Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America Hardcover – February 28, 2017

I love this guy! And he’s only one of a few democrats that I can say that about. Yes, Sheriff Clark is a democrat; Sheriff David Clark is a true patriot, and if the Dems want a Democrat in the White House, Sheriff David Clark should be their man. If Sheriff David Clark is an example of the “new” progressive liberal Democrat, I’m in. Where do I sign up? Sorry, but Sheriff Clark is most certainly an anomaly among Democrats.I’ve read several books written by law enforcement people because I’m curious about the mentality and courage that drives these people to strap on a gun every day and put their lives on the line to try to protect this sick liberal society we live in today, and this has to be the best of those books I have ever read. Sheriff Clark is a brilliant man with insight and perspective carefully honed by experience in the real world and “street smarts.”I’ve seen Sheriff Clark on Fox News and he was a symbol of authority, assertive and really impressive, I couldn’t wait for this book to be published. In “Cop Under Fire,” Sheriff Clark presents a tough and pragmatic look by a seasoned law enforcement officer at current politics.I’m not going to go in depth in this review for a couple of reasons, one, because there is simply too much good stuff to cover, and two, because this is a book that you really need to read for yourself.In the introduction Sean Hennity, says, “Here’s the truth: the principles Sheriff Clark stands for are the same principles this country was built on.” Amen brother, Amen!Early in the book the sheriff talks about his rebellious youth, how he learned respect for law enforcement, his home life, strict upbringing, his community, and his early political life, shaped into what he is today, and equally as important, why he is a Democrat.Sheriff Clark acknowledges that blacks in inter-cities have come up short in the Democrat controlled educational system, and strongly supports school choice and a voucher system. He exposes Black Lives Matter for what they are and refers to them as “Black Lies Matter.” He relates the true story of incidents where blacks have died at the hands of law enforcement as well as several incidents where police tragically and brutally lost their lives at the hands of blacks, and makes the statement, “You’d never heard of these incidents. That's because the media protect and lie about this insidious terror organization (Black Lives Matter). And killings that keep happening like clockwork.” This is a dark book in some places but still humorous in others.Sheriff Clark has a section in chapter 9, under sub-title “Historical Take on Self-Defense” in which he talks about the George Washington's first address to both houses of Congress where he said, “A free people ought not only be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interests require that they should promote such manufactories has tend to render them independent of others for essential, particular military supplies.”The Sheriff points out that, “In the 1788 debates of the Massachusetts convention, Samuel Adams said that the constitution should never be interpreted to authorize Congress to…..prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceful citizens, from keeping their own arms.”Sheriff Clark continues, “Thomas Jefferson advised, “Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” “Even more to the point, he wrote, “The Constitution of most of our states [and the United States] assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, and all cases to which they think themselves competent…..; that it is their right and their duty to be armed at all times.” Did you catch that? It's your right and duty.”” He follows with, “The government knows all too well that the first step to enslave people are so disarm them in the first step to liberate them is to arm them.”Sheriff Clarke presents a good argument for self-defense and the Second Amendment and an interesting perspective on Second Amendment Rights and the black community. He states, “Though blacks should be strong defenders of the Second Amendment and gun rights, the anti-gun Left has hoodwinked us to be anti-gun. Although most gun owners are God-fearing, freedom-loving patriots who support the U.S. Constitution, President Obama maligned them by calling them “bitter-clingers.” He said that when things don't go right we, cling to our guns and religion. (Which is exactly right, federal government, so don't forget). They have tried to make their cause less white to garner more sympathy from the unsuspecting general public. It's worked.”Sheriff Clark goes on, “Black Americans and white Americans hold divergent attitudes about gun ownership. About 41 percent of white household own guns compared to just 19 percent of black households according to a 2014 Pew survey. And white American (62 percent) are more likely than black Americans (54 percent) to say that gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety. Those different experiences partly explain their divergent views: White (61percent) are nearly twice as likely as blacks (34 percent) to say is more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership.”He continues, “In other words this high homicide rate comes from a population with a very low rate of gun ownership. White Americans have more experience with guns and are subjected to less criminal gun violence. That's why you should never buy the argument that more guns equals more violence. It's just not true.”Sheriff quotes our Founding Fathers again, ““To disarm the people,” wrote George Mason, “Was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” In, 1775, our renegade Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, understood the threat posed by strong central government. They created self-rule around a document that places the power with the people. They understood government tyranny was a natural result of government, so they created safeguards. They knew that only an armed citizenry can keep government in check. “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunder in awe, and preserve order and the world as well as property.” Thomas Paine wrote, “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of their use of them.””According to Sheriff Clark, “People who believe guns should be restricted are stuck on stupid about what causes mass shootings, violence, and suicide. Benjamin Franklin said, “We are all born ignorant but one must work hard to remain stupid.” “Folks my ancestor shed blood for the right to bear arms for self-defense. I will not cede that right back of the government. Neither should you.”And this coming from a career cop. Does that tell you