirit of party” has come true in modern America. Party hacks place more loyalty to doing what is good for their party than doing what is good for their country. In many respects, their preoccupation with party partisanship has become their own worst enemy, just as Washington warned. These party shills constantly demonstrate the “spirit of revenge.” In the name of fighting FUTURE despotism, party hacks constantly surrender to an IMMEDIATE and “more formal and permanent despotism.” Party members are “elevated [elected] on the ruins of public liberty.” Party shills are constantly agitating “the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms [especially about how bad the other party’s candidate is].” Party shills stand back and say nothing when their party opens the door to “foreign influence and corruption.” Again, to them, party is more important than country.

The fascination with “political science” demonstrated by party hacks reveals a complete lack of moral conscience. Remember, to party hacks, nothing is right or wrong, only better or worse. Their mantra is, “Our party is better; their party is worse.” And virtually every moral and constitutional malfeasance committed by the favored party member is justified under this mantra.

Thus, Bill Clinton’s repeated perjuries could take the Office of The President of The United States to the brink of disgrace and ruin and, yet, he could still be thought a hero by Democrats. And G.W. Bush’s unconstitutional wars and assaults against the Bill of Rights could take the American people to the brink of totalitarian government and, yet, he could still be thought a hero by Republicans.

Needless to say, when I started telling the truth about G.W. Bush on my radio talk show (just as I had done when Clinton was in office), the “darling” luster quickly vanished. Suddenly, where I was once a hero, now I was a villain. Where I was once a man with great conviction and honor, now I was considered extremist--or even evil. But I was standing for the exact same principles and ideals I had always stood for. But because I was no longer loyal to the “spirit of party,” I became a political outcast. George Washington was exactly right!

As most readers know, I went on to run for President of the United States after Ron Paul was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2008. There was no way in hades I was going to pull another Bob Dole poison pill out of the GOP Big Pharma pill box and vote for the Neocon John McCain. So, when hundreds of Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul conservatives asked me to help keep the voice of constitutional government alive in the 2008 presidential campaign by seeking the presidential nomination of the Constitution Party, I did just that. And as far as I know, I am the only candidate for President that Ron Paul publicly endorsed since Ronald Reagan.

And, no, I didn’t vote for the Neocon Mitt Romney in 2012. And I won’t vote for any Neocon candidate in 2014. And should the GOP nominate another Neocon for President in 2016, I won’t vote for him either.

The liberties of the American people protected in the Bill of Rights are not test tube rats to be scientifically dissected and analyzed by party hacks, who love to call themselves political scientists. Our liberties and freedoms are not subject to the pragmatic “lesser evil” agendas of party shills--be they Democrats or Republicans.

We have been trading Democrats for Republicans and vice versa for as long as any of us can remember. And where has it gotten us? I realize that compromise is necessary in many aspects of politics--but NOT when it comes to the fundamental tenets of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Compromise of those fundamental tenets is not compromise at all; it is appeasement and the worst kind of surrender. And to support those who commit such crimes in the name of party partisanship is the worst kind of patriotism.

Here is the problem. The political scientists and hacks among us do NOT recognize in any way, shape, manner or form, the SPIRITUAL warfare that we face. They do not recognize the spirit of darkness that governs in high places. They cannot recognize nor comprehend that the Evil One can just as easily accomplish his devilish purposes through a Republican office-holder as he can through a Democrat office-holder. Even many professing Christians seem to suffer from this myopia. It seems lost to them that there could be very powerful people who are masters at manipulating “conservative Republicans” and “liberal Democrats” alike for their own wicked and evil purposes. Well, there are; and they do. To single out one party as inherently “worse” and another party as inheritably “better” is the height of naiveté.

In fact, in many ways an “in the dark” Republican is MORE DANGEROUS than an “in the dark” Democrat, because the Republican is operating under the ruse of “light.” An enemy who wears the uniform of a friend is more dangerous than an enemy who wears the uniform of an enemy. That’s why G.W. Bush got away with a whole lot more than Bill Clinton did. And that’s why Mitt Romney would have gotten away with a whole lot more than Barack Obama has. And that’s why your local Neocon Republican congressional or senatorial candidate will get away with a whole lot more than your local Democrat candidate.

I made my decision as I walked away from a press conference with Bob Dole back in 1996. Somehow, in that short walk from the press room to my car, I came to agree with George Washington; and I traded the “spirit of party” for the “Spirit of ’76.” And I’ve never looked back.

Here is an exerpt from George Washington's farewell address, where he warned our young country about the pitfalls of political parties, as he left office as our first president:

"...Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally...It exists under different shapes in all governments, but in those of the popular form it is truly their worst enemy.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads, at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, who turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty..."

[source]

"These are the times that try men's souls..."

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:02:00 +0000

"During times of universal deceit,

telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

- George Orwell

Ben Franklin knew the importance of strength in numbers when he famously said,
“We shall all hang together; or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.”

Fast-forward to today. Florida Oath Keepers still agree with this sentiment. Hence, the introduction of our CPT, our willingness to stand with Liberty County Sheriff, Nick Finch, and now our honor to stand alongside Burnie Thompson.

Burnie is no stranger to the Florida Oath Keepers. He has been a strong ally and friend who himself took the oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He proudly served as a U.S. Air Force Captain.

Always passionate, but never rude, Burnie brings clarity to complex issues without getting caught up in the thick of thin things. His comments on current events are strikingly original, succinct and compelling … underscored by his concerns as a father of two young girls; his affinity for classic movies and literature; and his experience as a former U.S. Air Force officer.

Burnie reminds politicians to expand freedom and protect the family budget from government plunder. He is fed up with snoops, busybodies and thieves masquerading as public servants – and calls them out by name, often debating them on the air. They soon realize that his allegiance is to principle over partisanship. The Burnie Thompson Show gives Americans a place to link arms and make a difference. In the past, Burnie has personally linked arms with Oath Keepers to make that stand. And, as you’ll see, he’s not afraid to do what’s right and face the consequences.

Listen to what Burnie has to say about Oath Keepers:

Burnie Thompson is NO "Sunshine Patriot"; but rather a man of truth and honor. When faced with the option of losing his job or telling the truth, Burnie did not flinch.“We have to do all we can to restore this Republic. It won’t be painless and comes at a cost. I accept that.” For the first time in his 8-years on Talk Radio 101 (WYOO), Burnie was given a gag order by the station. The owner told him not to criticize his U.S. Representative Steve Southerland (R-FL) by name because it would help a Democrat get elected.

Burnie is a former U.S. Air Force Captain and he continued to demand that Southerland remove his name as a co-sponsor of the Enlist Act (HR 2377), which would put illegal aliens in the U.S. military and give them permanent legal status. Burnie says this is wrong for many reasons, but it is especially reprehensible when nearly 100,000 Americans are being cut from our military. Known for his relentless efforts to champion Constitutional values, Burnie had become a serious problem for Southerland’s reelection effort in the upcoming midterm election. After receiving tremendous political pressure, WYOO fired Burnie on August 1, claiming that his ratings had plummeted 40 percent. However, facts are stubborn things. The bi-annual Nielsen Ratings came out just three business days later. And the latest Nielsen Ratings - the time period cited for his termination – indicated that Burnie's show doubled Rush Limbaugh's ratings, head-to-head in the prime demographic (25-54), at his flagship station in Panama City, FL. "That’s not because I'm better than Rush; it's because when you listen to Limbaugh, you're a spectator," Burnie says. "When you listen to our show, you're a participant. We link arms every day and do our best to expand freedom and protect the family budget. And even if the odds are stacked against us, that doesn’t absolve each of us from doing all we cantogether."

(Click screenshot to view Burnie's interview on CNN)

It’s clear that Burnie wasn’t fired for poor ratings. He has been WYOO’s star performer since 2007. In fact, Burnie spent his first four years hammering his-then U.S. Representative Allen Boyd (D-FL). Nobody did more to help Southerland get elected than Burnie.

While Southerland has changed his tune since being elected, Burnie stayed true. In fact, ever since Burnie took to the radio in 2007 he has not flipped on a single issue. That’s because he’s mastered the issues, and believes in Libertyto his core.

The power players who knocked Burnie off the air were startled when billboards popped up all over town as he immediately launched his Internet Radio Show. “The truth will have its day!” Burnie insisted. Burnie says www.MyFreedomRadio.com is “something you can believe in.”

“I would get fired 100 more times to prevent illegal aliens from joining our military.
It is an honor to wear our uniform.
Our military is not a vehicle for amnesty!” says Burnie.

Burnie has a history of taking a principled stand, like when he fought to get little Marissa Amora the money the state owed her for the DCF’s negligence that led to her brutal assault that left her with severe brain damage.

Or when he explained the Boot Camp case to us and it played out in the courtroom the same way.

Or when he chipped away at the 7-term seemingly invincible Congressman Allen Boyd, who eventually was voted out. Burnie led the biggest rally in Bay County history in that monumental effort to get Southerland elected.

Most recently, Burnie stood for newly-elected Liberty County Sheriff Finch, who was wrongly arrested by FDLE and suspended without pay by Gov. Rick Scott. Burnie constantly brought us new information; met one-on-one with Gov. Scott; and exposed the corruption of State Attorney Willie Meggs.

“Ultimately, I was protecting the Office of Sheriff and its Constitutional authority against the encroachment of our Governor and a rogue State Attorney. And we fought to restore the election of Liberty County. Thank God we won!”

Ironically, Sheriff Finch had traveled to WYOO and was the very last guest on the very last segment of Burnie’s radio show on that station. The moment the show ended that Friday, August 1, Burnie was fired.

When was the last time you lost your job for standing on principle?
Burnie Thompson can answer that question!

When asked if he would do anything different, he said,

"I would get fired 100 more times to prevent illegal aliens from joining our military.”

BURNIE NEEDS OUR HELP NOW. He has no start-up capital; only debt. While he is currently building his subscription base and cache of local advertisers, he needs immediate financial support to keep this cause alive. He has stood firmly with us all these years; now it’s time that we stand with him.

Let’s help Burnie continue to shine a spotlight in the shadows of corruption; and to provide that warm lamp of reason so we can have more enlightened citizens who understand civics, economics and history.

Will you allow a media company and/or any political party shut down your voice just because it exposes the truth? Let’s not let our Voice of Freedom be silenced!

“In the beginning of revolution the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for it then costs nothing to be a patriot.”

- Mark Twain

We can help either by donating money, becoming a member of his new online audience at a nominal price, or buying advertising for your business.

Burnie has also begun Season 2 of his TV Show on Fox 28 WPGX.

Watch some of his past episodes

(previously called The Whiskey Rebellion)

Listen to a sample of The Burnie Thompson Show

BRING BACK YOUR VOICE OF FREEDOM:

JOIN NOW:

DONATE:

ADVERTISE:

Listen live, from 12-2 pm CST, and visit The Burnie Thompson Show Facebook page.

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated..."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis,

December 23rd, 1776

"I hate to say I told you so..."

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:01:00 +0000

"The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

When we no longer fear God, and instead fear wicked men, what candidate would we not support, provided the alternative was worse? Matthew 10:28 exhorts us "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

So where then does this lesser of two evils mentality come from? It certainly does not come from our Constitution.

When citizens are obliged to support one candidate who does not represent them, in order to stop another candidate who does not represent them, they still end up with a government that does not represent them.

President John Quincy Adams enjoins us, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” The decision to vote for the “lesser evil” is primarily made out of fear.
Christ’s standard requires that we fear no one but God. 2 Timothy 1:7 declares "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Is it truly such a terrifying thought to consider what our country would be like if one million folks who know the God of nature chose to reject the “lesser of two evils” philosophy and instead chose to honor God by refusing to do some evil that good might come of it?We aren't called to calculate which candidate will murder fewer innocents, we are called to “seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.” Matthew 6:33. It is never right to do wrong, to do right.

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.

God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak
Not to act is to act."
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

For years, Americans have been dragging themselves to the polls and voting for the lesser of two evils. And that seems to be the accepted norm for exercising their "freedom" of choice and for choosing their leader(s) of the this country at all levels of government.

However, choices based on that strategy seem to work only for the short-term (at best), and after closer scrutiny, aren't really choices at all. In the long run, it seems that regardless of how much "change" we vote in, the newly elected pick up where their predecessors left off, totally or in part, and the law of diminishing returns sets in.

Term after term, the "lesser of two evils" lowers the quality of life for everyone and keeps approaching the perceived goal of America's decline. MAKE NO MISTAKE. This occurs regardless of which political party is in power. The hole to dig out of becomes deeper, and successive presidents, senators and representatives (each one "the lesser of two evils") are less capable and less willing to do the necessary digging, but more eager and more willing to whittle away at your rights and justify an insatiable appetite for spending your money.

That has been the story of leadership across this American Republic for at least the last century, or so.

And every election cycle, those seeking your vote prey on the short attention spans and memories of the American people. They present a crisis (manufactured) that their predecessor/political party has been dropping the ball on, and the only solution to this problem is voting for them and the political party they represent.

How many of you have heard, or even said, "At least he's not (insert name of current politician that seems like the complete opposite of who you're voting)" OR, "I'm not that enthusiastic about either, but I have to go with the lesser of two evils. This country is in real trouble!"

Where does it stop?!

The voter who is chronically addicted to the "lesser of two evils" is like a man in debt who borrows to pay it off. He borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

And just like the federal debt, which grows only as fast as the justification for it, the election of one lesser after another keeps expanding America further and further from the country in which our founders envisioned. Finally, the thought of stepping outside the two-party system to find a real candidate who actually believes in the Constitution seems like a pipe dream, because all the prior "lessers" have screwed things up so badly, have sold so out badly, have trampled on the Constitution so blatantly, that the shell-shocked public accepts these "lessers" as the status quo and they just hunker down and absorb their captivity and the futility of their action to change it. Eventually, they become the "lessers" most ardent campaigners and their captivity births Political Stockholm Syndrome.

At that point, people say, "Stop all this nonsense about a third-party candidate. You will never win. We have to choose from the two candidates in front of us, and the parties they represent. Sometimes, you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils."

It might be interesting to ask people at polls across the nation, "Are you voting for the lesser of two evils today?"

