The Constitution 101 - Instructor Tony DeMeo [From the real life story, "Don't Let The Feds Get You Down"]

Don't click this one away.

You just never know when you'll need this information.

Knowledge Is Power ~ Storm'n Norm'n

From: morphcity.com

Constitutional Sheriff Tony DeMeo

by Cassandra Anderson

In this 3-part video interview with Tony DeMeo, Sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, he explains that he is a Constitutional Sheriff and that authority for public office holders is derived from the people.  He tells the story about how he used the Constitution as his foundation in the saga of Nye County rancher Wayne Hage's disputes over encroachments by the federal government.  While Wayne Hage's case centered around property rights in federally managed lands, Sheriff Tony DeMeo's example is relevant for everyone to understand the power of local government, the importance of following the Constitution and upholding the Tenth Amendment (states' rights and sovereignty).

Wayne Hage, the author of "Storm Over Rangelands, Private Rights in Federal Lands" owned the Pine Creek cattle ranch in Nye County. Wayne Hage wrote his book after suffering illegal cattle seizures by armed federal agents and chronicled the history of how the robber baron bankers and railroad magnates monopolized the western states over 100 years ago.  Hage wrote that the northern core financiers were aware that there are two ways to monopolize any resource, "One, get all of it for yourself that you can; two, keep anybody else from getting what you can't."   Public Lands and National Forests were created along with restrictive regulations, using environmental protection as the excuse.
PART ONE: The first video covers Wayne Hage's discovery that the US Department of Forestry, an agency of the USDA, filed a claim for his water rights and later seized his cattle; the USDA Forestry Service used armed agents to accomplish  the seizure.  Hage believed that his cattle were confiscated so that he would be unable to show that he was using his water rights for 'beneficial use' in order to shut down his ranch. Water is scarce in Nevada and unless the landowner can prove he is using the water rights for 'beneficial use', the rights are removed.

PART TWO: In the late 1990's, before Sheriff DeMeo took office, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of Interior, seized more of Hage's cattle off of his ranch, using armed federal agents.  The sheriff at that time left town on a fishing trip.
Subsequently, when Sheriff DeMeo took office in 2003, he told his deputies that illegal cattle seizures were prohibited and that any federal agents attempting to confiscate cattle would be arrested.  Shortly thereafter, the BLM arrived at Hage's ranch to perform a seizure. The Sheriff's Deputy told the federal agents that there would be no seizure or taking of cattle, per DeMeo's decision based on the Constitution.  The Deputy was told that the BLM federal agents intended to arrest DeMeo and use armed force to take Hage's cattle.  Sheriff DeMeo advised the federal agent that their SWAT team would be faced with Sheriff DeMeo's SWAT team if they proceeded.
Sheriff DeMeo clearly stated that he refused any unlawful seizures on Wayne Hage's estate.  He further advised federal agents that if they could produce a lawful court order for seizing cattle, he would not take the cattle off of the land, but impound them there on Hage's ranch.  This is important because if seized cattle were to remain impounded on Hage's ranch, then Wayne Hage could still show 'beneficial use' of his water rights.

PART THREE: In 2004, the BLM wanted authority for law enforcement over the roads in the federally managed Public Lands.   Sheriff DeMeo said that because they were asking for the authority, that meant that they didn't have that law enforcement power. Nye County passed a Resolution forbidding the BLM from encroachment, protecting state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.   Nevada also passed a State Law in 2005 (NRS 565.125) that requires a court order from the court of competent jurisdiction and submission of the order to the Sheriff's Office before any agency seizes animals.   All cattle ranches in Nye County are independent family owned operations.
Sheriff DeMeo also explains that his deputies are empowered to refuse unlawful orders, if the orders violate the US Constitution, the Nevada State Constitution, local laws or policy.

