Dear Media, only liberals can call for a political revolution?

Sometimes the media makes my point for me.

On Saturday October 15, I tweeted the above image and said it’s “pitchforks and torches time” over the incredible collusion that our branches of government (plus journalists) have engaged in over the past few years.

Together, they have done unimaginable things to American citizens — the IRS has targeted patriotic citizens for audits, the DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder thumbed his nose at Congress’ lawful order to turn over papers relative to the botched Fast and Furious gun smuggling investigation that led to one of the guns ending up with Mexican drug lords and being used to kill Border agent Brian Terry and thereby becoming the only Attorney General in United States history to be held in contempt of Congress. His successor Loretta Lynch has decided to let Hillary Clinton get off scot-free, after she cowardly dumps the decision onto FBI Director James Comey who ignores the plethora of evidence to indict and after Lynch meets secretly with Bill Clinton days before the decision. Lynch played ignorant about the meeting for days before finally acknowledging the truth that her meeting the targets husband secretly was improper. She should have been disbarred over that. Her decision allows Mrs. Clinton to lie her way almost to the Oval Office.

And what have journalists done over the past eight years? I use the term “journalist” loosely. Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit says to think of them as “Democratic operatives with bylines” to get closer to the truth. The media has done NOTHING but look the other way.  Plus, Wikileaks emails show the collusion between the Clinton campaign as written about in the Observer Politics.com.

“She is going to read me the story later today off the record to further assure me,” Clinton campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri wrote in an email to Podesta and other staff about New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman coordinating directly with the campaign to provide Clinton with favorable coverage.

Now Big Media is trying to once again distract the American people from all of the corruption going on in the Oval Office and in Mrs. Bill Clinton’s campaign by pointing at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office. Julian Assange and Wikileaks must be envious. They can’t get Big Media to cover Clinton corruption. Maybe they should have started each leak with the phrase, “Pitchfork and Torches Time in America” and then maybe they could get the media’s attention.  (Interestingly, I’ve been using this language since 2015, so it’s more than a coincidence that they are only now bringing it up…  after I’ve aligned myself with Donald Trump and have been eviscerating Mrs. Bill Clinton.)

When I tweeted the above image, I meant it. I wasn’t speaking in code. It’s time to run those corrupt politicians out of Washington DC and back to whatever crevices they crawled from. It’s time to put Mrs. Bill Clinton behind bars, where she belongs. And it’s time that the DOJ learns what the “J” stands for in their name.

Of course, that’s not what the “Democratic operatives with bylines” understood when they saw my tweet. They immediately reported that I was trying to “incite violence” — and unbecoming habit for a law enforcement official.  They were so desperate to make something of it, they contacted the NRA and probably the Trump campaign to get them to disavow me.)

Here’s what I — and the American people — know… but for the sake of the media, let me spell it out for you.

First of all if you came here expecting me to walk that statement back or ask for a do-over, you are going to be disappointed. I am not your typical conservative. I stand and fight for what I believe in and I play smash-mouth politics. Big Media is not used to that from many conservatives.

When Bernie Sanders called for a revolution almost daily during the Democrat primary, no one in the media blinked an eye. Every sane person knew what he was talking about. (And, by the way, the guy is a socialist — becoming a socialist is like committing “death by government.” The body count from socialism easily exceeds 100 million.) The media yawned when Bernie cried for a “revolution.”

Big Media should go back and read the Declaration of Independence going over the part that reads, “…that mankind are more disposed to suffer while Evils are insufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed,” or as Judge Robert Bork said in his book Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern liberalism and America decline, the tendency is for people to complain (bitch) for a while and then ultimately acquiesce and comply.

That speaks to that part of my tweet that says, all we do is bitch. The Founders further stated in the Declaration…it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for their future Security. It was pitchfork and torches time in America. If Big Media thinks that the Declaration of Independence is no longer relevant let me remind them that the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cited the Declaration of Independence frequently in his opinions.

Yet, here I come — after 38 years of law enforcement and suddenly Big Media gets all weepy. They said I was trying to incite violence, even though my entire career has been geared toward upholding the U.S. Constitution along with law and order.

I don’t buy their false outrage. The Guardian was one of the media outlets that had to pass the smelling salts. So writer Lois Beckett went to a scholar at the UCLA to get his opinion.

Eugene Volokh, a Libertarian second amendment scholar at the University of California Los Angeles school of law, said Clarke’s remarks were clearly intended to be figurative.

“What do you think Sheriff Clarke is trying to get people to do? Is he trying to get them to spear someone with a pitchfork and burn down their house, or is he trying to motivate someone to vote for Trump or support conservative values? It seems to be quite clearly the latter,” he said.

Guess the Guardian didn’t get what they wanted — and instead found someone who had common sense.

When President Obama said at a fundraiser in 2008 (in reference to dealing with Republicans) that if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.  I don’t recall Big Media being appalled at that reference and asking if Obama was inciting violence.

Nor did I hear CBS, ABCNews, CNN or the Guardian U.S. feign shock about inciting violence when disgraced Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby repeated the rally cry of rioters, “No Justice, No Peace,” in a national news conference announcing the indictment of 6 Baltimore Police officers.

I’ve done nothing in 38 years of law enforcement to make any person believe that I incite violence, unless you believe that the right of self-defense which I advocate for, is inciting violence which this same media accused me of doing several years ago. Yet here goes the liberal, tolerant media giving liberals a pass while making plastering headlines across America that a black man’s conservative political rhetoric is actually violent.

Please. I’m not buying it, and the American people aren’t buying it.

A significant and growing number of Americans sense that their federal government no longer belongs to the people, nor does it represent them and that our Constitutional Republic has been replaced by an Administrative State.

That is who my tweet was directed at. I encourage them to join me in pushing back against the corruption that has infected our institutions of government. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the pretended legislation of federal bureaucracies that have no law making authority under the Constitution. That Constitution is being shredded with the aid of Big Media as I write. I guess that makes me old school. Fine. I haven’t forgotten that I report to the people, not Big Media.

Yes, like the Founding Fathers knew and had the courage to say, it is pitchfork and torches time in America.

"Not only is he an intellectual. He is full of life experience that has made ..."

14 Thomas Sowell quotes that absolutely ..."
"especially the Jelly filled or ones with sprinkles !! that could be our BLOOD LUST ..."

Liberals want gun ranges to stop ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Steven Schwartz

    If you are calling for illegal mob action — as you are — then resign as a law enforcement official and be *honest* about it, rather than betraying your office and the notion of the rule of law.

    “It was pitchfork and torches time in America.” Actually, it was time for people to take a brave and honest stand, not draw a government salary while advocating resistance to it. I don’t know what *you* think “pitchfork and torches” time is — but I suspect that if BLM showed up at your doorstep with pitchfork and torches, you’d consider it a threat to law and order, and react forcefully.

    You claiming it’s that time while allegedly being a “public servant” is hypocrisy of the highest order, and makes me very glad I don’t live in Milwaukee; I would not trust you to uphold the law or see justice done for a millisecond.

    And you, County Sheriff,have no more right or authority to define the Constitution than a priavate citizen — merely more power to abuse in your decision. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the pretended legislation of federal bureaucracies that have no law making authority under the Constitution.” — the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what is and is not constitutional — not you.

    If you were an honest man, you’d resign and take up your pitchfork — instead, I have no doubt you’ll draw your government salary and posture and pose and be a blot on the face of law enforcement.

    • mike r

      Steven – you can’t see the forest for the trees. It is the Clintons who have left 30 years of bodies in their wake. Sheriff Clark tells the truth but it seems even very intelligent types have been kool-aided up.

      • Steven Schwartz

        Given that the “30 years of bodies” have produced, to my knowledge, not a single criminal indictment, let alone a conviction, one has good reason to be skeptical — especially if one is a *law enforcement official*.

        Clarke (he does not deserve the title of “Sheriff”, so I will not use it) claims he’s been using this rhetoric since 2015; if so, then indeed, it’s a media failing not to have picked up on it before, and held him up for the rightful criticism he deserves. Indeed, the one good thing about the Trump campaign is how much light it’s shone upon the parts of America that distrusts democracy, hates their fellow Americans solely for their ethnicity (see higher in this thread), etc. Hopefully the light will prove as troubling to them as it apparently is to Clarke.