Well, allow me to introduce two different candidates. These are two candidates who are in different races entirely, but have one thing in common: Mark Wichern is running for US Congress, Florida-District 1 and Rebecca Sharp is running for Florida House-District 17, and BOTH are running under NO PARTY AFFILIATION! Both Mark Wichern and Rebecca Sharp have a 'Creed over Clan' mindset, assuring their adherence to the Constitution, not the current direction of political winds. With either one of them, you won't ever have to worry about choosing between parties. In fact, an election victory for Mark Wichern or Rebecca Sharp would be a direct victory for the people they represent, and not a political party! Now before you exercise your Political Stockholm Syndrome and list the various reasons why they're not running Republican or Democrat, press the pause button and absorb the following with an open mind, keeping in mind that the first three words of the US Constitution (Preamble) are "We the People," and they are written in a text size at least 10 times larger than the rest of the Constitution. I assure you, this wasn't the founders' realizing they would run out of space if they didn't change the text size, rather an emphasis on the bedrock of the entire document, and a reminder to us where all power was derived. So many have said that a vote for a NPA candidate is "throwing away their vote." Please explain to me how voting for a candidate who does the opposite of his/her party platform or promise(s) is not throwing away their vote! In fact, the case could be made that the latter is far worse. These candidates are not running NPA because they can't beat the sitting Republican or Democrat. They're running NPA because they truly believe that stepping outside the control of political parties will render them ineffectual, and their perspective electoral victories would belong to ONLY the voters who elected them, NOT a political party who cannot be held responsible. Think about it, do you think when it comes to crunch time a party-affiliated candidate is really free to vote their conscience, or tow the line of the party that got them elected?!

Rebecca Sharp and Mark Wichern, both hold the same view as George Washington when he warned our young country about the pitfalls of political parties in his farewell address, as he left office, as our first president:

"...Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally...It exists under different shapes in all governments, but in those of the popular form it is truly their worst enemy.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads, at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, who turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty..."

Sound familiar? If you cannot see that this short excerpt describes, in a chilling way, what we call "politics as usual," today, then it wouldn't even matter if George Washington said, "I told you so."

Official Position: "Ferguson"

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:59:00 +0000

"Ferguson"

Oath Keepers, National(25NOV14):

Calling all skilled veterans and patriots! We need your help in Ferguson, Missouri. Oath Keepers has a Security Team on the ground right now, in Ferguson, guarding businesses. That team is lead by local Oath Keepers, including retired Missouri police and consists of military veterans, police, and skilled first responders. The team has been protecting four local businesses since the riots erupted, and has been out there every night since, and will do so as long as it takes, but they need your help! (See below for list of skills needed, and how to connect with the team). (Read entire call to action/comments)

Citation:

Oath Keepers is NOT a militia or paramilitary force. Oath Keepers mission is to Reach, Teach and Inspire those who took the oath, to keep that oath. Therefore participation in or endorsement of Oath Keepers, National call to impose as a paramilitary/security force is outside the scope of the mission and By-Laws of Oath Keepers.

Florida Oath Keepers(28NOV14):

What has always set us apart from many other groups is the fact that we have a focused mission to reach out to the current serving members of the above agencies and educate them about their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, and the oaths they took to support and defend such. Our goal is to Reach, Teach and Inspire them through such educational.

If suddenly we change that mission and call on members to take up arms and become a security force, we are no longer educators. To many, we have now become a militia group or even a paramilitary group. We will not be judged based on our intent, but our actions.

What we think means nothing! “Perception is Reality”. If we are perceived as a militia by law enforcement and the public, then we are a militia. (In Stewart's own words)

Therefore, involvement to help those in Ferguson, MO, in any capacity, is a personal decision and such action should never be blanketed as an organizational call to action, especially an educational organization such as Oath Keepers. For all of these reasons, Florida Oath Keepers hereby publicly nullifies the above action by National Oath Keepers, and denounces any and all involvement, corporately, regarding their action(s) as armed security in Ferguson, MO.

NULLIFIED!

###

Related/Supporting Links:

(Link-1)(Link-2)(Link-3)(Link-4)(Link-5)(Link-6)(Link-7)
(Oath Keepers By-Laws)
(Oath Keepers Position on Citizen Militias)
(About Oath Keepers)

FL Position Posts: Where We Stand

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:05:00 +0000

FL Position Posts: Where We Stand

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan, association comprised of active duty and veteran military, law enforcement, firefighters, and all who take seriously their oath to support and defend the U.S.Constitution.

Our goal, being educational in nature, is to Reach, Teach and Inspire those who took this oath to keep this oath, and that there is no statute of limitations on this oath. We work hand in hand with all law enforcement agencies whenever possible, to be of help during any period of emergency. As military, law enforcement and firefighters, many Oath Keepers have received specialized training that can be a valuable adjunct to our sworn officers in an emergency.

Oath Keepers does not promote, condone or tolerate offensive violence in any form. We are not a militia or paramilitary group. We intend to simply be a resource, in time of crisis, to remind and inspire all oath takers to uphold the rule of law (ie. their oath), essentially keeping their oath and the peace in the community. Our rule of law is the most important in times of crisis, where expediency (unconstitutional) may be the tempting course of action. For more on who we are/aren't and where we stand: click here.

As significant current events arise, Florida Oath Keepers will post their official position regarding their official involvement in such events. Keep in mind, although Florida Oath Keepers has a specific mission that may not include the cause or efforts of such events, that does not necessarily imply Florida Oath Keepers' disagreement with such causes, nor does it prohibit members of Florida Oath Keepers from participation in such events in an individual, unofficial/non-representative capacity. Florida Position Posts will be tagged with one or both of the following label(s): Official Position, NULLIFIED!*

*Throughout the Florida Oath Keepers, our focus is in keeping with the mission and by-laws as written, adopted and printed by the National Oath Keepers organization, of which Florida Oath Keepers is a state chapter.

To this end, the Florida Oath Keepers shall nullify the mandates, directives and official positions of Oath Keepers, National in such circumstances when they have rendered an official position, directive, mandate or endorsement in any other way that conflicts or contradicts their own mission statement or by-laws. For more information about, or to view all NULLIFIED! position posts and why they are even necessary, click here.

NULLIFIED!

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:44:00 +0000

The concept of nullification, introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, was a peaceful means to disobey (ignore) the unconstitutional usurpations taken by the federal government, which clearly violated the Constitution, specifically, The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

What does this have to do with Florida Oath Keepers?

Oath Keepers was founded on the very spirit of nullification, and is showcased in their '10 Orders We Will Not Obey.' So, in that same spirit, and with the inspiration of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the leadership of Florida Oath Keepers have adopted a resolution regarding the official positions taken/directives given by Oath Keepers, National (ie. President/Board of Directors), regarding topic(s)/issue(s) that the Florida Oath Keepers leadership believe to clearly reside outside the scope/mission of Oath Keepers and/or could cause harm to Oath Keepers (individually or as an organization). It has been after exhaustive (and documented) efforts to reconcile these differing viewpoints/beliefs (for the above stated reasons, among many) on the part of Florida Oath Keepers, with Oath Keepers, National, that this remedy has been sought.

And so, whenever the official position of the Oath Keepers' official position differs from that of Florida Oath Keepers, FL Oath Keepers will 'declare the causes which impel us to the separation' and post, on this site, said position.

This will include the following three parts:

1. Oath Keepers' Official Statement (to include supporting evidence)

2. The citation of the conflict/violation/contradiction of the official mission or by-laws of Oath Keepers, National

3. Florida Oath Keepers' Official Statement.

In cases when mandates/directives are issued from Oath Keepers, National, that the leadership of Florida Oath Keepers believe to clearly reside outside the scope/mission of Oath Keepers and/or could cause harm to Oath Keepers (individually or as an organization), that directive will be nullified and an official statement (as formatted above) will be posted to this site. Although all nullification action taken by Florida Oath Keepers leadership is unanimous and will be exclusively posted on this site, it is assumed that all other positions/directives from Oath Keepers, National, not labeled 'NULLIFIED!' are fully complied and are in full agreement and cooperation by the Florida Oath Keepers, so long as they do not conflict with the mission and/or by-laws of Oath Keepers.

The following is the Resolution unanimously agreed upon by the leadership of the Florida Oath Keepers, pursuant to the officially adopted mission statement and by-laws of the Oath Keepers, National.

The Florida Resolution:
RESOLVED, That the Executive Leadership of Florida Oath Keepers, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the original mission of Oath Keepers, as established in said Constitution and By-Laws, against every aggression, distraction or subversion, either exterior or from within, and that any and all action(s) taken or directives given to the contrary of the original mission shall be officially NULLIFIED!

That this state chapter doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it does not view all positions/declarations/directives given by the National organization of Oath Keepers to be integral with the original mission of Oath Keepers; and that in case of a irresponsible, vicarious, and potentially dangerous issuance of such, Florida Oath Keepers, who are partied thereto, are duty bound, to interpose for a consistent, common-sense approach, and for maintaining, the original mission of Oath Keepers, pursuant to the By-Laws of Oath Keepers.

That the good people of the leadership of Florida Oath Keepers, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states and national organization; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the mismanagement of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to the mission of Oath Keepers, hereby declare the causes which impel us to preemptive separation, that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by Florida Oath Keepers to maintain such fidelity, even by means of internal nullification through official position and action.

Agreed to by the leadership of Florida Oath Keepers, October 22nd, 2014

(Although it is understood that true nullification applies to a tyrannical governmental relationship, Florida Oath Keepers are guided, in this respect, by the spirit of nullification as the rightful remedy to issues, the nature of which, can be best gathered by the spirit of this excerpt from Patrick Henry's
'Liberty or Death' speech, below.)

"Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!..."

- Patrick Henry, March 23rd, 1775

View all Florida Oath Keepers

NULLIFIED! Statements here

BEWARE of the "Useful Idiots" of Gulf Coast Gun Forum

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:16:00 +0000

Anyone who has the slightest clue as to the founding of our country, knows that the Declaration of Independence was the inspiration for the US Constitution. US Constitution was created to form and lend power to a federal government. Furthermore, that this power was borrowed from the States and We the People (see the 9th & 10th Amendments), and that this federal power was limited therein.

So, in short, the US Constitution is probably the most "pro-federal government" document we have in existence today, since it is the ratification of such which birthed and empowered our federal government.

If a government has no power except for the specified powers lent to it by the people (and States), and they operate outside of the specified powers lent to it, is it lawful? What's the point of the original charter (Constitution) if it isn't considered binding?

Oath Keepers are advocates for those who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Our mission is in our name. We are not a militia. There may be other groups for that, but that's not us. We are all about reaching those who took that oath, educating them as to what they took an oath to, and inspiring them to uphold and "keep" that oath. THAT'S IT!

There are many who have tried to paint us as a racist, anarchist, extremest group, hell-bent on overthrowing the government. If they stopped to listen to what they were saying, they would see the lunacy in their claims. What oath would we encourage to uphold if there were no government? The entire point of the oath is to serve WITHIN the confines of the US Constitution and to keep the oath to do just that.

In spite of Northwest Florida primarily being a bastion of conservative patriots, occasionally there are a few libtards that slip through the cracks. Either they are fully in bed with a statist government, regardless of party, or they are simply 'useful idiots.' I cannot figure out which is worse. Either way, they are as destructive to liberty as the communism. It's even worse that they think they are educated enough to know the difference, and are happy to exercise the freedoms, liberties and rights in which they are standing against.

Enter Gulf Coast Gun Forum. I find it ironic that this forum got it's genesis from the frustration of being censored/banned from advertising firearms/accessories on the Pensacola Fishing Forum. When they first broke off, I was fully in support of them, claiming that free speech and the liberty-minded would always prevail over stale statist censorship. I guess it's the right of Pensacola Fishing Forum to constrain their content to just the marine. Let's take a look at the 'vast difference of opinion' here. On the 'Forum Rules' page of the Gulf Coast Gun Forum, they state:

Gulf Coast Firearms Forum Firmly Believes in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and will comply with federal, state, municipal, and tribal law enforcement entities pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and Due Process of Law.

REALLY?!!! Compare that to Oath Keepers' stance:

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians or any political party. In the long-standing tradition of the U.S. military, we are apolitical (non-partisan).

On a side note, I couldn't help but notice the irony in the GCGF's claim that they firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, and they will comply with all laws pursuant to the Constitution. The state their belief in the second part of the 2nd Amendment [the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,] but listed the first part of the 2nd Amendment [A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,] as grounds for permanent banning, without warning. A little education would go a long way here. With the stated views of GCGF, the action taken should have clearly merited a politely worded email to the violator, warning them, but not permanent banning and baseless, inflammatory, serious accusations in plain view for the BATF to see (more on the BATF below). Instead, "the moderator" opted for these baseless, inflammatory accusations.

Either those responsible are ignorant or they are lying. If their actions are intentional, they are statists. If their actions are because of ignorance, well, in the age of information, ignorance is choice. Either way, the Gulf Coast Gun Forum has taken a stance during a time when one must know exactly what they believe. They are clearly Sunshine Patriots, protecting their lives, fortunes and sacred honors as the expense of joining in a propagandist smear campaign against true patriots. Either through ignorance or by intent, Gulf Coast Gun Forum has taken the stance of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many other leftist groups (additional link), condemning the Oath Keepers of being 'anit-government' and a group whose purpose is to overthrow or harm the United State government. I guess socialists love the Emerald Coast too, and we can see that from Obama's re-election, Rules for Radicals works! I just never thought Gulf Coast Gun Forum would jump on board. It doesn't matter if they hold this view because they are underground leftists or because they are ignorant of Oath Keepers' mission; They are responsible for their actions/accusations. There are many patriots, once they see this, that will avoid association/business with this forum. Patriots who have sacrificed and served their country, only to accused of harming the same country they protected by individuals exercising the very rights these patriots fought to protect!

(Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this situation prior to the posting of this article)

Please note that the Oath Keeper(s) who was banned stated specifically that Oath Keepers were not anti-government or a militia. But after speaking with the Admin of GCGF (see contact info below), Oath Keepers were told that the accounts were banned because of "advertising." But you can see that is NOT the reason listed in the above banning notice. The Admin said that GCGF made a mistake and that he apologized. But, he did not make it right by reinstating any account(s). Furthermore, I challenge you to find on the Rules page of GCGF, to find the violation.