PUBLIC LANDS: Sheriff DeMeo said that while Nevada is more than 90% federally managed, these Public Lands are actually owned by The People and the federal government is limited in their authority under the Tenth Amendment and states' rights.
Land ownership in Nevada is a complicated issue and the land is divided into "split estates", or land that has both private and government interests.   This means that while the private property owner holds title over his land that is Public Land (National Forests), he may or may not also own the water, mineral, grazing, oil, timber or wildlife rights on that property. Wayne Hage's book "Storm Over Rangelands" details the history of the laws that bind the Western States to federal land management.
Public Lands are lands owned by the people of the United States under our Constitution Section 8 Clause 17: 'To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;'
Sheriff DeMeo said that since the federal government has authority over 10 square miles, then the Public Lands are owned by the people for the benefit of all.
The federal government's jurisdiction and authority in Public Lands are important for all Americans to become aware of because the federal government is expanding its control and privately owned property across America is targeted by the Wildlands Project.
CONCLUSION:
Sheriff DeMeo reported that after several disputes with the USDA's Department of Forestry and the Department of Interior's BLM, an understanding of jurisdiction has been accomplished to the satisfaction of his office.  In fact, the federal government has since established annual meetings, the Western Sheriffs Summit, between these agencies and western area sheriffs.
Sheriff DeMeo studied the Constitution in New Jersey when he was a police officer, as it was a requirement for promotion. He said that because nearly every encounter with the public involves some aspect of respecting the Constitution, he has added additional study of the Constitution to the Nye County Sheriffs training academy curriculum that was in place before he took office.
Additionally, he has given his deputies decision making authority based on the Constitution, the Nevada State Constitution, local laws and policy. They are empowered with the right to refuse unlawful orders.  Sheriff DeMeo issues Empowerment Cards to his deputies which set policy for deputies when they are in contact with the public and allows deputies to make field decisions as long as they do not violate the respective Constitutions, State Law and Policies.
Download Nye County Sheriff Empowerment Card (PDF)

Sheriff DeMeo created the Empowerment Cards for his deputies shortly after he entered office in 2003.  He attended a seminar given by Alan Brunacini of the Phoenix Fire Department who was the original author; DeMeo modified the cards to apply to law enforcement for his deputies to reference in the field.  Sheriff DeMeo is interested in encouraging his deputies to make decisions and to be leaders.
A Sheriff's Forum is held each month in Nye County and Sheriff DeMeo addresses all questions and concerns from the public.
Please visit www.MorphCity.com for more articles.

__________________________________ 

"One of the prettiest sounds on earth" is the Muslim call to prayer at sunset.

Barack Hussein Obama as quoted by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times - March 6, 2007

Stop The Islamization Of America

The farmer in the dell, The farmer in the dell, Hi-ho, the derry-o, Your Country's going to hell

The followingt from Maggies Notebook

White House Budget $1.5B for Farmers: What Budget? Does WH Have Spending Power?

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, has told Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) the White House will find $1.5 BILLION for farmers suffering from disasters across the country, including for her state of Arkansas, from the budget. What budget? We don't have a budget. He means from Obama's stash, which comes from only the Almighty knows where.

White House

Lincoln successfully got the $1.5 billion of agricultural disaster assistance in a bill designed to aid small businesses. Republican blocked the vote. But apparently Rahm will find it, and provide it through "administrative assistance" from Obama's stash? 

Emanuel called Lincoln on Thursday morning to tell her the administration would find $1.5 billion within its budget to help farmers in Arkansas and around the country who are coping with natural disasters.

Emanuel promised to provide the assistance administratively to get her to agree to delete $1.5 billion in disaster relief assistance for farmers from small-business legislation. 

Emanuel’s intervention shows how closely the president and his senior aides are following the bill Democrats are trying to push through Congress. 

Since when does the Executive Branch have the right to spend? Again, from what Budget will Rahm find the $1.5 billion? Only Congress has the power to spend. The point is, if Congress does not agree to spend taxpayer dollars, the President cannot just take care of it himself.

Note: this has nothing to do with farmers getting money that may be due them. It has everything to do with how they get it. From what authority does White House have that power?

____________________________

Related...

