Speaker 1: Well, joining us now is Sheriff Richard Mack is real
Speaker 1: pleasure to talk to him, and I wanted to get
Speaker 1: his take on the things that are happening in Minnesota
Speaker 1: and elsewhere with ICE. And of course Sheriff Mac has
Speaker 1: Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association dot org ACSPOA dot org,
Speaker 1: and he's very strong on the role of sheriffs and
Speaker 1: peace officers under the Constitution. And Sheriff Mac has been
Speaker 1: famously involved in Mac versus USA, challenging the Brady Act,
Speaker 1: and remember Ronald Reagan signed onto that in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: one but publicly support it, but as actually Clinton who
Speaker 1: signed the law in nineteen ninety three, and a key
Speaker 1: provision of that, which I think is kind of relevant
Speaker 1: to what we're seeing right now, is the fact that
Speaker 1: the federal law was compelling sheriffs to enforce federal law,
Speaker 1: and Sheriff Mac pushed back against that, and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court agreed with him, and so it's something that we've
Speaker 1: seen now supported many times. People talk about non commandeering.
Speaker 1: If the federal government has some law or issue that
Speaker 1: they want enforced, they cannot commandeer state law enforcement or
Speaker 1: offices to enforce federal law that was a key outcome
Speaker 1: of that Supreme Court case. There's also the issue of nullification.
Speaker 1: So we've got a lot of people out there saying
Speaker 1: we want to get rid of ice, and so I
Speaker 1: want to talk about all these issues with Sheriff mac
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Sheriff, Well, you're welcome. It's great to be back with you.
Speaker 2: And you always bring back a lot of old memories.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what happens when we're old, isn't it. That's
Speaker 1: all you.
Speaker 2: Got memories the mac vus. You know, that was my
Speaker 2: calling card issue. As a matter of fact, it's the
Speaker 2: only reason you and I know each other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, let's talk about your take on
Speaker 1: what's happening in Minnesota. Because again I know you and
Speaker 1: I both know that federal government has the authority to
Speaker 1: enforce immigration. That is a delegated power to the federal
Speaker 1: government by the states, and so it doesn't apply to
Speaker 1: the Tenth Amendment protections. It doesn't apply to nullification issues
Speaker 1: as well. But then in my mind, there's an issue
Speaker 1: about how the law is going to be enforced and
Speaker 1: a disturbing trend that we see of federalization of law enforcement,
Speaker 1: which I would think that you would be opposed to
Speaker 1: as you support the sheriffs, and I think it's key
Speaker 1: to have sheriffs who, more than any others, are directly
Speaker 1: accountable to the people because they have to stand for election.
Speaker 1: So what is your take about what is going on
Speaker 1: as we see this rolling out?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad you reinforced the existence of ICE because
Speaker 2: the federal government does have that delegated authority.
Speaker 1: Yes, and.
Speaker 2: How about Article four section four that even clarifies it
Speaker 2: rather stronger that And boy, wouldn't you love to see
Speaker 2: this happen that we actually followed Article four, section four
Speaker 2: where it says the United States shall guarantee to each
Speaker 2: state a republican form of government.
Speaker 1: Wow, wouldn't that be.
Speaker 2: Wonderful if the federal government was republican and that all
Speaker 2: the states were republican instead of these made up dictatorial democracies,
Speaker 2: which emphasizes America was never supposed to be a democracy
Speaker 2: in the first place. Yes, right, that alone a dictatorial one,
Speaker 2: but yes it's And then right after that it says,
Speaker 2: and protect them from invasion. And I'd say, after twenty
Speaker 2: thirty million people have invaded our country, that's probably qualifies
Speaker 2: as an invasion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I called this an invasion from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: and we got some pushback and some criticism from mainstream
Speaker 1: media for calling it. We call it, Yeah, that's what
Speaker 1: I called it. It was an invasion. Well, they even
Speaker 1: and there their debates. They got into the awkward situation
Speaker 1: of trying to straddle this idea as to whether or
Speaker 1: not people who come here in violation of the immigration
Speaker 1: laws were actually committing a crime, whether they were here
Speaker 1: illegally or not. And so I think we all agree
Speaker 1: on that. I think the issue, however, is, you know,
Speaker 1: we look at the end versus the means issue, and
Speaker 1: I think that's a very key issue. And when we
Speaker 1: look at how this is being done, we have to
Speaker 1: pay attention to that. You know, we've had the sanctuary
Speaker 1: cities that are out there saying that we're going to
Speaker 1: get a sanctuary to people who come here illegally in
Speaker 1: violation of the law, and they don't have any constitutional
Speaker 1: authority for that. We've had some sanctuary cities for the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, and of course, you know, you were very
Speaker 1: supportive of the Second Amendment. That was the key issue
Speaker 1: that was there. In addition, to the commandeering of local
Speaker 1: law enforcement to enforce federal law. But the central issue,
Speaker 1: of course was gun control that was there. And so
Speaker 1: you can have a sanctuary city to protect the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment or to protect any other rights that are especially
Speaker 1: the ones that are particularly enumerated in the Constitution that
Speaker 1: we have. But they don't have any authority for a
Speaker 1: sanctuary city.
Speaker 2: For immigration, well, the states cannot. And this is really
Speaker 2: close to treason, probably is treason well, and the Democrat
Speaker 2: Party has been committed to treason for a long time,
Speaker 2: and even with the immigration issue and nic issue, they're
Speaker 2: showing that all the more. But first of all, let's
Speaker 2: be sure that we know what we're talking about here,
Speaker 2: and most of the Blue states don't have any clue
Speaker 2: what's going on. You cannot ags governors and state legislatures.