that everything the Left is telling is a lie? I think so. Does it expose their real motives? I think so.Throughout the book Sheriff Clark uses real life experiences to illustrate his points, like the above.Regarding homeland security, and state and local law enforcement’s relationship to it, the sheriff is not complimentary about the current federal government’s policies and structure, and states, “As a law enforcement leader who is on the front lines dealing with domestic terrorism and attacks on our population, I want to relay one crucial bit of intelligence: we are not structured properly and thus are unable to defend the Homeland adequately until our domestic intelligence apparatus changes drastically.” “Our country is in more danger today than on 9/11.” He then supports his statements with stories of a number of domestic terrorism attacks since 9/11, and concludes with, “President Obama has offered a pathetic, weak, and un-American solution: learn to live with it.”Regarding the TSA Clark writes, “In his final report to Congress, Senator Coburn wrote that “there is always and always will be a perpetual struggle between security and liberty in a free Society. Liberty require security, but too much security can result in the loss of Liberty. And the erosion of freedoms is rarely restored. We should never have to give up our rights to preserve them, and our Constitution which specifies the rights of people and the limitations of the government does not even allow for such an exchange.””In a chapter where the Sheriff discusses the politics of the black community the Sheriff says, “My faith in God also allows me to speak the truth, so get ready for it. The cultural Gatekeepers of Blackness - people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - have ruined more black minds with their support of a culture of dependency than crack cocaine and whiskey. They have convinced too many blacks that perpetual victimhood is the only source of their power. They make careers out of creating and prolonging turmoil between blacks and whites, which keeps blacks enslaved in resentment. They could criticize me all day every day - and some do!-and their ill-conceived petty insults are a badge of honor. The only membership card that has any value to me is the one that guarantees me all the rights and privileges afforded by the US Constitution as a citizen of the United States. My rights are inalienable, irrevocable.”Early in Chapter 15 Sheriff Clark makes the statement that, “Citizens need to take responsibility for this nation. Part of the citizen responsibility is refusing to be treated like subjects instead of citizens by our federal government,” followed several pages later by, “I believe Donald Trump is a different type of leader and will keep his promises, but that won't be enough to combat the systematic structural problems that exist in the federal government. He'll need to change the underlying structural problems that somehow let the incompetent federal government bully us with regulations in every aspect of our lives. He'll have to figure out a way to combat the non-elected federal bureaucrats who dictate so many rules and regulations and even Target law-abiding, patriotic Americans. He'll still need to prevent future presidents from governing by executive order as did his predecessor, President Barack Obama. He'll still have the Supreme Court that might stubbornly misrepresent the Constitution and legislate from the Bench.” Followed on the next page with, “Modern liberalism has been a wrecking ball in the black community in the black family structure for decades.”On page 217 Clark presents some very interesting statistics and introduces them by saying, ““Most Americans believe the federal government has grown too big and don't want it meddling in our local affairs. Bureaucrats in some dusty Washington DC office won't make the decisions those of us close to home would make. Most Americans actually agree on that point. A poll of both Republicans and Democrats had shocking results.” He then goes to length reiterating the questions and results, which is rather lengthy, so I’ll let you read them for yourself, but the result is that responses ranged from 56% to 84% against the federal government, with only 15% saying the “values and principals [sic] of my political party are so important that I strongly prefer to vote for the candidate of my party.”As it turns out this is a wonderful segue into his next point. Sheriff Clark goes into Article 5 of the United States Constitution, which I remember now but had forgotten, and what “Forbes” magazine called “a Constitutional emergency cord.” On page 219 he reproduces that article, which I’m going to reproduce below, because if you chose not to read this book, you still need to read this article form our Constitution.Article 15 states: Congress whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislature of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislature of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.Sheriff Clark, “Most of us were taught one rather difficult way to change the Constitution: If two-thirds of both houses of Congress agree on an amendment, Congress can propose it to the Constitution. However right there in plain sight is another way - one that does not require the permission of Congress or even the president. Reread it to see if you can spot it. I'll wait. Okay did you see it?The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislators of two-thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments……In addition to going through Congress, our founding fathers gave us - normal, everyday people working through our state legislatures - the power to dial this out-of-control federal government back: it starts by passing an application through two-thirds of the state legislatures. Doing this will force Congress to call a Convention of States where we can propose amendments that deal with the same issue: taking back power from the federal government.Most Americans don't know that this is a possibility or that the Founders gave us this power. They certainly don't realize that a committed group of people are already getting these applications passed through their legislators. By mid-2016 eight states had passed the application – Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Indiana, and many more to come.”Sheriff Clark’s final chapter titled, “War Has Been Declared on the American Police Officer” ends with the statement, “Obama in a cop hater, someone who will not act to save lives even when a widely supported, uncontroversial bill comes across his desk, It’s inexcusable.This is a book everyone should read (but won’t). I think it will change your perspective. It did mine.

