You Either Sit Down At the Front Door Start Crying Giving Up or You Take Some Sort of Action

➡ The article discusses the beliefs of constitutional sheriffs, who argue they only answer to citizens and the Constitution, not federal or state agencies. They believe they have the ultimate power in their counties. Critics argue this belief isn’t in the Constitution, but supporters point to Supreme Court cases that back their views. The article also mentions attempts to associate these sheriffs with right-wing figures, Christianity, and even white supremacy, which the sheriffs deny, stating they are focused on upholding the Constitution and defending people against government overreach.
➡ The text discusses concerns about the role of sheriffs in monitoring elections, with some arguing that they should be more involved in preventing potential fraud. It also touches on the debate over electronic voting machines and mail-in ballots, suggesting they could be susceptible to fraud. The text criticizes the lack of action taken when evidence of fraud is presented, and mentions specific cases where fraud was alleged but not acted upon. Lastly, it warns of potential conflict if these issues are not addressed.
➡ When things get tough, you can either give up or take action. People are doing their best to keep things calm, but sometimes, a little resistance is necessary.

This article is quite long to go through, and I made some notes in it with just doing some highlighting. Yeah, let’s go over your highlights, though. They’re valuable. The highlights that I started out, they give Richard Mack a little plug here. They let him say, you get pushback like extremists and fanatic pushbacks when we simply want to verify how votes are tabulated. That’s pretty reasonable. That’s it. And we have a right to do that, and we have a right to be suspicious about computers, and we have a right to tell public officials we want it done this way.

Obviously, that’s the only logical, reasonable way that it could be done. And it was done up until recently. I mean, in my county in West Virginia, and still it is, they count votes by hand. So it turns out that, you know, that Sheriff Mack’s only asking for what we already have. And they go on to say that then, you know, that Sheriff Mack and others have gained support from Mike Lindell and Mike Flynn, and they like to glump these guys together, you know, as people who are right-wing, maybe even wackos. They want Trump to be associated with the Constitutional Sheriff’s Movement to be the same way.

And then this guy, Markman, says, you know, I’ve read the Constitution a few times, and I don’t remember most of that being in there. In other words, what? What’s the what being in there? He’s talking about the comments that were made by Sheriff Mack, that the sheriffs have a right to, you know, to inspect these sort of things. What do constitutional sheriffs believe and what sets them apart? At the heart of it, they believe they are to protect citizens of their county and only the power they answer to, the only power they answer to are the citizens and the Constitution, and therefore, they believe no federal, no state agency can tell them what to do, and that they have the ultimate power over their dominion, which in the U.S.

is a county. Now, the other guy says, I’ve read the Constitution, and I don’t remember most of that being in there. Well, obviously, you couldn’t write everything or every job in the government has in the Constitution, but regardless. Well, go to the Supreme Court, though, where Anthony Scalia talks about the dual sovereignty that you wisely pointed out, Jack, and the fact that the reason they told Bill Clinton, no, you can’t force the sheriff to do this. All those reasons are constitutionally backed and documented in that court case. So, to this clown who says, oh, I’ve never seen any of this in the Constitution, go read the Supreme Court case so you understand the interpretation, and then look at these sightings, in other words, the constitutional references, et cetera, et cetera, and former court cases to make the point as well that Anthony Scalia points to, and you’ve got it.

You don’t even need to go to me or Mac or Jack or anybody else. Look at what’s been, you know, adjudicated and look at the references in that adjudication, please, for crying out loud. You don’t even have to believe Jack or Mac or me. No. Right. And he says, you know, if anyone has read the Constitution, there’s no actual mention of the sheriffs in there, of course. However, they bring up the fact that Thomas Jefferson made the note that the office of the sheriff is the most important of all, the executive offices of the county.

