Michael Badnarik: a letter from Sheriff Richard Mack

Michael Badnarik at ConstitutionPreservation.org:

I would like you to read an urgent letter from my friend, Sheriff Richard Mack. I will include my comments after his letter.

Just One Chance

What would you do if you knew you had just one chance to save your family and country from complete and utter destruction? What would you do if you knew there was a lawful and peaceful way to restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land? As a former peace officer and county sheriff, if I were to take the stand in court right this minute, and be sworn to tell the truth, I would, without any hesitation or ambiguity, testify to you and every American, that there is a solution, that there is in fact a way to secure liberty, protect ourselves and our families, and once again live in peace and freedom.

The solution is in your hands, it is within your own backyard, it is in your county. The solution is state sovereignty and each county acting in accordance with the principles established therein. It’s you working with your sheriff and other elected officials to stand against the tyrant and for individual liberty. The bottom line answer is your sheriff. Ultimately, he is the one who will decide what is and what is not enforced in your county. He has the authority and duty to interpose himself on your behalf to protect you from all enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the people’s protector.

We have been working on this movement for three years and we are now ready to push this concept to the next level. What concept is this? The concept of creating Constitutional Sheriffs all across America. The CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer Association) is having its first national convention. We are inviting 150 to 200 sheriffs from all over the country to attend. We are going to train them, firm up their knowledge of the Constitution and their oath of office, and then establish a new declaration from the sheriffs to the Federal Government, that there are a few things these sheriffs will no longer tolerate from the feds. Literally, the CSPOA is going to create a nation of constitutional sheriffs. There is no abuse they will not be able to stop. With them on board the freedom train there will be no stopping us. We can have America back tomorrow; not next election (like that has ever worked) and not next year, now!

We need your help. We need you to pledge your lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to this holy cause. We have just started our “money bomb” and ask that you do whatever you can to help us pay for this Constitutional Sheriff convention. We are not asking for your fortunes, but merely that you do what you can. To make this all happen we must raise $200,000 As soon as we do, the convention happens. It will be the most important meeting since the Founders signed the Constitution.

All donations can be made at www.cspoa.org or www.sheriffmack.com or send checks, MO’s or cash to:
CSPOA 112 Ridgewood Dr. Fredericksburg, TX 78624.

Please forward this email to everyone you know who would like to restore freedom in this country.

Link to You Tube video Yours in liberty,

Sheriff Richard Mack (RET)

So many people ask me what they can do personally to help restore the Liberties we have lost. The political and economic problems seem insurrmountable, but only if you imagine that you have to do all the work by yourself. Most of us hope and pray that a hero will ride in like John Wayne and deal with the bad guys on our behalf. That idea is not as antiquated and far-fetched as you might imagine. The Sheriff in each county takes an oath of office to do exactly that. Defend us from bad guys sent by the state and federal governments.

So how can we make that happen? By hosting a national convention of Sheriffs, and inviting as many as 200 of these elected officials to listen to Sheriff Richard Mack explain the importance of their position and the oath they took. I have shared the stage with Richard many times, and I must confess that my hopes for my country soar when I realize that someone else is willing to speak as passionately about the Constitution as I do. You don’t have to do the work yourself – but you have to make it possible for Sheriff Mack to do the work for you.

Not surprisingly, most elected Sheriffs will be reluctant to travel across the country to attend a “boring seminar” if they have to pay for it themselves. Therefore, we’re asking you to foot the bill for their travel and lodging so they WILL come to listen to Sheriff Mack. Richard has already told me that he expects me to be there to offer a few choice words in this regard. A team of wild horses could not prevent me from being at this event when it occurs. I am hoping that you feel as strongly about this opportunity as I do.