(click for larger view)

The Admin further said that it was not a political forum and it was strictly a forum about shooting and firearms and sales thereof. If that is the case, explain the entire threads titled, "Off-Topic, Not Gun Related, Post Here" and "Vids, Links and Pics, Post up any videos or pictures you'd like to share. Please mark if NSFW." Furthermore, I browsed GCGF and found numerous non-firearm, strong political posts. They were not removed. Does this mean Oath Keepers have been targeted? I don't know, but at the very least, it is extremely inconsistent.

But, something that was even more disturbing was that Admin informed Oath Keepers that GCGF was constantly monitored by BATF. Now, if that is the case, this makes the baseless accusations of GCGF even more serious! It is almost as if they wanted more that the intended recipient of the ban notice (Oath Keepers) to see an association between Oath Keepers and "a group whose purpose is to overthrow or cause harm to the American government."

However, this is a false association. And doing so intentionally or because of ignorance doesn't matter when one does so with full knowledge that the BATF will see.

What are Oath Keepers going to do about this?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Well, if you're looking for someone to make your displeasure clear, look no further. The following is what the NW Florida Regional Director has asked to make this right. Feel free to copy and paste:

Ian Lintner,

You have lied and allowed lies about the Oath Keepers to stand as the truth. This is not acceptable. Oath Keepers, who have sacrificed and served their country to protect the 1st & 2nd Amendments which you enjoy and have built a business upon, do not take kindly to unchecked, baseless, inflammatory abuse of that sacrifice/service by you or Gulf Coast Gun Forum members/employees. Furthermore, you have made yourself and the GCGF a clear enemy by doing so, having full knowledge of the BATF monitoring of your site, and spreading lies regarding Oath Keepers. This is viewed as intentional if you do not immediately make this right. From this point forward, I will cease all business and association with Gulf Coast Gun Forum and do my best share the true nature of your organization and encourage other Oath Keepers, veterans and patriots to do the same. No avenue of recourse will not be unexplored, until you make this "mistake" right.

You can make this right by stating in email, that you lied about Oath Keepers, in full view of the BATF. Include that the reason GCGF stated for banning was an irresponsible mistake. And the accusations about any Oath Keeper threatening your family or business were complete fabrications to rally support.

- One of the many who have sacrificed to protect the freedom you now enjoy. I am ashamed to know so-called Americans like you are out there.

Gulf Coast Gun Forum Contact form*

Gulf Coast Gun Forum Twitter Page

“There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men.”- Edmund Burke

*When contacting GCGF via their online contact form, the email goes straight to the following forum admin:

Ian Lintner
(Lloyd's Auto Glass, General Manager)
850-393-1839

GCGF Username: ilintner

RELATED:

Oath Keepers Emergency Collapse Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:47:00 +0000

The County Sheriff: More Power than the Governor AND the President

noreply@blogger.com (WeBasics+) — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:06:00 +0000

"...Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers."

For many years, the people’s attention in the Battle for America has been directed toward the federal government and its offices. Candidates stand for the House and the Senate. Patriotic groups publish voting records of incumbents. Considerable time, effort and money are expended in support of candidates for President. After decades of such commendable activity, the record shows it is an utter failure. The danger to the nation is worse than it ever was.

For many of those years, Republicrud bosses whined that if the people would only give them control of the federal government, they would undo Democrud damage and restore Free Enterprise. Finally, the people gave it to them. Remember? The Republicruds controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office long enough to turn the country around. What happened? The Republicruds made our problems much worse. Their spending made the profligate drunken sailor look like Scrooge. They deserved it when the people kicked them out. They lost all credibility.

Yes, there is Dr. Ron Paul. But Dr. No is a political aberration. Time and again, he stands alone. He has neither men’s room problems nor woman problems. He doesn’t take congressional retirement. He actually returns “money” (computer entries) to the federal treasury. He proposes abolishing the Fed and the income tax and replacing them with nothing. In foreign affairs he suggests that we mind our own business. Imagine! But, again, he is an aberration.

Why? Certainly one reason has to be that we ship the successful congressional candidate off to the District of Corruption. However good the new congressman may have been when he or she boarded the plane to the District; he is subjected to intoxicating blandishments when he arrives in the enemy camp.

Soon, he succumbs to the blandishments, maybe even making himself blackmailable, and begins to vote as the party boss says, without even reading the bills. Instead of representing the people of his congressional district in the District of Criminals, he represents the D.C. to the C.D. He or she now is one of the boys or the girls. It has happened hundreds of times.

So, if the long, heroic effort to elect federal legislators has failed, does there remain any governmental Horatius who can stand in the gap; who can lead the Battle for America and restore the Constitution? There is. Lock and load, mount up and prepare for the return of the sheriff.

My guess is that in the minds of many Americans the sheriff is an antiquated figure who lives in the movies. In the older movies he is the hero; he is Gary Cooper in “High Noon,” awaiting the train that will bring killer Frank Miller back to town. In the new ones, he is the southern sheriff, even bigger than Rosie O’Donnell, sneering, sadistic, racist, violent, etc. He has no modern relevance.

But now here comes Sheriff Richard Mack, elected and re-elected in Graham County, Arizona, where he served for eight years. During his tenure, three federal agents came to a meeting of Arizona sheriffs and told them in certain terms how they would be dragooned as unpaid federal bureaucrats and administer the new, federal Brady gun registration law.

The law was named of course for Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, who was severely wounded in the immensely suspicious attempt to assassinate the President. Since then, Mrs. Brady has become a leader of the campaign for Nazi gun confiscation. I don’t know whether she was as crazy before the shootings as she is now. Just one more increment of lunacy and they would have to lock her up.

Richard Mack and the other Arizona sheriffs at the meeting rebelled. Sheriff Richard says the language he heard – in which he did not participate – could not be repeated in the presence of genteel Christian ladies, so we can’t tell you here what the sheriffs said. But Sheriff Mack did take the government to court. He sued the United States, and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana joined him as plaintiff.

On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:

“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)

Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution:

“[T]he 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 Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921):

“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.

He quotes President Madison again:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922)

No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.

Madison explains:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.

To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants to the federal government.

The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution grants the “general authority,” Madison’s term for the federal government, against the vast residual powers of the states. Each sphere of government, state and federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.

Madison says this:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” Loc. Cit.

What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers.

What? The sheriff can do that? He’s not just a character in a movie? That’s right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once. Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug, Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., haven’t told them.

Remember, the office of sheriff has a pedigree so long, we are not positive about when it was created. We think it was in the Ninth Century in England. We do know that each land district, or “shire,” was governed by a “reeve.” The sheriff of Nottingham became famous. At first, the king appointed them. With few exceptions, our American shire reeves are elected by the people.

In 1997, in Nye County, Nevada, federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. The cows stayed where they were. Wyoming sheriffs have told federal agencies they must check with the respective sheriff before they serve any papers, make any arrests or confiscate any property.

In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was “inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.” More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.

While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t fix it. First they had to do an “environmental impact study,” to replace a bridge already there. They were in no hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.

The people’s suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.

So the long dormant spirit of America is reviving. The states are beginning to adopt Tenth Amendment resolutions, using powers they have always had. The people are restoring our long unbalanced constitutional system. There is something “blowin’ in the wind,” but it isn’t what Bob Dylan thought it was. Recently, Sheriff Mack addressed 570 people in Fredericksburg, Texas. He reports that the reception was “beyond fantastic.”

What can you do? For once we are not just complaining. There is a plan. I do not argue that you should forget about Congress. Not at all; if you see an opportunity there, take it. Always remember that right now it is run by people like Barney the Bugger of Taxachusetts, who will be elected by moronth in hith dithtrict until he dieth of AIDS.

Most of the time, when you approach your congressman, you come to complain. In the new crusade, you will approach your sheriff and tell him that he is not only handsome, charming and overwhelmingly masculine, but also that he has powers he may not be aware of. You have come to tell him what they are and to back him up. My guess is, when you tell him that, he will not kick you out.

Tell him you expect him to return the courtesy when the Nazis come from the District of Criminals to get the guns. Tell him you are ready in a minute to serve under his direction in a posse. He will not move to Washington and be corrupted. He will stay there with you. Show him the ten orders the Oath Keepers will not obey. The Oath Keepers are retired and active duty military and police. Their web site is oathkeepers.org. The first order they promise to disobey is an order to disarm you.

Put him together with Sheriff Mack. You will find him at sheriffmack.com. His telephone numbers are 928 792-4340 and 928 792-3888. Bring the sheriff to your town to speak. He will explain all this. Invite your own sheriff. At the meeting I attended, the local sheriff and chief of police were there and loved what they heard. No one dislikes hearing how important he is.

What if your sheriff is stupid or a federal factotum? That is what you will find in many big cities. I once interviewed Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, who said no one should have a hand gun. I asked him how a five foot lady alone in bed could defend herself from a rapist. Realizing he was perilously close to making himself look even dumber than he did usually, Pitchess conceded she could have a long gun.

I brightened. A street sweeper isn’t really the best weapon for close quarters, but it would give the lady a chance. Unfortunately, Pitchess added the word, “unloaded.” I asked him what that five foot lady with an unloaded shotgun could do against a six foot rapist. A police captain sat beside Pitchess during the interview. His job was to extricate Peter from the jams he persisted on getting himself into. The police captain extruded a barrage of miasma. It was effective. I did not get an answer.

In such cases, says Sheriff Mack, move to a county where the sheriff is receptive. Many more will be. For instance, in Texas there are 254 counties. Each has a sheriff. If it is feasible to do so, run for sheriff yourself. Even your wife will be impressed when she sees you with a hog leg on your hip and a star on your vest. Imagine the intense joy of meeting IRS Communists or BATFE Nazis at the county line and denying them admission.

The Battle for America will be decided in your county at your front door. If you act now, later you will not need to “fill your hand.”

[source]

THE FINAL TOAST!

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:00 +0000

It's the cup of brandy no one wants to drink.

On Tuesday, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, the surviving Doolittle Raiders gathered publicly for the last time.

They once were among the most universally admired and revered men in the United States. There were 80 of the Raiders in April 1942, when they carried out one of the most courageous and heart-stirring military operations in this nation's history. The mere mention of their unit's name, in those years, would bring tears to the eyes of grateful Americans.

Now only four survive.

After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, with the United States reeling and wounded, something dramatic was needed to turn the war effort around. Even though there were no friendly airfields close enough to Japan for the United States to launch a retaliation, a daring plan was devised. Sixteen B-25s were modified so that they could take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. This had never been tried before -- sending big, heavy bombers from a carrier.

The 16 five-man crews, under the command of Lt. Col. James Doolittle, who himself flew the lead plane off the USS Hornet, knew that they would not be able to return to the carrier. They would have to hit Japan and then hope to make it to China for a safe landing.

But on the day of the raid, the Japanese navy caught sight of the carrier. The Raiders were told that they would have to take off from much farther out in the Pacific than they had counted on. They were told that because of this they would not have enough fuel to make it to safety.

And those men went anyway.

They bombed Tokyo, and then flew as far as they could. Four planes crash-landed; 11 more crews bailed out, and three of the Raiders died. Eight more were captured; three were executed. Another died of starvation in a Japanese prison camp. One crew made it to Russia.

The Doolittle Raid sent a message from the United States to its enemies, and to the rest of the world: We will fight. And, no matter what it takes, we will win.

Of the 80 Raiders, 62 survived the war. They were celebrated as national heroes, models of bravery. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced a motion picture based on the raid; "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo," starring Spencer Tracy and Van Johnson, was a patriotic and emotional box-office hit, and the phrase became part of the national lexicon. In the movie-theater previews for the film, MGM proclaimed that it was presenting the story "with supreme pride."

Beginning in 1946, the surviving Raiders have held a reunion each April, to commemorate the mission. The reunion is in a different city each year. In 1959, the city of Tucson, Arizona, as a gesture of respect and gratitude, presented the Doolittle Raiders with a set of 80 silver goblets. Each goblet was engraved with the name of a Raider. Every year, a wooden display case bearing all 80 goblets is transported to the reunion city. Each time a Raider passes away, his goblet is turned upside down in the case at the next reunion, as his old friends bear solemn witness.

Also in the wooden case is a bottle of 1896 Hennessy Very Special cognac. The year is not happenstance: 1896 was when Jimmy Doolittle was born.

There has always been a plan: When there are only two surviving Raiders, they would open the bottle, at last drink from it, and toast their comrades who preceded them in death.

As 2013 began, there were five living Raiders; then, in February, Tom Griffin passed away at age 96. What a man he was. After bailing out of his plane over a mountainous Chinese forest after the Tokyo raid, he became ill with malaria, and almost died. When he recovered, he was sent to Europe to fly more combat missions. He was shot down, captured, and spent 22 months in a German prisoner of war camp.

The selflessness of these men ... there was a passage in the Cincinnati Enquirer obituary for Mr. Griffin that, on the surface, had nothing to do with the war, but that captures the depth of his sense of duty and devotion: "When his wife became ill and needed to go into a nursing home, he visited her every day. He walked from his house to the nursing home, fed his wife and at the end of the day brought home her clothes. At night, he washed and ironed her clothes. Then he walked them up to her room the next morning. He did that for three years until her death in 2005."

So now, out of the original 80, only four Raiders remain: Dick Cole (Doolittle's co-pilot on the Tokyo raid), Robert Hite, Edward Saylor and David Thatcher. All are in their 90s. They have decided that there are too few of them for the public reunions to continue.

The events in Fort Walton Beach this week will mark the end. It has come full circle; Florida's nearby Eglin Field was where the Raiders trained in secrecy for the Tokyo mission.

The town is planning to do all it can to honor the men: a six-day celebration of their valor, including luncheons, a dinner and a parade.

Do the men ever wonder if those of us for whom they helped save the country have tended to it in a way that is worthy of their sacrifice? They don't talk about that, at least not around other people. But if you find yourself near Fort Walton Beach this week, and if you should encounter any of the Raiders, you might want to offer them a word of thanks. I can tell you from firsthand observation that they appreciate hearing that they are remembered.

The men have decided that after this final public reunion they will wait until a later date -- some time this year -- to get together once more, informally and in absolute privacy. That is when they will open the bottle of brandy. The years are flowing by too swiftly now; they are not going to wait until there are only two of them.