Speaker 2: You cannot pass quote laws or pretended legislation, as the
Speaker 2: Decoration of Independence calls it. You can't enact pretended legislation
Speaker 2: that violates a lot aw Okay, you can't. You can't.
Speaker 2: You can't make murder a sanctuary okay. You can't make
Speaker 2: illegal immigration a sanctuary issue where you're actually giving them
Speaker 2: asylum and you're aiding and a betting. Read the definition
Speaker 2: of treason and Article three of the Constitution. You will
Speaker 2: see that aiding and abetting the enemy and giving comfort
Speaker 2: to the enemy is treason. Does it take very long
Speaker 2: for you to see what has happened with us allowing
Speaker 2: and actually encouraging and literally flying them in the cartels
Speaker 2: international terrorist groups such as the Somali terrorist groups that
Speaker 2: are here, uh, and even electing one of them to
Speaker 2: the United States Congress, who is so totally anti American.
Speaker 2: We're not just giving her aid and comfort, we're giving
Speaker 2: her position in Congress.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I am so agree with that position on that.
Speaker 1: And you know, when we look at nullification, it's there
Speaker 1: for situations like let's say we have a Democrat administration
Speaker 1: heavy on gun control. They decide they're just going to
Speaker 1: take all the guns Australian style. Well, it would certainly
Speaker 1: be incumbent on the people at the state level, who
Speaker 1: have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, to uphold their
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights and so where that's right, so they
Speaker 1: would be there to nullify the federal actions that are
Speaker 1: trying to violate the Constitution. So these these principles of
Speaker 1: non commandeering and nullification are very strong important principles there
Speaker 1: with the tenth Amendment. However, things start to get blurred
Speaker 1: when we look at the actual contours of how this
Speaker 1: is working out. You know, is that again we understand
Speaker 1: the end of all this, and we understand that we
Speaker 1: do want to have borders that are controlled. I just
Speaker 1: have an issue when we have a situation that has
Speaker 1: gone through Republican and Democrat for the longest time. They've
Speaker 1: used this as a football, the open border issue. And
Speaker 1: we saw with Trump at the beginning of his administration
Speaker 1: that was one of the key issues that he got
Speaker 1: elected on was to build a wall and to stop it. Well,
Speaker 1: they didn't do that, and immediately after Trump got elected
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen, there was a huge fall off in
Speaker 1: terms of people coming across the borders because they thought
Speaker 1: Trump was going to be really tough on it, and
Speaker 1: then they realized that he really wasn't doing anything about it.
Speaker 1: So then we started having the caravans. They escalated it.
Speaker 1: And so when you have a situation like that, you
Speaker 1: have the escalation of Biden coming in and rewarding this,
Speaker 1: you have the unconstitutional welfare state that then is applied
Speaker 1: to illegal aliens who are criminally here, and you put
Speaker 1: them on welfare. I've talked about the welfare magnet. I said,
Speaker 1: stop the magnet. I mean, even if you have a wall,
Speaker 1: you can be pulling people through the wall, over the wall,
Speaker 1: under the wall, around the wall with that magnet, and
Speaker 1: so you have to stop that. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: of things like that that can be done without the
Speaker 1: phony solution of having an authoritarian federalized police that are
Speaker 1: also militarized, who do not have to be accountable to
Speaker 1: the law. Evidently, because I see things from JD events
Speaker 1: talking about how they have absolute immunity, I don't think
Speaker 1: that is the case. And so I'd like to get
Speaker 1: your take on that.
Speaker 2: No one's supposed to have aute that includes judges, and
Speaker 2: if we would just hold judges accountable, that would be
Speaker 2: an amazing step towards restoring justice to America. But look,
Speaker 2: this is the problem. And I'll quote my Supreme Court
Speaker 2: case just real quickly. Scalia actually quote some of the
Speaker 2: federalist papers in my most powerful constitutional decision. He takes
Speaker 2: us through a history lesson and he says that at
Speaker 2: one point, hence a double security arises to the rights
Speaker 2: of the people. How does that happen. Quoting again, the
Speaker 2: different governments will control each other. So it's actually the
Speaker 2: job and duty of the sheriff to control out of
Speaker 2: control government. And when they come into the States and
Speaker 2: say you're going to do this, you're going to enact
Speaker 2: gun control, you're going to take guns away from people,
Speaker 2: or you're not going to do anything about illegal aliens
Speaker 2: coming into your country and committing all sorts of crimes,
Speaker 2: human sexual expectation of children, fentanyl trafficking, and the cartels
Speaker 2: and international terrorist groups are now joining forces and setting
Speaker 2: up shop in America. And that's all happening. And now
Speaker 2: we've seen, of course, the ubiquitous, humongous, gargantuan fraud that
Speaker 2: these organizations, that these newly formed illegal aliens have formed
Speaker 2: all across America, the worst cities being Columbus, Minnesota and Seattle.
Speaker 2: And Seattle is right now not going after him, but
Speaker 2: they're going after the sheriffs. They're attacking the sheriffs for
Speaker 2: trying to help with deportation. Now, let's be very clear
Speaker 2: on this issue. Deportation. Whether or not the sheriffs or
Speaker 2: local authorities help or don't help, is up to them.
Speaker 2: No one and I've talked to Tom Moman about this
Speaker 2: and he totally agreed with me. No one could force
Speaker 2: the sheriff either way. That includes the state legislatures and
Speaker 2: governors and ags who are doing trying to do that
Speaker 2: in Washington State right now.
