The County Sheriff : Protection from Federal Abuse

You have a friend in your county sheriff—a source of protection from federal control. He has the power, authority, and duty to protect you from oppressive government. That is his job. He is your last line of defense from federal abuse.

 

America has become a battleground. On one side are those who want control: of our property, our resources, our finances, our thoughts and our lives. On the other side are those who demand freedom of choice and action, the right to keep what we earn, and the right to self-protection. Those who want control offer us custodial care in return for their control; given, of course, on their terms. Those who demand freedom aspire to prosperity and the inevitable risks entailed in achieving it. The two do not mix; we will have one or the other, but they do not cohabitate. America’s soul is at stake, and it hesitates on the cutting edge of a ponderous decision.

 

Thomas Jefferson said it well: “When all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” Constitutional directives created a great protector for citizens. The county sheriff is the elected (yes, chosen by the people and thus accountable to the people) agent of assistance in our battle for individual rights. Although he is part of the executive branch of government, he is our protector. He doesn’t have to abide by federal regulations if they abuse his “bosses”, the people of his county. Federal agents are required to submit to his authority. He acts independent of all but the people who put him in office and the law of the Constitution.

 

We mainly have Sheriff Richard Mack to thank for the clarification and understanding of this liberty principle. He took the federal government to the Supreme Court to prove that it did not have the authority to commandeer state and county officers to do its bidding. The legislation in question was the Brady Bill, passed in 1994 by Congress under President Bill Clinton. The Brady Bill required sheriffs to enforce unconstitutional federal gun control measures in their counties. No funding was provided, so the sheriff’s department had to pay the bills, and if he failed in his imposed duties he was subject to arrest under the terms of the bill. Thus, a sheriff was required, under penalty of prosecution, to enforce an unconstitutional bill at his own expense.

 

Sheriff Mack declares unequivocally that a sheriff has “the authority, the power, and the duty to be the ultimate check and balance for the American citizenry in (his) county and to defend them against all local and federal criminals.” It falls to the sheriff to have the “guts and dedication to tell the feds that we will no longer tolerate their intervention, control, meddling, mandates, or criminal behavior”. That is clear-cut, simple, and direct. In means the sheriff is in charge.

 

His first duty is protection of your liberty—your land, water, food, air, crops, guns and children. Corporations, bureaucracies, and even the IRS must yield to his authority within his jurisdictional area. He is the executor of the law—the Constitution of the United States, to which he pledged his allegiance in a sacred oath.

 

Some sheriffs don’t realize the extent of their authority. Some, sadly, back down before the power of the national government and its agents. But if your county sheriff will stand true to his oath and serve the rights of his bosses—you, the people—he is your “line in the sand” against encroachment.

 

Get to know your local county sheriff. Introduce him to your children. Tell him what you expect of him and reward his good efforts with recognition. He is your friend and benefactor.

 

- Pam

 

Federal Money : Seducing the People

A few centuries ago Elizabeth Barrett Browning penned the words: “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.” With scorn, we can adapt her sonnet to our federal government and its profligate spending: “How do I seduce thee? Let me count the ways.”

 

There seems to be no end to the methods employed by government to enforce power plays over cowering states and apathetic citizenry. One of the most effective tools of federal manipulation is the treasury—giving funds to those who “obey” and withholding funds from those who don’t. Like obstinate children, those who do not comply with federal demands don’t “get the goods”.

 

Our Founders intended that money spent by the general government benefit all the people equally. Congress was to have power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Thomas Jefferson said this clause limited the power of taxation; Alexander Hamilton contended that it granted government spending power. Over time, Hamilton’s philosophy won out. Today the federal government squirts money like water from an untamed fire hose. Over time, with substantial help from the Supreme Court, we now have spending on steroids.

 

It began with national parks. The Constitution allowed for federal purchase of state lands only for forts, magazines, dockyards, arsenals and such. Undeterred, in 1896 the feds began setting lands aside for national parks, sans constitutional authority to do so. Today they don’t even bother to pay for federal lands, they just confiscate them under the powers of the 1906 Antiquities Act, as was done with Utah’s Escalante Staircase.