They will fill the four remaining upturned goblets.

And raise them in a toast to those who are gone.

Obama's And Boston's Lesson: Jihad Works!

noreply@blogger.com (Patriot Sheepdog) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:57:00 +0000

The stupid, it burns.

The wrong answer to terrorism is what we're doing right now.
What our government is teaching prospective terrorists is that all they have to do is manage to get two jackasses who are willing to die to commit mass-murder, even if they kind of suck at it (let's face it, when they blew up those bombs in Boston they did commit their intended deed but an hour earlier and 10x as many people would be dead or missing legs.)

Then they pop a cop trying to rip off a convenience store and toss (non-working; they didn't explode) bombs out the window while trying to elude the cops.

The payoff for doing this is that an entire city shuts down to literal empty sidewalks and train service is halted along a hundred-mile+ stretch.

Even worse now the authorities are allegedly preventing residents who were away from their homes from returning there! You are now being forcibly dispossessed of your residence! Yeah, it's temporary, but so what -- that's my damned house, not yours! Get the hell out of my way!

Need I remind people that the entire point of terrorism is to terrorize? To create economic havoc in a given area through violence, and by doing so advance some social or political goal?
What sort of lesson is the jackass in the Oval Office along with those crap-for-brains idiots in Massachusetts sending to our enemies around the world?

Two *******s shut down a city of 7 million people who then cower in fear in their homes.
Screw that and screw them.
What should be the response is that every American who lives in that area should go about their business while openly carrying a pistol, rifle or both.

Go ahead -- try that terrorist crap with the proper response to such an event and see how long you live. That would instantly be the end of those terrorists and the economic disruption would be zero. It would also send a strong message -- pull that crap and we the people will do our duty as citizens to the common defense.
Instead we have a state and city that claims that doing so is "illegal" and gives the terrorists exactly what they want.

Those terrorists are responsible for murder but they're not responsible for the economic disruption.

You are responsible by putting up with this crap and the government is directly and proximately responsible by demanding that you cower in fear. Two jackasses who kill or injure fewer people than get hurt in car accidents in a given 24 hour period have now conspired with an idiot government to shut down an entire city of 7 million people!

How far we've fallen as a nation. We can't find our balls with both hands these days. We want the nanny cops and government to "protect us." How well did it work at the Marathon? To make it worse Massachusetts is one of those "great states" where you can't legally carry or possess a weapon without a license even though the 2nd Amendment says you have the unalienable right to do so.

I remind everyone that the 2nd Amendment exists for exactly this sort of reason and circumstance. Go read it again if you're challenged in your memory of its words.

These terrorists deserve to assume room temperature as soon as they point a weapon or arm a bomb with the intent to harm anyone else. The more people willing and able to do that the better, and the best way to respond to this sort of crap is to deny them the economic damage they seek to inflict.

Stop being stupid America; you shame our forefathers and those who stood tall when threatened in this nation's past, instead cowering in the corner and giving two murderous, cowardly jackasses exactly what they want.

What we should be doing is slinging weapons and going about our business, willing and able to discharge our duty as citizens toward both common and personal defense.

[source]

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

noreply@blogger.com (Patriot Sheepdog) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:53:00 +0000

April 20, 2013 – 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev is in custody. Assuming that Tsarnaev is indeed guilty of these crimes, a very real threat to public safety has been taken off the streets. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the Tsarnaev brothers have taken the last vestiges of a free society in America down with them.

The Bill of Rights was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4^th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act. The 5^th and 6^th Amendments were similarly abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006 and the 2012 NDAA resolution, which contained a clause allowing the president to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without due process of law.

Americans had already grown accustomed to having their persons and papers searched at the airport without probable cause and without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation. After a brief, politically-motivated backlash against the Bush Administration, Americans similarly resigned themselves to the government tapping their phones, reading their e-mails and generally spying on them wherever they went. Things were already very, very bad.

They just got a lot worse.

Not only did the militarized domestic law enforcement complex put the City of Boston under martial law, but nobody seems to have found it out of the ordinary, much less outrageous. Yes, a few journalists like libertarian Anthony Gregory raised a finger. But, for the most part, nobody seemed to mind that the entire city was under military siege, complete with paramilitary units in full battle gear, battlefield ordinance and tanks. Tanks!

How did we get here? 238 years ago to the day, the inhabitants of the very same city started a war and seceded from their union over a mere infantry brigade attempting to disarm them. Now they cheer those who violate their rights much worse than the British ever did.

When Lee Harvey Oswald was similarly suspected of killing a police officer after assassinating the President of the United States, Dallas was not put under martial law. No tanks rolled through the streets. Oswald was armed at the time of his arrest and attempted to shoot the arresting officer, whose thumb stopped the hammer of Oswald’s pistol from discharging the weapon at point blank range.

It is noteworthy that the military siege was called off several hours before Tsarnaev was captured. In the end, he was found and taken into custody by the same methods that any other criminal has been for most of U.S. history.

So, there was no cause and effect relationship between the state show of power and the apprehension of the suspect.

Now, the DOJ has announced that Tsarnaev will not be read his Miranda rights, citing the “public danger” exception in the 5^th Amendment. But the language in the amendment doesn’t remotely apply to this situation, nor is it even related to the protection against being a witness against oneself. It reads,

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

First of all, Tsarnaev is not in the Army, Navy or militia. Even if he were, the language would only have applied if Tsarnaev had been observed with the bomb in his hands just before committing the crime. The exception gives law enforcement the power to arrest him without first getting a Grand Jury indictment under those circumstances. It doesn’t release the government from the prohibition against compelling Tsarnaev to be a witness against himself after his arrest, which is the basis for Miranda.

If Tsarnaev is guilty, then the public danger was over once he was arrested. The government has no authority to waive any of its obligations for due process. He should be read his rights and allowed to remain silent without molestation. He should have an arraignment where he is given the opportunity to hear the charges against him and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If he is unable to afford a lawyer, one should be assigned to him at public expense. His guilt should be decided by a jury of his peers, not the government or the media.

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev. It wasn’t written for those suspected of minor violations.

The Boston Marathon bombing was a particularly heinous crime. No one with a pulse could help but feel deeply for the parents of an eight-year-old boy killed by this senseless act or the others killed or permanently maimed. Most red-blooded men would have liked nothing better than to have been the one who found Dzhokar Tsarnaev, praying he’d resist arrest.

Those are perfectly healthy feelings, but the awful power of the state is not supposed to be set loose based upon feelings. It is supposed to be restrained by reason. God help us if we forget.

[source]

Law Enforcement told to choose: Gun Control or The Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Patriot Sheepdog) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:48:00 +0000

“This is a message to every member of law enforcement and the military,” a sizzling new YouTube video begins. “You know you have a choice to make.”

The video, produced by a man identified on Facebook as Aaron Hawkins, is a challenge to those who enforce America’s laws, warning them the day is coming when gun-control legislation will undermine the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and police forces will be asked to restrict or even confiscate American citizens’ firearms.

On that day, the video warns, America’s lawmakers will have committed “treason,” and the nation’s police and military will be forced to choose “which side of history you’re going to be on.”

The video, titled “Police & Military – Time to Choose,” cites alleged offenses already enacted against the Constitution from both current and past presidential administrations, including the Patriot Act – which expanded the federal government’s use of domestic security and surveillance powers – and the National Defense Authorization Act – which many worry opens the door to indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

“At this juncture in history, there can be no question that those holding the reins of power in Congress and the Senate and in the executive branch no longer represent the rule of law,” the video continues, “By destroying the Constitution with the Patriot Act and the NDAA and numerous other police-state measures, they have abandoned every shred of legitimacy and have made themselves into enemies of the people.”

Hawkins, who administers a site called StormCloudsGathering.com, paints the picture in stark terms, but says he hopes principled police and military will rather refuse to enforce the laws than permit a conflict over firearms turn to civil war.

“You took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” the video reminds the police and military. “The Congress, the Senate and the executive branch have made themselves into a domestic enemy, and they are going to attempt to use you to help them. It’s time to choose which side of history you’re going to be on.

“Any congressperson or senator who puts their name to any law which infringes on the right to bear arms should be arrested for treason. That would be a literal fulfillment of your oath,” Hawkins continues. “If you don’t want the situation to come to that … send a letter to every congressperson, senator and state lawmaker, a letter not asking them nicely to abide by the Constitution, but letting them no on no uncertain terms what will happen to them if they don’t. Make it clear to them that not only will you refuse to enforce their edicts, but they will be defining themselves as enemies of the Constitution and of the people, if they go down this road.”

The video can be seen below:

Hawkins’ video ends with an appeal to support Oathkeepers.org, which describes itself as “a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people.”

Though there is no indication the organization endorses Hawkins’ video, a similar call to choose the Constitution over gun-control legislation does appear on the Oath Keepers’ website from a New Jersey police officer identified as Oathkeeper151:

Oathkeeper151 includes in his call to fellow police officers a challenge similar to Hawkins, reminding them that laws are only as enforceable as those willing to enforce them.

“If [we] law enforcement officials and military remembered our oaths,” the Oath Keeper states, “[gun-grabbing legislators] wouldn’t be able to do anything.”

[source]

Who Are the Oath Keepers?

noreply@blogger.com (Florida OathKeepers) — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:31:00 +0000

Painted as radicals and racists by some, this organization of law enforcement officers and military vets says its only purpose is to uphold the Constitution.

It started with Katrina. The sight of U.S. military troops, law enforcement officers, and armed government contractors seizing firearms from citizens in the aftermath of that terrible storm shocked the conscience of Yale constitutional law scholar Stewart Rhodes. That these actions were later recognized as wrong by the U.S. Supreme Court did little to assuage Rhodes' concerns. The fact remained that an illegal precedent had taken place, and could well occur again; indeed, it appeared that that the seeds sown in Louisiana might not only take root, but germinate elsewhere, as well.

After witnessing what he saw as an unconstitutional outrage in the wake of Katrina, Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers, an organization for peace officers and soldiers who adhere strictly to the letter of the Constitution and swear not to obey any orders that they believe to be unconstitutional.

The Oath Keepers are essentially a reflection of American political thought in the 21st century. How they are perceived is determined by the ideological bent of the beholder. Lionized by some leading conservatives and libertarians, they have been attacked from the left as radical patriots, tea partyers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, nativists, and racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center has even mentioned them in the same reports that analyze hate groups and white supremacy movements.

Defending History

Oath Keeper founder and president Rhodes says his organization merely stands for a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, which service members and law enforcement officers swear to uphold. He also believes one of the primary purposes for his organization is to educate officers and military personnel about the laws they've promised to defend.

Rhodes' perspective is that the officers' actions after Katrina and other unconstitutional excesses by officers are a matter of ignorance at work. Whether it is institutionalized or willed ignorance is immaterial, he says.

"An honorable man who is doing his very best necessarily becomes knowledgeable," Rhodes observes. "Because if you don't know what's right or wrong, you can be an honest person with great integrity and courage and still do the wrong thing."

According to Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' mission is simply to get back to basics—to ensure that at least part of the country's constituency knows and understands the Constitution and its ideological underpinnings to a sufficient degree that they refrain from violating its tenets out of ignorance, apathy, or fear of political reprisal.

"It's not about finding like-minded officers," says the former Yale history instructor and public defender. "It's about creating people who are knowledgeable about the Constitution. What we're trying to do is cure the dumbing down Americans have gotten from the schools. They're not taught history and they're not taught the Constitution. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to rank and file military officers who haven't read the Constitution. Police officers, too. Have they read the Federalist Papers? The writings of the Founders? It's very rare. That's what we're trying to do: Simply show the intentional ignorance of the American population."

Rhodes—whose 2004 Yale Law School paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status," won the school's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights—says the root of the problem lies within our country's basic curricula. But he also believes there is a silver lining to be found in addressing this deficiency: It's easier when the person reading the Bill of Rights isn't approaching it with notions instilled in them by revisionists.

Tip of the Spear

Rhodes, a disabled Army paratrooper, determined very quickly that he wanted his grassroots organization to work with the men and women serving in the trenches of law enforcement and the military. "We focus on the guys at the tip of the spear, the ones who will be giving the orders," Rhodes says. "The big concern we have is if we have a legion of oath breakers and traitors in Washington, D.C., who have utter contempt for the Constitution then all they care about is power. They just do whatever they think they can get away with."

Rhodes quickly gained the attention of like-minded officers. "In late 2008 I heard on the Internet about the group forming, so I e-mailed Stewart to get more information," says Oath Keeper board member and law enforcement officer John Shirley. "Shortly after that, I had a conference call with him and some other founding members and discovered the group was exactly the kind of organization I had felt was needed for several years."

Shirley got involved and was soon asked to serve as the Texas Chapter's vice president. Less than a year after joining the organization, Shirley addressed a 5,000-member strong Tea Party rally in San Antonio with a speech that was to become a model for future Oath Keepers calls to arms. By July 2010, Shirley was appointed Texas Chapter President and later National Peace Officer Liaison, and he now serves on the organization's board of directors.

Patriot Movement

Since the birth of the organization, Oath Keepers' members have found themselves subject to all manner of suspicion and labeling, and repeated criticism by the anti-Klan Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which cites the Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Responding to the SPLC report on the Lou Dobbs radio show, Rhodes said, "They think the word 'patriot' is a smear."

The intent of the SPLC and other critics like the Anti-Defamation League is to characterize the Oath Keepers as a bunch of Timothy McVeigh wannabes. And unfortunately for those who defend the group, there are some fringe elements that are not so much pro-Bill of Rights as anti-government. One Oath Keeper, a former naval officer, actually participated in a plot to take over a Tennessee courthouse to free a man who was arrested for trying to enforce a citizen's arrest on a judicial official who refused to investigate President Barack Obama's citizenship. There are also elements in the group's "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey" that smack to some of black helicopter globalist paranoia. Rhodes says the list doesn't mean the Oath Keepers believe all of these actions are imminent, merely that they will refuse to participate in them should they happen.