Speaker 1: I agree, Yeah, you can't. You can't force them.
Speaker 2: You're independent and they need to stay that way.
Speaker 1: That's right. You can't force them to help. You can't
Speaker 1: force them to not help, you know, which is what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. In Washington. You got sheriffs who want
Speaker 1: to help a deportation, and the state is saying you
Speaker 1: can't help a deportation. But the sheriff is independent and
Speaker 1: accountable to the people and taking an oath to the constitution.
Speaker 1: So they need to be able to make that determination themselves.
Speaker 1: That's what you're saying. I agree with that, And so.
Speaker 2: Let's look at one other issue in Minnesota though. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that was the shooting of Renee Good. First of all,
Speaker 2: if you look at the technical requirements for using lethal force,
Speaker 2: I believe in most cases that are similar to this,
Speaker 2: that she brought this on, she caused it, and would
Speaker 2: she Whether she hit the officer or not isn't really
Speaker 2: the issue. Did she try to hit the officer. Did
Speaker 2: she accidentally hit the officer? It doesn't look like much
Speaker 2: of an accident. She's she's very arrogant. She's she doesn't care.
Speaker 2: She's trying to get in their face. She's trying to
Speaker 2: make them mad. I don't I don't do anything you say.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to do what you say. And she's
Speaker 2: smiling about it. And then she hits an officer. Did
Speaker 2: she kill him? Did she hurt him? Did he have
Speaker 2: internal bleeding? Did he I don't care. She hit the officer,
Speaker 2: and at that point she committed an aggravated assault with
Speaker 2: a deadly weapon. He has the prerogative to shoot her. Now,
Speaker 2: let me be very clear.
Speaker 1: That's where you and I would disagree. I would disagree
Speaker 1: that strongly.
Speaker 2: Let me piny, I said. According to the technical terms
Speaker 2: of using lethal force, no other cop there used it, though,
Speaker 2: Did they just him? That's right, And I will tell
Speaker 2: you right now I would not have shot her.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad to hear that I would not have
Speaker 1: shot her. I would not have jumped in front of
Speaker 1: the car like he did. We could see that from
Speaker 1: his own video. And when you see you know you've
Speaker 1: got a couple of different conflicting commands being given to her.
Speaker 1: She had let cars go through, including his own car.
Speaker 1: And so you know, when you look at that and
Speaker 1: look at the fact that she backed up, she could
Speaker 1: have put it in drive and run over him if
Speaker 1: she wanted to. She backed up, turned her wheels. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she turned her wheels though, And you can see that
Speaker 1: both in his video and you can see it from
Speaker 1: the initial video behind you. You can see that her wheel
Speaker 1: is turned. And so I don't agree with that. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact. There have been It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter. There was lots of officers around who
Speaker 2: told her to stop, who told her to get out
Speaker 2: of her vehicle at that pint.
Speaker 1: Yeah me, Sheriff Mac. There has been a New York
Speaker 1: City policy for the police department, there are many other
Speaker 1: police departments since the early nineteen nineties saying you don't
Speaker 1: fire into a car if the person isn't using any
Speaker 1: other deadly weapon, in other words, if they're just driving
Speaker 1: because of a couple of pragmatic reasons. First of all,
Speaker 1: you may not hit the person, you might hit other people.
Speaker 2: You're confusing the policy, there's two different policies. You're not
Speaker 2: supposed to fire at a moving vehicle, and you're not
Speaker 2: supposed to fire from a moving vehicle, but if that
Speaker 2: vehicle is being used as a lethal weapon, or even
Speaker 2: but he.
Speaker 1: Was standing on the side, he was standing, He's shot
Speaker 1: into the side of her car. He was not in
Speaker 1: any danger at the point where he fired two of
Speaker 1: the three shots, and arguably at the.
Speaker 2: First seen in court, that remains to be seen in court.
Speaker 1: Well, again, there's not going to be a hearing because
Speaker 1: the federal government has shut down any investigation of this.
Speaker 1: And you've got JD. Vance saying he's got absolute immunity
Speaker 1: to do whatever he wants. And I've seen conservative podcasters
Speaker 1: out there saying, show your hands, obey the commands.
Speaker 2: Right, but you're confusing civil court, and that civil court
Speaker 2: he does not have civil wrongful death or wrongful death
Speaker 2: suit is still there on the table, no question, and
Speaker 2: they're going to suit, okay, and probably should. But the
Speaker 2: question is did he believe reasonably that Okay, he got
Speaker 2: in front of her, stop your car, stop the car,
Speaker 2: put the brake on, okay, But still the technical application
Speaker 2: of lethal force, I believe the protocols were met. But again,
Speaker 2: utmost and foremost on. What I'm saying to you is
Speaker 2: there's no way I would have shot her. I was
Speaker 2: in a similar incident before where I I should have
Speaker 2: quote should have shot somebody, but I didn't, and I'm
Speaker 2: glad I didn't. And most officers I tell that to say, oh,
Speaker 2: you should have shot that guy. Look, taking another human
Speaker 2: life is the last resort that any cop wants to
Speaker 2: get involved in. And I thank the Good Lord. The
Speaker 2: twenty years I was in law enforcement, I never shot anybody,
Speaker 2: and I prayed for that every day that I wouldn't.
Speaker 2: There's some cases that I could have never handled. Most
Speaker 2: shooting incidents where an officer kills someone, it ends his career.
