Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab

Written By: Bob - Jan• 22•13

Of course, by “extremists” I mean senior law enforcement officers, and since there are so many standing up to tell the President and Congressional progressives where they can stick their fantasies of gun bans and confiscation, I guess I should further refine that down to the Utah Sheriff’s Association (USA).

Read the entire letter (PDF), and make sure you grasp the ramifications of the concluding paragraph.

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriff’s Association joins a growing patchwork of senior law enforcement agencies across the south and west who are officially telling the Obama Administration that they will refuse to enforce the unconstitutional threats to the Constitution, but may be the first to pledge they will “trade their lives.”

What they mean by that has been left deliberately ambiguous.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

30 Comments

  1. Comrade X says:

    “On Monday, Dr. Jim Garrow, a renowned author and humanitarian who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, sparked a firestorm of controversy when he wrote on Facebook that President Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com, Dr. Garrow said the man who told him this is a military hero who is known by everybody in the country.

    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks,” he wrote.

    “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not,” the unnamed military officer reportedly said. Dr. Garrow also wrote that those who do not meet this litmus test are being removed….

    http://www.examiner.com/article/renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Keep in mind that “nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize” is meaningless; anyone can be nominated, and some of the recent winners have included Yassir Arafat and Barack Obama.

      Also, how would you apply this “litmus test”? Ask the wrong guy and you’ve created a whistle-blower. Ask REALLY the wrong guy and you’ve got a mole.

    • J says:

      I’m sorry, this is unmitigated bullcrap. Nothing of the sort is going on. Our military leadership is stocked with patriots who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not obey illegal orders from a tyrant.

      And, I’ll be honest, I have participated in bull sessions when someone, typically a very new Soldier, asks if we would ever fire on Americans if commanded to do so. I have never heard anything other than, “F&$% NO!”

      As a former officer myself, I would not only disobey any such unlawful orders I would, in fact, place the person giving the order under arrest for violation of numerous articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

      • Comrade X says:

        The man making these charges should not be underestimated:

        Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

      • Nemo says:

        Our military leadership is stocked with spineless self-serving political careerists who go on TV and claim that a varmint round is too powerful for whitetail hunters to be trusted with, and who enthusiastically support any crazy other bullshit the civilian leadership comes up with.

        This is because our military as it now exists will not promote any other kind of officer into a position of responsibility.

        They confiscated guns during Katrina, and even enlsted men obeyed that order. They will order troops to fire on civilians if they are told to. I hope if it comes to that, an enlisted man or junior officer will frag them. But I am not optimistic.

  2. Comrade X says:

    We need to do this everywhere;

    “After enduring hours of derision and mockery by the panelists at a Chicago-area guns “forum” Sunday, one man in the audience stood up and addressed the crowd, identified himself as a veteran, and proceeded to give a straightforward but passionate defense of his support for the First and Second Amendments…..

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/veteran-stands-up-for-2nd-amendment-at-chicago-anti-gun-forum/

    • Gayle says:

      WOW. Just… wow. Great video.

      It’s SO good to see real men standing up to these utterly creepy leftists.

      This video definitely needs to go viral :)

  3. Gayle says:

    Haha! When I saw the title of your article on my RSS feed, I instantly assumed you were talking about Anonymous ;)

    http://www.inquisitr.com/490318/anonymous-compares-obama-to-hitler-for-his-gun-control-policies/

  4. Armitage12 says:

    Can we map these counties on a national map, to show what places have made such commitments?

  5. Al Reasin says:

    Comrade X

    This was/is the tactic used by President Morsi of Egypt, President Chevaz of Venezuela and President Abdullah Gül of Turkey to consolidate their power by removing senior officers and replacing them loyal military leaders. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but anything suggested as being done by this President is not to be outright dismissed.

    However, if such a thing is happening, many in the military who are loyal to their oath know of this policy. If they are true patriots they would be going public with this information, en mass. The retired senior officer should now go public. Yes, they could be worried about their retirement benefits, courts-marshal and being ridiculed, but true Patriots, like the Founders, will do what is necessary to protect American’s freedom and liberty.

    • Chris Watson says:

      The issue at hand here in the US is that he’s also potentially creating the nucleus for a resistance leadership – provided that they all don’t have a series of ‘accidents’

    • Comrade X says:

      Will history repeat itself:

      “…Hitler’s distrust of the Wehrmacht (Armed Forces), prompted him to replace the members of the Army who had traditionally stood guard at the Chancellor’s office, with his personal SS bodyguard (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler), soon after he took office on Jan. 30, 1933. On Nov. 9, 1933, he had all the members of that bodyguard swear an oath of personal loyalty to him,….

      http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3313nazi_private_army.html

  6. smitty says:

    Big talk is rarely matched by walking the walk…

    I remain skeptical about this.

    I do hope I’m wrong.

    But there is little-if any-evidence that LE or the military-or the rest of us-will actually put at risk, paychecks or our comfortable materialistic lives, in order to stand on principal.

    As for police officers, most have made the transition from Peace Officers, focusing on keeping the peace, to Law Enforcement Officers, enforcing even misdemeanor laws (jailing those caught not wearing seatbelts and the like-sanctioned by SCOTUS) as well as the most obtuse and even obviously unConstitutional laws, in ever more brutal unmerciful fashion (bashing in doors to terrorize and kill people and dogs in order to enforce the War on *some* Drugs comes to mind-also sanctioned by SCOTUS).

    And, the military has shown itself to obey orders to engage any target wherever it may be-including American citizens-without considering whether the orders be lawful or being issued subsequent to the Declaration of War required by the Constitution.

    Past actions-rather than mere words-indicates these people have fidelity to authority rather than the Constitution and Bill of Rights…or common sense.

    The reality is that, most of us do as we’re told…no matter how ridiculous or obscene the commands…as Stanley Milgram’s experiments demonstrated…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

    • bogbeagle says:

      I concur with smitty, the best predictor of future behaviour, is past behaviour.

      Past gun-control measures have been met with no effective resistance.

      Past un-Constitutional requirements, have been met with compliance by law enforcement.

      And, examples of police/soldiers killing their “own people” are legion.

      Unless there is something which is fundamentally different about today’s Americans, we can reasonably assume that this will be the pattern.

      Of course, all soldiers and policemen rely, for their privileges and status, upon the “system” … that is, the forcible redistribution of men’s wealth, in the form of taxation. They risk much by opposing that “system”.

      If the “American story” is to be different from the stories of all the other nations, then there has to be an “intellectual shift” from Statism towards a more Voluntarist ideal of society.

      You simply cannot have both Welfare and Liberty. Welfare relies upon the forced confiscation of private property.

      If you consider the English experience, you can see that the notion of Private Property is dead. There is nothing which a man can be said to own … even his own labour. Everything is at risk of confiscation, if the demanded Tribute is not paid over.

      It’s obvious that an armed populace is incompatible with forced confiscation; thus is incompatible with Welfare.

      So, the question becomes, “Which do you value the most … Liberty or Social Security?”

    • Mr Evilwrench says:

      I am a militia of one. If my sheriff or CoP stand between the feds and me, I’ll stand with him between the feds and my neighbors. If he doesn’t, I’ll stand alone, even against him. I won’t take any comfort from what anyone says until they act. I know what I’m ready to do. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

    • feathered-warthog says:

      Given how easy it seems to be for the TSA to find willing Constitution burners to employ at its government-sanctioned walk-in peep show parlors, and how long these Utah sheriffs have been sucking money from the federal War on Drugs teat, I have to say that while I find the letter heartwarming, I remain unconvinced.

  7. DaveThe10r says:

    It’s worth pointing out that ONE sheriff refused to sign the compact. Here’s one take on the issue:

    http://gunclassifiedsutah.com/blog/?p=248

  8. Darren R. Young says:

    I take issue with your title “Lawless extremists pledge their lives against Obama’s gun grab”.

    The highest law in the land is the U.S. Constitution, where many of the “senior law enforcement officers” and the Utah Sheriff’s Association (USA), are willing to honor and keep their oath of obedience to both God and to the U.S. Constitution, which affirms and guarantees the inalienable rights of man given to us by our Creator, rather than with dishonor lawlessly break that oath, and obey the unlawful edicts and unlawful orders of the Obama regime; or alternatively, unlawfully obey and enforce any law enacted by Congress and signed by the President, all of which are inferior to those inalienable rights affirmed in the U.S. Constitution, when such inferior laws seek to usurp and destroy a superior inalienable right that they swore to uphold and protect.

    Why do we join in with our enemies and use their slanderous words to characterize ourselves? They call us “lawless”, so we should call ourselves “lawless”? They call us “infidels”, so we should call ourselves “infidels”? They call us “racists”, so should we start calling or referring to ourselves “racists” in our article headlines too without at least using quotation marks? They call us “extremists”, so we likewise should do the same, when it is they who are truly the extremists and the radicals? These Che and Mao lovers who hate the U.S. Constitution and America, but we are the extremists? Let’s not join in with their word game for it is a lie by them and it they who are projecting, and by doing so we only give credibility to their lies. There are too many weak minded people in this world who will believe such lies without question. If we play along, we are only do ourselves a great disservice and injustice.

    You could have at least put “Lawless extremists” in quotes and you didn’t. Or you could have titled it:

    There were a million plus one ways to title this article, but you chose, inadvertently so for you are good man and a patriot who loves this country, to subconsciously use the language of our enemies, and without mean so, you slandered these select men and women of law enforcement, who are willing to give their lives to defend our liberties and our freedoms, refusing all unlawful orders, along with honoring the oaths they gave to God and country, to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

    They deserve much better than to be referred to, even in jest, as “Lawless extremists…”.

    • Darren R. Young says:

      I can’t edit and my HTML tag messed up. So let me put this here that is missing.

      You could have at least put “Lawless extremists” in quotes and you didn’t. Or you could have titled it:

      Law Enforcement Sworn to Uphold the Highest Law in the Land pledge their lives against the lawless Obama regimes’s gun grab.”

      By the way, that’s my dad’s pic accidentally showing. I run his WP site for him and put in the wrong email address, i.e. his by mistake.

    • Bob says:

      It’s call sarcasm. Lighten up, Francis.

  9. Darren R. Young says:

    Well I see my original post (not the short one about not being able to edit) disappeared quickly since I took issue with your title referring to men and women keeping the highest law of the land as being “lawless”. So much for the free exchange of ideas on this site. I’ll just publish my longer response on Facebook.

    • Bob says:

      It’s called “comment moderation,” where comments from unknown commenters are held in a moderation queue to help filter out spam.

      Welcome to the Internet.

  10. Elisheva says:

    I note that every county sheriff in New Mexico (33 counties) is on the list at Guns Save Lives. That is awesome!

  11. bogbeagle says:

    Listen to this recent radio interview with a NC policeman.

    Scary as Hell. If it’s true, you’ve got about a month.

    http://patdollard.com/2013/01/n-c-police-lieutenant-warns-of-martial-law-in-early-2013-says-training-has-begun/

  12. Ned Ludd says:

    The rights that amendment 2 has “given them”? I’m sorry but no document can “give” you a right. You are born with them. The constitution only articulates them and says the government can’t deprive you of them. This mind set is like saying the second amendment grants you permision to defend your family. I wonder if these same sheriffs would stand up for my right to grow hemp as animal fodder on my farm, or sell our raw goat milk to a neigbor? It’s true the 2nd protects all other rights, but if we have allowed virtualy all our natural-law rights to be destroyed then just what is it good for?

    • Comrade X says:

      Well Ned, maybe people are finally waking up to the fact that a right is a right that know one has the right to deny!