Republic Sheriffs:

Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officer's AssociationProtecting and Defending the Constitution for the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and securing the God-given Rights of the People by promoting and assisting County Sheriffs and OathKeepers.

White House
Your Contract


The classic tale of Robin Hood tells us in fictional form about the sheriff of Nottingham and his evil doings. The story depicts Robin Hood and his merry men as a group of idealistic criminals that support the poor through thefts. A diabolical sheriff attempts to apprehend the thieves on behalf of an evil king. Though the tale is a fable, the anecdotes accurately reflect typical sheriffs of that era.

Had the office of sheriff not moved to the New World, as a pre-established governmental form of enforcement, it may have perished in England. In America, the office found a new and revitalized life in government. It prompted Thomas Jefferson to write in his The Value of Constitutions, "the office of sheriff is the most important of all the executive offices of the county".

OathKeepersThe most exciting time for the office of sheriff in American history was the Wild West period and there is a significant amount of literature about it. This was certainly the most prolific era for sheriffs, however, much of the literature does not have accurate historical value. The data is filled with embellishment and discourse created for television and
movie images about the position. Probably the reason there is so much creative imagery about this period is because of the violence associated with it. The American public has always been interested in aggressive behavior and this is fertile ground for engaging and hostile stories. Read More

From: Sheriff Mack's CSPOA []
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 6:18 PM
Subject: Your April 2017 CSPOA newsletter is here!

A Message From The Sheriff: Never Give Up!

Richard Mack
For the past three months we have all been working to right some horrible wrongs, to free some of our neighbors who have been so tragically and unjustly imprisoned by our own government. The CSPOA staff or I have met with these victims and their families personally; we know their stories all too well.
We have received numerous calls from supporters and some donations from good people all across the country. We have even had some Amish and Mennonites contact us asking how they could help. We have also heard from several people who live in Sam Girod's neighborhood. They have all been wonderful.
One such Girod friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, has called me numerous times in just the past few days. He asked me to review with him all we have done to help free Sam Girod and all the other victims listed on website. After I told him of my trips to DC, my visits with members of Congress and Senators, and all the hundreds of people we have tried to encourage to help us fight for these innocents, he paused and asked, "What about Rand Paul, what is he doing? What about Ron Paul, what is he doing?" I told him, of course, about our contacts with both Ron and Senator Paul. He then inquired about Sheriff Clarke and the members of the Freedom Caucus. I reminded him that I had made contact with all them and many more.
Yes, after reviewing all this work and having our hopes dashed to pieces he asked, "Well, we're not giving up are we? I am not giving up until these people are freed!"
I felt that he may have taken my "review" as quite negative, because we just have not had much success yet. But Sam Girod's friend is right! We are not giving up! It pains me to no end to imagine these good people behind bars. I know what prisons are like. I can't stand the thought of them being there. Which brings me to my final question to you. What would you want us to do if you were the one in prison, stripped from your family wondering when this nightmare would ever end? What would you have us do?
No my dear friends, we are not giving up. We are going to keep trying. We are going to keep fighting. We do have a great deal yet to do and we are going to do it!
We thank each of you for your financial and moral support. Please keep it up! We are all in this together. We love you and we love the innocents whose lives have been destroyed. Most importantly, we love America and the promise of liberty it gives us all.
We will never give up on America and we will not stop trying to free these good people.
Oh and BTW, Sam Girod called me from his jail cell just 5 minutes ago to ask me how our work was coming along. I would like each of you reading this to answer his question.
God bless Sam Girod and his family!
Sheriff Mack
Support the The Freedom Coalition Investigative Fund!

The Freedom Coalition just sent Sheriff Mack and will be sending additional teams to Washington D.C. seeking presidential pardons of those who have been victimized by big government regulations. This fund will also support the formation of an independent commission to review the arrest of these ABC bureaucracies that have abused their authority and quell ridiculous over regulation.

New Sheriff in Town Hits the Ground Running
By Rick Dalton

Rick Dalton, Ret. Mesa PD 
Newly elected Sheriff Mark Lamb, of Pinal County, Arizona, takes seriously his oath and obligation to protect the citizens who elected him, as well as those who did not vote for him. Part of this obligation includes enforcing immigration laws in his county, which is close to the U.S. Mexico border.

