Anti-Self Defense: The County Sheriffs as Rogue Agents of the Gun Owners

Anti-Self Defense: The County Sheriffs as Rogue Agents of the Gun Owners

Editor, The American Revolt:

The New York Times lays out the Progressive talking points and arguments for the campaign to get rid of your County Sheriff. Your Sheriff is your local law enforcement officer standing between you and the final implementation of the Federal Police State. The County Sheriff is the only Government Law Enforcement Agent directly under the control of and accountable to the local community, you. Support your local Constitutional sheriff. If you don’t have one, get one. Without a Sheriff leading your posse/militia you will be classified as terrorists, outside of the rule of law. Make your connections and liaisons now and have a plan to defend your community. It is no coincidence that this article is published on this anniversary. It is all for the children and you know how much you hate children if you are a sheriff not imposing enforcement of Un Constitutional Anti-Self Defense Laws.–Gunny Barton, Ret.

Excerpts with Commentary:

(Editor TAR: The progressive set up, We really need to take all the magazines and guns. The current laws don’t go far enough.)

NYT …..he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward. He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

(Editor TAR: The progressive definition of the real problem, Gun Owners backed by Sheriffs.)

NYT    The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

(Editor TAR: The progressive lie and spin, Anti-Self Defense Laws protect children if we enforce them.)

NYT   Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, Sheriffs have too much power.)

NYT   “We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, Sheriffs are rogue agents without Constitutional controls on their power.)

NYT   “The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, the States can’t handle this problem)

NYT    Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, See! We have to get rid of these sheriffs who are controlled by the people and unaccountable to Governors, Congress, the Courts, and the King…I mean the President with his Decrees.)

NYT    “In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”


Semper Fi,
The American Revolt
Publisher and Editor
Daniel David Barton, Sr.

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines, Retired

Movement to contact 1968

Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.


A Plea To America’s Government and Citizens

Mr. President, Congress and the Courts. You need to revisit and consider and make sure you understand several concepts.

1. “With consent of the governed” means that we must give our consent to your shenanigans for them to have the full force of Law under the Constitution and the guiding self-government principles of the Unanimous Declaration. We are not bound by decrees, legislation and opinions, unless we consent of our own free will and agency. We can exercise that consent by voice or simple compliance.

2. Congress is our elected voice to give consent. Congress is our inside play nice voice. When that voice becomes corrupted with political faction agendas and seeks to force them upon the entire citizenry, well, then it is no longer the voice of the majority and the minority. It then becomes the voice of factions and agendas that have seized power through manipulations of legislative rules and the selection/election process.

3. Our voice has become corrupted by factions and the minority is no longer heard. The voices of the minority are drowned out by those factions in power. We are duty bound by our governing principles to withdraw our consent to be governed by such tyranny over the minority.

4. Granted, this situation has been going on since before the ink was dry on the Declaration, much less the Constitution. However, it is time for real change. A change in the way we view our responsibilities as citizens and as servants of the people. The role of public servants is to secure the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and respect for those rights. It is not the role of government to secure individuals and make them happy. It is the role of the citizen to respect the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all other citizens. It all comes down to respect for all and not just the majority in power at a particular time. It comes down to respect for all the citizens which will garner respect for the public servant.

5. The change can start with you or with us. It will be much smoother and less disruptive if it starts with you. We do not wish to have to use our outside angry voice, but we will. We will defend. We will not comply with oppressive insanity any longer, no matter which faction has seized power.

GySgt. D D Barton, Ret.

Governing Principles

A Christmas Declaration

I hereby declare Christmas Season in the land. Maintain good cheer, courteous greetings and joyous spirits about the square. Let the boundaries and ways be decked with decorations and all children be well-behaved in anticipation, at least until the morning after. The Christmas tree is lit.–Gunny Barton, Ret.Christmas-Tree-Lights-1

#T2SDA Coordinating Instructions: Issued From Kansas Drivers

The following General Coordinating Instructions were posted on the Kansas Trucker’s facebook page around 4pm CST on 9 Oct. 2013. Seems there has been some significant behind the scenes organizing accomplished between many groups.

Publisher and Editor
The American Revolt
Daniel David Barton, Sr.
Gunnery Sergeant of Marines, Ret

Post on all pages:
Safety Briefing: ALL participants, be safe. Do not get confrontational. Do not allow others to antagonize you. The ones that may attempt to lead you into an altercation may have small children with them and they are still someone’s son or daughter.
The rigs are big enough to hurt or kill someone, please exercise caution and restraint. No fighting.
DRIVERS to DC: fuel up, double check your rigs. Safety is the most important thing, we cannot lose anyone, or be responsible for hurting anyone. Get plenty of rest, do not drink and drive. Ensure you have registered by sending an email to DRIVERS@RIDEFORTHECONSTITUTION.ORG. The video below has additional information for you.
DRIVERS SHUTTING DOWN: Park in well lit areas and try to stay together. Modern American Revolution will post rest areas with BBQs going for you. Watch each other’s backs. Nobody get drunk and stupid, please.
BIKERS: Proper gear, don’t drink and drive, ride safe and stay visible. You made it through two of these now, safely. Let’s go Thank you for being a part of this.
OVERPASSES: Be extra careful, there have already been people trying to confront you. Take the lead from your state leaders and watch for protagonists. Your banners will mean the world to the Drivers and your support is more appreciated this weekend than it ever has before.
MODERN AMERICAN REVOLUTION: You will be where the rubber meets the road for the drivers of the DC Truckers and the ones shutting down. You’ll have more contact with the public. Stay calm, stay cool, follow your state leaders. Be extra careful with the BBQs, flames and any alcohol that may find its way there. Also be wary of protagonists.
SUPPORTERS: Tag your cars with #T2SDA to show your support. Be careful on the roads, drink and drive. Can’t wait to see your pics on Monday.
Thank you everyone, from the Drivers RIDING FOR THE CONSTITUTION!!!
General coordinating instruction issued around 4pm CST 9 Oct. 2013 on Kansas Trucker's Face Book Page.

General coordinating instruction issued around 4pm CST 9 Oct. 2013 on Kansas Trucker’s Face Book Page.

Bottom Portion of Post from Kansas Truckers on Coordination Instructions.

Bottom Portion of Post from Kansas Truckers on Coordination Instructions.

#T2SDA Economic Strike: Help get the word out

Help get the word out of any stories concerning the general economic strike occurring this weekend led by the Trucker Community. I am here to serve. I cannot roll this weekend but I can write and publish to my extensive online network. Thank you.

To Submit tips and leads on stories or sign up to submit letters/stories to the editor for review and publication, click on this link:

(Note: I do not have a staff or a reporter network other than you. You are the reporter network,  so the more verifiable information you can submit then the faster stories will get published.)

I will be on call 24/7 until this event is over so use my availability to your advantage.

Publisher and Editor
The American Revolt
Daniel David Barton, Sr.
Gunnery Sergeant of Marines, Ret.

American Political Process: How We Got Where We Are

Movement to contact 1968

Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.

The American Revolt:

I have republished the following Stratfor article in its entirety. I believe it is a fairly accurate analysis of the United State’s political election history. It is timely and needs to be read by every American Citizen. If you care about self-government, agency, property and respect in liberty, understanding the core process of how our politicians are elected is crucial to know. We must formulate a plan to increase citizen awareness and participation in elections. We must appeal to their true sense of values and not try to manipulate them with emotional appeals.  We must elect leaders who do not have a political agenda to corrupt and control with legislation and regulation. We must change the dynamics of the current system in order to do that. We must wrest control of our election process from the few and give it back to the many. I believe a focus on the Republic’s core founding principles, espoused in our Unanimous Declaration of Independence is the surest guide. We must enact them to accomplish the change we need to progress in independence and liberty. Independence and self-government, with agency, property and mutual respect for order and stewardship will lead us to true progression in liberty and prosperity for all. –Gunny Barton, Ret.”>The Roots of the Government Shutdown is republished with permission of Stratfor.”


United States Capitol Building

United States Capitol Building (Photo credit: Jack in DC)

By George Friedman

In general, Stratfor deals with U.S. domestic politics only to the extent that it affects international affairs. Certainly, this topic has been argued and analyzed extensively. Nevertheless, the shutdown of the American government is a topic that must be understood from our point of view, because it raises the issue of whether the leading global power is involved in a political crisis so profound that it is both losing its internal cohesion and the capacity to govern. If that were so, it would mean the United States would not be able to act in global affairs, and that in turn would mean that the international system would undergo a profound change. I am not interested in the debate over who is right. I am, however, interested in the question of what caused this shutdown, and ultimately what it tells us about the U.S. capacity to act.

That is one reason to address it. A broader reason to address it is to understand why the leading global power has entered a period when rhetoric has turned into increasingly dysfunctional actions. The shutdown of the government has thus far not disrupted American life as a whole, although it has certainly disrupted the lives of some dramatically.

It originated in a political dispute. U.S. President Barack Obama proposed and Congress approved a massive set of changes in U.S. healthcare. These changes were upheld in court after legal challenges. There appears to be significant opposition to this legislation according to polls, but the legislation’s opponents in Congress lack the ability to repeal it and override a presidential veto. Therefore, opponents attached amendments to legislation funding government operations, and basically said that legislation would only be passed if implementation of healthcare reform were blocked or at least delayed. Opponents of healthcare reform had enough power to block legislation on funding the government. Proponents of healthcare reform refused to abandon their commitment for reform, and therefore the legislation to fund the government failed and the government shut down.

Shutdowns and Shifts in the U.S. Political System

Similar shutdowns happened during the 1990s, and I am not prepared to say that divisions in our society have never been so deep or partisanship so powerful. I’ve written in the past pointing out that political vituperation has been common in the United States since its founding. Certainly nothing today compares to what was said during the Civil War, and public incivility during the Vietnam War was at least as intense.

What has changed over time is the impact of this incivility on the ability of the government to function. Consider the substantial threat that the United States might refuse to pay the debts it has incurred by consent of Congress and presidents past and present. In private life, refusal to pay debts when one can pay them is fairly serious. Though this is no less serious in public life, this outcome in the coming weeks seems conceivable. It is not partisanship, but the consequences of partisanship on the operation of the government that appear to have changed. The trend is not new, but it is intensifying. Where did it start?

From where I sit, there was a massive shift in the 1970s in how the American political system operates. Prior to then, candidate selection was based on delegates to national conventions, and the delegates to conventions were selected through a combination of state conventions and some primaries. Political bosses controlled the selection of state convention delegates, and therefore the bosses controlled the delegates to the national convention — and that meant that these bosses controlled the national conventions.

There was ample opportunity for corruption in this system, of course. The state party bosses were interested in enhancing their own security and power, and that was achieved by patronage, but they were not particularly ideological. By backing someone likely to be elected, they would get to appoint postmasters and judges and maybe even Cabinet secretaries. They used the carrot of patronage and the stick of reprisals for those who didn’t follow the bosses’ line. And they certainly were interested in money in exchange for championing business interests. They were ideological to the extent to which their broad constituencies were, and were prepared to change with them. But their eyes were on the mood of the main constituencies, not smaller ones. These were not men given to principled passion, and the dissident movements of the 1960s accordingly held men like Chicago’s Richard J. Daley responsible for repressing their movements.

The reformers wanted to break the hold of the party bosses over the system and open it to dissent, something party bosses disliked. The reformers did so by widely replacing state conventions with primary systems. This severely limited the power of state and county chairmen, who could no longer handpick candidates. These people no longer controlled their parties as much as presided over them.

Political parties ceased being built around patronage systems, but rather around the ability to raise money. Money, not the bosses’ power, became the center of gravity of the political system, and those who could raise money became the power brokers. More important, those who were willing to donate became candidates’ main constituency. The paradox of the reforms was that in breaking the power of the bosses, money became more rather than less important in the selection of candidates. Money has always been central to American politics. There has never been a time when it didn’t matter. But with the decline of political bosses, factors other than money were eliminated.

Through the next decade, reformers tried to get control over money. Though they had gotten rid of the bosses, getting money out of politics proved daunting. This put power in the hands of business, which by hook or crook, Citizens United or not, was going to pursue its interests through the political system. But in general its interests were fairly narrow and were not particularly ideological. Where before business gave to party bosses, it now donated to candidates and political action committees. Of course, if this route were closed down, still another route would be found. The candidates need money, businesses need to protect their political interests. Fortunately, most businessmen’s imagination stops at money, limiting the damage they can do.

An Unexpected Consequence

There was, however, an unexpected consequence. The reformers’ vision was that the fall of the bosses would open the door to broad democratic participation. But the fact was that the American people did not care nearly as much about politics as the reformers thought they ought to. Participation in presidential primaries was frequently well below 50 percent, and in state and local elections, it was far lower.

For most Americans, private life is more important than public life. There is only so much time and energy available, the issues are arcane and rarely involve things that will change ordinary citizens’ lives much, and there is little broad-based ideological passion. Citizens frequently don’t know or care who their congressman is, let alone who their state senator is. They care about schools and roads and taxes, and so long as those are functioning reasonably well, they are content.

This greatly frustrated the reformers. They cared deeply about politics, and believed that everyone should, too. But in the country our founders bequeathed us, it was expected that most people would concern themselves with private things. And in fact they do: They do not vote in primaries or even in general elections.

The primaries were left to the minority who cared. At the beginning, these were people who felt strongly about particular issues: corporate greed, the environment, war, abortion, taxes, and so on. Over time, these particular issues congealed into ideology. An ideology differs from issue-oriented matters in that ideology is a package of issues. On the right, low taxes and hostility to abortion frequently are linked. On the left, corporate greed and war are frequently linked. Eventually, a bond is created showing that apparently disparate issues are in fact part of the same package.

Particular issues meld to form ideological factions. The ideological factions take common positions on a wide range of issues. The factions are relatively small minorities, but their power is vastly magnified by the primary system. Ideologues care because ideologies contain an apocalyptic element: If something is not done soon, the argument goes, catastrophe will ensue. The majority might well feel some unease regarding particular topics, and some may feel disaster is afoot, but they do not share the ideologue’s belief that redemption can come from the political process.

This in part might be because of a sense of helplessness, and in part it might reflect a deeper sophistication about how the world really works, but either way, this type of person doesn’t vote in primaries. But ideologues do. Perhaps not all do, and not everyone who votes is an ideologue, but it is ideology that generates a great deal of the energy that contributes to our political process. And it is ideology that, for example, links the deep and genuine passion over abortion to other issues.

A candidate in either party does not need the votes of the majority of registered voters. He needs the votes of the majority of voters who will show up. In the past model, voters showed up because, say, they got their job on the highway crew from the county boss, and they had to appear at the polls if they wanted to keep it. Those days are gone. Now, people show up because of their passionate belief in a particular ideology, and money is spent convincing them that a candidate shares their passionate commitment.

After raising the funds by convincing primary voters of their ideological commitment, the general election can turn into a race between two ideological packages. The winner will only be re-elected if primary voters see him as having been sufficiently loyal to their ideology while in office.

Bosses vs. Ideology

Bosses were corrupt, and in that corruption they were moderate through indifference. Contemporary politicians — not all of them but enough of them — live within a framework of ideology where accommodation is the epitome of lacking principle. If you believe deeply in something, then how can you compromise on it? And if everything you believe in derives from an ideology where every issue is a matter of principle, and ideology clashes with ideology, then how can anyone fold his cards? You can’t go back to voters who believe that you have betrayed them and expect to be re-elected.

In the 20th century, the boss system selected such presidents as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. I was struck at how a self-evidently corrupt and undemocratic system would have selected such impressive candidates (albeit along with Warren Harding and other less impressive ones). The system should not have worked, but on the whole, it worked better than we might have imagined. I leave to others to judge how these compare to post-reform candidates like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

There is a vast difference between principle and ideology. Principles are core values that do not dictate every action on every subject, but guide you in some way. Ideology as an explanation of how the world works is comprehensive and compelling. Most presidents find that governing requires principles, but won’t allow ideology. But it is the senators and particularly the congressmen — who run in districts where perhaps 20 percent of eligible voters vote in primaries, most of them ideologues — who are forced away from principle and toward ideology.

All political systems are flawed and all political reforms have unexpected and frequently unwelcome consequences. In the end, a political system must be judged on the results that it brings. When we look at those elected under the old system, it is difficult to argue that reforms have vastly improved the leadership stock. The argument is frequently made that this is because of the pernicious effect of money or the media on the system. I would argue that the problem is that the current system magnifies the importance of the ideologues such that current political outcomes increasingly do not reflect the public will, and that this is happening at an accelerated pace.

It is not ideology that is the problem. It is the overrepresentation of ideologues in the voting booth. Most Americans are not ideologues, and therefore the reformist model has turned out to be as unrepresentative as the political boss system was. This isn’t the ideologues fault; they are merely doing what they believe. But most voters are indifferent. Where the bosses used to share the public’s lack of expectation of great things from politics, there is no one prepared to limit the role of ideology. There is no way to get people to vote, and the reforms that led to a universally used primary system have put elections that most people don’t participate in at center stage.

Each faction is deeply committed to its beliefs, and feels it would be corrupt to abandon them. Even if it means closing the government, even if it means defaulting on debt, ideology is a demanding mistress who permits no other lovers. Anyone who reads this will recognize his enemy at work. I, however, am holding everyone responsible, from left to right — and especially the indifferent center. I hold myself accountable as well: I have no idea what I could do to help change matters, but I am sure there is something.

(Stratfor) Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this column misstated the first name of 1960s-era mayor Richard J. Daley. 

Read more: The Roots of the Government Shutdown | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook