April 27th, 2014

Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr NRA-ILA Leadership Forum FULL SPEECH

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke

Sheriff Clarke continues to brace his stand for the Second Amendment and its requirement that the American people be armed.  A true Peace Officer, Sheriff Clarke is the elected Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.  May his citizenry continue to support and back him.


video url:


A Constitutional Sheriff

A Constitutional Sheriff

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

7 Responses to “Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr NRA-ILA Leadership Forum FULL SPEECH”

  1. 1
    susan sheldon Says:

    I am so glad to see this for so many reasons. The first because it shows we do have heros among us. And second because the individuals of evil want to divide us by claiming we are different nad of other races because of our skin tone. This is just another great human who demonstrates skin tone does not affect our desire to remain free of oppression from those who seek to enslave. But for those who truly know and understand truth, we know evil is weak and can not stand against truth, freedom, and justice. They will fall as the shadow when you turn toward the sun.

  2. 2
    Cal Says:

    I like Sheriff Clarke. He speaks plainly and to the point.

    Judges cannot be trusted, but ONLY because we allowed them to tell us that they have the “bench” for life. That is not so. They are ALLOWED to remain a judge only as long as they use “Good Behaviour”.

    US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:

    The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    James Madison, Federalist 39, 250—53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “… The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour…”

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
    Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

    The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

    So what powers, authority, did the US Constitution assign to those who serve within the judiciary?

    US Constitution, Article III Section. 2:
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
    –to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
    –to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
    –to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
    –to Controversies between two or more States;
    – between a State and Citizens of another State,
    –between Citizens of different States,
    –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Does that mean that any law created is to be upheld by the justices? No, The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,

    “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

    It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in.

    Justices must make their case decisions based on that the cases are “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” or found to NOT be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” to be lawful decisions. They are using “Good Behaviour” and are keeping the contract they agreed to, and gave their PERSONALLY binding Oath that they would.

    Those justices that “interpret” the US Constitution, base their decisions on “precedent” without verifying that “precedent” to be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution”, or on foreign law are no longer in “Good Behaviour” and have broken the contract that they are under and must be FIRED.

    Thomas Jefferson:
    “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort…”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The judicial brach of the federal government was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.
    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

    Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”
    And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

    Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams:
    “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

    Patrick Henry: “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”

  3. 3
    don riebe Says:

    I LISTENED to Sheriff David Clarke… he is numbered now along with my other new heroes like Dr. Ben Carson…

    Succinct and cogent… a delightful experience to listen to.

  4. 4
    Deborah Says:

    GA governor implements “Guns Everywhere” this week putting arms in the hands of law biding citizens to carry everywhere welcomed. He knows.

  5. 5
    James Eggert Says:

    We need to keep a watchful eye on the Chinese instead of buying their products so they can further arm themselves. Expect them to be an aggressor not a defender in any conflict. Check the history books as to who is referred to by the Chinese as the “Paper Tiger”. Thanks..

  6. 6
    Mitch Says:

    So the question is: What can we do NOW to remove unconstitutional judges from the bench?

  7. 7
    Kenneth Bozarth Says:


Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148