Militias with Badges - Here come the sheriffs of MAGA-town
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Here come the sheriffs of MAGA-town
 |
Charlie Sykes
|
Yes, it could get worse.
The Claremont Institute — the home of John Eastman, author of the blueprint for overthrowing the presidential election — has a new initiative for undermining the rule of law.
And if you are not alarmed, you ought to be.
The Trumpian institute is launching a program to weaponize "patriotic law enforcement officers" to counter "the perversion of the justice system by which the revolutionary left seeks to advance its totalitarian agenda."
In announcing its new "Sheriff's Fellowship" the institute tied together last year's urban disorders, Covid-19 lockdowns, and "the electoral disaster of 2020," and declared that "our nation's conservative movement needs a countervailing network of uncorrupted law enforcement officials."
Specifically, Claremont envisions a cadre of sheriffs "not beholden to bureaucratic masters, and whose geographic boundaries, jurisdictional latitude, and - most important - direct connection and responsibility to citizens, places them on the frontlines of the defense of civilization."
Think of it as militias with badges, guns, and formal law enforcement powers. Or, if you like, secession-by-sheriff.
Indeed, Claremont is late to the game. The so-called Constitutional Sheriffs have been a thing for quite a while now.
"Although the Oath Keepers, another anti-government extremist group that recruits from law enforcement, have garnered more media attention in recent years," the Anti-Defamation League said in their report, the Constitutional Sheriff movement "has arguably had more success infiltrating law enforcement, including at the executive level."
The central tenet of [the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association], borrowed from the anti-government extremist sovereign citizen movement, is that the county sheriff is the ultimate authority in the county, able to halt enforcement of any federal or state law or measure they deem unconstitutional.
This is no longer simply a fringe movement confined to a few rural counties.
Trump and members of his administration cultivated and encouraged the sheriffs' movement, and openly embraced leading figures like Arizona's Joe Arpaio. Former Attorney General Sessions famously praised what he called "the Anglo-Saxon heritage" of the office.
"Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people's protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process," Sessions said. "The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement. We must never erode this historic office."
Milwaukee's Sheriff David Clarke — who was named Constitutional Sheriff of the year in 2013 — became a prominent Trump surrogate and was, reportedly in line for a position in Trump's Department of Homeland security.
More recently, Clarke urged January 6 participants to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.
"ALERT!!!," Clarke wrote. "If you attended the Trump rally in Washington DC last Wednesday and are contacted by the FBI or they come to your home, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TALK TO THEM. DON'T LET THEM IN YOUR HOME EITHER. POLITELY TELL THEM TO LEAVE AND CLOSE THE DOOR."
"If you did not go into the US Capital (sic) you do not have to explain why you exercised your Constitutional right to assemble," Clarke wrote. "TRUST NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL right now."
Clarke has since fallen into well-deserved obscurity, but the hot new face of the movement is Mark Lamb, the sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona.
In a new Politico profile, Lamb calls himself 'America's Sheriff,' who "fashions himself as more of a vigilante resister, with a heavy dose of anti-government, sometimes militant rhetoric."
Sheriff Lamb is the very model of the modern Trumpian law enforcement official . Politico reports:
Lamb supported the "stop the steal" campaign in Arizona and has expressed sympathy for the Jan. 6 rioters. He has called vaccine mandates "garbage" and spoke at a recent anti-vaccine rally in Phoenix, where he told supporters, "We're going to find out what kind of patriots you are. We're going to find out who is willing to die for freedom." He also makes direct appeals to citizens, an effort that looks more dangerous after former President Donald Trump riled up supporters on Jan. 6. For example, Lamb, an ardent defender of the Second Amendment, has spoken in support of the formation of private militias — "well within the Constitution," he told a group of supporters in March — and emphasized the power of sheriffs in Arizona, an open-carry state, to call local civilians into service to "suppress all affrays, insurrections and riots that comes to the attention of the sheriff." Last year, as Black Lives Matter protests swept across the country, he formed a local civilian "posse" to assist his office with law enforcement, even though there were no such protests in Pinal County.
**
Now, fresh off its role in trying to overthrow the 2020 election, Claremont wants a piece of that action. Here is how a recent fund-raising letter for Claremont described the Trumpian think tank's new program:
• The current revolution against the American regime, involving as it does both crime and political malfeasance, requires a coordinated response from patriotic law enforcement officers. Those whose "chain of dependency" is directly to the people of their region - officers not beholden to the centralized ( and often corrupt) bureaucracies of federal or state governments, nor the vicissitudes of easily pressured city officials.• Sheriffs are appropriate for this response. Since their beginnings as "shire-reeves" ("county watchmen") centuries ago in England, sheriffs have been intimately connected with, and answerable to, the people of their "shires" and therefore the first layer of protection, and last line of defense, for the people's rights.