What I’m asking you to do is to make as large a contribution as you can by visiting Sheriff Mack’s website, or mailing a donation to his Texas address. I know the economy sucks. I know that most of us are struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table. I know that some of us are worried that the bank will foreclose on your home. Wouldn’t it be nice to have your county Sheriff standing on your front porch telling the bankers to “go pound sand”? If you don’t help to make this national Sheriffs conference happen, then you may find yourself evicted with no one standing by to protect you. Never have our Liberties depended more on your immediate action.

The founding fathers dedicated, “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”. Now it is time for you to do the same. After you make your contribution, please share your comments encouraging others to follow your example. Time is running out.

28 thoughts on “Michael Badnarik: a letter from Sheriff Richard Mack

  1. Joey G. Dauben

    Michael Badnarik has zero credibility asking for any money on behalf of anybody. Lest we forget why.

    It’s not as bad as asking the Granny Warriors to pitch a fundraising letter, but it’s close.

  2. JT

    Joey: “Michael Badnarik has zero credibility asking for any money on behalf of anybody. Lest we forget why.”

    Why?

  3. wolfefan

    With respect, this proposed conference seems like a waste of time and money. I don’t know much about Sheriff Mack or Mr. Badnarik so I won’t say it’s a scam, but that’s how it strikes me. A conference of “as many as 200” sheriffs (a number which would include a conference of 1)? That’s an incredibly small number. Just send a check to Sheriff Mack – what if the conference doesn’t come off – will he send it back? I forgot – it only takes 1 Sheriff to meet the threshold Mr. Badnarik has set. Also FWIW where most people live the Sheriff’s office is not the primary law enforcement entity – the Police department is.

  4. NewFederalist

    This is a great concept but bad timing. With so many appeals for contributions to political campaigns currently it is difficult for me to see how they will raise this much money anytime soon.

  5. Andy

    This is a great idea, which reminds me of an idea I had a few years ago for a Libertarian Sheriffs Project (as in a plan to focus on getting Libertarians elected to the position of Sheriff).

  6. Tom Blanton

    What about the unelected police chiefs that tend to be in charge of law enforcement in many of the large population centers?

    It’s hard to believe that anyone truly thinks this scheme will “restore” the constitution or even come close. It would take about 100 years worth of Supreme Court decisions to do that and that ain’t gonna happen.

    Can anyone reference even one instance where a county sheriff has prevented the federal government from enforcing a federal law against someone living in that sheriff’s jurisdiction?

    By the way, I’m selling magic amulets that will protect your rights better than the constitution. I also have some mystic oils that will protect you from Sharia Law. For the right price, I’ll even reveal the secret of life. Cash only, please.

  7. paulie Post author

    What about the unelected police chiefs that tend to be in charge of law enforcement in many of the large population centers?

    See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/10/third-party-political-report-back-from-d-eris-including-notes-on-incident-at-air-and-space-museum/

    “The Green party?s candidate for sheriff of Philadelphia, Cheri Honkala, addressed a rally at Freedom Plaza on Friday and called for the election of independent ?people?s sheriff?s? across the country?”

    This could work in many urban counties like Philadelphia, the boroughs of NYC, and so on. I hope these movements from the left and right get together on this; I have been pushing this idea for many years.

    Can anyone reference even one instance where a county sheriff has prevented the federal government from enforcing a federal law against someone living in that sheriff?s jurisdiction?

    I believe there were several cases in Arizona and Nevada back in the ’90s involving gun laws and environmental regulations.

  8. Tom Blanton

    I know that some of us are worried that the bank will foreclose on your home. Wouldn’t it be nice to have your county Sheriff standing on your front porch telling the bankers to “go pound sand”?

    And a number of libertarians believe that the Occupy Wall Street people are idiots?

    By the way, I have some magic crystals that prevent foreclosures. Simply calculate the amount you need to bring your mortgage current, add $1,000 and send it to me. Results guaranteed.

  9. CommonTater

    “I know that some of us are worried that the bank will foreclose on your home. Wouldn’t it be nice to have your county Sheriff standing on your front porch telling the bankers to “go pound sand”?”

    Sounds like a great idea!