Speaker 2: Fifty of them, a little over fifty percent never put
Speaker 2: the badge back on after that, and rightfully so, it
Speaker 2: tears us apart. And would I would have never lived
Speaker 2: with a situation like in Ohio they had Cleveland where
Speaker 2: an officer shot a kid, a twelve year old with
Speaker 2: a fake gun. That it was a toy gun, but
Speaker 2: it looked very real. I remember that, Paul, that there's
Speaker 2: a kid with a gun and he kills the kid.
Speaker 2: And I could have never lived with that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and remember that case and I think the.
Speaker 2: Good Lord, I never had to, but I couldn't even
Speaker 2: if that was a real gun. I couldn't have lived
Speaker 2: with shooting someone, especially a young kid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember that. And in that particular case, they
Speaker 1: got a report and they drive up and it's almost
Speaker 1: like he jumped out shooting, you know, it was. It
Speaker 1: was just instantaneous of that. But in this particular case,
Speaker 1: after she was shot, of course, the reports have now
Speaker 1: come out from fire and emergency services saying she was
Speaker 1: still alive. They denied medical help. There was the video
Speaker 1: of a guy saying, I'm a doctor, Can I help her? Now?
Speaker 1: Get back? Get back? You know. So we see that
Speaker 1: kind of attitude, and that's the bigger context of this
Speaker 1: Sheriff Mac and that is the attitude of these federalized
Speaker 1: police who are not doing an investigation. They're not getting
Speaker 1: search warrants.
Speaker 2: In a case, no matter what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in many cases, they don't even know who they're arresting.
Speaker 1: I mean, we just had another case a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago of a guy who was a legal immigrant,
Speaker 1: one of the among people those persky in China, and
Speaker 1: they picked him up, drug him outside and sub freezing
Speaker 1: weather with like shorts and crocs on, I mean, an
Speaker 1: elderly guy throw you know, the crowd is they're filming it.
Speaker 1: They throw him in the back of the car, drive
Speaker 1: him around for an hour until they figure out that
Speaker 1: he is an American citizen legally here, and then they
Speaker 1: just dump him back out of his house. Again. If
Speaker 1: they had followed legal procedures, if they had gotten search warrants, done, investigation,
Speaker 1: all the rest of this stuff, that wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 1: And so that tells us something about the methods that
Speaker 1: they're doing. And I think it's also very provocative.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with any of that. I don't want
Speaker 2: them doing that.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: The question is do they have a right to be
Speaker 2: there in the first place? Do they have the authority
Speaker 2: to be there? Well? They do, yeah, and this is
Speaker 2: part of the problem.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. I'm very concerned though, with the
Speaker 1: federalization of the police.
Speaker 2: Sheriffs are not involved in this enough, and they are
Speaker 2: there to protect and conserve the peace. Yeah, they should
Speaker 2: be there. They should be there every time. The ice
Speaker 2: is there. Make sure one that they're following the law
Speaker 2: and two that citizens are not getting in the way,
Speaker 2: that citizens are being safe and that. Yes, the federal
Speaker 2: government has the authority to conduct enforcement of the border
Speaker 2: laws and immigration laws.
Speaker 1: So what are the sheriffs doing in Minnesota? Are they
Speaker 1: just kind of a wall? They are not there in.
Speaker 2: Los Angeles and in Portland and goes on and on.
Speaker 2: The only one that doesn't like the City of Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: as you know, is in Los Angeles County. What is
Speaker 2: Sheriff Luna doing to work with the chief and the
Speaker 2: mayor to make sure that all of this is peaceful
Speaker 2: and safe. Nothing, And they're not doing anything. So if
Speaker 2: ice comes in, they come in. Now. Remember historically JFK
Speaker 2: sent troops into Montgomery, Alabama, why to make sure that
Speaker 2: black students could go to college at the University of Alabama.
Speaker 2: And they did. There was no violence, but they stopped
Speaker 2: the insurrection and they stopped the Governor Wallace from upolling segregation,
Speaker 2: customs and culture, and they ended it. And I'm glad
Speaker 2: JFK did it. But he sent troops in and he
Speaker 2: did the right thing. And did he have the authority
Speaker 2: to do it, Yes, because the principles of freedom come
Speaker 2: first in every state and every county. And if the
Speaker 2: sheriff's not going to do anything. The chief of police
Speaker 2: aren't going to do anything. The state's are going to
Speaker 2: do anything. And they're ignoring the violence, they're ignoring the crime,
Speaker 2: they're ignoring the destruction of our constitutional laws and rule
Speaker 2: of law. Then yes, the final recourse is the federal government.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I don't even know so. And again
Speaker 1: we're looking at the end versus the means. And so
Speaker 1: you know, when you have the situation you were talking about,
Speaker 1: it was done peacefully with that and they didn't come
Speaker 1: in dressed for war, wearing masks and shoving people around.
Speaker 1: And so that's the key that I think there is
Speaker 1: that what they're doing seems to be almost deliberately provocative.
Speaker 2: But I might wear a mask too if the governor
Speaker 2: and other authorities are putting it out on YouTube and
Speaker 2: Internet who I am and where my family lives. So
Speaker 2: this is a catch twenty two that really the states,
Speaker 2: like the Attorney general in Minnesota, he's doing nothing. They're
Speaker 2: doing nothing about going after the criminals invaded that church
Speaker 2: on Sunday ice. They're objecting to ice, but they go
Speaker 2: into a church to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I understand, Yeah.
Speaker 2: But you don't get to violate the rights to freedom
Speaker 2: of religion because you think that ice is violating rights.