• Our project will equip sheriffs with strategic knowledge and end their isolation. Their efforts will be supported, enhanced, and multiplied through a reliable like-minded network of fellow sheriffs and others with complementary areas of expertise and potency.
(Here is a screen shot of the letter.)
If Claremont gets its way, there will be sheriffs like Joe Arpaio, David Clarke, and Mark Lamb all across the country.
You are not worried nearly enough about what that might mean.
Tags
Who is online
419 visitors
More good reasons to live in the big city in a northern state.
There are people in MAGA land actively seeking to destroy America.
The real problem is, the hate sown by Orwellian big city dwellers.
That said, you don’t have to worry about this “maga land” dweller. Like most folks who live in a rural area, I have zero desire to live in your big city.
Zero
Good.
I rest my case ......
You have no case.
Not worried at all. Law and order has always been the desire. Arpaio and Clarke were strict law followers.
How can they be strict law followers when they both broke the law?
They did the job the fucking feds wouldn't...................That's just taking matters of security and enforcement into your own hand when you don't get the support that is supposed to be readily available and willing to uphold said laws.
Which job was that?
He was indicted for federal contempt. trmp pardoned him, but a federal judge said no
Arpaio, Illegals for one
He was racially profiling. Ever been profiled? My husband has and it's not a good thing
racial profiling is why he got a federal contempt charge and conviction
There is a reason Arpaio was elected six times. Sheriffs tend to be the people’s LEO in each area they are elected.
It certainly isn’t Federal law enforcement in most areas. They tend to be totally out of touch locally.
That's correct. Six times sure would indicate he was doing what his constituents desired. And I think if I had witnessed any bullshit out of illegals (Arizona is a border state duh) I would have had suspicions of my own.
Can it possibly be worse than Soros buying the election of pro crime prosecutors like Kim Foxx or Kimberly Gardner? You shoot people in broad daylight on camera and you are given a free pass.
Unless you are four corner hustler who is immune from prosecution, it's not a good place to live.
And what might it mean?
What was that you said about crackpot sources in another post? Oh, that's right
The Bulwark is not a crackpot source. I guess you are unable to tell the difference, which explains a lot.
You'd be better off using an article from Mad Magazine.
The "both sides" ism that comes from MAGAs is unbelievably lame.
Then I recommend you back up what you say. In once seed you stated "Newstalkers needs to prevent seeding from these crackpot sources." then post more TDS driven drivel like this.
He always does. You on the other hand, never ever do. Just insult and lie.
Unfortunately internet forums like this make it easy for people to try and say "both sides" are the same. All they have to do is say it.
The Bulwark is a legitimate news and commentary site. A lot of the sites "conservatives" seed from here are conspiracy sites that have lost touch with reality.
And this one isn't? WOW just WOW
The Bulwark is a never Trumper source..... which is why you are blinded by its biases. You are simpatico with it ....
It is a waste of time talking to you people. I feel sorry for Newstalkers.
Being "never Trump" is embracing reality.
Opinions do vary .....
You should. You may probably share responsibility for the fall off in participation over the last five + years with your never ending "But Trump" bullshit daily x 4 or 5. It got old then and even older now
It’s Groundhog Day here, almost all the time unfortunately.
Aren't their comments off-topic?
We know the 'fall in participation' doesn't fall on you John. We know the reasons. It's not us.
Aren’t yours and John’s comments off topic?
I said share and yes it is....................just as much as anyone else if not more ........like yours over the same period.
No, it's not.
They are likely to have a warrant with them when they knock on your door. So, please go ahead and tell them to leave and close the door. I dare you.
i will admit i have a couple of issues with what clarke said, not really problems though , but he is right about not having to talk to anyone, even if LEO has a warrant , you dont have to talk to them .
the smart thing to do is hear them out about what they want to talk about, that still doesnt mean you have to talk to them about anything , and if they produce a warrant , comply with exactly what the warrant states , usually a warrant is issued on probable cause , and will state exactly what is being looked for , and where it can be looked for , even with a warrant , you still dont have to say anything or answer any questions .
it is also highly unlikely LEO will have a warrant for questioning unless they can prove some other probable cause for the questioning and even then they have to prove you would be privy to the information they seek.
So unless they are going to take one into custody nothing HAS to be said , and afterwards , exersize the right to a lawyer at their expense before any questioning takes place , they will get the idea fast .
By legal precedent in many states you have to communicate that right to be silent, or total noncommunication can be used against you. As you say comply to the extent of the warrant, no more, no less.
I believe in the cases on topic are arrest warrants. Still one doesn't have to be talkative without the advice of legal council. I highly suggest everyone to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible. Remember the axiom, "You get what you pay for." applies here more than anywhere else in life.
I have never let a cop search my vehicle, take me back to their car, or enter my home. I've never been served a warrant. I was once detained at a roadside stop long enough for the LEO to call in a K9 and have the dog circle my car twice. I was then allowed to leave without a speeding ticket for the original stop.