Sheriff Clark has the background and ability to express in print his basic core beliefs and the true scope of the frustrations of those of us wearing the badge and uniforms of our communities. In my 42 years of law enforcement experience , I have never read such a concise and definitive narrative on the state of our country and the erosion of the basic building block of our society, the family unit , along with responsibilities of parents to educate the upcoming generations.I am truly embarrassed by the fact that after scheduling Sheriff Clark as the keynote speaker for the Utah Sheriff's Association, some on the executive board were concerned that having him at the convention would not be appropriate. Whoever was responsible for that decision obviously have obviously not read this book and the basic truth it contains.Keep up the good fight Sheriff Clark!

This is a fascinating six CDs book. It could never obtain promotion by MSM. It’s easy to comprehend why Sheriff David Clark never got the publicity to insure a bestseller.The sheriff has a lot of decent standards. It’s easy to understand why the left hates him. Clark is in favor of stable families, supports the police, echoes a plethora of what the majority of Americans, both men and women agree on. Overall these are negative attributes to the Left.Sheriff Clark refuses to ambulate on the Lefty path. Instead he advocates the promotion of education and appreciates such things as police experience. He goes so far as to criticize the mayor of NYC for putting cuffs on the police force.Moreover, he indicates cops should be in crime ridden neighborhoods. Of course, citizens of such neighborhoods overall agree with Clark, but that’s not important. That’s politically incorrect and another matter.Heaven forbid, but he goes so far as to suggest children would be better off having a father in their home. He deems people in need should be helped, but unnecessary entitlement is harmful. No wonder the left goes crazy at the mention of his name.Clark could perform a miracle and it would never obtain coverage. He’s a lefty nightmare. If he were in the Workers’ Paradise the Soviets would have incarcerated him in the warm vacation land of the Polar Bear.Further, he has done his research on the anti-majority Black Lives Matter element. This does not endear him to the monopoly media. Clark has gone so far as to mention Opal Tometi and the BLM web site’s mentality. I can’t recall if he mentioned Tometi was a female queer that organizes against the country that allowed her Nigerian parents to enter the USA; that she doesn’t appreciate the gift of American citizenship; organizes transnationally against majorities.David Clark pens plenty about nut cases, such as BLM, wanting to harm cops. Sheriff Clark’s pro-family ideology, his support of our soldiers and his desire to protect our police officers is not something relished by the anti-Majority MSM.In short, Sheriff David Clark’s reducing crime and improving the community prevented the anti-majority MSM from praising him. If you watch CNN, this set of 6 CDs is not for you. His work is politically incorrect.

What an excellent read. The cowboy hat wearing sheriff is a realist. An interesting insight to the political side of the ‘force’

Great book from a great guy not afraid to tell the un-PC truth.

Great book - great insights into what's happening in America. Love Sheriff Clarke - he's awesome!

Das Buch ist zwar schon 2017 auf den Markt gekommen, hat aber nichts von seiner Aktualität eingebüßt. Man könnte gleich zu Anfang auch fragen, ob es für jemanden aus Europa interessant ist, sich mit den Problemen eines amerikanischen Sheriffs zu befassen. Die Antwort ist ein klares Ja, denn die Probleme der amerikanischen Gesetzeshüter haben oft deutliche Schnittmengen mit denen ihrer europäischen Kollegen.Das Buch ist so aufgebaut, dass es selten theoretisiert. Der Kapitelanfang bezieht sich immer auf einen tatsächlichen (Kriminal-)Fall, der das zu erörternde Thema besonders gut veranschaulicht. Meist ist der Fall so gewählt, dass ihn die meisten Amerikaner kennen.Sheriff Clarke dürfte in USA mittlerweile einen recht hohen Bekanntheitsgrad haben. Er ist nicht nur ein Schwarzer, er ist auch noch ein konservativer Schwarzer, was ein Widerspruch in sich ist, sind doch die Schwarzen zu 90% (!) Stammwähler der (linken) Demokratischen Partei. Unter der Schirmherrschaft der Demokraten hat sich Clarke 2002 zum ersten Mal in Milwaukee County (ein Landkreis in Wisconsin mit knapp 1 Million Einwohner) erfolgreich für das Amt des Sheriffs beworben (Sheriffs werden von den Bürgern gewählt). In den Folgejahren hat er sich weitere dreimal erfolgreich der Wahl gestellt, und das, obwohl in der vierten Wahl 2014 sein Gegner von Michael Bloomberg massiv unterstützt wurde. Bloomberg unterstütze Clarkes Herausforderer mit 800.000 Dollar, während Clarke für seine Kampagne nur 165.000 Dollar zur Verfügung hatte. Dennoch setzte er sich durch. 2018 trat er dann nicht mehr an. Die Unterstützung durch Bloomberg kam nicht von ungefähr. Clarke machte sich von Anfang vor allem bei der amerikanischen Linken unbeliebt, weil er sich nie scheut(e), die Wahrheit zu sagen. Immer wieder kritisiere er z.B. die Black Lives Matter-Bewegung. Ein Grund hierfür ist, dass es sich aus seiner Sicht bei BLM nicht um eine Bürgerrechtsbewegung handelt. Er meint, es handele sich in Wahrheit um eine marxistische Gruppierung, die ihren Ursprung in den 1960er Jahren hat und die ihren Kampf für die Rechte der Schwarzen nur als Vorwand benutzt, um in schwarzen Vierteln permanent Unruhen anzuzetteln, die am Ende in eine neo-sozialistische Gesellschaftsordnung führen sollen. Dabei schreckt BLM auch nicht davor zurück zu Gewalt gegen Polizisten aufzurufen. In der Folge kam und kommt es immer wieder zu Gewaltausbrüchen gegenüber der Polizei, die in einigen Fällen sogar in der Ermordung von Beamten gipfelten. Die Politik in den USA unternimmt gegen diese Gewaltausbrüche nicht nur nichts (damals Präsident Obama mit seinem Justizminister Eric Holder), sie stellte sich sogar gegen die eigene Polizei indem sie ihr Rassismus unterstellte. Clarke ist dagegen der Ansicht, dass die Polizei in USA kein ernsthaftes Rassismusproblem hat. Zum Beispiel ist die vermehrte Kontrolle von Farbigen – im Gegensatz zu Weißen – in der Tatsache zu suchen, dass Erstere einfach mehr Straftaten begehen. Wenn man nun die Polizei ständig unter Rassismusverdacht stellt, wird das – so Clarke – dazu führen, dass die Gesetzeshüter immer seltener den Mut haben, farbige Verdächtige zu überprüfen oder gar festzunehmen. Im Endeffekt führt eine solche Politik dazu, dass mehr Kriminelle in Freiheit bleiben und die innere Sicherheit leidet. Diese Rassismusproblematik kann man in letzter Zeit auch hier in Deutschland immer häufiger wahrnehmen. Immer öfter wird auch der deutschen Polizei der Vorwurf gemacht, sie handele rassistisch, obwohl die deutschen Polizisten in der Regel dasselbe machen wie ihre amerikanischen Kollegen: die „Stammkundschaft“ wird eben öfters überprüft als andere und das hat nichts mit Rassismus zu tun.Aber Rassismus in der Polizei ist nicht das einzige Thema in diesem Buch, das auch uns Europäer betrifft. Ausführlich beschäftigt sich Clarke unter anderem damit inwieweit gestörte Familienverhältnisse den Weg in die Kriminalität ebnen. 70 % der Schwarzen wachsen heute in den USA in Familien auf, in denen die Eltern nicht verheiratet sind, was in der Praxis bedeutet, dass die Väter sich nicht um ihre Kinder kümmern oder die Familie ganz verlassen (S. 129). Das Fehlen der Vaterfigur ist laut Clarke nichts anderes als ein „Expresszug ins Gefängnis“ (S. 130). Clarke muss es wissen, denn er hat ursprünglich als Streifenbeamter bei der Polizei von Milwaukee angefangen, hatte 2017 38 Dienstjahre auf dem Buckel kennt damit die amerikanische Gesellschaft aus eigener Erfahrung von innen heraus.Aber auch andere Themen werden ausführlich besprochen, wie das Recht der Amerikaner Waffen zu besitzen oder welches die richtigen Konsequenzen aus den Anschlägen vom 11. September wären. „Wären“, weil Clarke hier für einen anderen Ansatz plädiert, einen, der die Grundrechte soweit als möglich unangetastet lässt. Auch hier hat er sich wieder gegen das politische Establishment gestellt.Fazit. Ein lebendig geschriebenes, sehr interessantes Werk eines schwarzen Sheriffs, dessen Ansichten von praktischer Erfahrung und gesundem Menschenverstand geprägt sind und der den Mut hat, seine Meinung zu sagen und zu schreiben, auch wenn er dadurch aneckt. Schade, dass es keine deutsche Übersetzung gibt.

This is a very good book with lots of good information. Although it was written a couple of years the information is just as relevant today. Definitely worth a read.