Perhaps the criticism that makes Rhodes bristle most is any insinuation that Oath Keepers promote white supremacy. Opining on the Oath Keepers, a visitor to the SPLC Website asserted that its members are "nothing but the Ku Klux Klan with a new name and without the silly robes and pointed caps." Oath Keepers refutes such charges formally as evidenced by its bylaws and informally by the demographic of its membership. Rhodes himself says he is one-quarter Mexican and part Apache.

Freedom of Speech

Rhodes also laments that Oath Keepers has borne the brunt of attacks from Democrats simply because that party currently occupies the White House. "That is the unfortunate reality of our political system," he notes. "When your party is in political power and anybody criticizes them, you attack." The mission of Oath Keepers crosses political boundaries, he says. "I support the Constitution. I don't like oath breakers, whether they're Republicans or Democrats."

While the organization's stance on the Second Amendment has garnered the lion's share of media-related attention revolving around the Oath Keepers, it is another amendment that looms ever larger as a barrier against the organization communicating its message.

Many active law enforcement officers find their First Amendment rights cramped by their employing agencies. In some cases, such suppression is due to strict departmental regulations barring officers from voicing personal opinions about law enforcement in public forums, whether printed in newspapers and magazines or posted online in social media. In other cases, the lack of a clear policy may lead officers to err on the side of self-suppression. In either instance, many officers are fearful to stand up and openly voice their opinions.

Because of the restrictive policies of many law enforcement agencies, Shirley finds it difficult to believe that "there are officers out there who are working the streets, fighting crime, protecting the public who, when they hang up the uniform at night, can't exercise their basic rights under the First Amendment."

As an active duty police officer with the Houston Police Department, Shirley clearly and repeatedly states that when he advocates for Oath Keepers, he does so as a private citizen and not as a representative of his department. In doing so, he is careful to act within the department's policy.

In Shirley's estimation, "Just because you wear a badge doesn't mean you surrender your First Amendment rights. I look at it like departments should not try to squash the First Amendment rights of their officers and step all over the fact that because they happen to carry a badge doesn't mean you hang up your constitutional rights so you retire. That's a very unethical and a very dangerous place to go for an agency."

Eroding Rights

In recent months, the Oath Keepers have argued against what they say are new and alarming overtures by the Obama administration. While the need for greater intelligence sharing between law enforcement and military parties is a legitimate one, the melding of their responsibilities through interventionary operations relating to homeland security and narcotic investigations further elevates Rhodes' concerns.

High on the Oath Keepers' list of concerns is Eric Holder's stumping for the usage of drones on domestic targets and the drumbeat for gun confiscation among some liberal political camps.

"They don't understand that they are putting police officers on a collision course with veterans and gun owners in their communities," notes Shirley. "The Oath Keepers' message for both sides is to not to bleed for corrupt politicians. That means that police officers have to refuse to use force."

The Oath Keepers believe that what they see as the transgressions against the Constitution committed under both Bush's and Obama's watch will encourage Americans to educate themselves as to the true breadth of their rights and to re-examine their society.

"Educate yourself," advises Shirley. "The main impetus of the education you got in whatever police academy you've been through has been liability control for whatever agency you work for. Educate yourself on the Constitution. Educate yourself on the founders. Educate yourself on what is expected of you on the street vs. what the Constitution says. If you apply what the Constitution says, you're not going to get crossways with the people or in most cases your department. It's errant policies and errant oath breakers and politicians who are going to push you to do things that you've never done before. Trust your gut and educate yourself on what you really swore to that day you held your hand up and swore an oath. Be prepared to stand up for what you believe in and what you swore an oath to."

Rhodes and Shirley are reaching out to active law enforcement officers to help spread the word and renew their oaths to uphold the ideals within the Constitution.

"One guy at the right place at the right time can make all the difference for an entire unit," says Rhodes. "It's nice to have police officers use their quiet discretion and make it known within their communities that they are on your side. But it's also critically important for the tip of the iceberg to be there too. There are very vocal and very public peace officers who step up and risk their careers like John [Shirley] is doing to say there are people among us who understand the Constitution and will not do this."

In the meantime, Rhodes sees the organization as a means of preventing confrontations and de-escalating situations both through finding common ground with less predictable sources and mitigating the prospects for needlessly precipitous actions by law enforcement administrators.

"It helps the people feel more secure," explains Rhodes. "Because what other securities do they have? If they can't rely on the politicians to not trample on their rights in the first place, and they can't rely on the judges to fix it, they have to have some reliance that the police officers are not going to do it."

10 Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey

We will not obey any order to disarm the American people.
We will not obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects—such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.
We will not obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunals.
We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor.
We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
We will not obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext.
We will not obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

[source]

Ancient History and Modern Constitutional Powers of American Sheriffs

noreply@blogger.com (Patriot Sheepdog) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:44:00 +0000

Are America's Constitutional Sheriffs Liberty's Last, Best Hope?

Can America’s sheriffs save our Constitution and our precious liberties? The exhaustive history of the sheriff has yet to be written, but much is known of the rise of these county leaders, once called shire reeves, in old England. Sheriffs are termed the “the oldest appointment of the English crown.” They represent transition from simple local rule to a nationalized attempt at keeping law and order. Sheriffs were first established when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were finally assembled into the Wessex-based Kingdom of England sometime around 1000 AD.

In the Colonies, the Crown established sheriffs, as done in Britain by royal decree. But, before long, the democratic process was employed to elect them. Today, they are the last bastion of popular representation in law enforcement. Ironically, it now appears that the ancient sheriff, the last representative of popular, local federalism—might be the last chance for America to retain our civil liberties before the onslaught of Leviathan—the colossus of government tyranny. This hope is best represented by the Oath Keepers, a group educating and supporting local sheriffs as defenders of our Constitution against creeping federal insurgency. Add to this the doctrine of Nullification, or refusal to apply unconstitutional laws, which sheriffs are now applying across America on various topics, such as gun regulations, and refusing federal demand for control.

This article is composed in two parts to better describe the history, function and constitutional warrant of the local, county American sheriff.

I. What is a Sheriff?

A sheriff is the main peace keeper of a county in both ancient England and modern America. The office is defined by Webster’s:

In the U.S., the chief law-enforcement officer for the courts in a county. He is ordinarily elected, and he may appoint a deputy. The sheriff and his deputy have the power of police officers to enforce criminal law and may summon private citizens (the posse comitatus, or “force of the county”) to help maintain the peace. The main judicial duty of the sheriff is to execute processes and writs of the courts. Officers of this name also exist in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. In England the office of sheriff existed before the Norman Conquest (1066).

II. Ancient History of the Sheriff—Britain

The office of sheriff is said to be “the oldest appointment of the English crown.” The term Sheriff is derived from the ancient British designate “shire reeve.” A shire is an English term defined by the Free Dictionary as: “A former administrative division of Great Britain, equivalent to a county.” The term reeve is defined by Webster’s as: “a local administrative agent of an Anglo-Saxon king,” or “a medieval English manor officer responsible chiefly for overseeing the discharge of feudal obligations.”

A. History of the Shire Reeves

Thomas Jefferson claimed of the office of sheriff: “there is no honorable law enforcement authority in Anglo-American law so ancient as that of the county sheriff whose role as a peace officer goes back at least to the time of Alfred the Great.”

To the contrary, Schenectady, NY Sheriff Buffardi offers this history of the beginnings of sheriffs in England to about 1000 AD, where groups of men—called hundreds, were assembled for defensive and taxation purposes:

The office of sheriff did not appear suddenly. It’s prolonged development began over 1000 years ago in England, arising simultaneously as local government structure evolved. This form of government allowed early English people to be divided into smaller units subject to the considerations of a national interest and central authority of the king. The formation of the units was crucial to the central authority because the population was scattered and Saxon kings had no large standing armies, a centralized court system, or the ability to finance a government appropriately. The small unit management therefore became crucial to a national development of government.
While these shires (counties) were in the developmental and refinement stage, a custodian was chosen by the fellow members of the hundreds to be their “gerefa” or guardian. Later this title was to become known as “reeve”. The combination of the unit known as scir or shire and the administrative title of reeve would eventually develop into the word “sheriff”. With the exception of king, no English institution is older than this office. The earliest mention of a position somewhat like a sheriff was in the 970s during the reign of King Edgar.

Wessex King Cnut wrote a letter with one of the earliest uses of the term “sheriff” in 1027, mentioning abuses already associated with the office:

I command all the sheriffs and reeves over my whole kingdom, as they wish to retain my friendship and their own safety, that they employ no unjust force against any man neither rich nor poor, but all men of noble or humble birth shall have the right to enjoy just law, from which there is to be no deviation in any way, neither on account of the royal favour nor out of respect for any powerful man, nor in order to amass money for me.

III. The Rise of the Sheriff

Theodore Frank Thomas Plucknett describes “The Rise of the Sheriff,” in his masterpiece A Concise History of the Common Law. He explains how the creation of England in the early 10th century began with the unified Heptarchy which evolved into the Wessex-based Kingdom of England. This Anglo-Saxon Crown then began seek greater control by connecting with local institutions. The shire, ie county, was an ancient petty kingdom, represented by an alderman by way of the old royal families. These naturally tended to be resistant to modern, kingly centralization. To combat this resistance, the king sent a reeve to stand besides the alderman and represent his position. Plucknett describes this evolution:

Duties of the king’s reeve were very miscellaneous, including both administration and judicial business. It was inevitable as time went on the King’s reeve should grow in importance at the expense of the alderman, and that finally he should take the alderman’s place and become the principal officer of the shire under the name of “sheriff” or “shire reeve”.

As mentioned by Cnut, sheriffs over the years were accused of various acts of tyranny, and the king was forced to limit his power by keeping appointments to one year, and also demand an accounting afterward. Plucknett describes the battle for power between the burgeoning sheriffs and the crown:

At the time of the Norman Conquest the sheriff, as the King’s representative, enjoyed much judicial power, causing the Crown great anxiety, for there was no effective means of controlling him, except an occasional remedy of discharging him when popular unrest grew too strong. A number of attempts were made to find a check upon his powers as a royal judge. Sometimes the Crown appointed a permanent justiciar to sit in the county; the office of coroner was developed in order to serve as a check upon the sheriff; by the Great Charter (Magna Carta) it was finally declared no sheriff should for the future hold pleas of the Crown. This definitive solution robbed the sheriff of a great deal of his ancient power…

IV. Sheriff’s Consolidation of Power: The Tourn & Justicial Debt Collection

A. Biennial Tourn

The sheriff’s began to take on greater powers, by taking on bailiffs, absorbing tax powers, and quite often also acting as judges, according to Plucknett:

Sheriffs secured control over the hundred by appointing bailiffs. His influence further increased by means of the “Sheriff’s Tourn”. Twice a year local meetings were held, attended by the sheriff or his deputy, at which there came to meet him the reeve and his four best men to undergo a searching examination at his hands. They laid before them the most suspicious members of their community; those suspected of grave matters were arrested by the sheriff and held for the King’s Justice, while less serious offenders were amerced by the sheriff. By the close of the middle ages the Justices of the Peace took over for the tourns.

B. Sheriff as Judge & Debt Collector

Pucknett explains how the sheriff’s also were involved in collecting debts:

Another jurisdiction was exercised by the sheriff in the county court in virtue of a royal writ addressed to him, beginning with the word iusticies, “do justice upon” the defendant “so that rightly and without delay he render” to the plaintiff, e.g. a debt which he owes. Other writs were also “viscontial”, giving the sheriff jurisdiction, although not drawn in the form justicies. The implication seems clearly that down to the middle of the 13^th century a large part of the nation’s litigation was in the county court. In this type of proceeding the sheriff was a judge in the modern sense, and the county court was merely the occasion upon which he exercised his jurisdiction. So complicated a situation could only result in confusion, and in fact it is very difficult to disentangle the two branches; The classical doctrine as described by Coke makes the suitors judges of the court in almost all cases. Thus was fulfilled the ancient policy of the crown in reducing the judicial importance of the sheriff at every possible opportunity.

V. Collapse of Sheriff’s Power: Evolution to Penal Reformer

A. Sheriff Howard, Prison Rehabilitator

Buffardi explains how the British sheriff’s power ebbed, and yet—as they still controlled prisons, they humanized the institution. Here, they exerted a mighty influence to help reform these terrible structures into more humane places.

Since the 16th century, the duties of sheriffs in England dealt chiefly with judicial issues, enforcement of debt, and service of process. John Howard, high sheriff of Bedfordshire, became a social activist for penal reform. He exercised the traditional, but usually neglected responsibility of visiting prisons and institutions. He was shocked at the conditions, particularly that jailers received no salary but made their living from prisoners in the form of fees. Many prisoners who had been discharged by the court system still remained in custody because they could not pay the discharge fees owed to their jailers.

Howard inspected prisons, prison ships, and houses of corrections throughout Europe and the US, finding all the facilities overcrowded, undisciplined, dirty, and ridden with disease. Thousands of prisoners were dying annually of diseases. Howard’s graphic descriptions of prison conditions horrified the English people. In 1779, he drafted the “Penitentiary Act,” based upon principles of secure and clean facility. Howard believed prison should not just be a place for industry and labor but also a place for contrition and penitence—a place that reformed inmates through the inculcation of good habits and religious instruction. All prisoners were to have healthy diets, access to conveniences that allowed for good hygiene, and all prisoners were to be provided with uniforms.

B. Decline of British Sheriffs & Rise of American

According to Buffardi, around the time of the development of the American sheriff, the English equivalent began to decline:

Since mid-16th century until the present, England’s sheriffs have had little political clout or government importance compared to the wealth of power enjoyed during medieval times. The justice of the peace relieved the last vestiges of the position’s former judicial duties. The Lord’s Lieutenant removed its military importance and appointment powers of the office were taken away from the king and transferred to parliament. This removed all of the king’s previous opportunity for political patronage, once so important to the position. The serious decline of the office might have been the death of the sheriff if it had not been for England’s colonization. Finding new life on different soil would allow this faltering office to flourish in a transplanted environment. Invigorated in the New World, the office of sheriff would find a whole new potential.

Conclusion

The fascinating rise and decline of the British sheriff foreshadows next week’s history of the American sheriff and their still-undiminished importance as local law-keeper and defender of the Constitution.

[source]

Is Your Sheriff A Constitutional Sheriff?