And I don’t know why sheriffs aren’t in there, by the way, because the founding fathers figured sheriffs were separate on a county level and didn’t relate to the state contract, the state constitution, or the general contract, because there’s checks and balances. And so, by leaving the sheriffs, the chief law enforcement of a county, out of those two documents, now you have a contract with the people directly with their sheriff by election, and you have a state constitution and a general constitution, and there’s delegated authorities to each of those groups, people.

That was intentional. And now they’re trying to basically force the sheriff under the state constitutions, and you watch. All they’ll do is minimize, minimize, minimize, minimize the authority of the sheriff. Once they gain control of it, they’ll just eventually destroy it. Watch for that. I’m warning you now. And then wired without, you know, being different than anyone else, because there’s no other place to reference, they mentioned that this is a white supremacist belief, and then they point back to the same William Potter Gale. He was at that time. I got a question.

What happens to sheriff David Clark, who’s a black sheriff, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that agrees with us and was a sheriff of the year. How does that fit into their racist agenda? Yeah, well, you know, maybe he’s a white supremacist supporter of some kind. Let’s see. Anyway, they’ll make up some nonsense. But regardless, they don’t have any other options here, but go back to the same story about this individual, William Potter Gale. And then they further say that, you know, they want to associate sheriffs with Christianity and God, which is one of the things they’re undermining.

But the mandate of the public is pretty powerful. But some of these sheriffs are citing a higher source of authority. They say their power derives from God, which seems pretty unconstitutional, given the separation of church and state in America. How do they respond to that? My response is that now they’re indirectly appealing to God, but only through the fact that they are a servant of the people. They’ve been elected by the people, and they have made an oath to support the Constitution to the people. And if the people themselves are religious and believe that God is the highest power, then indirectly, they are serving that end.

But this is a hit piece in the sense that it wants to also associate them with some sort of religious rights kind of stuff. Your thoughts? I would just simply say this, you know, it doesn’t matter what we believe or stand for. Anything that is good, honest, moral, anything that protects life, liberty, and property, anything that promotes God, family, and country. In other words, anything that’s honorable and good and moral and protective, they’re against. It doesn’t matter what it is. Find a single thing where I’d say, you know what, this is the, you know, and they’ll be like, oh yeah, we agree, Sam, that’s great.

There’s not a single good, honest, moral thing that they will agree to or stand for. Everything that we stand for in America, founding father, rescue forward, God, family, country forward, they reject everything. I can’t even say, hey, you know what, I should love my children. They’ll be like, children are wards of the state. What are you talking about? Okay. It doesn’t matter what you say. It doesn’t matter what you focus on. It doesn’t matter what you stand for. If you stand for anything good and honest and moral, then you’re a terrorist and they’re against you.

It’s that simple, Jack. Is there a single thing that they would, you know, agree with us on? No. I don’t think there’s one. I can’t find one. We can’t even define a family anymore for heck’s sake. We can’t even say that a man’s a man, a woman’s a woman. I don’t dare say that there, see, and never mind God and science, right? There’s nothing we can say or do that’s good moral right that they don’t oppose. Nothing. Correct. And they’re not going to agree and they’re not going to look for ways to agree because theirs is about destruction.

I mean, this is historic. If you do the research, you’ll see it’s been done over and over and over. A good example is the Soviet Union circa 1921. And they take down civilizations with this kind of rhetoric and they put their hands over their ears and hum real loud while they repeat stuff that’s absolute BS and you can’t make them change their mind. Here, they’re trying to say that the constitutional sheriff movement is deeply infused with Christian nationalist beliefs and ideology. So what? Most of the constitutional sheriffs I’ve spoken to at the last minute are so eager for the U.S.

to return to being a nation rooted in Christianity where Christianity is at the center of all aspects of life, be it law enforcement, education, government, or culture. Well, the issue is, though, that when people were centered more with Christianity, there was less violence, less corruption, and a list of less. And so that’s probably why, you know, most people were saying that maybe people want back to church, assuming they’re not going to get a communist type of preacher, you know, and that’s the problem with the whole thing, too. So we can’t really say the sheriffs aren’t about religion.