        • Thadeus Finkle

          No, it’s like a “brave” cockroach playing around in the kitchen when the lights are off all night and everyone isn’t watching them. Once they come out in the light, as Herr Clarke and Herr Drumpf did this election, they’re seen in the light of day for what they are, and scurry around trying to avoid being caught for being exactly what they are (bottom feeding slither bellies), and complaining about the lights and the sun.

          • Liquid

            A perfect analogy.Dont mind the shekelsteins,they have a vested interest in not winding up in something extremely cramped and blistering hot.

    • Bobkins Billy

      Steven…..if you were an honest man you would delete and block your post. Oh wait, I did that

    • Veronika Smith

      Oy Vey, of course a hook nose wouldn’t want us gentiles to rise up now would he?

      We are on to you people.

      • Steven Schwartz

        I am impressed at how little time it took for the anti-Semites to rise up from the woodwork.

        For the rest of you — is this who you want to be associated with?

        • Liquid

          Stfu,Mr.Shekelschwartz.Theres no such thing as anti-semitism,unless you are trying to imply that racism against K*kes is somehow worse then racism against other races,thus the necessity for an obvious distinction.See how you morons cant even talk without somehow holding yourselves above everyone else?What a bunch of momzers.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Ah. Now I see what “cabal” you were talking about earlier. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism; it is *different* than other forms of racism, though it is included within that larger banner, so congratulations, you can wear that hat too.

          • Liquid

            And I like peanut butter.But my statement actually says something clear,though irrelevant.So,how about you put your shekels where your baby penis sucker is and tell me what the f*ck the distinction is instead of trying to show everyone what good a little rat you are?Because that really is all you are accomplishing.Go ahead.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Simple: Most racism does not contain the added conspiratorial element of the “extra-national conspiracy” to rule over the good people. Sometimes you see it in anti-Catholic views (the whole “The Pope gives them orders”) but not so much, any more, and no one accuses Catholics of being a “race” — that’s an anti-Catholic bigotry.

            So, there’s your difference, you disgusting bastard.

        • Veronika Smith

          Always playing the fake ‘victim’ like you people have been doing for thousands of years. All manipulation and lies. No one is falling for your BS any more.

          • Steven Schwartz

            No victim here — proud to stand against anti-Semitic scum. :)

    • EdgeOfTheCliff

      I wonder, can you actually read? Or did you lose that ability as soon as you saw the author’s name and you assumed the rest. It is pretty obvious you are ignorant as to the content. So, I would recommend you study before you criticize, particularly if you commit to written comments.

      • John Q. Public

        Reading and thinking are not their strong suit.

      • Juanita Hernandez

        You guys seem very well-spoken for “tractor-pull” enthusiasts. People like Mr. Schwartz are laughable.

      • Steven Schwartz

        I did read; do you have any specific comments to disagree with or just the general claim of “ignorance”?

  • xeniatwister

    I have a pitchfork and a flashlight. Count me in.

    • Thadeus Finkle

      How else would you be able to hunt gopher and clean up road kill to feed your family?

      • Steven Schwartz

        To be fair, Thadeus, authoritarianism is by no means the exclusive possession of a) the poor or b) rural folk. There are plenty of wealthy authoritarians, educated ones, urban ones.

      • xeniatwister

        I wouldn’t know a gopher if I met one, and I certainly have no intention of ever cooking any type of roadkill. In fact, I call the city to take dead animals off the road. Maybe I could get the city to send them your way. You could make vittles or something.

  • Thadeus Finkle

    A lot of the rest of us took an oath too, to protect the US against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You sir, are a domestic threat. So rest assured that when you roll into Washington packing heat, you’ll be met there by twice the force of people like me. Don’t think we the people (sane majority) will let you the people (deranged deplorables) walk right in and take over. For 240 years, nobody has found it that easy to force their way with violence on our representative government. Just because you’re the loudest, nastiest, and most vitriolic, don’t believe that you’re the toughest junk yard dog in the pit. You’re just the ugliest and the most stupid. So beat that chest of yours, and flap those gums, feel important and powerful. But eventually you’ll find out that the US isn’t twitter, and the alt right is just a mini revival of the KKK, not a movement worthy of anything but spit.

    • John Q. Public

      That, sir, is knee-jerk fear reaction from a weekend warrior trying to sound tough. Twice the force? Mini revival of the KKK? Ah, the liberal delusion.

      • Thadeus Finkle

        I guess I’ll see you on the battlefield then, should any of your ilk actually have the courage to be a real patriot, even if you’re too stupid to know what the term means. We’ll just find out how much “weekend” is in my warrior. All I can say is that if you slithering slimy snakes ever take up arms against your constitutionally elected government, you’ll meet some real patriots, real quick–pack a lunch, mother fucker. It’s funny that the under-educated right thinks they’re the only one that owns guns. Half the military, and a larger percentage of its educated officer corps leans “up” (Independent and Democrat), not “down” to the party harboring and coopted by the cowardly Deplorables. Posses in the west didn’t always win. Neither will you. America (and real Americans, real patriots) protects its government, rather than trying to destroy it. Stay off the meth, go back to school, be less of a racist dick so you can finally hold down a job and get promoted, and spend more on your family and their trailer than you do on your truck and your guns and your Twitter devices and your wrestling events and your tractor pulls and your Herr Trump (Drumpf) rallies (OMG, I just got an image in my head of what that would smell like). Revolting.

        • Joie De Vivre

          My whole family is Military including a commander in the Navy. 5 in the Marines stationed all over the world and my father in Law is Army. NOT one agrees with what you say.

          • Thadeus Finkle

            Enlisted grunts. Go figure. Did you read what I said about EDUCATED military people? And what red state do they hail from? Lol South Dakota? What percentage of your state is white? Easy question. Tough answer.

          • Steven Schwartz

            And the people I know who are vets are 100% pro-Clinton; I suspect this difference has a lot to do with pre-existing biases and location, rather than some absolute “this is what “the military” as a unified body wants”.

          • John Q. Public

            None of the people I spoke to during my time in agreed with this pathetic clown either. My thinking is that he’s either a paid troll, or some 300 pound scared shitless tollbooth clerk who feels the need to yerk his cognitive dissonance over the reality of a growing civil revolt.

        • Juanita Hernandez

          “II guess I’ll see you on the battlefield” said nobody who ever served their country. Armchair warrior clown.

          • Thadeus Finkle

            You make a career out of being wrong and being stupid, no? I served more than you ever did, guaranteed.

          • John Q. Public

            Said the marginalized clown.

          • John Q. Public

            Bingo, Juanita.

        • John Q. Public

          The more hysterical you get, the more you marginalize yourself. I don’t need a gun while you’re shooting yourself in the foot. And just so you know, dumbass, I’m a 10 year veteran, and the bullshit you are spraying isn’t even close to what 90% of the military guys feel. There are retired generals who are ready to go against this criminal cartel which you call a fairly elected government.

          • Thadeus Finkle

            You only served 10 years? Shame you couldn’t stick with it. Or did they kick you out? Wow, I crushed you in time served. Your time was probably Guard or Reserve though.

          • John Q. Public

            I enjoy your comments. You really highlight your own stupidity. Actually, I got out because what I was doing in the military for free I could do as a contractor for six figures. That buys a lot of, what was it, trucks and wrestlemania tickets? Idiot.

            I’m reading some of your other comments to service members. You seem to have to do a lot of ‘correction’ to their comments, and reinforce that you are EDUCATED as opposed to them, while simultaneously calling them elitist. Which, of course, only proves my point. The military will not be on your side. Quite the contrary.

            I bet the size and cost of your car is inversely proportional to the size of your penis.

          • Steven Schwartz

            “There are retired generals who are ready to go against this criminal cartel which you call a fairly elected government.”

            THere are always authoritarian types who are ready to stage a coup. It’s why there are so many.

            Of course, a military coup against a democratically elected government is — oh, wait, what’s that word?

            Treason.

            (And I find it amusing that you can speak for “the military guys” — every single veteran *I* know is supporting Clinton over Trump, and while I was not a vet, I know quite a few. Indeed, it’s hard to find military polling, but the most recent poll I saw showed Trump up, yes — 55%-36%. Methinks your 90% is more than a tad hyperbolic. ;))

          • John Q. Public

            Yes, I’m sure your Clinton News Network polls are very comforting to you. Its a shame that scientific polls disagree, and show Trump ahead. You never served, but you know a lot of military guys, eh? LOL. You sound like the lickspittle who gets the director his coffee, and tries to chat up ladies about how he’s a hollywood movie star. Pathetic.

