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