They’re not about political party. And they’re simply about how can we uphold the Constitution? How can we defend the people against a government that’s lost its roots and is broken free of its chains? And in that sense, they’re agnostic. And so all this stuff here is to associate constitutional sheriffs with Trump, who has spent a lot of time talking about Christianity. But the sheriff, Sheriff Mack never mentions Christianity other than from his own point of view. And neither do any of these other sheriffs that I ever hear speak on this show or elsewhere.

So that’s nonsense. So then we have how common is this belief that sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution? And how many of these people are there? He says, you know, it’s hard to say exactly how many people are part of the constitutional movement. Richard says that the CSPO has a membership somewhere between 400 or 1000, depending on what day of the week you ask him. When you ask him specifically, he won’t tell you. Well, of course, that’s because he doesn’t know exactly. And he’s explained that over and over and over.

And so it’s a very difficult question for him to answer. And it’s like asking him if yours your particular sheriff is constitutional. How would he know? I mean, he can’t know all 3000 of them. So this is more nonsense. See, what else did I highlight down here? One of the most troubling things I’ve heard sheriffs tell me they’re planning on monitoring what’s happening in their local locality on election day, not necessarily at the polling places as such, but around the polling places, because they’re not allowed to police polling stations, but they’re going to stop, stop, stop, hold on.

So when these ballot boxes are burning, as we’ve seen in a couple of states, you’re saying sheriffs shouldn’t try to catch the perpetrators. Is that what you’re saying? You clowns. I think sheriffs and deputies in the police should be doing community policing and should be monitoring that and should interview witnesses and find out who burned those suckers to the ground. Exactly. I don’t care who did it. I want accountability. Don’t burn ballot boxes. Anybody. Right? Right. It’s straight. They’re saying that it’s fine to burn those boxes to the ground because the sheriff and nobody else should be really even checking that out.

That would be election interference to stop somebody from burning a ballot box to the ground. These people are clowns, Jack. They’re nuts. Yeah. Well, they’re not nuts. They’re on a mission. They’ve got an agenda. They’ve read the rule book, uh, and, uh, and gone over all the, the talking points and they, they practice them and they, you can tell because they all say the same ones. So somewhere they’re getting a list of things to talk about and they’re being disseminated because they’re all managed from a higher point from the same thing.

It’s a, it’s a monopoly. And, um, in this particular case, it’s the same old stuff. It’s everything’s right in front of our face. When they tell you that we, you know, to be inclusive, we have to have, uh, electronic voting machines and mail-in ballots and all these new things, that’s obviously a prescription for election fraud. I mean, voting machines are the, a classic way to have voting frauds. Their primary introduction was for that purpose. And we’ve shown that and been shown over and over and over. Well, if it was true that the, um, you know, machines were stable and honorable, then they would basically say, Hey, this is super classified.

We will let investigators confirm the validity of the code. They’ll have to sign NDA disclosures, or there’s an easy way to get that done, Jack, but they don’t want it done. And it’s been done. And you know, we’ve seen people who have done it to be marginalized, you know, very quickly. You know, you prove the election machines can be hacked in court and they laugh at you. Oh, when you prove it right in front of them, what’s going on? Then they say, there’s no evidence. We’ve proven it literally in court and proven it before Congress.

And how do we confirm to you that it’s real? There’s my point. It doesn’t matter what you say. They’re not going to believe. They’re not going to acknowledge the truth. You can literally say the sun’s coming up and they’re like, no, it’s not. Yep. I mean, Tina Peters brings to the attention that there’s definite irregularities. If you will want to take your hard drive and she gets nine years in jail and they don’t even talk about that issue while they’re putting the charges on her, you know, it’s all about. In fact, they say you can’t discuss that issue.