Speaker 2: How hypocritical, And Minnesota is going to do nothing about that,
Speaker 2: And every one of them should be arrested. Every person
Speaker 2: who entered that church should be arrested.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I understand, talked about that. Yeah, and I was
Speaker 1: glad to see that the Department of Justice used something
Speaker 1: other than the Face Act. I was very disappointed to
Speaker 1: see a lot of Conservatives and Christians say use the
Speaker 1: Face Act against them, because the Face Act is basically
Speaker 1: an abomination. It needs to be ended rather than used against,
Speaker 1: you know, used by you.
Speaker 2: It's called criminal trust pass.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. And there's plenty of laws to stop this.
Speaker 1: And so when we look at things like hate speech laws,
Speaker 1: for example, usually if there's a crime, there's plenty of
Speaker 1: laws that already address that. And so when you start
Speaker 1: bringing things like hate speech laws, the Face Act and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, now you're starting to tread on fundamental
Speaker 1: liberties like free speech and other things like that. When,
Speaker 1: as you point out, criminal trespass is sufficient.
Speaker 2: Those protesters could have stayed outside and been protesting the
Speaker 2: whole time and been okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I agree with that, But in
Speaker 1: terms of what we're looking at in terms of using
Speaker 1: the military and all the rest is since we've seen
Speaker 1: the way that they're doing this, and that's the key
Speaker 1: issue I think is the means that they're using, not
Speaker 1: necessarily the end goal. I understand the federal government has
Speaker 1: been delegated the authority to do immigration control. I agree
Speaker 1: with that. I agree with ICE as an institution.
Speaker 2: If the local authorities were helping and keeping the peace,
Speaker 2: the ICE would need to be ready for war. And
Speaker 2: some of them have even threatened ICE. Some of the
Speaker 2: local police have and public officials have threatened ICE. So
Speaker 2: what do they do?
Speaker 1: Well, that's good, that's a good I mean, again, the
Speaker 1: law is on the side of immigration enforcement, and so
Speaker 1: that would be the determining factor I think in this
Speaker 1: conflict between two different organizations. But let's say that you've
Speaker 1: got a situation where they're doing gun control. You've got
Speaker 1: the federal government doing gun control and the sheriff says no,
Speaker 1: and it comes to loggerheads because the federal police say
Speaker 1: we're going to take the guns and the local police
Speaker 1: on the side of the constitution. Would a threat be
Speaker 1: justified in that case?
Speaker 2: No, I think, Look, we have already stopped gun control.
Speaker 2: Lots of times sheriffs have and it's the doctrine of interposition. Yes,
Speaker 2: you stand in the way, and that is a peaceful process.
Speaker 2: It's bold and it's strong, and they get the message.
Speaker 2: When I was sheriff, I sent the EPA and Army
Speaker 2: Corps bridgineers packing because they threatened to arrest the county commissioners.
Speaker 2: I said, you're not arresting anybody in my county, and
Speaker 2: if you try, I will arrest you. But I try
Speaker 2: to get along with everybody, so I hope you're not
Speaker 2: that stupid. They didn't do it. They left town and
Speaker 2: everything went fine. But if I had never said anything
Speaker 2: and never stood in the way, they would have arrested
Speaker 2: the maintenance workers on this bridge, and they would have
Speaker 2: arrested the county commissioners. And I didn't even like the
Speaker 2: county commissioners, but I would have protected them. I would
Speaker 2: have protected them. But no, So look, the states have
Speaker 2: got to step up. The county sheriffs have got to
Speaker 2: step up. And if you want to keep things peaceful,
Speaker 2: don't just yell at people. Go there, be there, bring
Speaker 2: your deputies, bring your possees, and let's keep this peaceful
Speaker 2: for Heaven's sakes.
Speaker 1: Yes, I absolutely agree. And what you're talking about there
Speaker 1: with in a position. I've talked to mattro Hallum many
Speaker 1: times about his doctrine the Lesser Magistrate. He's got a
Speaker 1: very good book explaining that to people, and it's based
Speaker 1: on Christian principles, but it's also something that has been
Speaker 1: understood by the Romans as well, and so this is
Speaker 1: a very important document or doctrine should say, understanding of innerposition.
Speaker 1: And so again it comes back to I guess when
Speaker 1: people look at at what is happening in Minnesota and
Speaker 1: other places, you know, I'm conflicted with it because I
Speaker 1: agree with the end. I agree with the authority that
Speaker 1: the federal government has in this particular case, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that and it concerns me when I see
Speaker 1: the border situation, as I said before, is something that
Speaker 1: has been festering and has been fed by both Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats, including Donald Trump in his first term. And
Speaker 1: so I have a real problem with a with a
Speaker 1: federal government created problem, and then the solution is an
Speaker 1: authoritarian one. And that's the way I see this. The
Speaker 1: contours of the way that they're doing this I see.
Speaker 1: It looks to me like they're looking for conflict for
Speaker 1: political purposes.