            And something about a long train of usurpation, evincing a design to subject the people to absolute despotism. It is the right, it is the duty of the people something something…that ring a bell with you, you crawling liberal toad? Probably not.

          • Steven Schwartz

            ” Its a shame that scientific polls disagree, and show Trump ahead.”

            I find this amusing since I never said anything about who was ahead — and cited a poll listing Trump ahead among the military — just not at 90%.

            “And something about a long train of usurpation, evincing a design to subject the people to absolute despotism. ”

            Oh, it sounds quite familiar to me; of course, things now are *vasly* better in terms of, say, representation and liberties than they were when those words were written, but you’re not bothering to take that into account, are you?

          • John Q. Public

            I don’t know what’s sadder. What you say, or the fact that you believe it.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Care to use *specifics*?

            I mean, when those words were written, the people writing them had literally *no* representation in the body legislating for them, no authority over the executives enforcing the law, and were rapidly losing what, if any, power they had over the judiciary. And those were the ones privileged enough that, had they lived in a different part of the country, they would have had the right to vote, not counting all the people who did not.

            When I say “vastly better”, I mean it — we are further away from despotism than when those words were written by a long shot, and I’d be curious to see when you think we hit some peak we are now falling away *from*.

          • John Q. Public

            People like you need to move to Venezuela and see what boiled house cat tastes like. It tastes like the socialism that you call ‘progress’. Marxists like you are always champing at the bit to take free democratic countries and turn them into Utopias that end up as a living hell on earth.

            You’re probably young, certainly dumb. I know one will change, I hope the other does as well.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Still not seeing any specifics — just a random rant against “socialism”.

            So, when did we hit this peak, since you say that we’re *not* better off than the people ruled by a Parliament in which they had no *chance* of representation, with governors and judges paid by said Parliament’s ministries? When were we better, and what changed?

            Or are you afraid to admit it because your real answer is something like “before all *those people* got rights?” for whichever value of “those people” you’re thinking of?

          • John Q. Public

            Do you know what a strawman argument is? I bet you do. People like you see objective truths like the quote I mentioned as subjective opinion, or you deploy the genetic fallacy argument in a limp-wristed attempt to frame an argument’s relevance as having expired with the times.

            If your strawman only had a brain…

          • Steven Schwartz

            You’re the one who’s dodging answering questions — you’re saying we’re “sliding into despotism”, and I say we’re better off than we were. When asked to explain from *when* we are sliding, you go off on how “sad” it is, blither about Venezuela, and then start complaining about strawmen.

            I’m the one offering substance here — you’re the one spinning off on tangents.

            So, if we are “sliding into despotism”, when were we less despotic? When was the age of reduced despotism? And how are we not much better off now than the Founders pre-Revolutionary War?

            These are not complicated questions. Why do you shrink from answering them?

          • John Q. Public

            I’m not going to argue about some nebulous ‘despotism timeline’. This is a forum, not some liberal arts history class. If you want to learn about the tyranny of our times you can serve as I did and see it from the inside, or you can do your own legwork on the internet as an analyst. Wikileaks is a good place to start.

            Form your own conclusions. I’m not going to do it for you, or get sucked into your strawman.

          • Steven Schwartz

            In other words, you’re prepared to make broad-based statements, but not back them up at all, or be willing to discuss their implications.

            Got it. Empty sloganeering, that’s all you have, apparently.

          • John Q. Public

            No, I’m making factual statements and refusing to be drawn into a side debate where you define the questions.

            Pseudo-intellectual straw man is all you have, apparently.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Your “fact” is what, then? The quote from the Declaration of Independence?

            That carries with it a bunch of implications — like that we *are* sliding into despotism. Which is not some “self-evident” fact, but one you need to support.

            That you’re unwilling to do so is telling. All you appear to have is blatant assertion, rather than willingness to engage in debate.

          • John Q. Public

            Yes. I blatantly assert my experience, and contrast it against your pseudo-intellectual ignorance. You just don’t like it.

            Go do your own research.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I’ve done my research. I am prepared to debate the topic — you’re the one who’s hiding behind “I know this, and any attempt to discuss it is “Strawmanning”.

    • Right_in_ur_face

      We are the only nation in the world that gives us the right to end tyranny with the right to bear arms and USE THEM. It’s NOT a right to hunt,no one said the deer are coming the deer are coming. in 240 years you have not had a government so completely corrupt.. you smug POS. In 240 years no representative government has tarnished every aspect of our government!!
      You so moronically say “You sir, are a domestic threat. So rest assured that when you roll into
      Washington packing heat, you’ll be met there by twice the force of
      people like me. Don’t think we the people (sane majority) will let you
      the people (deranged deplorables) walk right in and take over.” Ha ha ha really what a twit you believe the police the military would raise arms against the protectors of the Constitution?! WHAT A CHUMP!
      NEWS FLASH NANCY THE MEN IN BLUE ENDORSED TRUMP, HUNDREDS OF Generals Admirals over 20 medal of honor recipients, ICE and the Border P https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cdffadbc1c8d6d49ffd4f6069f8693b3666b73d519375dc7150737e0b78a923.jpg atrol so you might want to rethink your fantasy!!!

      • Steven Schwartz

        “you believe the police the military would raise arms against the protectors of the Constitution?!”

        They did, and effectively, against those so-called “protectors of the Constitution” up in Oregon. They showed mercy in Nevada — well, until they had the chance to avoid a bloodbath and arrest individuals involved peacefully.

        Lots of people think they are protectors of the Constitution — even say they are. When their definition of said drastically deviates from the Supreme Court’s judgment? Then they’ve got much less of a legal leg to stand on. Being a self-proclaimed “protector of the Constitution” doesn’t count for much.

        • Thadeus Finkle

          They sure as hell did at Ruby Ridge. And Waco. Wackos with guns are not freedom-fighters or patriots. Just wacko.

          • Liquid

            Well,those were the good ol days when you still had a shred of credibility.Those days are gone,and even if Trump turns out to be more controlled opposition,the can of worms has been irreversibly opened.If he doesnt come through with his promises,he winds up in the same hot seat the closet commies are in now.

          • Steven Schwartz

            “The good old days” of early 2016, eh?

            Trust me, if anyone’s been losing credibility since early 2016, it’s Trump and his minions. Fortunately, all the evidence suggests he won’t have a chance to “come through with his promises”, since he won’t be getting near the Oval Office except by taking a tour.

      • Thadeus Finkle

        They give us guns to protect against armed idiots too. What I love most is that what you hate most is that a black man is in the White House (ouch). And now a WOMAN!!! What next, a Mexican?! God willing, yes, you scum-sucking racist mysogynistic pig.

        • pmoore40

          I HATE HIS F*CKING WHITE HALF ALSO!

        • Liquid

          Geez,I smell rotten bagels.Do you smell rotten bagels?
          And fear.lots of fear.And astroglide with a hint of feces.

        • Right_in_ur_face

          HEY BUTT HEAD WHEN I SIT DOWN AT DINNER EACH NIGHT I EAT WITH A BLACK MAN AND THE REST OF MY FAMILY.. SO TAKE YOUR RACIST BULLSHlT ELSEWHERE FREAKING PIECE OF HUMAN WASTE.
          THAT POS IN THE WHITE HOUSE CAME FROM A WHITE WOMB WAS ABANDONED BY A BLACK MAN RAISED BY WHITE GRANDPARENTS ID SAY HE IS MULTI RACIAL..I DO NOT HATE HIS SKIN YOU TWIT I HATE HIS CORRUPTION AND HATE FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!

    • pmoore40

      Meanwhile, you spew racism all over your rant. LMAO Oh the hypocrisy of the stupid left.

      • Steven Schwartz

        OK; I fail to see where Thadeus was “racist”. Vitriolic, yes. 😉 Angry, yes, but “racist”?

        Alt-right isn’t a race. Authoritarian isn’t a race. Hypocritical isn’t a race. Fascist wannabe isn’t a race.

        • pmoore40

          If I had posted the exact same post about ANY dem, you people would be screaming I was a racist. Own it. You created this climate, now live by your OWN rules. you do know that in the 50s and 60s, a lot of blacks were considered “junk yard dogs”. And I love his comment about “flap those gums” – referring to the BIG gums of the black man, as dems always have. So see? Easy to do, isn’t it? So yea, RACIST.