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:50:00 +0000

Recently, a blog was put out that declared every Florida sheriff, all 67 of them, to be Constitutional sheriffs and that they would stand up for the Second Amendment. This immediately sent up a red flag with Oath Keepers who have been paying attention. Unfortunately, this story got picked up and spread all over the internet. This fanciful notion came about from a rather wishy-washy resolution passed by the Florida Sheriffs Association on January 29, 2013. It's my understanding that only about 50 or so sheriffs even attended the meeting, and a majority of those present voted for the resolution. Hardly overwhelming!

Why do I have a problem with this? Because THIS IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE FEELINGS OF ALL FLORIDA SHERIFFS! As much as we would love for this to be the case, we know better. I know some sheriffs in Florida who would seize your guns in a heartbeat, if they thought it would further their political ambitions. I also know some very good sheriffs who would stand with their citizens and protect them from any infringement of their God-given rights. In these times we do not need a false sense of security. This was simply disinformation, and we won't let it go unchallenged.

So, how can we tell the difference? How can we be sure that our sheriff is not just playing politics?

To understand what our Founders intended, we need to examine several documents. First, the Preamble to the Declaration on Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

In the Founders' time, a-lien-able simply meant that a liencould be place against something, much as a mortgage is placed on your home. These rights are unalienable, therefore, no encumbrance could ever be place upon these natural, God-given rights.

Since these rights are unalienable, they cannot be changed. Not by congress. Not by an executive order. Not even by an amendment.

When you read statements by your sheriff, you need to look at the language they use. Look at how they parse their words. The National Sheriffs Association Second Amendment statement refers to "rights conferred by the Second Amendment". This is totally wrong! Our rights are not given by the Second Amendment or by any document or by "government". They are natural rights. Remember, anything given to you by government can be taken away by government.

Another trap I see in some sheriff's statements goes something like this. "No deputy in my office will every come

after or seize a lawfully owned weapon from law-abiding citizens." What's wrong with that?

Well, if some court, or some congress, or some dictator decides to make a law outlawing your gun, then, guess what? It's not a "lawfully owned weapon", is it? And you are no longer a law abiding citizen. You still have your God-given right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what any government functionary says!

If we are to be well-armed in this fight for the truth, we must have the knowledge that comes from research and study. Study the founding documents such as The Federalist, as well as the Constitution, and other documents of the day. If we have a chance of keeping our rights, we must first understand our rights.

To close, I would like to quote from the closing paragraph of the Utah Sheriffs' Association letter to President Obama from January 17, 2013. It has one glaring error (see if you can spot it), but look at the tone. Is this the mindset you would like to see in your sheriff?

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association

Keep the faith, Oath Keepers!

Mike Austell
President
Florida Oath Keepers

Today, it became real.....

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:57:00 +0000

by Maureen Michelle

2/9/2013

If you've been paying attention these past twelve years, you'll have noticed our Liberty is in grave danger.The unrelenting chipping away of the cornerstone started the day they took the three Towers in New York City.

I am an Oath Keeper. An oath keeper takes seriously their oath sworn to uphold, defend and protect the constitution. I read about the abuses of our government everyday. I've researched House Resolutions, United States Codes and illegal Executive Orders written monthly in defiance to the constitution.

Today ironically, 2 blocks from our town square where the Freedom Trail is commemorated with the golden footsteps of the civil rights movement in 1963, our loss of Liberty became manifest.

Today, in America's oldest city, it became all too real to me. The loss of Liberty actually touched me. It was no longer just words or blogs on the internet. It wasn't something I'd copied and pasted into a forum. No, today I felt the loss of Liberty...For the very first time in my life, it became real to me. I became a Jew, with a yellow star pinned to my chest. I became an Irishwoman tending her man shot by an English soldier, in his own homeland. Today I was the defiant Chinese man standing in front of a tank in Tienanmen Square. Today I was an American, arguing for my free speech....today it was my turn.

This Saturday afternoon, I was in the company of two St Augustine Tea Party Gentlemen. They were dressed in colonial garb,complete with tricorn hats, carrying Gadsden & Molon Labe flags.

This is a weekly happening for them. They pass out pocket constitutions along a busy thoroughfare to tourists & passers by. They spread the message of Liberty to the thousands who visit our city from across the country visiting St. George Street, in America's oldest city.

My tea Party companions Lance and Dave, wanted a picture of themselves for their newsletter standing in front of the Castillo San Marco fort, an historical national landmark.They wanted a picture holding their flags flying.

They warned me before hand that we might "get chased" as we weren't allowed to be just anywhere with our patriotic messages...I didn't really comprehend or register what they were telling me, when they mentioned free speech “zone”.

The wind on top of the rise kept blowing off their hats! The flags were flying in their faces,camera adjustments had to be made, the picture taking was taking longer than it should have. The tourists are coming and going, entering and leaving the fort. They're clapping for us, cheering the Americans, enjoining the flag's sentiments saying "Come & Take It".

I was juggling in my hands a flat brown paper package with fliers inside and a small telephone/camera on video mode. I reached down to catch one of my companion's blown off hat's. I returned it and found a Park Ranger straddled across his bicycle on the hill in front of me. He was smiling at the blowing tricorner hats and us chasing them.

"Ooohh careful now, don't fall" he addressed us on this sunny hillside. Then he addressed me.
"Ma'am, your not allowed to be here with this kind of display, you're not within the 1st amendment free speech zone.."

I stared at him for a moment...handsome healthy looking young man, on a bike. I thought of Central Park in NY, that he could've been riding on a path with his wife or kids.

"Excuse me" I said," I don't think I understood what you just said......?"
The young Park Ranger repeated his initial statement. Very polite, very respectful,soft spoken, smiling with his dazzlingly white teeth.

"Ma'am... you're not allowed to be here with these signs, or pass out material (which I wasn't doing any of) outside of the 1st Amendment zone which is over there down the hill."

It took me a second till it clicked, this is what my Tea Party companions mentioned about the "zone"...!
Me: It sounds like, you are telling me, there is a designated area for free speech, or the 1st amendment?

Park Ranger:Yes ma'am, that is what I am saying...over there, is a section...." he indicated with his head while holding his handlebars leaning on the hill. He responded to my question in such complete nonchalance like I'd asked him where were the drinking fountains or restrooms!

I was incredulous as to what I was hearing....and I am sure my mouth was hanging open in disbelief.

Me: Sir? Did you swear an oath when you took this job?
PR: Yes ma'am, I did..
Me: To what? To what did you swear an oath to?
PR: To the country...
Me: To the constitution?
PR: Yes ma'am.
Me:Yet, you are breaking that oath this very moment!
You're telling me, that on these park grounds, of which I support, I may only exercise my 1st amendment right,which is within the bill of rights, in a designated area? Have we reverted into Nazi Germany sir?
PR: I understand ma'am...
Me: You understand that you, right now, are not only breaking your oath to the constitution you swore to uphold and defend, but attempting to force me to deny my oath as well? You sir are denying me my 1st amendment rights as a citizen of this country! Our rights cannot be designated on a piece of ground! Our rights go from sea to shining sea! They are not your rights to take or give or designate to a piece of ground!

Why have you no American Flag on your uniform? Why is there no American flag flying over this fort? I understand you are just doing your job, but that's exactly what the Nazi's said in Nuremberg Germany. Is this not still the United States?
PR: I understand...this is federally owned ma'am..
Me: Yes, by me! I am the government, I own this park, as do all of these people walking up this sidewalk! This park belongs not to an "office", but of all these people around me here today,including yourself!

Maybe he will think about this when he goes home tonight......

I went home, with all this jazz in my head, the tyranny became real...I felt it today.... and cried.............

[source]

National Sheriffs Assoc. Encourages Sheriffs to Commit “treason to the Constitution”

noreply@blogger.com (Walton Oathkeepers) — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:45:00 +0000

The National Sheriffs Association (NSA) and its President are calling for sheriffs to commit treason to the Constitution! It’s outrageous!

The NSA issued a press release on 2/1/13, “NSA Position Statement on Gun Control.” The shocking document is not so much about gun control as the NSA’s philosophy on the duties of a sheriff.

It is a finely crafted “political statement” in which they say all the right things people want to hear about the Second Amendment. But, it also includes certain philosophies that the average citizen will gloss over but that are even more important than its statement on gun control. In fact, the philosophies neutralize their statements in support of the Second Amendment.

According to the NSA, sheriffs are to enforce whatever laws are passed by Congress and leave it up to the federal courts to decide if such laws are Constitutional. It’s an abuse now, apologize later policy.

It also shows a lack of understanding of how our government works. The lower federal courts have no authority over the states and a state has concurrent power to interpret the Constitution and federal law.

It is in absolute contradiction of the sheriffs’ duties under Article VI clauses 2 and 3. This Article establishes that not every federal law is supreme but that only federal laws passed “in Pursuance” of the Constitution are the “supreme Law of the Land”. The last clause of Article VI requires sheriffs to take an oath to protect the Constitution.

Together these clauses require all state and federal, legislative, judicial, and executive officers (including sheriffs) to have a working knowledge of the Constitution. It also establishes an active, affirmative, and personal duty on their part to protect the Constitution. One cannot protect the Constitution if they do not know what it says and means. Nor can they protect the Constitution by enforcing laws contrary to it or sitting on the sideline while others do so. Again the duty is active and affirmative.

This is exactly the position taken by the NSA. It says “…sheriffs do not possess the legal authority to interpret the constitutionality of any law…”

Yes they must blindly enforce any law that comes down the pike according to the NSA, like a bunch of robotic cops or well-trained apes. These are the kind of guys that would warm the hearts of any segregationist or slave owner trying to get the return of a slave from a “free state.” In fact this was the defense used at the Nuremberg trails following WWII, “I was only following orders.” It did not work there and we should not accept it here.

This type of an attitude works great for those who want a Gestapo or a KGB, but it ill serves a free Constitutional Republic.

In 1821 Chief Justice Marshal said that to accept authority one did not have under the constitution or to refuse authority one did have was “treason to the Constitution”. Cohen v. Virginia.

It’s not just our kids that have been dummied-down. Thank God for the efforts of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association and Sheriff Richard Mack for their efforts to re-educate our country’s law enforcement officers on their constitutional duties. The Oath Keepers are doing the same for our military.
NSA goes on to say “…sheriffs strongly support our citizens’ protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment…” They then compound this erroneous statement by saying “…the National Sheriffs’ Association supports the rights conferred by the Second Amendment …”

The Second Amendment does not give citizens a right to “keep and bear arms”. None of the Bill of Rights “confers” any right what-so-ever!

The Second Amendment simply tells the feds they “shall not infringe” such pre-constitutional God given inalienable right. There is quite a difference in the two. It amazes me that profession law enforcement officers who are under oath to the Constitution do not have even a fundamental grasp of what it means.

A major message by the Framers was that it was dangerous to our Liberty to have a mass of folks running around who were armed and either did not support our Constitution and its foundational principles (hence the Article VI oath) or who did not know them (like foreign troops.)

Think about this. Under the NSA philosophy if the federal government gives the order to take away our guns, either through a Feinstein bill or an Obama Executive Order, the members of the NSA see it as their duty to enforce (and help?) such a law until such time as a federal court tells them they may not do so. Including appeals that could take years.

The NSA does not recognize a duty to only enforce constitutional laws or apparently to even know the Constitution. We should call these people “Supremacy Freaks”.

I suppose if there is a disaster in your area and the military move in and direct the NSA member sheriffs to collect citizens’ guns they will feel compelled to oblige, such as happen in New Orleans, Louisiana and Greenburg, Kansas. Kind of makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn’t it?

Notes

Todd C. Frankel, Gun control debate reveals rift among nation’s sheriffs, St. Louis Post – Dispatch (2/4/13) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/gun-control-debate-reveals-rift-among-nation-s-sheriffs/article_8a68c343-88d0-52b0-87d6-380486b5835f.html

http://www.sheriffs.org/ NSA Position Statement on Gun Control

[source]

WORLD'S LARGEST ARMY...AMERICA'S HUNTERS!

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:22:00 +0000

The combined deer license sales in just a handful of states add

up to a striking number…

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.
That’s 600,000!!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth

largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin,

to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods

of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now

returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally

establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would

comprise the largest army in the world.And then add in the total

number of hunters in the other 46 states.

It's millions more. The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of

home-grown firepower.

Hunting...
it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

So if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the

same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed

citizens???

Consider the statement made by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander in

Chief of the Japanese Imperial Navy during World War II,

“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle

behind every blade of grass.”

A Letter to Nelson and Rubio

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:58:00 +0000

Senators Nelson and Rubio,

Aside from the fact that Diane Feinsten’s bill will be a direct attack on the Second Amendment and totally unconstitutional, I don’t think she is considering the impact her proposed bill will have on all of us.

In these difficult times when jobs are the most important thing on the public’s mind please consider this:

There are approximately 15, 000,000 hunters in the US who generate approximately 67 billion dollars in economic activity. There are 575,000 hunters in Florida who generated 780 million dollars and provided for 10,700 jobs.

There are 1,000,000 Concealed Carry Permits and assuming each one spent $500 to get that permit and buy a hand gun that’s 500 million dollars generated. Not only is this a terrible economic price to pay for the public, think about tax revenue lost.

If you vote on this nonsense do you actually think this will help you win a re-election.

Signed,

An angry Pro-Second Amendment Citizen

Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial

noreply@blogger.com (Florida OathKeepers) — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:16:00 +0000

Preventing juvenile mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers, and concerned parents

Editor's Note: Visit the Newtown Shooting special coverage page for more perspectives on active shooters in schools, including my article "Active shooters in schools: Should teachers be trained by police firearms instructors?" Have a perspective on this issue? Leave it in the comments below.

“How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”

So began an extraordinary daylong seminar presented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, West Point psychology professor, and without a doubt the world’s foremost expert on human aggression and violence. The event, hosted by the California Peace Officers Association, was held in the auditorium of a very large community church about 30 miles from San Francisco, and was attended by more than 250 police officers from around the region.

Grossman’s talk spanned myriad topics of vital importance to law enforcement, such as the use of autogenic breathing, surviving gunshot wounds, dealing with survivor guilt following a gun battle, and others. But violence among and against children was how the day began, and so I'll focus on that issue here.