He has had his deputies cross-trained by the Federal Government, and participates in its 287-G program, which gives them authority to identify, apprehend and hold criminal aliens and other illegals for deportation.

The practice has garnered recent national attention, as evidenced by a Fox News segment last week. Sheriff Lamb, a CSPOA member and Constitutional Sheriff, believes it's his duty to protect citizens in Pinal County. The Obama stance was to basically leave illegals alone unless they committed a serious crime. Even, many violent illegal criminals were released back into the neighborhoods after they served their time. According to FOX:

"The Trump Administration sees local law enforcement as a front line in its battle against illegal immigration, at the border and in the interior. They do not expect to turn local cops into immigration agents. But once an immigrant is booked into jail, for any offense, they become fair game.

The administration argues it is the federal government's prerogative - not a local mayor or city council - to decide who gets deported and who does not.
"It's a slippery slope, when you get into that," Lamb argued. "You can't start determining this person meets a criteria and this one doesn't. The bottom line is, it's illegal (to be here). If someone is illegal, it's against the law and my job to uphold the law."

Marin wished more local law enforcement shared his attitude. "It's troubling for us because here's a criminal alien, somebody that we can use our unique authorities to not only remove them from the community," he said, "but ultimately remove them from the country and again there's law enforcement agencies that are just letting them go."

Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret), president of CSPOA, praised Sheriff Lamb as "a great example of what a Constitutional Guard should be."
The Mack Pack $99+ Free S/H 
- Click here to get yours now

Comes with the following items and books:
1 Annual Membership ($50 Value)
1 CSPOA Hat ($20 Value)
1 Are You A David ($15 Value)
1 The County Sheriff ($15 Value)
1 The Magic of Gun Control ($15 Value)
3 Victory for State Sovereignty
($9 Value)

All the hottest selling items for one low price, plus free shipping! Buy now and save $35.

Legislative Update
By Rick Dalton

Rick Dalton, Ret. Mesa PD 
Upddate: As of this writing, April 13th, Governor Dug Ducey of Arizona  signed into law the civil asset forfeiture bill passed by the Arizona Legislature.  Rick Dalton, CSPOA Ecec. VP and Legislative Liaison, said "As we said before, we (CSPOA) don't think it goes far enough in protecting citizens' 4th Amendment rights, but is is a step in the right direction." 

(Special thanks to the Arizona Civil Defense League (AZCDL) for their outstanding work in defending freedom and keeping track of these many bills. Check out their tracking page, from where these updates were taken.)

In the 2017 session of state legislatures, as well as the federal Congress, many bills of interest were good, many were bad, and some were ugly. CSPOA works hard to make good laws popular and bad laws unpopular.

Here are some bad proposed laws in the Arizona Legislature that are now dead.
HB2148, introduced by Rep. Randy Friese (Dem) Would establish a "public safety and violence prevention study" committee.   The clue to what it's really about is in the make-up of the committee members.  It specifically calls for a member who represents a group that advocates for "gun violence prevention" which is Socialist double-speak for disarming law-abiding citizens.

HB2150 Rep. Friese (Dem)
Would make the private transfer of a firearm, including a temporary loan, a Class 5 Felony unless both the transferor (seller) and transferee (buyer) were screened via a NICS background check.   "Transfer" is loosely defined and could include having a friend store your firearms while you were out of town.
HB2277 Rep. Athena Salman (Dem).

Would enter Arizona into an interstate compact where member states' electors are required to vote for the Presidential candidate with the greatest popular national vote.

If this law was in effect nationwide during the 2016 national election, Hillary Clinton would be our new President and we would be kissing our right to keep and bear arms goodbye.

HB2475 Rep. Kern (Rep)
Would repeal the Arizona Gun Safety Program allowing high schools to teach the safe use of firearms and bows (ARS 15-713, 15-714 and 15-714.01). Rick Dalton, CSPOA VP and Legislative Liaison is currently teaching the course in a high school.