  10. CommonTater

    “And a number of libertarians believe that the Occupy Wall Street people are idiots?”

    Some libertarians.

    However, I have seen some positive reports about many aspects of the Occupy movement at Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones, Reason Magazine Blog, Boston Tea Party, and so on.

    The Occupy protesters are not idiots.

    But, like the Tea Partiers, some of them only see part of the problem, and are thus prone to capture from agents of other parts of the problem.

    We know how that worked with Tea Parties. We don’t know (yet) how it will go with Occupiers.

    Having the example of the co-option of the tea parties to examine, at least some of them are already on the lookout.

  11. Tom Blanton

    Andy’s idea @ #7 is a far better idea than Mack’s, but I don’t really think that it would result in any profound changes in most people’s lives.

    I’m extremely skeptical that a local sheriff is going to prevent tyranny on the federal level. I find it impossible to believe that waving the constitution around will prevent the federal government from pursuing obstruction of justice charges against any sheriff that attempts to prevent them from enforcing federal laws or regulations.

    At best, a sheriff may be able to persuade federal agents not to act when they know they are acting beyond the scope of the law.

  12. paulie Post author

    At best, a sheriff may be able to persuade federal agents not to act when they know they are acting beyond the scope of the law.

    That’s a lot of the time, as I am sure you know.

  13. Tom Blanton

    CommonTater, I didn’t say the Occupy Wall Street people are idiots. However, I’m implying that Badnarik is bordering on idiocy if he thinks a sheriff can, or even should, prevent evictions after a valid foreclosure has taken place.

    I’m wondering if you would think it was a great idea if you sold your home to someone, took back a mortgage,the buyer defaulted, a valid foreclosure was done, and you were unable to reclaim your property in the event no bidders at the foreclosure sale topped the opening bid (the amount due).

  14. Michael H. Wilson

    re Tom @ 8. Well there was a time a few years ago in Waco that the BATF wanted to raid the Branch Davidians and the local sheriff said he’d take care of it for the BATF. All worked out fine I have been told. Don’t y’all remember it that way?

  15. CommonTater

    The problem is that a lot of foreclosures are not valid.

    With plenty of prodding from the government, the banks pushed loans that they knew were likely to default on people with deceptive sales tactics.

    The banks gambled on a government bailout, and won – big time. The banks executives, derivates traders and major stockholders made out like bandits — scratch that, made out as bandits. Meanwhile, poor, working class and middle class people were taxed to pay for the bankers free ride, foreclosed out of their homes, and in many cases lost their jobs.

    It has been a multi-trillion-dollar transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super-rich, fully aided and abetted by the government.

    And of course, politicians have collected huge kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions, junkets, under the table payola, and lucrative jobs in the corporate world after they retire from politics for their part in this grand swindle.

  16. Tom Blanton

    That’s a lot of the time, as I am sure you know.

    I’m not so sure about that. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen or that the federal laws/regulations are bullshit to begin with.

    Take the federal enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal. While this may be blatant disregarding the 10th amendment in the eyes of some, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to disagree.

    This is the essence of centralized tyranny.

  17. Tom Blanton

    The problem is that a lot of foreclosures are not valid.

    While this may be true, the situation is far more complex than the soundbite narrative you present and the implosion of the market had far more to do with the securitization of mortgage notes than deceptive sales tactics.

    That said, do you really expect sheriff’s to examine each foreclosure sale and determine whether it was “fair”?

    There is a time and process for that and it is well before the post-foreclosure eviction.

    Would it also be OK for sheriff’s to examine each criminal conviction and determine which were “fair”? Suppose you were arrested and found not guilty, but the sheriff decided you really were guilty after all?

    Should the government void contracts because one of the parties was stupid? Should idiots receive free housing because they didn’t understand what “adjustable-rate mortgage” meant? Should morons get free TVs from Rent-A-Center because the deal is a total ripoff?