 

Then came the Butler case in 1836 to ordain the federal government with power to spend at will—so long as it was in the general welfare of the country, of course. “General welfare” and “country” (in other words, all of us) were undefined—left to federal interpretation. This decision, alone, destroyed the concept of limited government. Partnered with the 16^th Amendment, passed a few decades before, which allowed the federal pilfering of individual pockets for funds, the race to “buy” the American way of life was off and running.

 

Today taxpayer money funds turtle crossings, camps to instill socialism in teenagers, and empty commuter rail cars. It bankrolls questionable companies that go bankrupt, subverted funds for the desperately poor in foreign nations, and gives guns to rebels that use them against us. Public funds are used to force compliance in areas as diverse as education, banking, land use, and transportation.

 

The feds follow a patently unconstitutional pattern. Money offered to states is available only through compliance with federal “guidelines”. State governments weakened by feeding at the federal trough yield to the seduction of “free” money. Obama introduced a new twist: free money for a few years, then vicious second stage requirements a few years later that throw states under the economic and regulatory bus. Examples can be found in new federal legislation on education, such as Common Core. In addition, “voluntary” programs become compulsory: “Comply or we take your federal funds from another program”. Strong, independent states expire; instead, they comply with unconstitutional federal bribery, acting against their better judgment and self interest, to get the “goodies”. Secondary requirements have now driven many states into desperate economic territory. The feds take our money through taxes, then use it to force us to do what we don’t want to do. In the end, we victimize ourselves.

 

The short-term answer to this dilemma rests with states: stand up to the bully and fund your own projects. Federal money means federal control. It’s like going to college: pay your own way and make your own decisions.

 

The long term answer is a return to constitutional principles of strong states, a firmly limited federal government, and ethical, hard-working citizens who get to keep their pay.

 

- Pam

Nullification by the United States : Unconstitutional?

States are getting fed up. Their rights are being mowed down by the federal government. One at a time, each in its own way, the states are standing up to government abuse, saying to the feds: "You are meddling where you have no right to be. I am reclaiming my authority; keep your hands out of my business.

They have every possible right to do so; in fact, they have the responsibility to stand up to illegality.

The Constitution puts states or individual citizens in charge of most everything --- their land, children, health, and checking accounts; their safety, religious activities, and education. These rights are woven into every clause of our national birth certificate. Fearful of misunderstanding, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, reiterated and locked our rights in place. The last of those ten amendments reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States (the federal government) by the  Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." In other words, "If we didn't specifically give you, the federal government, the authority to do that, you can't do it."

Some, even those who profess constitutional scholarship, miss the point. The deride the states, saying the supremacy clause in the Constitution puts federal laws superior to state laws. This is true, unless (drum roll, please) the laws passed by the federal government are illegal. Illegal federal laws - those that violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution - do not stand supreme over the states. They have no right to exist as laws precisely because they violate the law. If this were not so, our law would say that only states were required to abide by law; the federal government was exempt from it. What a farce that would be - a federal government thrashing about wildly, snatching anything it wished, like a spoiled child taking from everyone. (Hmmm --- this sounds familiar.)

The Constitution gives only 6 powers to the executive branch of government and 20 powers to Congress. Anything beyond those 26 powers comes from a federal government elbowing its way into the party to hog all the power and glory. And what a hot fest it has been! The president now has thousands of duties over 200 major bureaucracies. Our no prolific Congress passes volumes of laws and regulations, the overwhelming majority of which it has no authority to pass.

Americans, unfortunately, have tolerated this far too long. We have rolled our eyes, complained profusely, and written an occasional letter to our congressional representatives. Little has changed.

Now it's getting serious. The health care bill will impose highway robbery on most of us. The right to own weapons to protect ourselves is under attack, as are our rights to self-determined worship. The IRS is corrupt and irresponsible, and our privacy has been decimated by subversive federal government. Environmental laws block our access to public lands and dictate use of personal property. The economy is headed off the cliff and no one seems able to prevent the coming train wreck. The schools are preparatory hotbeds of socialism, turning us into "sheeple". New federal scandals erupt weekly. The 6000 year old pattern of marriage and its protection of our children is being waylaid, and those who have studied the proposed immigration bill tell us it could finish us off.