Speaker 2: I think we've taken good care of the border since
Speaker 2: Trump has been in and and I think I think
Speaker 2: if they were just now come together all these major cities,
Speaker 2: get the red and the blue to come together and
Speaker 2: create a peaceful situation there. But there are the governor
Speaker 2: of Minnesota and the ag are actually encouraging the violence. Yeah,
Speaker 2: where I really have a problem.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, when you look at the massive
Speaker 1: Somali fraud that's there, that is really a case of
Speaker 1: auditors and investigations and other issues like that they need
Speaker 1: to take first priority instead of having some kind of
Speaker 1: a kinetic confrontation you know where it's violent. And so
Speaker 1: that's the key thing, you know, just like knowing who
Speaker 1: these people are instead of going around and looking for
Speaker 1: people because and arresting people are harassing them because of
Speaker 1: the way that they look. I think that is also
Speaker 1: a reprehensible quote unquote law enforcement tactic that's been shut
Speaker 1: down many times, and justly so for people who are
Speaker 1: you know, the profiling people just because the way you look,
Speaker 1: We're going to arrest you that type of thing. And
Speaker 1: so I think they need to do some investigation. I
Speaker 1: think they need to be held accountable to the laws,
Speaker 1: and as you point out, the sheriff should play a
Speaker 1: role in that. Unfortunately, part of that is the sheriffs
Speaker 1: are not doing that because they're standing for election in
Speaker 1: those areas and those people there don't like our immigration laws,
Speaker 1: and they don't you know, they set themselves up as
Speaker 1: sanctuary cities, and so the sheriffs are reflecting that type
Speaker 1: of operation.
Speaker 2: Some sheriffs in Minnesota have actually helped illegal aliens get
Speaker 2: driver's licenses, which makes it very much easier for them
Speaker 2: to get registered to vote. Yes, and quite honestly, let's
Speaker 2: make sure we understand here the Democrats winningly knowingly brought
Speaker 2: these illegals into our country to stack the Democrat voter rolls.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I agree with it. I agree, and
Speaker 1: that is treason, I agree. And of course, you know
Speaker 1: the practical implications of this. We're seeing with truck drivers
Speaker 1: that have been brought in and given you licenses and
Speaker 1: they can't read or speak English, and you know, we've
Speaker 1: seen several horrific accents because of that type of thing.
Speaker 1: So we certainly understand the consequences of it, and it
Speaker 1: was a long term Democrat plan. Cloud and Piven saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: the welfare state is not working. We're not taking down
Speaker 1: the country into a welfare state of socialism. So let's
Speaker 1: increase it by bringing people from all over the world
Speaker 1: in here and putting them on the welfare role. And
Speaker 1: so that's why I've said, you know, that's the very
Speaker 1: first thing that needs to happen, is we've got to
Speaker 1: cut off all welfare for people who are coming in
Speaker 1: as illegal immigrants. I would even cut it off for everybody.
Speaker 2: Agree that never happened, yeah, and saying don't come into
Speaker 2: our country, but when you do, we'll give you all
Speaker 2: these freebies.
Speaker 1: That's right. Well, let's talk a little bit about this
Speaker 1: save the Sheriff event this happening in Washington. Tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about the facts of that case. Again,
Speaker 1: it's the sheriffs there who are having conflict with a
Speaker 1: state governor and the attorney general in that area. Is
Speaker 1: that correct.
Speaker 2: Yes. In fact, we just had a conference there week
Speaker 2: ago and it was very well attended and really appreciated
Speaker 2: the four more than four hundred people who showed up
Speaker 2: for that. I went with my wife and my son,
Speaker 2: but this is it. Sheriff Wagner in Adams County is
Speaker 2: being sued by the Attorney General because he's trying to
Speaker 2: get international terrorist groups, cartels, trende at Agua, gangs and
Speaker 2: similar gang members, human traffickers and children traffickers out of
Speaker 2: his county and out of the state. The AG says,
Speaker 2: this is a sanctuary state. We pass that law and
Speaker 2: Seattle is a sanctuary city, but he says, we're not
Speaker 2: a sanctuary county, and he has continued to defy the county.
Speaker 2: The Attorney General of the state, Nick Brown, I know
Speaker 2: his name is Brown, And isn't it astonishing and shouldn't
Speaker 2: it be absolutely appalling to the people of Washington that
Speaker 2: the AG is literally and actually spending more time going
Speaker 2: after the duly elected sheriffs trying to do their jobs
Speaker 2: as best they can despite all the horrible criminal elements
Speaker 2: that have been brought into their state and county by
Speaker 2: the Democrat Party in Biden administration. And then they go
Speaker 2: after him instead of going after all the criminals that
Speaker 2: are there, including the five hundred and thirty nine fraudulent
Speaker 2: daycare centers that the Somalis are doing. Also in the
Speaker 2: Seattle and greater area of King County.
Speaker 1: Yeahtely, I absolutely agree with that. I absolutely agree with that.
Speaker 2: Oh, and they already appoint the sheriff of King County.
Speaker 2: He's no longer elected. Really, that's what they're trying to
Speaker 2: do statewide. They're trying to get rid of the sheriffs
Speaker 2: and steal the authority and stewardship of the people.
Speaker 1: Well, I agree with that. I'm just very concerned with
Speaker 1: the way that I see ICE agents acting and I
Speaker 1: think is very confrontational, deliberately. So I think they're looking
Speaker 1: for chaos, confrontation, and I'm very concerned about the federalization.
Speaker 2: Of police and the lack of response and help from
Speaker 2: the States is pushing that more than I believe is
Speaker 2: this hopefully I don't like it either way. But if
Speaker 2: you're not going to do your job as a sheriff
Speaker 2: and local authorities, what do you think you're going to get?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is a difficult situation, and it is a
Speaker 1: it is a real problem that we see developing here
Speaker 1: and again, a lot of this is the polarization, but
Speaker 1: we understand this issue for a very long time, and
Speaker 1: for the longest time, Republicans haven't been really interested in
Speaker 1: doing any kind of immigration enforcement either. So when we
Speaker 1: look at this, it's been a festering problem for a
Speaker 1: long time. They've used it to get elected in a sense,
Speaker 1: you know, the Democrats bring in voters to get elected
Speaker 1: and the Republicans complain about it to get elected. That's
Speaker 1: what we've seen for the longest period of time. But
Speaker 1: I think it matters as much as anything the way
Speaker 1: that the laws aren't forced and that there not be
Speaker 1: an appearance that the so called law enforcement agents are
Speaker 1: given a go ahead to do whatever they please. I
Speaker 1: think that they need to bend the other direction as
Speaker 1: much as possible. Yes, and I.