    I’d suggest a little direct action against the big banksters instead of pie-in-the-sky themes that rely on dubious notions of “fairness.”

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/project2000/6225498504/in/photostream

  18. paulie Post author

    As much as we imagine the feds are all-powerful, in reality the vast majority of law enforcement is state and local. And even when the feds do operate, they often rely on local cooperation to a huge extent.

    Given their limited operating budgets (really – don’t laugh), the feds will most likely concentrate their efforts where the locals are cooperative and don’t give them a hard time. Sure they could send in the national guard….but they are busy being overextended overseas.

    Like tyrants and bullies all over the world, they also tend to be quite cowardly. If there is any chance of armed resistance, many times they will simply walk away. No, not always.

    Even my local precinct cops when I was growing up in a drug “war zone” in NYC often times chose to ignore the well-armed drug dealers and organized criminals that were well known to them and operating quite openly, and chose instead to go after the easy marks…teenagers smoking weed, NJ suburbanites crossing the GW Bridge to buy crack, petty thieves, hookers and johns, turnstile jumpers, graffiti writers and so on.

  19. Tom Blanton

    It has been a multi-trillion-dollar transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super-rich, fully aided and abetted by the government.

    So, what else is new? Welcome to Amerika.

  20. Tom Blanton

    C,mon now paulie. We know that there are neighborhoods in every city where cops don’t like to go due to inhabitants willing to shoot them.

    But are we to believe that sheriffs, libertarian or otherwise, are going to be elected on the platform of armed resistance against federal law enforcement officers. Shit, most libertarian candidates for any office are reluctant to even address drug prohibition – mush less violent opposition to enforcement of drug laws. Will these sheriffs also used armed resistance against state police?

    Here’s how the process most often works. A federal indictment is issued. Federal agents pick up the indicted. The case is plea bargained. The defendant pays a big fine and serves some time.

    Now, when the feds come to pick up the indicted person, does he then tell the feds to wait while he calls the sheriff to come have a gun fight with the feds – or does the sheriff show up at court and conduct the shoot out there? If there sheriff is unable to free the defendant, does the sheriff go to some other jurisdiction and break the guy out of federal prison?

    I’m just having a little trouble seeing how all this works out on the ground.

    Maybe it would just be simpler for people to shoot cops in an armed insurrection and hope the feds don’t call out the military?

    Now maybe I’m sounding a little like Mr. Capozzi, but I’m thinking at this time armed resistance is sub-optimal and probably lacks broad-based appeal.

  21. paulie Post author

    It’s not armed resistance itself that is what will cause feds to back off. Once actual bullets start flying, if and when they do, the feds do tend to send backup.

    However, when there are situations where the potential for armed resistance exists, and they know it, they will often times – though not always – make a decision that the risk is not worth it and simply not pursue the conflict. Much like my (notorious 34th) precinct cops in New York. And much like street criminals who find out their mark is armed, or calculate that he or she is likely to be, and decide to go after someone else instead.

  22. CommonTater

    So what happens if there are insurrections all over the ghettoes, barrios and countryside of America against the bankster-federal-wall street cabal?

    Let’s say the feds call in the army and national guard.

    What happens then?

    Maybe they will get kids from the hood to go to war with rednecks from the country and vice versa. Maybe not. The rank and file troops mostly come from neighborhoods that are on the short end of the stick when it comes to the bailouts of those “too big to fail” and they just might find they have more in common with the people that they are being ordered to fire on than with those issuing the orders.

    But then suppose “they” bring in foreign troops from China, Latin America and Africa. Well, those troops might find themselves under fire from heavily armed American guerrillas, much like Americans found themselves in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

    We can’t know for sure what the outcome will be…but my money is on those resisting the empire, at least in the long run.

  23. Michael H. Wilson

    Some people in government thought there would be a revolution in the Depression, but there wasn’t.

    In the Sixties there were a lot of people in the streets, but when the draft ended they stopped.

    This will probably pass once winter sets in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *