The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Police officers shot and killed in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, race riots in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore; a shooting in Florida by a neighborhood watch man of his black attacker. These are symptoms of a problem in America. Only a few years ago we thought we were on the way out of our historic racial tensions. In 2008 we elected our first black President. What is going on?
One thing that is going on is encouragement of racially motivated violence by our Commander in Chief, the Great Unifier. With a population of approximately 77.7% white, obviously it was not the black community that elected Barack Obama. He enjoyed widespread support among all racial groups in America. Clearly, relations among races were better in 2008 than they are now after eight years of the Obama Presidency. So what has happened?
There is a “plan.”
At every turn when an incident has taken place involving violence, the President has stepped in with his own pronouncement, almost invariably citing race discrimination and abuse by whites or the police in general, against blacks. He weighed in immediately on the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, not waiting for any facts or testimony, but announcing that if he had a son he would “look like Trayvon Martin.”
Martin was shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, a “white Hispanic” (in fact, this term was coined just for Zimmerman). Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, suffering severe blows to his head on the concrete pavement. He shot Martin, a career hoodlum, in self defense. His 911 call was edited by NBC to imply that he was following Martin because he was black, and that Zimmerman had no reason to shoot. Why on earth would the President of the United States jump in without factual data to take the side of anyone in this incident? Race was all that mattered. It is worth noting that dozens of black-on-black violence and murder incidents occur every day in Obama’s home town of Chicago. Presumably, the victims all look like they could be Obama’s sons and daughters.
In Ferguson, Missouri, another serial criminal, the so-called “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown, attempted to grab a policeman’s gun. He was shot as he charged the officer. This sparked riots throughout Ferguson for days. The victims of this rioting were businesses run by black Americans who are residents of the black neighborhood. The costs were enormous. Yet the press and the President painted a picture of white-on-black discrimination and abuse. This scenario has recurred throughout this President’s administration. Why? Well, there actually is a reason.
Those who would destroy the federalist system, which limits the power of the federal government while empowering states and local communities to control their own law enforcement, are working overtime to castrate local law enforcement agencies; police departments, county sheriffs, and city councils. The impression is being created day after day that local control “isn’t working” and that cities and their people are helpless to maintain law and order. The false flag of racially-motivated abuse by police is a tool in their kit. The mayors, rather than stand up to the problems in their communities and do the job they were elected by the citizens to do, run to the federal government. Our juries are being overridden by threatened federal investigation of officers acquitted on charges of abuse. We are being conditioned to accept that we cannot govern ourselves in our own communities while those with an agenda are inciting and encouraging violence.
We are now seeing federal money going into local law enforcement agencies; vehicles, computers, systems, and drones. We have positions on the police force that are not paid for locally, but rather funded through grants and police programs through the Department of Justice. Why? Our city councils throughout the United States are being offered every kind of federal assistance. Our mayors and elected bodies at the local, county and state levels are lapping it up. They think they are “bringing home the bacon.” The “bacon” is poisoned.
Little by little, year after year, our local law enforcement agencies are being subsumed by the federal government. A police officer who is paid for through a federal program answers not to the local authorities, but to the federal government. Police departments that are glutted with federal computers, drones, personnel carriers, and advanced equipment – paid for not by the city fathers but rather by the Department of Justice or another federal body – ultimately answer not to the people in that community, but to the federal government.
An important distinction between a free people and a people oppressed by the heavy hand of a massive national government is that: in a nation of free people the people control their own law enforcement for their own common good; while in a dictatorship, a strong man of some sort holds the reigns of police power. The Nazis had their Gestapo to control their people. This is why the people did not rise up against the abuses of Hitler and his cronies. The Soviets had their KGB, which ruled with an iron fist. Franco had his Guardia Civil, similar to many Latin American nations where dissidents or those who challenge the leadership “disappear.” Perhaps the most to be feared were the East German Stazi who controlled their captive people with absolute terror. The Stazi were said to have scent samples for every resident of East Germany, so that if they needed to track them down they could use dogs to find them.
