The New York Times recently took a stab at explaining the tea party movement to those of us not bleeding out the ears with rage over the past year of Democratic leadership. It’s an interesting read, if not entirely satisfying: the writer, David Barstow, concedes: “The ebbs and flows of the Tea Party ferment are hardly uniform. It is an amorphous, factionalized uprising with no clear leadership and no centralized structure.”

Barstow makes much of the individuals — many of them new to political activism — who are providing the foot soliders and, in some cases, leadership for these factions. Understandably, he only scratches the surface of the tea party ideology and its origins: “[T]he Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve.”

mack.jpg
But real understanding of the tea-partiers must begin with the much older and even more fractious Patriot movement, and perhaps no one better exemplifies the connection between past and present than the Arizona man making several appearances in Ohio next month, Sherriff Richard Mack. From the NYT article:

By inviting Richard Mack to speak at their first event, leaders of Friends for Liberty were trying to attract militia support. They knew Mr. Mack had many militia fans, and not simply because he had helped Randy Weaver write a book about Ruby Ridge. As a sheriff in Arizona, Mr. Mack had sued the Clinton administration over the Brady gun control law, which resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that the law violated state sovereignty by requiring local officials to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

Mr. Mack was selling Cadillacs in Arizona, his political career seemingly over, when Mr. Obama was elected. Disheartened by the results, he wrote a 50-page booklet branding the federal government “the greatest threat we face.” The booklet argued that only local sheriffs supported by citizen militias could save the nation from “utter despotism.” He titled his booklet “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope,” offered it for sale on his Web site and returned to selling cars.

But then some prominent online radio hosts interviewed him, leading to so many tea party speaking requests that he is once again a full-time agitator. His “No Sheriff Left Behind” Tour swings through Ohio (including Akron) in March, courtesy of the Ohio Freedom Alliance, whose site touts the appearances by asking, “What is the role of the sheriff in preserving that liberty from an encroaching federal government? What do YOU need to know to support your local sheriff?”

Theses questions are not academic, though even the tea party neo-Patriots may not fully understand their significance.

This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 2, 2010.

2 replies on “THE SHERIFF SHOT ME: TEA PARTY HERO RICHARD MACK”

  1. We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
    Constitution defined and instituted

    We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person. We are determined to Keep our Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    We are not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office. We want all elected persons to live up to their Oath to “support and defend the Constitution” as it is written or to leave of their own volition.

    We are not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced. We want the Justices in the Judicial Branch to follow the Constitution as written without interpretation.

    We are not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.

    We are not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto. We are insisting on the Constitution being Enforced as it is written.

    We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any
    reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

    We hope for a return to a Constitutional Republic free from fear and hatred. We hate only tyranny.

    We are Oath Sworn Americans who want the Constitution returned to its legal and rightful place, intact, as the ultimate Law of the Land.

  2. I totally agree with the 1st comment. I believe F. Lewis middle name is Norman. It is logical his name is F#$@-N- Lewis! Looser with injecting biased opinion of tea parties, Oath Keepers ect. He is a dilusional lefty still stuck in the right left paridin. Frank the tea party started while Bush was in office, the republicants are trying to hijack it as the demmonots are trying to steal the coffee party. Quit being so biased and lazy and do some research. We are all good people we love our country and want it back. We are non violent but persistant. We the people have rights and responsibilities as American citizens and are not lazy or passive because we see what happened when we were hoping and praying and not being active about it. If you don’t like our constitution get out! We have the right of freedom, liberty and to prosper. This is a Republic NOT a democracy. Grow up and grow a pair. Quit with the regergitated party double speak. I hope you wake up or your goin down with the rest of us. United we stand divided we fall.

Comments are closed.