Anti-Deficiency Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341^[1]. The ADA prohibits the Federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract.
This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.
To some extent, but not entirely, it implements the provisions of Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse") of the Constitution of the United States which precludes the expenditure of funds by any branch of the Federal government unless those funds have been appropriated by Congress. In part, the Act is actually inconsistent with the Constitution because it recites that expenditures without appropriations can be made where expressly permitted by Congress: the Constitution permits no such exception^{[citation needed]}.
Although the ADA and its predecessors are over 120 years old, no one has ever been convicted or even indicted for its violation.^[2]. (Emphasis mine...may Obama be the first to be convicted.  ~ Storm'n Norm'n)
An important corollary of the constitutional provision is that departments and agencies of the government may not "augment" appropriations either by raising money instead of seeking and getting an appropriation or by retaining funds collected and using them instead of receiving an appropriation. This bar to augmentation of appropriations is regularly violated by the executive branch and often with the consent of Congress. Practices in the nature of revolving funds (funds that are kept liquid by the use of "income" realized by agencies) clearly violate the augmentation limitation.
A more subtle but important violation of the Constitutional provision occurred when Congress passed TARP. Congress never appropriated ANY funds to TARP and instead simply recited that the necessary funds would be "deemed appropriated" at the time they were expended. This "deeming" provision violated not only the cited provision of the constitution but a host of other provisions as well.

________________________

Bonus video...

Barack and Michelle...absolutely galling!

This is worse than Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain." comment.  And worse yet, is that the Obama voters will look right through it all...Its what Obama calls transparency.  In other words, if an Obama voter looked in a mirror they'd miss seeing themselves for the reflection was in the way (I don't know if that came out right...I was trying to play on the oft used expression, "They can't see the forest for the trees are in the way.") ~ Norman E. Hooben

Cross-posted from Pundit and Pundette

Luxury-loving first family can relate to struggling Americans

I guess it would be crazy to expect the president and first lady to factor in the costs, to businesses and taxpayers, when they make a decision to go on a junket, whether it's a campaign stop at a New Jersey sub shop that will ensure a bad day for surrounding businesses, or a "mother-daughter trip" (note spin) to Spain that will cost taxpayers untold amounts in security and transportation. For a personal trip, entirely optional (and squeezed in before the real summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard).

Luxurious: The Obamas will spend four nights at Spain's most exclusive hotel, the Villa Padierna on the Costa del Sol near Marbella

It would fascinating to learn just how many hard-earned American tax dollars have been spent by the Obamas in their pursuit of the high life.

To be fair, though, the president has assured us that he can relate to Americans who are struggling financially:

President Obama says he can relate to the plight of Americans striving in the struggling economy to pay bills while saving for their kids' education.
He says he and first lady Michelle Obama took a hit like everybody else when the economy nearly collapsed, telling ABC that a college fund for daughters Malia and Sasha has gone "up and down" with the stock market.
Obama says the first couple is "not that far removed from what most Americans are going through." He tells the network "it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there."

Absolutely galling.

Obama risks death penalty...but for the least of his crimes he should be put away for a long time...its the law!

Recently I posted a commentary on OTM's (Other Than Mexicans) that were entering the country illegally.  In that post included a news story about two Hondurans who raped a 14-year-old Texas girl. The penalty for allowing (that is the person or persons responsible for preventing illegal entry across our borders and "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States" quote is from the law)   these two scumbags entry into the country in which bodily harm was committed is:

(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

Remember now, I'm not talking about the two Hondurans here.  I'm talking about the people responsible for allowing the Hondurans into this country.  And that would be Eric Holder and his boss Barack Husein Obama.  We can multiply the punishment of 20 years for the thousands of similiar crimes committed by the thousands of illegal aliens that Obama and company refused to stop...and who continues to encourage to enter illegally as we speak.  So that looks like a slam dunk, Obama and company should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives...unless you get a soft judge who would make them serve 20 years concurrently.