One would think it's high time the states stood up to the federal bully.

- Pam

 

Earning Liberty : The Political Test

The freedom, protection, prosperity and peace that come with good government are not liberally available for the taking. Responsibilities are attached, and these responsibilities must be fulfilled in order to have the benefits. Every good thing comes with a price tag. The greater the benefit, the greater the duties connected to it.

The following questions assist each of us in measuring our personal efforts to preserve freedom. They provide a realistic evaluation of whether we are justified in our expectations of liberty through self-rule. The list is extensive and few could comply with all the enumerated responsibilities. Each of us, however, can fill some of the duties listed below.

●Are you resisting the erosion of freedoms taking place politically and economically in America?

 

●Do you promote and support wise men and women for public office?

 

●Do you study political issues, voting records, and proposed programs in order to vote wisely?

 

●Do you voice your opinion to your elected representatives on issues important to you?

 

●Are you wisely choosing a political party that matches your beliefs, supporting it at the local and state levels, and working within it to preserve freedom?

 

●Do you scrutinize local, state and federal bureaucracies to insure they are carrying out the will of the people?

 

●Do you attend your local city council meetings?

 

●Have you joined with responsible, like-minded citizens to promote inalienable rights of individuals and free competitive enterprise?

 

When the people elect their leaders, the people are also responsible for the decisions of their leaders. Citizens bear accountability for those in office, and are duty bound to remove their elected representatives if malpractice occurs in government.

 

Involved, educated citizens are the backbone of self rule. If we fail in our duties as members of a democratic republic, we bear the blame for its failure. It’s easy to blame everyone else—the legislature, the executive, the media. It’s harder to blame ourselves, yet we must be first to shoulder the blame for failures in government. If we do our job, the legislature will be comprised of honest individuals who abide by constitutional principles. If we do our job, we will vote out of office any executive who exceeds his constitutional authority. If we do our job, the media will succumb to the pressures of a people determined to be told the truth.

 

The buck stops here, with responsible citizens who do their duty to preserve a constitutional republic.

 

 

- Pam

Keeping Government Limited, Close, and Small Keeps Us Free

The Founders organized a government that was limited—controlled so it remained orderly, close to the people so they could supervise it, and small, so it could not overwhelm those it served. The focal point of their system was strong state governments that directed affairs in their own areas. The federal government erected a very limited umbrella of federal policies and responsibilities that prevented foreign interference and facilitated state unity. States set their own standards of excellence in areas such as education.

Do Americans know this? Many errantly believe that federal programs, standards, and control are the ideal. It does seem logical—having the whole country doing the same thing should mean less confusion and duplication. We could set high national standards and bring in national leaders to create high caliber programs, right? Surely at the federal level they know what is best!

Oh, the innocence of such beliefs! Sadly, human nature prevails at every level of government. The power and wealth of national politics attract avarice, and avarice destroys freedom. Sometimes those in office begin as people of integrity and selfless dedication, but power and wealth “do their thing” over time. The scandals that regularly emerge from Washington D.C prove that honesty and integrity are absent at the federal level. We should not be surprised. History proves that, like a bad virus, authority “infects” those on whom it rests.

Thomas Jefferson spoke of the “chains of the Constitution”—its checks and balances—“binding men down from mischief”. That was the beauty of the Constitution. It divided power so none could abuse it. The responsibility of the common man was to supervise those in office to require integrity.

A case in point is our educational system. Under the Founding Fathers there was no free public education. (There is still no free education—high taxes support it.) Local schools were organized and operated by communities and churches and taught the curriculum they dictated, with states supervising the process. Some areas set low educational benchmarks, but many thrived on high academic standards. Competition encouraged excellence.

