U.S. Sheriffs Rise Up Against Federal Government: Sheriff Threatens Feds With SWAT Team

reply to post by Echtelion


That is why you have a Canadian Constitution and we a have an American Constitution.
It all depends on which side of the line you are on.

Lets keep hoping and praying that more cops join our side, once more and more cops see their fellow cops joining our side they will be more easily swayed, and once the cops are on our side, well who's left to stop us? The government will go running with their tail between their legs.

reply to post by RisenAngel77


LoL, and they say Occupy is extreme.

FYI to the tin star fool. A deceleration of war is only valid if you WIN. Otherwise the victor can prosecute for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. Plotting and acting out is the same under U.S. code. Threatening and having the means to carryout such a threat makes it all that more prosecutable.

This would only be legitimate if it was part of...

> Mass solidarity protest demonstrations and strikes.

And a considerable portion of citizens participating, or at least sympathizing with those acts.

> International support. Be it China and or Russia etc.

> The U.S. military and guard units splitting off and declaring allegiance to the populous against the establishment elite. The establishment elite being defined as the top 1% and their government enablers including those even beyond in the international community such as Europe. Made up mostly at the top of the 1% of the 1% which would be international oil companies and central bankers which are the major depositors in central banks are then defined as the enemy of a legitimate international revolution. This would be defined as the enemy leadership.

> Having an international governance body of revolutionary representatives commanding international militia forces made up of military factions and private citizens fighting within international guidelines for conducting war operations.


That would be legitimate. Because you have to be in a position to win.

of course this article is NOT true.. it's just to give their SWAT division some attention.

reply to post by 31Bravo


So they commit a major federal felony to gain attention?

Somethings you can't joke about. Threatening the violent overthrow of the U.S Government is no joke under any circumstances.

Winner takes all in the end including the position to prosecute. That's the prize. It's the only prize that matters.

reply to post by xxxxxy


Yep....out here in Arizona, we have Sheriff Joe Arpaio...(I might have spelled that wrong...sorry)...Sheriff Joe, to u s....if the feds try to rough his citizens up....he'll be on them like stink on dead fish....this will be a sight to see!

reply to post by doryinaz


Joe will then find himself landing fast in federal prison.

Is it wrong of me to feel hopeless? If the ones in power possess advanced weapons of death, how can anyone go against them? How will we go against their heart attack guns or other weapons of the like? All they have to do is take out any who oppose them.
"What can man do against such reckless hate?"-king theoden

reply to post by numero17


One thing I have learned in my years on this planet. No matter how strong something appears to be, there is always a weakness. The challenge is sometimes finding that weakness. But once the weakness is found it can be exploited as much as possible. Fear nothing.

It's all planned. When M-law is imposed before the elections, the boss will impose some E-order with the backing of the super team's approval to postpone the vote for a year or two...or until we, the people, stop being defiant and comply.

We all knew this would happen. The writing is on the wall.

Originally posted by Kryties
There is no need to sound so thrilled at this. Almost makes me think you don't WANT the Sheriffs to be able to stop the Federal Govt. from doing whatever they please, in fact it almost seems like you WANT to live in tyranny.

The sheriffs are not able to stop the federal government from enforcing federal law. They do not have the legal authority to do this under our Constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misguided, or they are lying to you, trying to usurp our Constitution and replace it with a fantasy state of their own devising.

Am I thrilled to teach misguided people the truth about our Constitution? Am I thrilled to defend our Constitution when it is attacked by fantasists and propagandists who lie about it? Absolutely.

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
If this is true, things are about to get very interesting the coming months. I wonder if this will spark up other local law enforcements to do the same in other states. None the less, if this news is true, then the movement is rapidly gaining momentum as more people awaken to the corruption.

website definitely looks credible and the source links within itself.. *gulp*.. something I truely never expected or even thought about .. .................I feel like i need to apologize to the officers for doing this.. since i placed 100% of those in local/county/state police force in with the Feds/Gov....WOW

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........and yes.. i totally agree !!

This is a start. When will the Governors realize that all true Constitutional power exist with the States? The Federal is simply a tool of the States; The States control the flow of Tax Income that supports D.C. Without the power vested to the Federal it dies. It is time that Governors unite under common concern for the Nation and resume their rightful authority over actions of the Federal. Governors should enforce their State Constitutional authority and recall its Representatives and withhold levy of Federal Tax until such time that the elected Governors have met and determined the next course of action.

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by xxxxxy

 

Yep....out here in Arizona, we have Sheriff Joe Arpaio...(I might have spelled that wrong...sorry)...Sheriff Joe, to u s....if the feds try to rough his citizens up....he'll be on them like stink on dead fish....this will be a sight to see!

Joke Arpaio has used his office to go after his political enemies, including the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (who are supposed to be his bosses, and anyone else who ticks him off. I'd be willing tob et he'll be in a federal prison within two years, and that'll be just fine with me

THREAD ALERT!

I CAN SEE WHY MANY OF YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS THREAD AND THE LINK PROVIDED BY THE OP. AT FIRST GLANCE, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOCAL POLICE FORCE IS STANDING UP TO FEDERAL INJUSTICES. THIS, MAY NOT BE THE FULL STORY.

THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE SHERIFFS' MEETING AT THE YREKA FAIRGROUNDS WAS IRRITATINGLY VAGUE. I HAD TO DO RESEARCH TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE WHOLE ISSUE WAS ABOUT.



The quote that stood out most for me, in the OP's article is this:

Host sheriff John Lopey of Siskiyou County, speaking about the federal environmental intervention, said: “I have told federal and state officials over and over that, yes, we want to preserve the environment, but you care more about the fish, frogs, trees and birds than you do about the human race. When will you start to balance your decisions to the needs of the people?” Later he told the audience, “We are right now in a fight for our survival.”

This sent up a big red-flag for me, being an environmentalist. From everything I've researched, the fish, frogs, trees, and birds are the ones more commonly struggling for survival. And the complaints of these sheriffs seem to reflect that of agricultural and forest/mining industry interests rather than environmental ones.

Upon digging deeper into this issue... it seems that the police are ONLY standing up against the federal government to further the interests of agricultural, mining, and timber industries and AGAINST the interests of the local environment and the local Indian tribes.

What seems to have happened is that the LITTLE GUYS (the Indian tribes and ecosystems/species threatened by industry practices/interests) have been trying to fight against the various dams (including hydro-electric) and irrigation practices (diverting water from wild/natural sources) in the Klamath Basin of Northern California. As a result of these practices, local species have suffered extreme drops in population and destruction of their habitats. The fishermen/fisheries and Indian tribes are directly affected by the effects upon local species/ecosystems and have raised concerns over unsustainable practices by industry. From what I've gleaned, the federal government has stepped in to remedy problems via environmental regulations, but local industry/farmers (and now the police) are "standing up" against this. From my point of view... I can see how this would be quite controversial, however, I would not put the sheriffs in a heroic light... in fact, their stance on the whole thing is quite questionable. The whole thing seems to be a pro-industry/right-wing charade AGAINST the rights of local Indian tribes and threatened species. And personally, I'm on the side of the tribes and the environment, with or without the feds/sheriffs.


Here are some pertinent links

Original Article on the meeting


Local tea party description of the meeting in Yreka


Defend Rural America - the ranching/mining/farming/timber interest group behind the whole controversy


An unscientific and poorly sourced article from Defend Rural America blogger


Wiki facts on the Coho Salmon
(the salmon's range extends FAR northa and south past the Klamath region and proves that Coho exist in Klamath naturally)


More on the Coho Salmon


Wiki link on the Klamath River/salmon controversy


THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS


PCFFA article on Klamath water myths versus facts


Article on Crisis in the Klamath Basin

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Echtelion

 

That is why you have a Canadian Constitution and we a have an American Constitution.
It all depends on which side of the line you are on.

???

Care for elaborating?

Im pretty sure that most civilians, law enforcement and military personal are pretty fed up with whats going on. Im also sure that most military personal would not enforce martial law because people are protesting.

Here’s the short and sweet point: once the facts of our government’s “leaders” are revealed (and you’d damn better do your research if you call yourself a citizen), then every man and woman who’s sworn an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, must act to incapacitate those who violate the Constitution

Yes you will always have robots that blindly follow orders but I have faith that our soldiers and officers would come to our side when the crap hits the fan.

Bill

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by 31Bravo

 

So they commit a major federal felony to gain attention?

Somethings you can't joke about. Threatening the violent overthrow of the U.S Government is no joke under any circumstances.

Winner takes all in the end including the position to prosecute. That's the prize. It's the only prize that matters.

What? Just where in the article does it state they committed a felony? Something like that would be all over MSM right now so what water does this story hold? Absolutely zero. All I saw was someone from the department voicing their opinion of their disgust for the way things are going.

If you or I said something like that we would be put away.. deny ignorance.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

The sheriffs are not able to stop the federal government from enforcing federal law. They do not have the legal authority to do this under our Constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misguided, or they are lying to you, trying to usurp our Constitution and replace it with a fantasy state of their own devising.

"The Federal Government," we held, "may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 188 (1992)… We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

Please learn the Constitution.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


It does not matter.

It is a state problem, not a federal one.

That is the point.