          • John Q. Public

            Nail on the head: You created this climate, now live by your own rules.

            That’s what socialists do. They turn freedom into a living hell, and then bitch when the manure they’ve sprayed onto us gets shoveled back into their mouths.

          • Liquid

            Yes,and by their own snares they will be caught.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Then I’m sure you’ll agree that the dogwhistles about “inner cities” etc, that the Trump campaign have been putting out mark him as a complete racist, unfit for office, right?

            Or is right-wing racism OK by you?

  • EdgeOfTheCliff

    Thadeus Finkle took a lot of time to write his impotent nonsense while smelling his own farts stuck in his powder blue Prius looking for a George Clooney Smug Cloud.

    • Juanita Hernandez

      The clown probably doesn’t even own a car. Cars are evil and promote global warming, doncha know.

  • Ilves Clearwell

    Our Federal government is totally corrupt! We have become Banana Republic, just like some of those south american countries. Except that south american countries have a huge advantage, if they don’t like the government, military revolts in a coup. Too bad, we cannot do that here.

    • Thadeus Finkle

      Yeh, too bad the military can’t revolt against the government. So you WANT to be a banana republic. God, you don’t even see the irony in your stupidity.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Let me ask you a couple of questions:

      1) What standard of evidence are you using for “totally corrupt”? I mean, we had a previous administration that lied to the U.S. people about WMDs in order to fight a war of choice — are you claiming the current administration is *worse*? Or is “corrupt” just a way of saying “Not doing what I want them to?”

      2) Who do you think *isn’t* corrupt?

      • pmoore40

        Who lied? Better do some research on your own and not just take what liberal media tells you. Kerry, Clinton, Gore, etc, were all concerned with the WMDs SH had, even back in the 90s and 2000s. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
        Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
        — President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998
        “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
        –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
        “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
        -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
        http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

        • Steven Schwartz

          There’s a difference between “was concerned with” and “started a war using as an excuse”.

          One would hope you can see that.

          • Liquid

            if you dont realize they are part of the same cabal and have been working the same policies,you are simply a damned fool.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Considering that on a whole bunch of policies they differ significantly, I suspect I’m not the fool.

            Now, are they part of the larger system of liberal capitalism? Yes. But that does not make them part of the same “cabal”, but part of the same ecosystem.

            So, what are you proposing instead of liberal capitalism? I have some ideas, but I’m curious to see where you’re coming from.

          • Liquid

            I think we both know you would giggle to yourself like a little liberal k*ke c*nt and waste my time entirely with circular logic and arguments that lead nowhere.You people are guilty of treason and domestic terrorism,PERIOD.

          • Steven Schwartz

            “You people are guilty of treason and domestic terrorism,PERIOD.”

            And here we have another believer in the rule of law, clearly, willing to judge people traitors based on comments in blog posts — or, more likely, based solely on their *last names*,.

            Fortunately, every indication is people like you are in the great minority.

            (Oh, and I presume that you feel the same way about Jared Kushner, or is it only Jews who disagree with you who are traitors?)

          • Liquid

            et in furnos tuos decernere } )

          • Steven Schwartz

            May your life be as long and full as those you hate.

  • Liquid

    These guys will kick off WW3 if they think the american population might slip from their control.I hope the boys in the armed forces know when an order deserves to be refused.

  • Mark Kordick

    Super interesting to see that you are apparently advocating the violent overthrow of the US government – or at least portions of it. Just out of curiosity, doesn’t that put you in direct odds with the oath (I am assuming) you took to protect and defend the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic? And shouldn’t you be resigning from your job as an elected official immediately? You can’t revolt against the system you are a part of … or can you? I’m really curious how you’re rationally balancing your job and this philosophy. I really think you need to resign (or be impeached) immediately. You just can’t balance the two positions. (And don’t give me that “Constitutional Sheriff” nonsense. You derive your authority from the state government which held your election and is a political subdivision of the United STATES of America.)

    • Liquid

      Well,thats because this is obviously well beyond your mental capacity.A government that destroys its own people through endless,useless wars that only ever benefit israel not only SHOULD be overthrown,but needs to.A government that seeks to create divisions in the population by turning races,classes,and religions on each other NEEDS to be overthrown,and people like you are guilty of trying to whitewash the issues should be charged with domestic terrorism and treason,and hunted down wherever you are.Even if you are sitting in a building in Tel Aviv.

      • Steven Schwartz

        “A government that destroys its own people through endless,useless wars that only ever benefit israel not only SHOULD be overthrown,but needs to.”

        I look forward to your explanation about how Iraq II “benefited” Israel. And why you are then complaining (and he is) about an administration that brought many troops *home* from overseas wars.

        (Well, the “why” is obvious — because you want to blame everything on one source, and so you shall.)

        “A government that seeks to create divisions in the population by turning races,classes,and religions on each other”

        So you would immediately want to overturn a Donald Trump government, since he has done exactly that?

        “,and people like you are guilty of trying to whitewash the issues should be charged with domestic terrorism and treason”

        So to be clear: saying “We believe in the elections of the United States of America” is treason and terrorism, while saying “It’s time to overthrow the government!” is patriotism?

        I am…impressed with the wrongheadedness of your thinking. Tell me, when did belief in democracy America become treason?

    • Damian

      Obviously you didn’t read the article, when a government official like Nancy Pelosi decides to pass a law that is OBVIOUSLY against the Constitution and the powers outlined under the Constitution, is she breaking her oath?

      Oh and actually ALL LEO’s derive their authority from the people. Not the Government. The people ARE the Government and consent to some control surrendered for the natural good, the battle is to what level we are willing to surrender our rights to allow those who deign themselves our betters.

      • Steven Schwartz

        “, when a government official like Nancy Pelosi decides to pass a law that is OBVIOUSLY against the Constitution and the powers outlined under the Constitution, is she breaking her oath?”

        If that were the case, all the people who keep passing new “prayer in schools” or “here’s another way to restrict abortion we just dreamed up” would be doing so.

        There is a large difference between “We have a difference of political opinion” and “We are going to overthrow the system because we don’t like the results — even though we swore to *protect* that system*.” One is a difference of opinion — the other is oathbreaking.

      • abb3w

        when a government official like Nancy Pelosi decides to pass a law that is OBVIOUSLY against the Constitution and the powers outlined under the Constitution, is she breaking her oath?

        Possibly; presuming the unconstitutionality is also obvious to her.

        Contrariwise, in the case of a federal Congresscritter, any attempt to hold her to any account (beyond her constituents perhaps declining via the franchise to return her for another term) for so voting anywhere than the floor of the House is unconstitutional and a violation of the principle of rule of law.

        Nohow, while such a breach of oath may have theological or political implications, it is of neither civil nor criminal consequences. It may have consequences if politics should continue to other means; but that is the essence of abandoning the rule of law.

  • Crazy Games

    Just a little helpful link for you to consider in case you wind up needing legal representation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

  • Ilves Clearwell

    The government corruption and lawlessness is getting worse, by the hour. We have just learned the US Dept. of State official, named Kennedy, wanted the FBI to retroactively downgrade classification of Secret documents, transmitted to Hillary’s basement server. What are they going to do next?
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/quid-pro-quo-fbi-files-allege-top-state-official-tried-to-influence-bureau-on-clinton-emails.html#

    Gingrich: “Patrick Kennedy’s offer if a quid pro quo to the FBI is a felony. He should be forced out immediately and prosecuted.”

  • Steven Schwartz

    So, Sheriff — if you even bother to read this blog as opposed to having some office employee post on it for you — how do you feel knowing that one of your most vocal defenders is a rampaging anti-Semite?

    • Liquid

      Well,I bet you will be upset when I tell you Im a Canadian! XD
      You see!? You CAN be made to serve a useful purpose! That mainly being my entertainment,but seeing how much of every ones time you waste with your incoherent blithering,I figured a little taste of your own medicine would go a long way.Now,who do I talk to about getting some new pyramids built around here? : )
      French supermen are your masters.

      • Steven Schwartz

        You’re a Canadian?

        Why should that upset me, other than to feel sorry for the Canadians I know who might have to put up with you? 😉

        • Liquid

          Galli Canadian magister Iudaeorum.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Und was meinst du denn damit? Und warum Lateinisch? Solche eine Witz!