Was locally administered schooling “provincial”—outdated by today’s sophisticated standards? Hardly! Graduates of yesteryear far outpace the academic levels of today’s students. Keep a dictionary close when you read the extensive vocabulary and complex sentence structure of ordinary students two centuries ago! Scholars produced by locally run schools founded the greatest system of government in the modern world. Local control of education typically provided exceptional educational achievements.

Today’s federally mandated and funded school programs operate with a hidden trap: teaching to the lowest common denominator, lest they discriminate. Rather than national programs encouraging high standards, the opposite has happened—federal money is tied to low standards. Common Core is a good example of federal programs which lower student achievement requirements. Teachers, busy with record-keeping and hampered by administrators fearful of jeopardizing federal subsidies, teach what the current federal program requires. Academic standards have fallen dramatically in the last century of America’s history.

There is a reason for keeping government limited, small, and close to the people. Human nature dictates that most people, when given power, will misuse it. Not at first, perhaps, but ultimately temptation overwhelms almost everyone.  Keeping government limited, small, and close allows us to supervise, redirect, and police the system. Better efforts, in education and elsewhere, are the result.

- Pam

Wildfires Rage, Again, and the Constitution is Involved

Unlikely, but true : the Constitution and raging wildfires are connected.

According to the original U.S. Constitution, federally owned lands in a state, to be used for "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings", were limited to approximately 1-2% of any state's territory. While this policy was followed for states east of the Mississippi, the government changed tactics for the west, absconding with major portions of land in 10 western states. Imposed as conditions to qualify for statehood, these actions were, and still are, unconstitutional.

Today, for instance, the federal government owns 58% of Utah's land, 45% of California, and 85% of Nevada. According to the Interior Department, 28% of the American land mass, or 2.27 billion acres, is federally owned. Further land grabs, such as the 1996 Escalante Grand Staircase, 1.8 million acres of land in southern Utah, add to federal land inventories.

These confiscated lands are often designated as national parks. This may seem benevolent -- protection the land to preserve its beauty, supposedly making it available for recreation. Few realize the implications of these land seizures. Private property of citizens is confiscated, occupations such as ranching are paralyzed, and families' lives are shattered. The federal government becomes a bully: "I want what you have, and I'm taking it." Imagine the federal government evicting you because it wants your house.

These actions are troubling on several fronts. First, as mentioned, the actions taken are unconstitutional. Second, those from whom property is taken are denied their rights. Third, the states, who previously controlled the land and have proven they can manage it much better than the federal government, lose revenue that would have come from land use. Fourth, natural resources abundant in the land are unavailable and the jobs that would have resulted from their extraction are lost. Fifth, if lands are designated wilderness areas, access is denied to virtually everyone. And finally, we come back to the issue of wildfires.

The federal government manages its land badly. Forests are choked with old growth because those who would clear the land by using it are barred. Logging and timber operations benefit the land, rather than harming it, but they are prohibited. Diversity in tree species is lost. Insect infestation has destroyed natural habitat and threatened watershed areas. Wildlife survival is threatened.

The Forest Service has lamented its own inefficiency, stating that it has not effectively addressed "rapid declines in forest health". It further mentions the development of "explosive wood fuel buildups" that create fires in many western national forests. These lands, left untamed by human hands, have become fire traps. Each summer, western lands blaze as lives are jeopardized and property is destroyed. Trees that could be used by people become fodder for fires, instead. These fires pollute the air and destroy the quality of the water for decades to come.

This is unconscionable. Citizens own the land -- they are the basis of government. We have the inalienable right to the resources of the land, to graze livestock and grow crops on the land, and to use its bounty and beauty for recreation. Addtionally, the land within a state's boundaries belongs to that state, not the federal government.

The Constitution and wildfires are related. If the federal government will abide by its contractual agreement with America and return state lands to their rightful ownership, we would see better managed lands and we could save millions of dollars spent in firefighting. We would have healthier forests, more lumber available, and greater revenue in the states. Jobs would multiply and prosperity would increase ; Americans would profit greatly from the application of constitutional principles and spare her forests at the same time.