“In 1998,” Grossman said, “school violence claimed what at the time was an all time record number of kids’ lives. In that year there were 35 dead and a quarter of a million serious injuries due to violence in the school. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. But we hear people say, ‘That’s the year Columbine happened, that’s an anomaly.’ Well, in 2004 we had a new all time record — 48 dead in the schools from violence. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. Let’s assign some grades. Put your teacher hat on and give out some grades. What kind of grade do you give the firefighter for keeping kids safe? An ‘A,’ right? Reluctantly, reluctantly, the cops give the firefighters an ‘A,’ right? Danged firefighters, they sleep ‘till they’re hungry and eat ‘till they’re tired. What grade do we get for keeping the kids safe from violence? Come on, what’s our grade? Needs improvement, right?”

Johnny Firefighter, A+ Student
“Why can’t we be like little Johnny Firefighter?” Grossman asked as he prowled the stage. “He’s our A+ student!”

He paused, briefly, and answered with a voice that blew through the hall like thunder, “Denial, denial, denial!”

Grossman commanded, “Look up at the ceiling! See all those sprinklers up there? They’re hard to spot — they’re painted black — but they’re there. While you’re looking, look at the material the ceiling is made of. You know that that stuff was selected because it’s fire-retardant. Hooah? Now look over there above the door — you see that fire exit sign? That’s not just any fire exit sign — that’s a ‘battery-backup-when-the-world-ends-it-will-still-be-lit’ fire exit sign. Hooah?”

Walking from the stage toward a nearby fire exit and exterior wall, Grossman slammed the palm of his hand against the wall and exclaimed, “Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they’re what?! Fireproof or fire retardant, hooah? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!”

Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? No! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!

“But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thinghundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools — and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. ...They’re in denial.”

Teaching the Teachers
The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack.

“Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do.

"But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”

Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.

Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, “If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?”

Arming Campus Cops is Elementary
Nearly two years ago, I wrote an article called Arming campus cops is elementary. Not surprisingly, Grossman agrees with that hypothesis.

“Never call an unarmed man ‘security’,” Grossman said.

“Call him ‘run-like-hell-when-the-man-with-the-gun-shows-up’ but never call an unarmed man security.

"Imagine if someone said, ‘I want a trained fire professional on site. I want a fire hat, I want a fire uniform, I want a fire badge. But! No fire extinguishers in this building. No fire hoses. The hat, the badge, the uniform — that will keep us safe — but we have no need for fire extinguishers.’ Well, that would be insane. It is equally insane, delusional, legally liable, to say, ‘I want a trained security professional on site. I want a security hat, I want a security uniform, and I want a security badge, but I don’t want a gun.’ It’s not the hat, the uniform, or the badge. It’s the tools in the hands of a trained professional that keeps us safe.

“Our problem is not money,” said Grossman. “It is denial.”

Grossman said (and most cops agree) that many of the most important things we can do to protect our kids would cost us nothing or next-to-nothing.

Grossman’s Five D’s
Let’s contemplate the following outline and summary of Dave Grossman’s “Five D’s.” While you do, I encourage you to add in the comments area below your suggestions to address, and expand upon, these ideas.

1. Denial — Denial is the enemy and it has no survival value, said Grossman.
2. Deter — Put police officers in schools, because with just one officer assigned to a school, the probability of a mass murder in that school drops to almost zero
3. Detect — We’re talking about plain old fashioned police work here. The ultimate achievement for law enforcement is the crime that didn’t happen, so giving teachers and administrators regular access to cops is paramount.
4. Delay — Various simple mechanisms can be used by teachers and cops to put time and distance between the killers and the kids.
a. Ensure that the school/classroom have just a single point of entry. Simply locking the back door helps create a hard target.
b. Conduct your active shooter drills within (and in partnership with) the schools in your city so teachers know how to respond, and know what it looks like when you do your response.
5. Destroy — Police officers and agencies should consider the following:
a. Carry off duty. No one would tell a firefighter who has a fire extinguisher in his trunk that he’s crazy or paranoid.
b. Equip every cop in America with a patrol rifle. One chief of police, upon getting rifles for all his officers once said, “If an active killer strikes in my town, the response time will be measured in feet per second.”
c. Put smoke grenades in the trunk of every cop car in America. Any infantryman who needs to attack across open terrain or perform a rescue under fire deploys a smoke grenade. A fire extinguisher will do a decent job in some cases, but a smoke grenade is designed to perform the function.
d. Have a “go-to-war bag” filled with lots of loaded magazines and supplies for tactical combat casualty care.
e. Use helicopters. Somewhere in your county you probably have one or more of the following: medevac, media, private, national guard, coast guard rotors.
f. Employ the crew-served, continuous-feed, weapon you already have available to you (a firehouse) by integrating the fire service into your active shooter training. It is virtually impossible for a killer to put well-placed shots on target while also being blasted with water at 300 pounds per square inch.
g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response.

Coming Soon: External Threats
Today we must not only prepare for juvenile mass murder, something that had never happened in human history until only recently, but we also must prepare for the external threat. Islamist fanatics have slaughtered children in their own religion — they have killed wantonly, mercilessly, and without regard for repercussion or regret of any kind. What do you think they’d think of killing our kids?

“Eight years ago they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. Do we know what they’re going to do next? No! But one thing they’ve done in every country they’ve messed with is killing kids in schools,” Grossman said.

The latest al Qaeda charter states that “children are noble targets” and Osama bin Laden himself has said that “Russia is a preview for what we will do to America.”

What happened in Russia that we need to be concerned with in this context? In the town of Beslan on September 1, 2004 — the very day on which children across that country merrily make their return to school after the long summer break — radical Islamist terrorists from Chechnya took more than 1,000 teachers, mothers, and children hostage. When the three-day siege was over, more than 300 hostages had been killed, more than half of whom were children.

“If I could tackle every American and make them read one book to help them understand the terrorist’s plan, it would be Terror at Beslan by John Giduck. Beslan was just a dress rehearsal for what they’re planning to do to the United States,” he said.

Consider this: There are almost a half a million school buses in America. It would require every enlisted person and every officer in the entire Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps combined to put just one armed guard on every school bus in the country.

As a country and as a culture, the level of protection Americans afford our kids against violence is nothing near what we do to protect them from fire. Grossman is correct: Denial is the enemy. We must prepare for violence like the firefighter prepares for fire. And we must do that today.

Hooah, Colonel!

[source]

Drones!

noreply@blogger.com (Carol Rubadou) — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:43:00 +0000

The big bad scary imaginary boogey-man under the bed or a real threat to America’s safety and privacy? They are here and they are real and they are not going away. But if you are quaking in your boots worried a Predator is going to track you down and obliterate your house, relax. While that potential exists, it is not likely.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily represent those of the Oath Keepers organization.

All the hype that hits our email in-boxes daily about “killer drones” being unleashed on our towns all across the US simply isn’t true. Those regaling us with those stories aren’t checking their facts. While it’s true that some law enforcement agencies, research facilities, even universities have authorization to fly UAVs, they are not out to get us. And they are limited by the rules in place of where and why they fly.There are as many different beneficial uses for drones as there are different types of drones. Searching for missing people, assessing forest fires, monitoring invasive species in wetlands, studying the decline of sea lion populations, even delivering cargo to remote sites to name a few. There are hundreds of different models of drones and scores of drone manufacturing firms developing even more advanced models, from the huge Global Hawk to the minuscule Hummingbird As you can see the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)is working closely with some of the companies developing UAVs to come up with more advanced weaponry and reconnaissance tools for our military.

As with any technological development there is the good side and the bad side. The biggest concern at present is that the technology is moving ahead of the regulations being put in place to ensure the safety of American skies and privacy of the American citizens. While the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, went a long way to put some rules in place, it did not go far enough. Some Police Departments are writing rules for themselves that go far beyond the FAA’s rules to ensure citizen’s rights are preserved. We live with super advanced technology in our lives everyday, and admit it, we love it. We are addicted to it. Technology has made our lives more convenient, expedient and fun. But the dark side is, we have completely lost our privacy. And the added assault on that privacy by drones in the skies isn’t going to add much to what the powers that be already know about us. While drone manufacturers are clamoring to have the FAA award Special Airworthiness Certificates (SACs) and assign Certificates of Authorization (COAs) as fast as possible and local government agencies are begging their local governments to fund these UAV programs, our skies are filing up. You can rant and rave about the injustice of being “spied” upon, but was there anyone speaking out when the first surveillance cameras went up on street corners or public buildings? Where was the outrage then?

Hopefully this edition of the newsletter will help illuminate what is currently flying over the skies of America. This is in no way a complete list and some information is probably/definitely outdated. The SAC and COA information was made available from FAA through an FOIA request by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other activist groups and is only current to the date that information was released around April of 2012. Also the FAA will only admit that the Military, agencies under DHS and some other government agencies are flying drones, but will not give any specifics on what type or where. Some COAs have expired and new ones have been issued. Two law suits (1, 2) by EFF have been filed requiring DHS to release information about its current drone use in America. EFF has also filed a second FOIA lawsuit with the FAA demanding the latest data on COAs the agency has issued for public drone flights in the U. S. Presently, Certificates of Authorization are only valid for one year.

The length of this report couldn't be helped. There is so much information on Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the U.S. that it would take years to examine it all. Drones have been over the skies of America for many years doing odd jobs that were humanly impossible for humans to do. While it is unsettling that some uses of drones can be an assault on our personal liberties and potentially our safety, this technology can be used in many wonderful ways.

These eyes in the sky are not going away, and if you are concerned they are overstepping their bounds, you can get involved in helping to make sure your rights are not trampled on. Check out “The Last Word” at the end of this report. Your comments are cheerfully welcomed!

Everything You Wanted To Know About Drones

But Were Afraid to Ask

Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

H.R. 658 Subtitle B, Section 331 – 334 pages 62-67

Department of Defense Report to Congress on Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Training, Operations and Sustainability (Page 5 contains current inventory and planned inventories of military UAVs for each year through 2017 beginning 2012-abroad and domestic combined)

Map of Drone Launch Sites

This is an interactive map of some of the current drone launching sites that have passed the FAA’s requirements for flying UAVs. They include military bases, universities, fire departments, emergency services, departments of transportation, and so on.

Military Launch Sites Current and ProjectedMaps 1 and 2.
At present the Air Force and Navy are the only military branches flying the Predator, Global Hawk and BAMS. DHS has 10 unarmed Predator B drones used to patrol along the southern border of the US. NASA flies one Predator B and two Global Hawks primarily for research. Note that the blue dots denote futureUnmanned Aircraft Systems.

Drones of the U. S. Military

Developed by Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems:

Global Hawk RQ-4A/B US Air Force and US Navy

BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) Triton MQ-4C US Navy

Hunter MQ-5B US Army

Firescout MQ-8B US Navy

X-47B UCAS-D US Navy

(currently used for demonstrations only)

Yamaha R-Max US Army

Grey Eagle (Previously called Warrior)

MQ-1C US ARMY

Predator MQ-1A/B

US AirForce

Watch the video here

of a Predator being shot

down by a Iraqi Mig in 1999.

Reaper MQ-9

USAir Force

Developed by AeroVironment, Inc:

Wasp III
SOCOM (Special Operations Command)
and US Army
Click on National Geographic's
DARPA Special
Wasp fact sheet
Read about SOCOM here

RavenRQ-11 SOCOM,
US Marines, US Army and US Navy
about the Raven
Raven fact sheet

PUMA AE RQ-20
SOCOM and US Army
about the Puma

Developed by Boeing:

Integrator STUAS RQ-21A
US Marines, US Navy
and US Army

about the Integrator

Scan Eagle
SOCOM and US Navy
Scan Eagle fact sheet

A160 Hummingbird
STUAS US Army
about the Hummingbird

Developed by Lite Machines Corp:

Tiger Moth (VTOL)
SOCOM
about the Tiger Moth
Watch the video

Developed by Honeywell:

T Hawk/gMav
US Army

about the T-Hawk Developed by Science Applications Int’l Corp (SAIC):

Vigilante
US Army
about the Vigilante

Developed by L-3 Unmanned Systems:

Viking 300
US Air Force
about the Viking

Developed by AAI Corporation:

Shadow RQ-7B
US Army and US Marines

about the Shadow

Non-Military Drones Over the Skies of America

These include, law-enforcement, universities, research centers, emergency services, government entities such as DHS, NOAA, NASA, Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy, etc. This is not a complete list. And the status of expired/active is not necessarily accurate. It is based on FAA’s release of the list of COAs and SACs in April of 2012.

A comment about “there could be 30,000 drones operated inside U.S. borders by 2020.” Every time this

statement appears in any article and is linked back to its source, it’s always the same article in the Washington Times. Keep in mind it is an estimation allegedly made by the FAA. There is no documentation that backs up the 30,000 by 2020 estimate. Beware of talking heads.

First arrest in America using drone technology

In June of 2011, Rodney Brossart was the first person arrested using a drone, a Predator B, that DHS provided from its Customs and Border Protection Department In Arizona. These drones are modified military drones equipped with cameras and are not armed. read and watch video here

Law Enforcement UAVs

Arlington Police Department Texas
Avenger by Leptron

The police department of Arlington, Texas is examining ways to fund an unmanned surveillance drone; the drone was originally purchased with grant money from DHS to assist local police officers with security during Super Bowl XLV held at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. The drone is still technically owned by its manufacturer, Leptron, and the City Council is debating how to pay for the drone’s operation and maintenance. Arlington's COA is still active. click here

Houston Police Department, Texas
Scan Eagle by Boeing
Houston's COA Expired
click here

City of North Little Rock Police Department
Arkansas SD30 Helicopter by Rotomotion
COA was active as of April 2012
click here

Gadsden Police Department
Gadsden, Alabama
Wasp by AeroVironment
COA is active
Gadsden’s UAVs have surveillance capability but no offensive capabilities, PD Chief John Crane said. Gadsden has two electrically powered UAV Wasps, launched by a toss with the hand. A UAV is designed to gather video evidence in areas where there is no other way to monitor criminal activity. The device is equipped with video capabilities that be can monitored live. “I, for one, am very mindful of privacy issues,” Crane said. There are federal guidelines to follow for use of UAVs. “And I want to make sure we adhere to the federal guidelines,” Crane, named police chief in February, 2012, found out the police department has the UAVs and does not know why they were purchased. The cost was about $150,000, but that was paid through a federal law enforcement grant. The UAVs are not being used and are stored in a secure location. A signature is required to access them. “They have not been used because there is not a need for them,” Crane said.