That’s not part of the prosecution. Persecution, right? Yep. That’s what it is. So we’re talking total BS again. One of our plausible nightmare scenarios, and then we’ll stop with this article is groups of Latino Americans being hassled at the polls, possibly being harmed, prevented from voting. Now, this is nonsense. Do you think it’s more likely that this would be a passive thing with most of these sheriffs, constitutional sheriffs, where they would be allowing, say, militias to hassle these voters? Now, how do you make that kind of stretch? How does it go? I want to see proof.

I want to see evidence for the sheriff’s kicking back because we have plenty of evidence where the cops just kick back while the antifa and thugs just destroy and attack people and everything else. We’ve got plenty of images of that. So I challenge these clowns to show me images where the constitutional sheriff is kicking back, allowing this to happen, and you’re not going to find it because it isn’t true. No. And just saying that because the sheriffs are going to be patrolling, they make a, they build a bridge over nothing and then hop really quickly over to where that means that they’re going to be racist and they’re going to be preventing certain groups from voting.

I hope they’re preventing the ones that don’t have any right to vote. We saw today that Virginia is going to allow the state to kick out voter registrations that are not part of the actual group of people that are supposed to be voting. And we see in Michigan, imagine that seeing to leave those ballots and there’s election fraud. Yep. And it is election fraud. Now, what if one of those ballots that they have to throw out because it’s election fraud is, belongs to a different race group than the ones that they are always intimidating, which are the whites.

Well, then, you know, you would have to call the sheriff’s racism, I guess, because, you know, somebody illegally put some non-white illegally put a ballot in a box when he’s not allowed to vote. So anyway, I mean, listen to any of that is this, I mean, it’s tantamount to self-destruction and undermining its suicide. They also bring up Barry County, Michigan’s Darleaf, who has been telling people to get AR-15s in Stockholm on 500 rounds of ammunition. Why? What use is that going to have for the people? Well, he’s an interesting character.

And he was at the CSPO event, CSPO event in Florida and September and the event in April. And he’s been running an investigation with the last four years into the 2020 election and he has yet to produce a case. So, you know, obviously, if he hasn’t got a case yet, that means that it’s not his, you know, it’s his fault. He hasn’t been able to find anything. I think that’s not the case. I think he’s having trouble making a case there because of the kind of people that get into his way and the kind of research that he’s doing.

But we see this everywhere. You can’t make a case. How about Utah, your state? You can’t make a case of vote fraud when it comes to Phil Lyman. We have made a case. We’ve proven vote fraud. Basically, Phil Lyman said that, you know, our current governor didn’t get enough signatures and he didn’t. I mean, the internal audit proves it. The Utah Supreme Court basically said we’re not going to touch it. It’s frivolous. Now, let’s go to the federal Supreme Court. But we’ve already proven that Spencer Cox didn’t get enough signatures. It’s not even debatable.

Doesn’t matter. They’re going to commit fraud anyway. That’s what I mean. You can make a case, but you can’t get the case to go anywhere. So, you know, that’s right. Darlief is no different than the people in Utah looking at directly at the big, most one of the most egregious examples of fraud I’ve ever heard of. I mean, I was blown away. The depth that they went to by adding other members to the roster of right ends with the same last name. Oh, yeah. And then he had to resign because it was called into question of what he got paid to do to make that all happen and everything else.

I mean, this whole thing is just fraud to the cows come home. Yep. The Republicans are in a bind. They don’t know what to do. If they’re not very careful, the Democrats are going to jump on board after him and invalidate or invalidate Spencer Cox’s signatures and have the Democrat win. That would be fraud too. Right. I mean, this thing has a potential to blow up into, you know, the Civil War movie that they conveniently made for us in advance of this. And, you know, what can you do? You can only be pushed towards some sort of action so long.

And then you’re right at the front door. You either sit down and I don’t know, give up, start crying or whatever, or you take some kind of action. And that’s what they want to happen. You know, and people are trying really hard to make this as peaceful as possible. But at some point, there has to be a little bit of a pushback. [tr:trw].