          • Liquid

            Oye, et primitiva barbara Iudaei!! Sie sprechen kein Latein!? Jüdische wild lebenden Tierarten

          • Steven Schwartz

            Na ja, wir leben dort in 21st Jahrhundert, nicht in eine lang-vergangene Zeit. Warum sollen wir Latein? Die Römische Reich ist nicht mehr.

          • Liquid

            ugh,what barefoot savages!

  • Liquid

    You see what happens when they arent made to build pyramids!? And Shekelshwartz only speaks two languages,the heathen savage!!

    • Steven Schwartz

      My compliments on making yourself, and anything you agree with, seem more pointlessly bizarre than I ever could.

      • Liquid

        Youre actually very welcome! that statement speaks volumes about the reason of your presence here,that suites me just fine.Thanks a bunch! Is there any more meaningful discourse you would like to shut down? Or am I hogging all your time? ; )

    • Ilves Clearwell

      “Shekelshwartz”, LOL.

  • abb3w

    Generally, US citizens require neither torch nor pitchfork to exercise the electoral franchise.

    I’ve done nothing in 38 years of law enforcement to make any person believe that I incite violence

    Actually, it is precisely “doing nothing” which leads me to believe this seems a poorly disguised attempt to incite political violence. Specifically, doing nothing to state in so many words something on the lines that this language was figurative rather than literal, and that anyone who takes those words literally and raises up torches, pitchforks, and other weapons for mob violence will deserve to be met by the full force of law up to and including invocation of the Insurrection Act.

    I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the pretended legislation of federal bureaucracies that have no law making authority under the Constitution.

    Whether or not federal bureaucracies may have any law making authority under the Constitution would seem a controvertible position… specifically, one controverted and decided in J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States. Per Article III of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has final appellate authority to definitively resolve such controversies within the judicial arena; their verdict was that the Congress may Constitutionally delegate such authority. This remains the law until it is overturned by a new SCOTUS verdict in the judicial arena, until the Congress explicitly renounces such authority in the legislative arena, until the nation Amends the Constitution in the political arena, or until the political arena collapses into other means.

    • Ilves Clearwell

      Mambo-Jumbo lingo.

      • abb3w

        Message distortion involves selectively processing or understanding a persuasive message in a way that favors one's original attitude (Cooper & Jahoda, 1947; Festinger, 1957; Kunda, 1990; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979; Pomerantz, Chaiken, & Tordesillas, 1995). Social validation involves resisting the message by bringing to mind important others who share one's original attitude (Festinger, 1950, 1954, 1957; Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, & Raven, 1952). Source derogation involves insulting the source, dismissing his or her expertise or trustworthiness, or otherwise rejecting his or her validity (Buller, 1986; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Maccoby, 1964; Wright, 1975). Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. [...] Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975).

        — (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)

        • Ilves Clearwell

          Even better Mumbo-Jumbo. Copy & paste.

          • abb3w

            Source derrogation generally indicates more reflective rational counteargument will have minimal return on the effort.

      • JNagarya

        This is from the mouth of Sheriff Clarke:

        “I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the pretended legislation of federal bureaucracies that have no law making authority under the Constitution.”

        What he omits — doubtless due to ignorance — is that he (and his ilk) don’t have any authority to interpret or determine the law, especially as basis for actually rejecting the Constitution, which is what he and his ilk are doing, as the Constitution stipulates that it is the Judicial branch that is to interpret and determine the law.

        Instead of swallowing the loud-mouthed sheriff’s anti-Constitutional illiteracies, I recommend you actually READ to Constitution for the first time in your life. And that when you do you keep in mind that ALL of the Constitution is in effect at the same time. Including this:

        Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for [by enacting LAWS called “Militia Acts”] calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

        There is no question — despite his transparent denials — that the sheriff, elected to ENFORCE the laws, is instead calling for rejection of the rule of law. The Founders held that that is sedition, and treason.

  • New Centurion

    Most people in this country are simply too obese, lazy, and consumed with the release date of the next iPhone to be revolutionaries.

    • Ilves Clearwell

      Sad, but true.

  • JNagarya

    Some of us have actually read the “Declaration of Independence,” Sheriff Clarke. Thus we know you have not read it. A few facts about the “Declaration”:

    1. It was never, is not now, and never shall be, LAW.

    2. It applied exclusively to BRITAIN. It did not apply to such as France, Germany, and Holland.

    And it did not apply to any of the American colony govt’s because all of them were under the control of the Founders. (They did not “take up arms” against THEMSELVES.)

    And it did not apply to the Continental Congress, which was founded by the Founders. (We call them founders because they were PRO-gov’t — as evidenced by their having founded gov’ts.)

    And the number of gov’ts the Founders actually “overthrew” was:

    ZERO.

    3. Those who haven’t read the “Declaration,” like you, do a lot of loud mouthing off about it, and “revolution,” and blah, blah, blah. It is actually CONTRARY to your illiterate misrepresentation of it.

    A. The word “revolution” does not appear anywhere in the “Declaration”.

    B. The “Declaration” includes a catalog of grievances against King George III. This one is directly on point:

    “He [i.e., King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

    In short, Sheriff Clarke: the Founders were OPPOSED to crackpot preaching of “taking up arms” against the gov’t. They were OPPOSED to armed gangs running around OUTSIDE the rule of law — you know, “outlaws” — and shooting at the gov’ts FOUNDED by the Founders.

    Those who engaged in Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebellions “took up arms” against the gov’t/rule of law. They were not “patriots,” Sheriff Clarke, which is why the Founders charged, tried, and convicted them of TREASON, and sentenced them to DEATH. What you are mouthing off about — encouraging — is TREASON (not “opinion” the Constitution expressly states so).

    In fact, the Constitution — which IS law — directly and specifically addresses and refutes your crackpottery:

    Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS [not illiterate sheriffs calling for rejection of the rule of law] shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

    There is also this Militia Clause:

    Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS [not loud-mouthed illiterate sheriffs] shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.

    What that means is that the states’ militia, even when not Federalized, are always under the regulatory thumb of Congress. (I recommend you look up the Supremacy Clause — during your first-ever actual reading of the Constitution.) Under, that is, the rule of LAW.

    What we don’t need, Sheriff Clarke, are loud-mouthed history- and law-illiterate “law enforcement” hypocrites calling for rejection of and attacks upon the Constitution and rule of law. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are a disgrace to law enforcement, and the pseudo-military uniform (we are a CIVIL society, not military) getup you flaunt.

    • Ilves Clearwell

      You have completely misunderstood what the Sheriff writes here. You must be on Government payroll, thus unable, or more likely unwilling to understand the corruption that is a norm in present administration. You remind me that lawyer, Mr. Khan (I believe), when he was boasting during DNC convention that he has read Constitution, ” ….. and you, Mr. Trump, have not.”

      • JNagarya

        I have an education in law. You don’t have an education even in the actual history of the time. And are obviously ignoring the Constitution you imply that you’ve read. Clue: the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time, and includes —

        Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

        And invoking the “Declaration” doesn’t get around that because the “Declaration” is not law — and applied EXCLUSIVELY to BRITAIN.

        • Ilves Clearwell

          Your posts are creation of a sick mind, yours. Where does it say in YOUR constitution that the government is allowed to be CORRUPT?
          What you are posting is gobbledygook. What does “I have an education in law” mean? Have you finished High School? You can shove your law degree up your arse.
          You are right in line with corrupt Obama and Hillary.
          You are a sick dude, get medical help. Take my advice.

          • JNagarya

            Personal attack noted. But that’s all you have.

            Where does it say in the Constitution that a history- and law-illiterate such as you gets to define “corruption”?

            Especially as your ignorance of how our gov’t is to function, and lies against it by illiterate morons, are the basis for your UNEVIDENCED allegation of “corruption”.

            One does NOT promote taking up arms against the gov’t and also legitimately claim to give a damn about the rule of law.

          • Ilves Clearwell

            F*ck you, going to sleep.

          • Steven Schwartz

            “YOUR constitution that the government is allowed to be CORRUPT?”

            Where does it say in yours that the appropriate means of dealing with corruption is individuals taking up arms against the government, rather than following the rule of law?

            Or would you support people arguing that Sheriff Clarke is corrupt, so it’s time to remove him from office by force? If not — then you’re revealing that you have no *legal* leg to stand on — you merely support mob action in favor of *your* side.

      • JNagarya

        “You must be on Government payroll”

        Personal attack noted.