Miami-Dade Police Department, Florida

T-Hawk by Boeing COA Active

Miami-Dade Police Department - The city has had the drones since August 2009. It bought one with a grant from the Justice Department and is leasing the second directly from Honeywell for $1 a year. The devices, which sell for about $50,000 apiece, are controlled by touch-screen laptops. click here

Note: A recent video released about a police drone spying on party goers in Miami on Memorial day has been debunked. Upon close inspection anyone can tell the difference between Miami’s T-Hawks and the RC vehicle in the video. Under Miami and the FAA’s rule, they cannot fly in the dark, out of line-of-sight, or over crowds. see video

Montgomery County
Sheriff's Dept, Texas
ShadowHawk by Vanguard Defense Industries

COA Expired click here

Ogden Police Department, Utah

HB50 Blimp by HyperBlimp COA Denied

The FAA denied a request from the Ogden, Utah police department that would have used a nocturnal surveillance airship because the unmanned blimp would have presented an unacceptable high risk to the National Airspace System.

Polk County Sheriff's Department, Florida

Easy Star II Radio Controlled Plane, COA Expired

The Polk County, Florida Sheriff’s Office tested an Easy Star ready-to fly, radio-controlled plane (constructed out of Styrofoam) from 2009 to 2010 in Polk county with a camera, mostly over a portion of the Green Swamp. The Sheriff’s department decided it wasn’t for them. click here

Seattle Police Department, Washington
Draganflyer X6 by Draganfly Innovations COA Active
Click here to read Seattle's own manual on drone safety and privacy issues.

Mesa County Sheriff's

Department, Colorado

Falcon by Falcon, and a Draganflyer X6 COA Active

Click here Watch the video's on this site.

Universities and Research Centers

Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

The Brumby Developed by Sydney

University in Australia.

info here

Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas

Aggie Air watch videos here

Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi

Parrot AR info here

Kansas State University,

Manhattan, Kansas Aerosonde Mark 4.7 by AAI Corporation info here

Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Raven by AeroVironment
watch video here

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
Puma by AeroVironment
Scout by Aeryon

For an example of what the Scout can do
click here

University of Colorado,

Boulder, Colorado

GoJett by Starkey Aerospace Corp

more info here

University of Connecticut,

Storrs, Connecticut

Maxi Joker 3 RC Electric Helicopter

by MiniCopters more info here

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Nova by Altavian info here

The company was founded in February of 2011 by three graduate students from the University of Florida's Unmanned Aerial Research Group. It has 13 employees and

plans to hire as many as 12 more with a training grant from Florida Works.

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Flying Fish

more info here

Utah State University

Utah Water and Research Lab

Logan Utah more info here

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University Blackburg, Virginia

Virginia Polytech hosts research

activities spanning every application

domain: water, land, air, and space.

Research activities range from

fundamental control theory to vehicle

development to applications for science,

security, and commerce.

Top photo: Yamaha R-Max info

Middle photo: The SPARRO info

Bottom photo: Boomerang III

Purchased as a fully assembled model

airplane from Autonomous Unmanned

Air Vehicles in Palmetto, Florida more info
See a UAV collecting air samples here

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconisn. The University is working with NASA to study hurricanes. NASA has one Predator B and two Global Hawks in its inventory of UAV systems. Read about it here

Jacksonville District of Army
Corp of Engineers Nova by Altavian

February 2012- With a mighty
heave, Damon Wolfe, geodesist
with the US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, launches the Nova UAV ona flight over Lake Okeechobee. The Corps used photos from the UAV to track the progress of various plant species at the lake.

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Biloxi, Mississippi Draganflyer X6 by
Draganfly Innovations

The Draganflyer performs very low level
elevation (5'-20') photo reconnaissance in uninhabited open marsh areas along the Pascagoula River when water depths are too shallow to continue surveying by boat. The flights aid in early detection of new populations of a federally listed noxious weed, Giant Salvania that has become increasingly problematic in the south.

NASA Ames Research Center,
Palo Alto, California
Predator B by General Atomics
Global Hawk by Northrop Grumman

NASA's Predator Ikhana. Ikhana is
a Choctaw Native American word
for "intelligent, conscious, or aware."
read more here and here

NASA flies two Global Hawks
info here
Read here about NASA's work with other UAV systems for
emergency response and management.

Texas A & M University
Corpus Christi, Texas

Diaster City Emergency
Responder Training Facility
RS-16 Aerial Vehicle
more info

Video Tour of Disaster City

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Rome, Georgia

GTRI's Collaborative Unmaned Systems

Technology Demonstrator (CUSTD) uses two small-scale aircraft and a full-size automobile to perform a complex, interactive mission without human intervention. (A little scary!)

more info here and here

New Mexico State University
Physical Sciences Lab
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Vulture II by Boeing funded by DARPA
info here

Otter Tail County
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
COA disapproved by FAA
read about it here

Washington State
Department of Transportation
Olympia, Washington
Yamaha R-Max
info here

MLB BAT
info here
(Click on Products)

Department of Public Safety
Brentwood, Texax
(COA Expired)
Wasp by AeroVironment
The Department was flying the
Wasp to support critical law
enforcement operations in
south Texas.

Kansas National Guard and
the City of Herrington, Kansas
(COA Expired 2009)
CQ-10A Snow Goose
by Mist Mobility Integrated
Systems Technology

read about it here

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Bureau of Land Management
Southeastern Idaho
Raven by AeroVironment
Check out the video

Department of Homeland Security

Customs and Border Protection
Predator B by General Atomics
DHS currently has 10 Predators
(COA is active)
read here

The Predator B Guardian is being flown from the coasts of Florida and Texas to hunt for drug smugglers in the Gulf and Caribbean. info here
Read this article about how the drones are not being used effectively.

Department of Agriculture
US Forest Service
(COA disapproved)
Information about why the COA
was disapproved could not be found.
But there was information about past
drone programs the US Forest Service
was involved in with NASA. see here

The UAV in this video is a Scan Eagle mapping a forest fire in Alaska for the Forestry Service. The capture method used is a called a Sky Hook. Both were developed by Boeing.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agriculture Research Service
Bat3 by MLB

info here

See poster here

Department of Interior

US Geological Survey

Boise, Idaho

T-Hawk by Boeing

Raven by AeroVironment info here

NOAA
Pacific Marine Environmental Lab
Manta info here
NOAA and NASA working together to study hurricanes
Read the article

A Word About Nano Drone Technology and Flying Robots

Insect Spy Drones read this

The Hummingbird by AeroVironment
developed for and funded by DARPA.
(not to be confused with the A160
Hummingbird Helicopter by Boeing)
Check this out

Harvard's Monolithic Bee "MoBee"

This mosquito showed up on the

internet as a spy drone ready to

inject the unknowing subject with

a vaccine or an RFID chip. But in

reality it is only a CGI mock up of

a conceptual design.See this

Smart Bird by Festo
Watch this

The Last Word

This technology is here to stay. And the potential to be used against us rather than for us is a very real possibility. It is up to us to demand that the rules are in place to keep drones in their place. Get involved!

Privacy Protection Act from the Tenth Amendment Center

This legislative package is a state-level response to the forthcoming expansion of drone-use by law enforcement agencies within the United States. There are two versions of the legislation that are both ready for introduction in your state.

The First requires that a warrant be issued before any law enforcement agency uses a drone within the state. The legislation is restrictive enough that drone use would be severely curtailed.

The Second is a full ban on the use of drones by law enforcement, criminalizing their use.

Activists, we encourage you to send this your state senators and representatives and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.

Who we ARE. Who we ARE NOT.

noreply@blogger.com (Walton Oathkeepers) — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:19:00 +0000

We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the Guardians of this Republic. If you are active duty or veteran military, law enforcement, firefighter, or other public service, join us and stand to keep YOUR oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to politicians. Because what makes America free is the Rule of Law (i.e. Constitution), not the Rule of Man.

There is, at this time, a debate within the military, law enforcement, and public service regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any/all order issued. However, there are many who do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people. We want to see all who have taken the oath, understand what it means, and that there is no 'statute of limitations' on this oath.

We Are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. No longer will we “just follow orders.”

We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition or by means of peaceful replacement through the election process.

We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written, without interpretation.

We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Founders, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written. However, if amendments are needed, that they follow the process set forth in Article 5.

We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny and apathy.

We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its lawful and rightful place, intact and adhered to, as the Supreme Law of the Land.

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, freemen, or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses, and farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army."
- Gen. George Washington

Such a time is at hand. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, National Guard, Law Enforcement, Firefighters, and Public Servants of these sovereign states. Oath Keepers is dedicated to the recruitment of those who will "keep" their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we meant it. We will not “just follow orders.” We are making a stand against the unconstitutional (and thus unlawful), immoral violations of the inherent, natural rights of Americans. For such usurping orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic, of which, we are her Guardians.

ALERT: Vertical integration of all law enforcement under the federal command!

noreply@blogger.com (Walton Oathkeepers) — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:51:00 +0000

"The integration of firearms trace data into the fusion centers results in even closer collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement."

An attorney forwarded me a copy of the latest Police Chief magazine which included an article by Ross Arends, ATF Supervisory Special Agent and a Fellow at the notoriously anti-gun International Association of Chiefs of Police: "The ATF’s iTrafficking Program: Linking Firearms Trace Data with State Fusion Centers." It was, the "single scariest proposal" he'd read recently.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have joined forces on a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, to study the impact of a collaborative project among the ATF, fusion centers, and local law enforcement to analyze firearms trace data along the northeast corridor of Interstate 95. This article highlights the work that carries forward the ATF’s commitment to improving the collection, the analysis, and use of firearms trace data in investigations.

Mind you, the eTrace system upon which this proposal is based is shot full of chaos and inefficiencies -- multiple traces, administrative traces having nothing to do with crime, etc -- and this proposal would provide trace information to people and organizations who, according to one of sources, "have no business in the law to it." And Arends understands the legal mienfield he is proposing to defeat by evasion:

While the ATF’s policy of not sharing one agency’s trace data with another agency does exist, there are still ways in which multiple agencies can work together using trace data.

Arends concludes:

BJA Grant to the IACP: Examine the iTrafficking Program

In December 2010, the BJA awarded a $250,000 grant to IACP to research and examine iTrafficking to determine ways in which gun trace data could more effectively be included in fusion center intelligence reports and business practice. To date, the project has accomplished the following:
* An advisory group was selected in concert with the IACP Firearms Committee to guide project development and implementation.
* A fusion center survey instrument was circulated to assess the state of practice on crime gun tracing policies.
* The project team is consolidating information from site visits to complete a promising practices document by fusion centers currently collecting crime gun tracing data.
* The project team continues to search for any statutory issues and barriers to impede implementation of a crime gun tracing intelligence sharing strategy.
* A mobile app was designed and distributed by the project team
using the ATF’s Police Officers Guide to Recovered Firearms. Since its launch in January, more than 21,000 downloads have been counted. This app is part of the project’s push to improve firearms tracing.
IACP staff is examining the results of the fusion center interviews and will assess the fusion center surveys once all are received. Finally, IACP staff will prepare and disseminate a firearms tracing intelligence-sharing strategy report that summarizes the review and the evaluation of iTrafficking. This review ideally will be used by fusion center personnel and all state, local, and tribal law enforcement to assist in the examination of firearms trace data used in intelligence products and criminal investigations.

The integration of firearms trace data into the fusion centers results in even closer collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. As fusion centers evolve into all-crime and all-hazards intelligence centers, a focus on firearms tracing and firearms trafficking enhances the collaborative environment. (Emphasis supplied, MBV.) The IACP is looking forward to sharing best practices, educational material, and other information that results from this initiative.

"The integration of firearms trace data into the fusion centers results in even closer collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement. As fusion centers evolve into all-crime and all-hazards intelligence centers, a focus on firearms tracing and firearms trafficking enhances the collaborative environment."

That is what this is all about, in addition to sharing eTrace data with people who have no legal right to it -- the vertical integration of all law enforcement with the Feds at the top of the food chain, able to spy on local law enforcement, use them as cat's paws in investigations and escape all blowback if the operation goes south.

[source]

Florida Oath Keepers

The Spirit of Party

"These are the times that try men's souls..."

"I hate to say I told you so..."

Official Position: "Ferguson"

FL Position Posts: Where We Stand

NULLIFIED!

BEWARE of the "Useful Idiots" of Gulf Coast Gun Forum

GCGF Username: ilintnerRELATED:

Oath Keepers Emergency Collapse Plan

The County Sheriff: More Power than the Governor AND the President

THE FINAL TOAST!

Obama's And Boston's Lesson: Jihad Works!

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

Law Enforcement told to choose: Gun Control or The Constitution

Who Are the Oath Keepers?

Painted as radicals and racists by some, this organization of law enforcement officers and military vets says its only purpose is to uphold the Constitution.

Ancient History and Modern Constitutional Powers of American Sheriffs

Are America's Constitutional Sheriffs Liberty's Last, Best Hope?

I. What is a Sheriff?

II. Ancient History of the Sheriff—Britain

A. History of the Shire Reeves

III. The Rise of the Sheriff

IV. Sheriff’s Consolidation of Power: The Tourn & Justicial Debt Collection

A. Biennial Tourn

B. Sheriff as Judge & Debt Collector

V. Collapse of Sheriff’s Power: Evolution to Penal Reformer

A. Sheriff Howard, Prison Rehabilitator

B. Decline of British Sheriffs & Rise of American

Conclusion

Is Your Sheriff A Constitutional Sheriff?

Today, it became real.....

National Sheriffs Assoc. Encourages Sheriffs to Commit “treason to the Constitution”

WORLD'S LARGEST ARMY...AMERICA'S HUNTERS!

A Letter to Nelson and Rubio

Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial

Preventing juvenile mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers, and concerned parents

Drones!

Who we ARE. Who we ARE NOT.

ALERT: Vertical integration of all law enforcement under the federal command!

"The integration of firearms trace data into the fusion centers results in even closer collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement."

GCGF Username: ilintner

RELATED: