Put Not Your Trust in Sheriffs, Says Will Grigg

[TywinLannister]

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w305.html

[tod evans]

The first bit off of the link;






"You look depressed."

"I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence."

"You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you."

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell – the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England – and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.

"I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County," insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.

During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to "invest more resources" – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a "Drug Task Force," and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a "Task Force mentality" in dealing with law enforcement issues.

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for "task force" is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.

Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcotics syndicate.

[snip]

[nobody's_hero]

True, we have a lot of work to do.

I'm not ready to abandon the sheriff movement though. Sure, I have my moments where I'm like, "What the hell is Joe Arpaio doing at a CSPOA convention?" But on the whole, sheriffs offer a lawful remedy that is wholly consistent with the ground-up form of government we set out to have, but have almost lost.

[tod evans]

True, we have a lot of work to do.

I'm not ready to abandon the sheriff movement though. Sure, I have my moments where I'm like, "What the hell is Joe Arpaio doing at a CSPOA convention?" But on the whole, sheriffs offer a lawful remedy that is wholly consistent with the ground-up form of government we set out to have, but have almost lost.

Try to knock one off the federal tit...

[ZENemy]

I think we need to pay close attention to the wedge that gets thrown down the middle of literally every movement that gains ANY traction.

[pcosmar]

I think we need to pay close attention to the wedge that gets thrown down the middle of literally every movement that gains ANY traction.

True. But that is not the point.
A Sheriff is supposed to be the Highest Law enforcement office. Elected and directly responsible to the local people.

An abusive or lazy Sheriff is no good to anyone.

[Mach]

Here's one of the lessons to learn....


The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn’t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California's very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn’t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf's argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: "The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money."



Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

[AGRP]

I think we need to pay close attention to the wedge that gets thrown down the middle of literally every movement that gains ANY traction.

If by wedge you mean people who write and propagate articles like "Put Not Your Trust in Sheriffs", I would definitely agree.

[AGRP]

double post

[pcosmar]

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w305.html

Actually,
Put Not Your Trust in Federalized Sheriffs

is what he said.

[pcosmar]

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w305.html

Actually,
Put Not Your Trust in Federalized Sheriffs

is what he said.

double post bug, again

[Keith and stuff]

There are some great points in that article. Obviously most sheriffs like federal funding grants. The federal government has a lot of legal power over a sheriff, also. Obama could at anytime lock any sheriff up indefinitely (or until his term ends, at least) without a trial. Any President has the legal power to do that in the US.

[ZENemy]

If by wedge you mean people who write and propagate articles like "Put Not Your Trust in Sheriffs", I would definitely agree.

I meant exactly that, so we do agree. :)