The idea of data mining, as seen in the crude form of the Stazi, is very much alive and well in America today. We have different, more sophisticated methods. Combine this with a growing federal presence in our local police and we have a recipe for a totalitarian government in the making.
A number of years ago, a local Tea Party organization brought Sheriff Richard Mack to my community. He was the man who refused to use his office to enforce the Brady Bill (gun control) in his county. He took the case to the Supreme Court and won on the 10th Amendment, which states the essence of federalism; that powers not granted to the federal government were to remain with the states and with the people. Mack’s message went further. He impressed upon his audience the need for maintaining local control through the only law enforcement officer directly reporting to the people and elected by them – the county sheriff. We tend to overlook the importance of this office.
We don’t hear debates by the candidates for local sheriff, but we should. We should find out what they know about the Constitution and whether they are committed to supporting it. We should call upon our city councils and police departments to reject “help” from federal sources.
All this money that comes to the cities from the federal government really comes from the same place the local money comes from – your pocket. Washington does not have a tree to pick money from. Or maybe they do – they can just order more printed, but we know what that means. There is no “free lunch” with federal money. We trade our sovereignty for money that comes from our own pockets through our own labor. It’s not very bright of us.
If you are concerned about “martial law” – which everyone who follows Tea Party or conservative politics hears about in his daily email; if you are becoming concerned about rioting or abuse of the law in your home town, take notice. Are your police acquiring personnel or equipment through any federal programs? If they are, raise this issue. No city council or county commission or state legislature should be permitted to accept this kind of “help.” There is no reason to filter our own money through the federal hands to get it to our law enforcement agencies. It would be good if our state legislatures pass laws prohibiting acceptance of federal moneys, especially for this purpose.
A memo from George Soros was recently leaked. It laid out the plan for federalizing our heretofore local police. A number of organizations were mentioned as a part of this effort – including some well-known entities such as Black Lives Matter and the ACLU. Rahm Immanuel’s oft-cited phrase, “never let a crisis go to waste,” was echoed eerily in the memo: “We are gaining a better understanding of these efforts in order to determine how best USP can use this moment [racial unrest, rioting, police issues] to create a national movement [for “police reform”]. In fact the title of a meeting held to work out these plans was “Police Reform: How to Take Advantage of the Crisis of the Moment and Drive Long-Term Institutional Change in Police-Community Practice.” We might not be hearing much more from the organization working to effect these “reforms” (The Open Society’s United States’ Programs), but you can be absolutely certain that they are working on this around the clock.
The goal is to substitute federal control for local control of law enforcement; taking authority farther and farther away from the people it is meant to serve. Nothing is out-of-bounds in the eyes of the “reformers.” They will exploit every instance of violence and every weakness shown by local governing bodies. Ultimately, if they reach their goal, we will have our own Stazi in America, only with much-advanced surveillance and control from the top down. This is how “martial law” will come to us.
Check with your councilman. See if your city is receiving any support from the federal government or federal agencies. Check with your police department, as well. And this time, before you vote for the “good ol’ boy” who always gets elected sheriff, ask around. Does your candidate know what is in the 10th Amendment and what that means? Will he support our Constitution or will he abdicate? What about your mayor? Will he or she call the federal troops in? Check with your governor, too. Are the state’s National Guard units equipped and prepared to handle matters should he call them out?
It is not only our 2nd Amendment that is under attack by the federal government – it is also our 10th Amendment. It was significant to note that when Sheriff Mack came to town a local philanthropist invited every sheriff in the state to breakfast with him. None accepted his invitation. The one from the county where Mack appeared was asked why he couldn’t come. His answer? He asked the county attorney for advice and was advised to “stay away from it.”
For one: Why did he think he needed to ask for legal advice about having breakfast with another sheriff and learning about his experience with the Supreme Court? Secondly: Why did he take that advice?
These are disturbing questions, aren’t they? It is a symptom of well-advanced intimidation of local authorities. Federal control is coming to your community. Will we let it succeed in replacing local control?