SB1054 Sen. Mendez (Dem)
Would nullify "no duty to retreat" in the statutes justifying the use of deadly force.

The following bills in the Arizona Legislature are currently alive and being supported by CSPOA. Please contact your legislators and urge them to support them.

HB2117 Rep. Thorpe (Rep)
Modifies the definition of the composition of the state militia to include all "able-bodied and law-abiding" citizens "who own a firearm."  Also clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms of the state militia members "may not be infringed or called into question by the federal government or any state or local government."

HB2216 Rep. Boyer (Rep)
Would make it unlawful to "require a person to use or be subject to electronic firearm tracking technology" or to disclose information about a person or their firearm using electronic firearm technology.  Violation is a class 6 felony.

"Electronic firearm tracking technology" means systems, databases, etc. that store and track information about gun owners and their firearms.  The proposed law has exceptions for search warrants and consent given by the owner of a firearm.
B1159 Sen. Borrelli (Rep)

AzCDL-requested "gun free zone liability" legislation.  If a property is not posted as a gun free zone, the owner of the property is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from another person using a weapon. To phrase it another way, post your property as a "gun free zone" and you do not escape civil liability when another person uses a weapon.

Utah Legislature action item:
HB237 Rep. Perry (Rep-Ut)
A bill that was once supposedly dead swaggered out of the House late Tuesday toward allowing carrying concealed weapons in Utah without a permit. It also contains proposed greater protections for victims of domestic violence.

The House approved HB237 on a 55-20 vote and sent it to the Senate.
Last month, it appeared to die on a tie 5-5 vote in committee. But a couple of members who supported the bill were absent that day and helped resurrect it later. The bill by Rep. Lee Perry, R-Perry, seeks to overcome objections that Gov. Gary Herbert voiced when he vetoed legislation in 2013 that would have allowed carrying concealed guns without a permit.

CSPOA members and friends in Utah, please contact your state senators and urge them to support this bill. 


Download MP3 of Richard Mack Interview on the Republic News Network: Richard Mack

The County Sheriff: The Ultimate Check & Balance

When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.

The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.

So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!

Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would still have been enforced.

Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.

Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "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." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "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." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)

Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.

It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

Sheriff Richard Mack:


You should take the time to read all of this. All people elected to public office should read this.
If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking but are too cautious to express openly.

I hope it never comes to what he is advocating but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:

Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan, grew up in the Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan. Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan. His research in the fields of crime scene investigation and Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took
232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution.
Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the Constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the Constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our Constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the Constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the Constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react. I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?


Through regulations, taxation, inflation of the money supply, trade restrictions, and tethers on private associations, government itself is nothing but a massive drain on prosperity. The situation has become deeply dangerous for the future of freedom in America, with young people unable to find jobs, opportunities being destroyed in sector after sector, banks and corporations living on the dole, and so many regulations that we are living under something nearly as egregious as Soviet-style central planning.

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

The Founding Fathers:


El Dorado County Sheriff Strips Forest Service Of State-Law Enforcement Power

Sheriff John D'Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous complaints.” “I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

Laura Cole, CBS | June 21 2013

EL DORADO COUNTY (CBS13) — The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.

Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”

In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.

“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

The sheriff won’t give specifics, but he says he’s concerned about the number of complaints his department’s received against the federal officers.

We asked law professor John Myers if the sheriff’s actions can supercede the feds.

“Looks to me as though the sheriff can do this,” he said. “They don’t have state powers in the first place, but essentially the sheriff can deputize individuals to have authority in his or her jurisdiction.”

The U.S. Forest Services wouldn’t comment beyond this statement:

“The U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement has not received this letter yet, but we have valued our partnership and good working relationship with the county over the years.”

But with limited resources and such a large area to patrol, some may be concerned that public safety may be compromised.

We asked the sheriff whether this will increase response times.

“It could be, but I doubt it.”

But the bottom line for campers is knowing someone will come when they call and report a crime.

D’Agostini’s order will go into effect on July 22, and for now, there’s no resolution in sight.

 See video report here:



C.S.P.O.A. OathKeepers White House History Your Contract