Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association Position On Malheur Occupation
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, which has publicly supported Ward, said Thursday that it did not stand by people who it described as arming themselves, breaking into publicly owned buildings and intimidating and harassing local residents and officials.
“These men and women are asking for change, and we support their right to challenge our government to make change,” the association said in a statement. “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”
You can read it all for yourself, but I don’t need to know any more than this in order to form an opinion and make a judgment. This is a terrible position statement, and it would have been better for them never to have spoken of the matter than to say something like that.
Take that statement as it is, because it doesn’t need context in order to understand it. ” … we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”
Ever, under any circumstances, for any reason. Or so we may conclude, since they provided no qualifiers, stipulations, conditions or caveats. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic, where 51% of the people can vote to impoverish the other 49% for their own benefit.
So what if it was worse than mere wealth redistribution (which is theft)? Suppose America voted to sacrifice every fourth male child born on the final day of each month in a bloody sacrifice to the gods of football? And what if it was commonly accepted practice to appease the sports heroes in our broken society? Would it be okay with these Sheriffs to opposes such actions with violence, or should it be only with protests? What would the Sheriffs do? Would they actively engaged in baby confiscation, or protection of the baby confiscators because that was the law?
But we would never do something like that in America, you say. Or would we? Do we?
|
|
On February 9, 2016 at 8:36 am, smittyOhio said:
Here we see sort of the crux of the problem…it is a rarity that a county sheriff actually is something other than the local version of absolute power over the people.
The county sheriff *should* be positioned as a shield against totalitarian behaviors of the state and the feds…
If we don’t correct things locally, it won’t ever happen at the state and federal levels…
On February 9, 2016 at 8:44 am, UNCLEELMO said:
Are these sheriffs supportive of the FBI and state police taking over their counties when the time comes? That’s exactly what they’re saying.
I would like to know more about Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward. Is he the same person that was a Range Specialist for BLM? Is he the same person who testified against the Hammonds in their original trial? All I’ve heard is his denial, which went something like “There are lots of Dave Wards”.
On February 9, 2016 at 5:04 pm, Jack Crabb said:
The answer to your first question is an emphatic, “YES.” As smittyOhio alluded to, a true Constitutional Sheriff is quite rare, indeed.
On February 9, 2016 at 10:14 am, White Hat from TX said:
You nailed it Herschel,
What a huge load of circular hypocrisy.
Are they even capable of reciting the words of their oath to the Constitution from a teleprompter?
On February 9, 2016 at 1:30 pm, c0228bfc@opayq.com said:
This is the left coast. Land of the liberal. Many of our Sheriff’s are elected by liberals and their department budgets are set by county commissioners, many of whom are also liberal.
On February 9, 2016 at 5:05 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Shit, the left coast has nothing on the rest of the country when it comes to unconstitutional sheriffs.
On February 9, 2016 at 8:52 pm, jjkarn said:
Well, these sheriffs are not really American. They are actually British, and it can be proven very simply.
Simply take their last statement, “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.” We can assume that they say this because they currently hold office in the United States. Export their comment back in time a couple centuries, and it becomes, “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any subject of the King of England.”
George Washington, the Continental Army, and the Continental Congress were all criminals engaging in illegal action and violence against their erstwhile fellow citizens. Moral consistency demands that these sheriffs denounce the Founders and the country the Founders created.
On February 10, 2016 at 6:22 pm, Son of Liberty said:
However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or
elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes
illegal action
The revolutionary war was exactly that. Back then, these sherrifs would have been loyalists.