So what kind of penalty would Obama and company receive for allowing that illegal alien to kill the rancher last March?  Bud Parker (see post below) says, "Obama risks the death penalty..." and after reading the law I would agree.  I'll tell you right now, If the Sheriff would deputize me I would be willing to make the arrest; apparently there is not any law enforcement officers willing to uphold their oath of office. ~ Norman E. Hooben

__________________________

Obama Risks Death Penalty for Federal Law Violation

• Posted by Bud Parker on July 13, 2010 at 3:14am in Immigration, Illegal Aliens, Amnesty, Border Issues  

Few people are legal scholars.  I am certainly not one, but I can read and think.  Perhaps that makes me unique in today's society.  Regardless of that, Mr. Obama has decided to not only ignore the Federal Law regarding criminal alien immigration into this Nation, but his continual public statements attesting to that fact and his plan for Amnesty have placed him in violation of the United States Code.  That is Federal Law.

When the President comes on line saying that we will not guard the border and we are going to pass Amnesty for people that have violated the law by jumping the border, that encourages many other people to enter the United States without processing through a Customs Control Point.  That act is a violation of law.  Obama's encouraging, aiding, and abetting in the commission of that crime makes him culpable, also. 

For your reference this is the link to the appropriate US CODE.  I will extract portions of the code below.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > 

§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A)
Any person who—
...(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation
of law; or

(v)

(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
...
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

(i)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both;

(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

In summation, this federal law says that encouraging, aiding or abetting and alien to enter the USA illegally subjects you to criminal prosecution.  Various penalties are possible depending on intent and method.  Notice that the word "shall" is used throughout indicating that something is mandatory.

Further, it specifies that for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs constitutes an additional prosecutable offense.  If the alien simply arrives and does not harm anyone during their illegal stay the penalty is only 5 years.  If the alien causes serious bodily harm, 20 years for Obama.  Or, if the alien kills someone during their criminal stay in the USA the penalty for Obama (or anyone else who commits this crime) is that they shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.  For each person encouraged, aided, or abetted.

It seems as though our Elected Officials are not subject to the same laws that regulate our conduct.

University Student Told To Change Beliefs Through Re-Education Brainwashing Program

The moment I saw the headline it reminded me of Margaret Sanger who called rehabilitative concentration camps for all "dysgenic stocks".  And who would of thought that Charles F. Potter was so influential in a Georgia University...you remember him as the guy who said, “Education is a most powerful ally of Humanism... ”.  Potter was another advocate of brainwashing especially with children.  Must be the powers to be at Augusta University are admirers of Potter. I wish Jennifer Keeton success in her lawsuit and its a sour point in America that this has happened...I guess I may becoming a Sanger-Potterist because I think that the powers to be at the university should be the ones going to rehabilitative concentration camps.  ~  Norman E. Hooben

The following cross-posted from Pat Dollard

Augusta University Student Told To Change Beliefs On Gays Through Re-Education Camp-Style Brainwashing Program Or Be Expelled

July 27th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

Fox News:
A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master’s degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she’ll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her “central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct,” according to a civil complaint filed last week.
“[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity,” the 43-page lawsuit reads.
Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.
“The faculty identifies Miss Keeton’s views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations,” the lawsuit reads.
The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton’s “disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle,’” as well as Keeton’s belief that those “lifestyles” are cases of identity confusion.
If Keeton fails to complete the plan, including additional reading and the writing of papers describing the impact on her beliefs, she will be expelled from the Counselor Education Program, the lawsuit claims.
Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the “result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces,” according to the suit.
“She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created,” the lawsuit reads. “Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ’state of being.’”
In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.
“The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics,” the statement read. “The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics.”
David French, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the lawsuit against Augusta State University on Keeton’s behalf, said no university has the right to force a citizen to change their beliefs on any topic.
“The university has told Jennifer Keeton that if she doesn’t change her beliefs, she can’t stay in the program,” he told FoxNews.com. “She won’t even have a chance to counsel any students; she won’t have a chance to get a counseling degree; she’ll be expelled.”
Keeton, who is not available for interviews according to French, believes that people have “moral choices” regarding their sexuality, he said.
“A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion,” French said.