        If you can’t defend your candidate, then smear the opponent.

        I fully understand the sheriff: he is preaching a corrupt, CRIMINAL rationale, AGAINST the Constitution and rule of law.

        • Ilves Clearwell

          You are one sick dude, please get medical help!
          I don’t really want to communicate with a sick pearson. Soros’ troll getting on duty, or whatever you are, so I am signing off, going to sleep. FU, that’s the best I can do.

        • Kathy Carias

          LOL Every comment you have made has contained insults, name calling and attacks. I think you may be a seriously deranged individual. But hey, you’re pretty good at dazzling with bullshit. Does that law education include a degree and license to practice and if so, do you handle divorces? You might be pretty good at that, so just in case I need one someday, I’ll keep you in mind.

    • Schytkicker

      Excellent response!!!

      • Ilves Clearwell

        ¿Qué? Come again?

    • Kathy Carias

      “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”
      ― Thomas Jefferson

      • JNagarya

        Not law. And those such as you who don’t even know the history are hardly qualified to define the law for yourself — that being extralegal.

        AGAIN: the “Declaration of Independence” has never been law. It was a propaganda document detailing the Founders reasons for declaring independence. It applied exclusively to BRITAIN. It did not apply to the colony gov’ts, because those were all along under the control of the Founders. They were not declaring independence from themselves, or from their govts.

        I suggest you research “Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebellions and see for yourself not only their view of that proposal but also how they dealt with it — a point I already made:

        They charged, tried, and convicted the rebels of TREASON, and sentenced them to DEATH. So your ilk’s claim to be aligned with the Founders and the Constitution is an obvious delusion — or LIE.

        • Kathy Carias

          Nowhere did Sheriff Clark claim the Declaration was law. I suggest you comprehend what you read.

          • JNagarya

            I suggest you comprehend what you read:

            He is treating the “Declaration” as if it were law. And I pointed out that he is illiterate on that point — and others.

            I suggest you comprehend the fact that he does not have the Constitutional authority to interpret or determine the law contrary to the fact that the Constitution gives that authority exclusively to the Judicial branch.

            His job is to enforce that law as it is — which the Constitution stipulates shall be made by the Legislative branch.

            Sheriff Cooke is neither the Judicial nor the Legislative branch.

            See how easy that is? It ain’t rocket science: citizens do not have any authority to take the law into their own hands.

            I don’t know how many times, and in how many ways, the Founders have to say that before you anti-Constitutionalists stop lying that you are aligned with their views and intents. Your position and assertions of it have no basis in US law, and in fact are contrary to it.

            So we have an arrogant sheriff calling his fantasy of “Leftists” “anarchists,” while he is himself calling for anarchy. Whether he is too ignorant to recognize that he is doing that, or he is lying, doesn’t much matter. Either way he is a hypocrite: elected to enforce the law as it is, but instead calling for violence against the rule of law.

            The Founders called the “Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebels “criminals”. This loud-mouthed sheriff and those of his ilk are preaching a CRIMINAL rationale.

          • Kathy Carias

            Fantasy of Leftists. You poor baby. You’re obviously intelligent and well read in history. So sad something in your life warped it.

          • Ilves Clearwell

            Yes, he does appear to have completed High school, but something is screwed up with chromosomes, happened before birth.

          • Ilves Clearwell

            Please ignore this sick person!
            He is probably on release from mental hospital.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Ah, right — when in doubt, ignore the person’s *positions* and simply claim “they must be nuts, ignore them.”

          • Jason Smith

            There are only two Law Enforcement officers in America; The County Sheriff and the US Marshal. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcer whose duty it is to protect the unalienable rights of the People both in the court room and within the county. While the U.S. Marshal is responsible for protecting the unalienable rights of the People in the Federal Court room.

  • Ernest Martinson

    From the Vietnam generation to the Iraq generation, we are placing more and more trust in our dear leaders. Propaganda from public school to mass media to two-party duopoly has been outstanding in creating robots incapable of the rebellion now and then which was thought by Thomas Jefferson to be a good thing and necessary.

    • JNagarya

      Jefferson’s “call” for “revolution” — you know, the “blood of patriots” propaganda — applied to the French revolution. He was rightly defensive, thus that overstatement, because the French revolution he encouraged turned into a murderous bloodbath — committed largely by the “revolutionaries” he encouraged.

      What is germane that Jefferson said was that, No nation can be both ignorant and free. I suggest you get an education in the actual history, instead of basing your mouthings on out-of-context and misrepresented slogans. Education is only “propaganda” to morons who know nothing about — and reject — education.

      • Ernest Martinson

        I think rebellion rather than wars of choice would have been in order if there had been separation of school and state. Being a lifelong learner, I believe in education. The time spent in government schools learning to be passive and obedient to authority is a poor excuse for education.

        • JNagarya

          I learned critical thinking in public schools. Perhaps your motivation was different — education requires effort, for which the student is responsible.

          But, no, you don’t believe in education because you falsely presume you are qualified in the field.

          The Founders established public education — and you’re a “patriot” who aligns himself with the Founders?

          Obedience to the authority of law is required: the Founders believed in “ORDERED liberty” — liberty WITHIN the law, not in spite of it.

          What we have here is a person elected to enforce the law calling for treasonous opposition to the rule of law. By contrast, the Constitution expressly states —

          Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce] the Laws of the Union* [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
          _____

          *The state’s militia have exactly the same purposes on the state level. See the suppressions of “Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebellions.
          _____

          Those who call for “revolution” and like violence are ANTI-Constitutional. And I note that 99.99 per cent of such individuals are ignorant of both history and law. So they make it up as they go along, all the while claiming that their opposition to the rule of law and the Constitution are Constitutional. The Constitution DOES NOT authorize destruction of the Constitution — for which this sheriff and his ilk are calling.

          • Ernest Martinson

            By Government, I learn something every day! Please tell me where the founders established public education so I can peruse it.

          • Jason Smith

            And I think he may be forgetting the part about “just powers” and “the consent of the governed”.

            What these people are doing can in no way be considered just and some of us no longer consent………

          • Steven Schwartz

            And a majority of people do. Tell me — by what standard is your minority rebellion OK, but others not?

          • Jason Smith

            How about this minority rebellion? Was it illegal?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

          • Steven Schwartz

            Not according to the end result. :) However, had the GIs *lost* the election fair and square, then the result would have been “yes”. The only reason they “got away with it” was the criminality they opposed, and the fact that they did, indeed, win the election.

            Indeed — that final, honest voter tally proved that they weren’t a “minority” rebellion; they were a majority. Had they *lost* the election, the results would have been much different.

            There is no indication at all that the Trumpists are a majority.

            (This is also why we have these things called “trials” — so that false/inaccurate/biased arrests can be dealt with.)

            (I notice you still haven’t provided a *standard*, just an example — and even that example, as pointed out, was flawed ;))

          • JNagarya

            Do scholarly research of the 17th and 18th century legal history of the colonies.

            The first public school established on this continent was founded during the 1600s in Boston, Massachusetts-Bay.

          • Ernest Martinson

            Sorry. You flunk. The 1600s would have predated the founding of our failing constitutional republic.

          • clgatwork

            Sheriff Clark is not calling for the destruction of the Constitution…he is calling for people to follow the Constitution. Let me remind you the Constitution states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The Constitution itself is telling us we MUST revolt…the Democrats are trying to usurp the power of our government to their own means. As far as education goes…the left no longer cares about educating us, they just want a bunch of brainwashed morons following in lockstep.

          • Steven Schwartz

            And when a majority of the people do *not* find said government destructive of those ends? If you’ve got a majority of the people supporting you, get them to the polls.

            If you don’t, explain why *your* minority gets to rebel, while, say, BLM does not get to even peacefully protest without being accused of trying to bring about anarchy?

          • JNagarya

            He hasn’t READ the Constitution. And anyone who has read it recognizes that fact. You don’t, so you haven’t read it either.

  • 2 parrots and a dog

    I love patriots! We all love freedom. I often wonder what makes the left so afraid of freedom. I don’t mean the political criminal element because we know why they do. I mean the rest of them. It is almost impossible for any person on the left not to see the blatant corruption in almost every corner of our government without poking their eyes out. The need for some to feel that they are better off controlled has not only puzzled me, but has led to countless deaths throughout history as the sheriff stated. It is not as if they have all their dreams come true by being controlled. If they do not feel as though they can control their own lives, then what makes them think that others who just happen to be corrupt can control their destiny better than they can? Why is it that they believe that they will personally be exempt from criminals in government? The strangest part is that those who fight to be controlled, then turn around and feel they must control and stop anyone who loves freedom. Go figure. What a wonderful patriot Sheriff Clark is.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “I often wonder what makes the left so afraid of freedom.”