For addtional information, see www.americanlandscouncil.com

- Pam

 

When Business Runs Wild: Tampering With Our Food Supply

Consider the catastrophic results of allowing a major seed company to gain control of our U.S. food supply. We could find ourselves in future with no food for our children. We are dangerously close to that with the recent actions of Monsanto Company.

Political chicanery and economic favoritism are ruining our nation’s commerce. No better example exists than the giant agribusiness, Monsanto Company. Unethical government and dishonesty by elected representatives converge on two major developments surrounding Monsanto Company.

The first concerns Monsanto’s control of the seed market. Farmers need seed and Monsanto largely controls the US seed market. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that farmer Vernon Bowman of Indiana violated the intellectual property rights of agricultural titan Monsanto when he planted second-generation seeds, rather than buying new seed. The justices ruled that patented seeds cannot be re-grown without the patent holder’s permission. Bowman must pay Monsanto $84,000 in damages and court costs for patent infringement.

While the patent rights may seem clear cut, the end result enables a corporate takeover of our food supply. Farmers are now compelled to buy new seed; they cannot be resourceful, reduce costs, and economize by gathering seeds from existing crops. Monsanto draws dangerously close to holding the entire agricultural industry hostage: “Buy my seed or there will be no food.” This is alarming. When another entity controls your access to property—in this case, food—freedom is in trouble.

The second issue deals with political favoritism shown to Monsanto. In March, 2013, Senator Roy Blunt, (R-MO) quietly inserted a rider onto President Obama’s overreaching bill to avert a government shutdown. Senator Blunt’s actions are the poster child for government favoritism. Monsanto is headquartered in Missouri, Senator Blunt’s state. This unethical senator rewarded his major campaign contributor with a special favor--his attached rider lifted Monsanto above the law, nullifying applicable court actions intended to protect farmers, the public, and our food supply. This is a stunning example of unscrupulous special interests detrimental to us all.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible to assure the safety of our national food supply. Genetically modified (GMO) foods raise serious concerns about safety, nutrient content, and cross pollenization with non-GMO foods. The USDA prohibits the planting of GMO seeds until safety has been assured, to its satisfaction. While there are concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the USDA, it is the law to comply with USDA regulations.

All except Monsanto, that is. Thanks to Senator Blunt, Monsanto gets favored treatment. It can ignore the law and plant GMO seeds before they are certified safe. It is immune from prosecution. If Monsanto seeds are blown by the wind into the field of an organic farmer trying to keep his plants GMO-free, that farmer can be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement. No sympathy for the farmer who took no action to bring this about, whose crops have been compromised, and whose seed is permanently contaminated. He has no legal recourse, but Monsanto does; giant Monsanto can hold an innocent farmer hostage and destroy him financially for an act of God—the wind.

Monsanto has seduced the agricultural market for decades, with the help of elected officials such as Sen. Blunt. The mammoth corporation is now under investigation by the Department of Justice for its business practices. It appears Monsanto has violated antitrust laws by squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies, and using all available means to protect its multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops.

Free enterprise and the United States emerged together. In 1776, as the Declaration of Independence was drafted, Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations, which introduced a free market economy to parallel our democratic republic. Its trademarks are profits for producers and quality goods for consumers, in a self-regulating marketplace where competition matches supply to demand.

The brilliant partnership of free government and a free economy produced prosperity in America: in 1905, 116 years after our Constitution’s implementation, America produced 50% of the world’s goods with only 5% of her land mass and 6% of her population. That was success!

Today, our governing system and our economy are disfigured. Free enterprise and a democratic republic only work when ethical principles are followed, and they have not been followed here. The Golden Rule, simply and clearly stated thousands of years ago, still applies to individuals, businesses, and governments. Monsanto Company has the responsibility to follow ethical business practices. Senator Blunt has been unethical in his favoritism to a campaign contributor.

Elected officials on both sides of the political aisle are disgusted. Our Founding Fathers urged the election of honest, reputable men. Senator Blunt should resign, or be removed from office by the Senate, which has the constitutional authority to do so. The special privileges awarded to Monsanto must be revoked. Citizens need to voice disgust over this economic and legislative malpractice to their elected officials.

- Pam