Speaker 2: Really appreciate your perspective, and we agree on most everything here.
Speaker 2: I want all your listeners, though, and your viewers to
Speaker 2: know that c SPOA, the Constitutional Sheriffs Peace Officers Association,
Speaker 2: is something for them and every we offer a solution,
Speaker 2: we are. We are solution oriented, yes, and peace we're
Speaker 2: probably I would say we said this in Washington. We're
Speaker 2: probably the only true and dedicated, peaceful and effective solution left.
Speaker 2: And this is about I.
Speaker 1: Agree with that. I really do agree with that local
Speaker 1: law enforcement. You know, for the longest time, John Birch
Speaker 1: society was always talking about, you know, support your local sheriff,
Speaker 1: and we don't want to have federalized police, and we
Speaker 1: don't have militarized police. And I absolutely agree with all that.
Speaker 1: And if they see their role as one of a
Speaker 1: peace officers, you point out you've got a conflict with
Speaker 1: the federal government or you know, some of federal employees
Speaker 1: coming in, you can talk to them rather than immediately
Speaker 1: getting into a pushing and shoving match or something like that.
Speaker 1: And I agree with that. I look at what is
Speaker 1: happening both in Minnesota as well as with January the sixth,
Speaker 1: and I look at this and it's like, it should
Speaker 1: not be a crime, for example, to film the police,
Speaker 1: and you know it is not.
Speaker 2: That's just really that is the epitome of absurdity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and yet that's the way it's treated. You know,
Speaker 1: situations where at least two situations that I've covered, you
Speaker 1: had people who were following them around and filming what
Speaker 1: they were doing, which if they're not doing anything wrong,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't have a problem with that. And instead what
Speaker 1: happens is they get their car charge ram by the
Speaker 1: ice agents that are there. So I have a big
Speaker 1: problem with some of the things that are happening there,
Speaker 1: And I think when you look at that overall context,
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons why people immediately are questioning
Speaker 1: the interpretation from the federal government about what happened with
Speaker 1: that shooting of Renee Good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and well, it's really sad that she's dead. The
Speaker 2: bottom line is all the officers knew that she wasn't.
Speaker 2: The likelihood of her getting away was not very high.
Speaker 2: Even if she did, they had her license plate. They
Speaker 2: can go on arrest her later, absolutely minor charges. It
Speaker 2: didn't need to escalate to a shooting. And yes, I
Speaker 2: do blame her for some of that, But at the
Speaker 2: same time, the officer's response should have been a lot
Speaker 2: more measured. And yes, he was dragged by another vehicle
Speaker 2: two months prior. That has nothing to do with this.
Speaker 2: It has absolutely enough. It might it might make him
Speaker 2: a little bit trigger happy, but he has no right
Speaker 2: to use something to happen in another situation to use
Speaker 2: it there. And everyone, I want you to know we
Speaker 2: offer you a position with the CSPOA. It's people oriented. Yes,
Speaker 2: we have a espoa posse. We need all of you
Speaker 2: to join that become part of the solution that's both
Speaker 2: peaceful and effective. And we train you every Wednesday. Tomorrow
Speaker 2: we have our webinar. We train you every Wednesday how
Speaker 2: to work with your sheriff, gain a relationship with him,
Speaker 2: and make sure that he's doing his job because he
Speaker 2: reports to you. He has no other boss, and that
Speaker 2: is key to this solution. You've got to understand that,
Speaker 2: and the people of America have got to be part
Speaker 2: of the solution or it's not going to work.
Speaker 1: That's right, Yeah, And I appreciate you being a voice
Speaker 1: of reason with all of this and a voice for
Speaker 1: being a peace officer. You know. One of the one
Speaker 1: of the clips that I played is a sheriff in
Speaker 1: Michigan who was talking about situations that and said, you know,
Speaker 1: we had a situation where we had a guy who
Speaker 1: was trying to kill a couple of our officers. They
Speaker 1: wound up shooting him and then running to his aid
Speaker 1: and giving medical aid to this guy that was just
Speaker 1: trying to kill them, which is exactly the opposite of
Speaker 1: what we saw in this Renee Good shooting. You talk
Speaker 1: about the fact she's not going to get away. They
Speaker 1: got our license plate and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 1: If there was a charge to come against her, they
Speaker 1: could have done that peacefully, arrested her and that type
Speaker 1: of thing. And that's why in many cases, a lot
Speaker 1: of law enforcement organizations that said, we're not going to
Speaker 1: do these high speed chases anymore. You know, we know
Speaker 1: where this person is and we're not going to you know,
Speaker 1: get in a road race with them where we might
Speaker 1: kill innocent people in an automobile traffic violation.
Speaker 2: Most of them are just traffic.
Speaker 1: Violations, exactly, exactly. And so so that's the key issue.