      Nothing. We’re not afraid of “freedom”. Of course, some people’s idea of “freedom” is the freedom to discriminate against others, to assault them, etc. — but that, I hope, is not the sort of freedom you want?

      “It is almost impossible for any person on the left not to see the blatant corruption in almost every corner of our government without poking their eyes out.”

      Indeed; and people like Donald Trump taking advantage of that corruption to get favorable tax benefits, and pass them on to others; or people like police officers (some of them) taking advantage of that corruption in order to shelter themselves from culpability in shooting unarmed people.

      Indeed, I see corruption in government — I see it in people *like* Clarke, who seem to have forgotten their oaths of office and duties.

      • 2 parrots and a dog

        Maybe you should see what is in the latest emails. Quite frankly, you are a liar.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Have any specifics? (Which reminds me; I wonder what we would find if we hacked into, say, Steve Bannon’s personal emails — but no one has, just yet.)

          I don’t think Clinton is 100% clean; however, I think she is much cleaner than most of her accusers, and certainly more devoted to the service of this country than either Trump nor the bloghost here.

          • 2 parrots and a dog

            Yours is the typical diversion tactic embraced by the left. I spend a lot of time researching. My rhetorical question for you is why haven’t you? My opinion is that you are either too lazy to do it or you don’t love this country enough to find out yourself. Do your own legwork. Try using your brain.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I’ve done quite a bit of research as well, and it leads to a very different conclusion. Which is why I am asking you to provide specifics, rather than just waving about “Ooh! Emails!”

            I mean, I can provide specific examples of, for example, the Trump campaign violating election law by soliciting donations from not only foreign nationals, but foreign government officials. That’s a specific charge, going directly to the notion of “corruption”.

            All you appear to have is “Look! Emails!”. Bring a specific point, rather than tossing around random insults. From the amount of *demonstrated* research around here, I clearly love this country (as exemplified by its democratic process and constitution) more than you.

          • 2 parrots and a dog

            I won’t call you a liar, but I will say that if you have actually read the most recent emails you would realize the importance of their content as they are straight forward and easy to comprehend. My mission isn’t to insult you; it is to save our country for future generations. You should be able to read them quite easily without my guidance and they are on several sites. You may be younger than I am and if you are it is understandable that you don”t possess the same level of wisdom as I do. It is much easier to understand what is at stake for someone like me than a young person. I truly hope you do take the time to read the available emails.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I have read some of the most “damaging” emails; and they don’t come anywhere close to the levels of *known* malefaction from, say, the Trump campaign, let alone, say, the Segretti/Coulson/Liddy axis of the past.

            I strongly suspect that if we had similar email dumps from, say, Kellyanne Conway or Paul Manafort we could find cases of equal import — that we don’t just points to Assange’s political agenda.

            I have no idea how old you are, 2p&1d, but I do find it amusing that you seem to a) equate age with wisdom — there are plenty of unwise people of great age, and b) presume that since I don’t agree with you, I don’t understand the stakes.

            The emails provide no smoking guns to make the Clinton campaign worse than the Trump campaign to date — remember, actual *proven* violations of campaign finance and election law? — and saying “Go read them” rather than providing any specifics, especially to someone who has read some of them (I don’t think one needs to read 21,000 email messages to have an opinion on this subject) smacks of diversion and condescension, rather than any real effort at debate or understanding of the topic.

          • 2 parrots and a dog

            People aren’t born with wisdom, and some never achieve it, like you for instance. Those who do have wisdom earn it through life experience, so it is logical that the older a person is who does attain wisdom, the more wisdom they will have gained. You aren’t the only Hillary voter in denial. If you aren’t in denial you are a flat out liar. You pick. I’m not wasting any more time with you because your mind is set on what you want to be true and no matter what I write, it won’t change your mind. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t supporting a known criminal for POTUS.

          • Steven Schwartz

            ‘Those who do have wisdom earn it through life experience, so it is logical that the older a person is who does attain wisdom, the more wisdom they will have gained.”

            I am reminded of the comment not infrequently heard in the tech circles: “He doesn’t have X years of experience; he has one year of experience X times.”

            Since people learn at different rates, gain experiences at different rates, etc., your statement is, if true at all, only true in the broadest of terms — “All other things being equal, an older person will be wiser”. But they so seldom are.

            “I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t supporting a known criminal for POTUS.”

            Given that Hillary Clinton has had to pay fewer fines, suffered fewer court decrees, and the like than her main opponent (the man supported by the bloghost here), I find this a risible statement, to put it mildly.

            If (as you appear to) you want to hold Clinton personally responsible for the actions of everyone in her campaign, then you must do the same for Trump; and since his campaign has violated election law repeatedly — well, I’m sure someone as *wise* as you can follow the logical conclusion.

            I notice that despite repeatedly bringing up the Trump campaign’s violations, you always drop the mention — not even responding with an attempt at a defense. I guess you’re just a Trump voter in denial, right?

  • madpinto

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
    Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bertrandru121392.html

  • Eye Dislikefbook

    I could not agree more with the sentiment of taking back our country. it is not ours anymore, it belongs to those that pay into the system. trump is right, it is a rigged system and i hope trump can use sites like this to hit all professional politicians:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/its-time-video-series-educates-citizens-to-americas-corrupt-political-process-to-foster-change-300342955.html. Trump needs to see this to hit hillary on.

  • chris m 73 (hawk eye)

    clarke cuff H— justic jein, to parsicute, cristy to sintence her ( H ) and her 5th budys to a new sweet fence for her comfort! after due prosess of coruse, in a 6×8 with all the condaments matching bunk beds! one tooth past 6 oz one shampo 8oz one bar of soap 6oz, roll- on deoderent 6 oz, 1 roll of one play t p like at mc d’s, every month, with matching matching orange suit’s not desinged by versachie, 3 meals free provided by the people, morning 1 6oz o j 1 6oz milk 1% fitting!!! 1 redryed egg, 2 srips off candandian bacon, llunch two bolonie sand w, wit 2 slices of b, 1 cheese , 16oz fruit drink (cool laid) card board like banna , dinner mre’s so they know what its like for the vets and troops she and obo screwed over 4 $,and a wake up call at 4:45 every morrnig, at night 9 light out so they can get their butty sleep now! 30 min a week rec, in a 10×10 exsersize room moniterd by a none yoga instructer, one vistiter a month, 30 min, that requiers a full body cavity search, to all that visits that of course none feliens , and all the press she could ever have in the next c- block! and no acsess to the e-net!

  • chris m 73 (hawk eye)

    and consailing care provided by dc phill!!!

  • chris m 73 (hawk eye)

    oh!! the address po box # 60- 2, life ave, 101 consecutive mandatory suit, quntonamo bay” post mark 2145!

  • Markus Roland

    “A significant and growing number of Americans sense that their federal government no longer belongs to the people, nor does it represent them and that our Constitutional Republic has been replaced by an Administrative State.”

    Ok, well at the time that “growing number” exceeds the other side, our Democracy says majority rules. And IF one side does not like what the other side has chosen, it’s supposed to be tough titties.

    “Today, with your support and the support of millions of people throughout this country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally.”
    ~ Sen. Bernie Sanders
    ———————————————-
    Political revolution, in other words convincing enough people of the truth and gain support at the ballot box. Not armed revolution, and especially not armed revolution when the majority’s voice is still being heard. Obviously Donald has not managed to convince enough people, with facts, to vote for his brand of change.

    Isn’t Democracy great?

    • Ilves Clearwell

      The real problem is that US Government is Totally Corrupt. This is no longer a Democracy.
      Since you mentioned Bernie, that Democratic primary was not democratic, it was corrupt.

      • JNagarya

        You are wholly out of touch with the facts. But don’t let that stop you expressing your clinical paranoia.

  • John Owen
    • Ilves Clearwell

      Don’t bother posting this everywhere. This is a common knowledge, “Professor”.

  • Zovuvazz

    Oh shut the fuck up, you pompous ass, Sheriff Clarke. Who the fuck do you think you are? Do your fucking job and run for political office on your own goddamn time.

    I can’t wait for you to be voted out. We will all be better off for it.

    • Ilves Clearwell

      He is the elected Sheriff of Milwaukee County.
      Got it, you Democrat crap?
      And, lay off the booze.

      • Zovuvazz

        Ooh, am I supposed to genuflect?

        Sheriff, huh? Then he’d better start acting like it. As it is he’s acting like a politician, not a sheriff.

        Go fuck yourself. I don’t give a shit what you think.

        • Westsailor .

          Oooh… Sounds like someone is angry because things aren’t going as smooth as you thought they were.

          • Zovuvazz

            Not at all. I’ve already voted and my candidate is very likely going to win and in doing so piss off Clarke and people like you, which makes me very happy.

          • Westsailor .

            What a hateful, spiteful thing to say. And FYI, Don’t count your chickens just yet. It’s not looking THAT good for the hive queen.

          • Zovuvazz

            Trump supporters deserve to lose, and lose big. Believing Trump is some kind of savior is akin to believing in “god”; a man-made delusion. Grow up.

            Trump is less honest and trustworthy than a used car salesman.

            As for Clarke, I don’t hate him, I’m just sick of him not doing his job, part of which is ensuring inmates don’t die in jail. If he wants to run for a political office he should. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and do your job as sheriff.

        • Godot

          You cared cared enough to take the time to log in and post a reply.

          • Zovuvazz

            A reply is all his remark was worth.

      • JNagarya

        As I understand it Clarke runs as a Democrat.

    • Godot

      The mouth inserts expletives to give the far slower brain time to catch up with it.

      • Zovuvazz

        But enough about you.

  • Jay Thomas

    He spends a lot of time defending himself without giving any examples of what he meant by he ‘took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the pretended legislation of federal bureaucracies that have no law making authority under the Constitution.’ Maybe if he spent more time stating what he meant by that I could understand him better. It does seem that when someone tweets a picture of an angry mob with pitchforks and torches and claims ‘it is pitchfork and torches time in America’, people can see how this could be a call to arms, especially since he doesn’t tweet this blog to it every time he does it.

    • JNagarya

      He is citing to his imaginary Constitution, because he hasn’t read the real one.

  • Westsailor .

    Personally, I’m liking our new version of weapons-grade conservatism. It’s about time.

    • Steven Schwartz

      A question: Would you feel the same way about “weapons-grade” liberalism, saying it was “pitchfork and torch” time when a new set of restrictions on abortion rights, or curtailing of LGBTQ freedoms was passed? A large part of my objection to Clarke’s comments is that he appears to treat relatively minor civil disobedience from the Left as a sign of “anarchy”, while encouraging something much more forceful from the right — a sign of political bias most dangerous in an LEO.

      • Westsailor .

        We’ve already been in the midst of ‘weapons-grade’ Liberalism for a while now. It’s “pitchfork and torch” time for libs when gays seek out photogs and bakers to run them out of business. It’s “pitchfork and torch” time when libs ruin careers because someone won’t kowtow to their views. Once libs decided to force their morality on others ‘or else’ it became violence in and of itself. Libs have decided they can’t live with us unless we are willing to become like them and because of that we are having some serious issues with personal respect in this country.

        Even in that light Clarke was not inciting violence:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidclarke/2016/10/dear-media-only-liberals-can-call-for-a-political-revolution/

        • Steven Schwartz

          ” It’s “pitchfork and torch” time for libs when gays seek out photogs and bakers to run them out of business.”

          Given that many more LGBTQ folks are victims of physical assault each year than bakers are “run out of business” by people seeking to do so, I wonder which side the pitchforks are on.

          It doesn’t count as “seeking out” people when you go to them, ask them to do something — and then they illegally discriminate against you.

          “It’s “pitchfork and torch” time when libs ruin careers because someone won’t kowtow to their views.”

          So it’s been “pitchfork and torch” time for conservatives for *decades* — and when a group of people many of whom donate their time decide they don’t want to work with someone, it’s a terrible crime?

          ” Once libs decided to force their morality on others ‘or else’ it became violence in and of itself.”

          You’re not having morality “forced on you” any more than you are “forcing” morality on people by, say, having prayers at legislative sessions — if you don’t want to have homosexual sex, you don’t have to; you just can’t discriminate against people who do just because they do.

          That’s hardly “torches and pitchforks”.

        • JNagarya

          Equality before the law — it’s in the “Declaration” you anti-Americans love to reference in effort to get around the Constitution, which your ilk hates.

          Sometimes that must be enforced by enacting laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          The “bakeries” you are talking about are “public accommodations”: they operate under the Commerce Clause because they do commerce with the public, therefore are prohibited discriminating against the public.
          Conservatives are notorious for hating and violating civil rights — except, for course, their own. That is properly called bigotry, and is flat out anti-American. It is an offense to the Constitution.

          And, of course, an offense to the “Declaration” that conservatives love to substitute for the Constitution, which has that penultimate phrase, “All men are created equal,” which does not include exceptions based upon skin color, or sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.

          • Westsailor .

            “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal” – Friedrich Hayek

    • JNagarya

      A self-identified Trump supporter in Iowa was arrested for voting twice. She is now a felon. A felon is a criminal.

      So I guess Trump is right about election fraud — but is pointing his accusatory finger at the wrong Party.

      Though I do doubt that the million-plus dead people he claims are on the voting rolls actually vote.

    • JNagarya

      John Adams, who lead the movement for a “Declaration of Independence,” was insulted by the conservatives — called “radical” and “traitor” — who opposed declaring independence from England.
      Until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support:
      Preservation of slavery.

  • kervick

    I am with you, Sheriff Clarke.

    • JNagarya

      You should be embarrassed.

  • JNagarya

    I have an education in law, and the Constitution and related materials have been the central focus of my legal work for more than twenty-five years. This is a repost especially for the hotheads who remind that it is the empty barrels who have the loudest mouths.
    _____

    Some of us have actually read the “Declaration of Independence,” Sheriff Clarke. Thus we know you have not read it. A few facts about the “Declaration”:

    1. It was never, is not now, and never shall be, LAW.

    2. It applied exclusively to BRITAIN. It did not apply to such as France, Germany, and Holland.

    And it did not apply to any of the American colony govt’s because all of them were under the control of the Founders. (They did not “take up arms” against THEMSELVES.)

    And it did not apply to the Continental Congress, which was founded by the Founders. (We call them founders because they were PRO-gov’t — as evidenced by their having founded gov’ts.)

    And the number of gov’ts the Founders actually “overthrew” was:

    ZERO.

    3. Those who haven’t read the “Declaration,” like you, do a lot of loud mouthing off about it, and “revolution,” and blah, blah, blah. It is actually CONTRARY to your illiterate misrepresentation of it.

    A. The word “revolution” does not appear anywhere in the “Declaration”.

    B. The “Declaration” includes a catalog of grievances against King George III. This one is directly on point:

    “He [i.e., King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

    In short, Sheriff Clarke: the Founders were OPPOSED to crackpot preaching of “taking up arms” against the gov’t. They were OPPOSED to armed gangs running around OUTSIDE the rule of law — you know, “outlaws” — and shooting at the gov’ts FOUNDED by the Founders.

    Those who engaged in Shays’s” and “Whiskey” rebellions “took up arms” against the gov’t/rule of law. They were not “patriots,” Sheriff Clarke, which is why the Founders charged, tried, and convicted them of TREASON, and sentenced them to DEATH. What you are mouthing off about — encouraging — is TREASON (not “opinion” the Constitution expressly states so).

    In fact, the Constitution — which IS law — directly and specifically addresses and refutes your crackpottery:

    Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS [not illiterate sheriffs calling for rejection of the rule of law] shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

    There is also this Militia Clause:

    Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS [not loud-mouthed illiterate sheriffs] shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.

    What that means is that the states’ militia, even when not Federalized, are always under the regulatory thumb of Congress. (I recommend you look up the Supremacy Clause — during your first-ever actual reading of the Constitution.) Under, that is, the rule of LAW.

    What we don’t need, Sheriff Clarke, are loud-mouthed history- and law-illiterate “law enforcement” hypocrites calling for rejection of and attacks upon the Constitution and rule of law. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are a disgrace to law enforcement, and the pseudo-military uniform (we are a CIVIL society, not military) getup you flaunt.