Speaker 1: And and you know, we do agree on that. And again,
Speaker 1: it's the means by which they're doing this that that
Speaker 1: gives me a lot of concern. Learned from what I
Speaker 1: see the rhetoric that is coming out of Washington. It's
Speaker 1: very combative every time things come down. There's not any
Speaker 1: sense that's coming out publicly, I think from the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: from Christine omer others. There's no sense that I get
Speaker 1: or a lot of people get, that they are taking
Speaker 1: a reasonable, even handed approach to this stuff. It's highly partisan,
Speaker 1: highly charged and in your face pushing and shoving people,
Speaker 1: I think is what we're seeing here. That's the thing
Speaker 1: that really concerns me.
Speaker 2: If there's any mistake Trump has made, Christy Noman was
Speaker 2: one of them.
Speaker 1: That's definitely true. Yeah, that's the I would agree with
Speaker 1: that for sure. Absolutely. And it was clear from the
Speaker 1: very beginning she had not watched anything and she was
Speaker 1: just making up comments about what happened with that shooting.
Speaker 1: I mean, her narrative was they were stuck in the
Speaker 1: snow and then they were attacked with her car, you know,
Speaker 1: and everybody could see that none of that was true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she was overhead as governor herself Dakota. She didn't
Speaker 2: support the farmers there, she didn't support land rights. She
Speaker 2: doesn't know what she's doing, and she's just another she's
Speaker 2: just another cute face in Washington, and she's not qualified
Speaker 2: for the job she has.
Speaker 1: I agree. Yeah, the ice Barbie, she's kind of role
Speaker 1: playing out there, dressing up and you know, showing up
Speaker 1: and getting in front of the cameras. I absolutely agree
Speaker 1: with you on that.
Speaker 2: But everybody go to CSPUA dot org. Become a part
Speaker 2: of the solution. Yes, become a part of the solution.
Speaker 2: And we helped that and we hand that to you
Speaker 2: on a silver platter. So do it. Make sure you're
Speaker 2: a part.
Speaker 1: And you have a questionnaire that people can give the sheriff.
Speaker 1: Since we get to vote for the sheriff, you have
Speaker 1: a questionnaire to find out where they are. And when
Speaker 1: you come as part of an organization, that gives you
Speaker 1: a little bit more clout to talk to the sheriffs
Speaker 1: and perhaps you might be able to get them to
Speaker 1: move in the direction that you want them to go
Speaker 1: if they're not there already. And so that's a very
Speaker 1: important direction.
Speaker 2: Is the Constitution of the United States return to that.
Speaker 2: There's part of the solution right there.
Speaker 1: I agree, absolutely agree. Thank you so much, Sheriff Mac
Speaker 1: and thank you for what you do. And we desperately
Speaker 1: need some peace officers out there. Especially people are going
Speaker 1: to pay attention to the Constitution, so thank you for
Speaker 1: trying to bring that issue to the forefront. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Have a good day, great talk to me again.
Speaker 1: It is csp C A dot org as po A
Speaker 1: R sorry CSPO A dot org. And we'll have that
Speaker 1: up there and the description as well as on the
Speaker 1: screen so people can get that. Even though I'm a
Speaker 1: little bit dyslexic here, So thank you again, Constitutional Shriff.
Speaker 1: Some peace officers Thank you so much, have a good day.
Speaker 1: Well again, I think the thing that we need to
Speaker 1: be concerned about. The thing that really concerns me is
Speaker 1: that we are setting up a precedent here that government
Speaker 1: workers are not accountable to the law. How do you
Speaker 1: call yourself law enforcement when you don't have to obey
Speaker 1: the law yourself. And so that is the fundamental issue.
Speaker 1: And I think this is a deliberate thing by Trump.
Speaker 1: I think that he really wants to have provocation. That's
Speaker 1: the way that he moves his agenda forward is always
Speaker 1: by conflict. This is the pr style that he learned
Speaker 1: from WWE wrestling. And so that is my concern. And
Speaker 1: you and I are caught between these two warring tribes
Speaker 1: that increasingly want to kill each other and increasingly will
Speaker 1: misidentify people that they're at war with. We've seen this
Speaker 1: happen both by Antifa mobs in Minnesota as well as
Speaker 1: by the ice mob that is in Minnesota. And so
Speaker 1: coming up, we're going to have somebody who's not on
Speaker 1: either side with this. He's not Treebeard, you know. Tree
Speaker 1: Beard said, well, I'm not altogether on anybody's side, because
Speaker 1: nobody is on my side. That's the way I feel
Speaker 1: about this stuff, so does Eric Peters. Eric Peters is
Speaker 1: on the side of liberty and of mobility, and so
Speaker 1: he's going to be joining us right after the break.
Speaker 1: Eric Peters dot auto eric peters autos dot com is
Speaker 1: his website and it is devoted to liberty as well
Speaker 1: as mobility. So stay with us. We're gonna have an
Speaker 1: interesting discussion with Eric Peters to see how he sees
Speaker 1: all these different events. The common man. They created common
Speaker 1: Core and dumbed down our children. They created common Past
Speaker 1: to track and control us. They're Commons project to make
Speaker 1: sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They
Speaker 1: see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each
Speaker 1: of us has worth and dignity created in the image
Speaker 1: of God. That is what we have in common. That
Speaker 1: is what they want to take away. Their most powerful
Speaker 1: weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything
Speaker 1: about us, while they hide everything from us. It's time
Speaker 1: to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Speaker 1: Please share the information and links you'll find at the
Speaker 1: Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing.
Speaker 1: If you can't support us financially, Please keep us in
Speaker 1: your prayers. Ddavidnightshow dot com