Rebane's Ruminations
September 2013
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

The NC Republican Women Federated have been working hard to bring Sheriff Richard Mack to speak in Nevada County.  Today The Union ran a piece on the 18oct13 affair to be held in the GV Vets Hall.  Sheriff Mack is the founder of the nation’s constitutional sheriffs movement and a celebrated public servant to most conservatives.  You can find out more about the man’s thinking on his website here.

As predictable as the sunrise, our designated reader sent me a copy of the first of what promises to be many hyper-ventilations by the local Left to somehow diminish the scheduled speaking engagement, or preferably to ban it altogether.  The big insult to these open-minded progressives is that Sheriff Mack will be introduced by our own elected Sheriff Keith Royal.  Now isn’t that an outrage if I ever heard of one?

As pointed out regularly in these pages, it is always the looney Left that wants to proscribe anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with their message.  Why is that so one-sided?  I’d be quite happy to have them invite Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, Rev Sharpton, Rev Jackson, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, …, hell, even Harry Belafonte up here to speak.  I would definitely be in the audience to hear what they had to say.

[18sep13 update]  Apropos to the asymmetry pointed out above, the comment stream to this post is also illustrative.  In there we see the notion of selective enforcement of laws taken up.  Our progressive commenters are all in a lather about the intentions of certain local sheriffs to enforce only laws, regulations, mandates, etc they consider constitutional or have a proper legal basis.  These commenters treat this notion as if it was invented yesterday by the so-called ‘constitutional sheriffs’, and as if it has not been long practiced by all governmental executive offices during the history of our republic.

Today’s egregious end-runs by POTUS and various state governors of their respective legislatures that has raised hue and cry across the land does not even come up on their radar.  That Obama publicly stated he will constructively legislate through his agencies and bureaus (both criminal and regulatory) does not concern these worthies one whit.  And that the President has already brought untold misery in job destruction and economic malaise nationwide is not their concern as he has promised to continue this policy for the remainder of his term.

Reading these commenters and their lines of argument is truly an education in the study of our polarization and the widening gulf that divides us.

Posted in , ,

131 responses to “Sheriff Mack to speak, Left’s undies knotting up (updated 18sep13)”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    BillT 1223pm – thank you Mr Tozer.

    Like

  2. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Gregory | 21 September 2013 at 12:11 PM
    Jesus Gregory you are a complete pill. I clearly stated above that I would be against the Sheriff unilaterally determining ‘which laws to enforce’ and which not to under almost any circumstances, but the fact remains the ISSUE the Sheriffs chose to use to demonstrate what they believe is their right to nullification are gun laws. I also used examples including civil rights laws and child rape laws as examples….but the core point remains, I am against nullification by the elected Sheriff, it is a violation of their oath, and denies me as a citizen equal protection.
    Now, the fact is I support stronger gun control laws, but laws short of outright banning the right to keep arms. I have made no bones about that….but that is NOT the issue here. YOU are the one who wants to distract peoples attention with the emotional issue of whether they love their guns or not…I really don’t give a crap. You want to sleep with your Mossberg because you are a lonely guy, be my guest. My guess, based on the level of insecurity you demonstrate here, is you need the .410 gauge.

    Like

  3. Paul Emery Avatar

    My point? It’s obvious. Does a Sheriff have the Constitutional right in the opinion of Mack and readers of this blog to not enforce Federal Civil Rights Laws if they believe them to be in violation of States Rights? Obviously you know what I’m talking about. Gov Wallace was a celebrated example of that view.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 143pm – why that example, and how did we get into the enforcement of civil rights laws in particular? Is that an effort to make this case more inflammatory than it already is? If you look at the laws involved in the constitutional sheriffs debate, you’ll find that they focus primarily on issues like gun control and property rights. Are you perchance taking a correspondence course in agitprop?
    If you wanted to remain relevant, you’d pick Obama’s selective enforcement of Obamacare, bypassing Congress on climate change legislation, or apprehending illegal aliens. The same could be said for Gov Moonbeam (and throw in selective enforcement of AB32). That’s what’s happening today, and the equivalent question is ‘are these actions legal or even constitutional?’ (Reread my poem please.)

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    Why not cite Wallace as a example? The situation was real and it had to do with States not enforcing Federal law. Your refusal to consider my question means you have a squeamish argument when confronted with questions based on recent history.
    Let me ask you this directly then George and Gregory. Was Wallace correct on Constitutional grounds for refusing to support Federal Law based on States Rights? Pretty simple. Yes or no or maybe or don’t know or…….

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 2013pm – Fair enough, I’ll go back to yesteryear to address that if you give me a reasonable reply as to why liberals here ignore the bigger question of what infractions have already happened and are going on TODAY at the federal and state executive levels, as opposed to what certain local country sheriffs may or not do in the future. Addressing that is on topic to my post and relevant to current events at all levels of governance in the nation. Agreed?

    Like

  7. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Actually, on another thread, or perhaps earlier in this one, I cited civil rights enforcement as an exa mple. It is perfectly relevant because it was precisely the rational used by both Wallace and Orval Faubus to block desegregation laws.
    Obama has not bypassed Congress on climate change regulation, he is using the stablished powers under the EPA to implement regulations on CO2 emissions; if conservatives want to challenge whether he has exceeded his authority through the courts they can. And he has not interfered with individual states laws regarding apprehending illegal aliens, he has challenged them in court. The Attorney General SUED Arizona challenging its law. IF Sheriffs wanted to file suit claiming a specific gun law is un-Constitutional, they would have a perfect right to do so. FInally, there is no ‘selective enforcement’ of AB 32, there was direction in the legislation to draft a plan to reduce CO2 emissions, that plan was created and is known as the Scoping PLan, and it has survived court challenge.

    Like

  8. Gregory Avatar

    If the Feds want to sue a county sheriff to force their providing of administrative services demanded by the Feds, they are free to do so.

    Like

  9. Paul Emery Avatar

    No George
    My question is specific and is completely applicable to you’re adoration of Sheriff Mack as a “Constitutional” Sheriff and what he has the right to do under his view of the Constitution. You’re diversion is sweeping and vague. I can also ask what “Constitutional” right did the Reagan Administration exercise in Iran Contra bypasing the intent of congress when they ignored the Boylan Amendmen which restricted overt U.S. support of the Contras. The Reagan Administration circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress. But, of course, they were Republicans so it was ok.

    Like

  10. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Yeah Gregory look how that worked out for George Wallace and Orval Faubus….instead of promoting law and order and following the Constitution, which was their oath, Wallace and Faubus used the political system to sow dissension, create chaos, and deny people their rights, leading to the federal government sending in troops to enforce the law. They leveraged their positions to create political theater, which Faubus used to get re-elcted and Wallace used to run for President. Is that what we want our local Sheriff doing? No one here has denied that there are legal remedies that the federal government (or state government) can use; we are saying it is both inappropriate for our community, not in our best interests, and in our humble opinions, contrary to the will of the voters of Nevada County, who place the Sheriff in his position. He has rescinded his introduction of Richard Mack, but he has not rescinded the letter he sent stating that he would not enforce federal and state laws. He should do so. My point is that the Constitutional Sheriffs are political Kabuki theater. A good use of our tax dollars!

    Like

  11. Gregory Avatar

    Now you’ve gone from NAMBLA to George Wallace, who also wasn’t a county sheriff. Just looking for an unsympathetic cause or character to smear on gun rights supporters, aren’t you?
    I’m not even particularly a “constitutional sheriff” supporter but I’m perfectly happy with a sheriff following the law as they see it, and if an entity with legal standing wants to challenge them I’m sure they’re capable of filing suit.

    Like

  12. Paul Emery Avatar

    No Gregory, I’m testing with the question of what is an appropriate situation by an elected official where they can ignore federal law. In reality I think Mack is too much a Libertarian for most subscribers to this blog. Check out his views on seat belts for example.
    “I am proud to say that in my entire time serving as sheriff I never issued a seat belt citation, and neither did any of my deputies. We talked to the people about wearing seat belts; we encouraged them to be safe, especially where children were concerned. But we could not in clear conscience enforce a law which violated the personal freedoms of the people, and thereby the principles of the constitution!
    I’m not saying that we should all refuse to wear seat belts. The issue is not whether or not it’s a good idea. The real danger here is that when we allow government to enforce these kinds of laws, we are surrendering our ability to think and act for ourselves.”
    Mack even believes he doesn’t have to enforce State Laws.
    http://sheriffmack.com/index.php/seat-belts

    Like

  13. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    The difference between George Wallace, governor of the Great State of Alabama, and Sheriff Mack is that Wallace was wrong, both morally and Constitutionally.
    Now if some Sheriff refused to enforce laws against some pedophiles due to some equal protection clauses, wouldn’t that be something? I guess NAMBLA lubbers consider their dastardly deeps perpetrated upon their objects of adoration as victimless crimes.
    Holy Smokes Mr. stevenfrisch, if you are into that child porn stuff, don’t defend it and don’t talk about it on line!!!! And spare us the details you sick pup. No wonder you admonish us all not to cast stones or dare not judge. I think I am going to vomit. Even Utah Phillips would heave over this.
    Talk about “inappropriate for our community” sicko.

    Like

  14. Gregory Avatar

    George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door. The Feds sent a General to ask him to stand aside, which he did.
    Wallace was acting unlawfully to limit a civil right of citizens because of their color.
    What you are arguing, Paul, is that a sheriff refusing to infringe on a civil right of all is a moral equivalent, and sorry, I don’t see it.

    Like

  15. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, I had to smile at your aggravation that Mack and his minions refused to issue seat belt citations.
    Good for him.
    I’ve always worn seat belts just as I’ve always worn a helmet when riding a motorcycle, however, I’ve never wanted laws to force either.
    I recall Willie Brown, back when he controlled the state legislature, having a TV news photo op with a brand new Detroit car outfitted with airbags, then an optional novelty. California was preparing to mandate their being installed in every car sold in California, and Willie was all for it. Why?
    He didn’t want to wear seat belts.
    So we have mandated airbags, which, if you are wearing a properly designed three to five point seat belt are pretty much superfluous. If you aren’t wearing seatbelts, or if you are very small, the airbags can even kill you.
    The sad thing is that when the Feds mandated the easy to use three point seat belts, exotic cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis, when being Federalized for importation, had to rip out the five point belts proven on racetracks and the crappy three point inertial reel belts had to be installed in their place.
    Madness.

    Like

  16. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Bill, your statement is so stupid and defamatory it does not even deserve a response.

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    Wallace believed the Constitution was on his side when he said “And I say, Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”

    Like

  18. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Actually I find this whole thing very funny. Let’s see, we have Rosa Koire, the John Birch Society, Richard Mack, Doyle Shamley, Stewart Rhodes, Orlean Koehle; who is next? I really don’t have any objection to any of these people speaking, not just because I support first amendment rights, and I enjoy hearing from the fringes of American society, but because they highlight just how out of touch our local conservatives are with reality.

    Like

  19. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Steve, I agree. I come to this site for comedy, it’s one of the best humor blogs on the Internet. Plus, for some odd reason I am perceived by George as Zeus on Mount Olympus, profundicating lightning bolts of wisdom to the Titanic readers of RR. This amuses me even more.

    Like

  20. Gregory Avatar

    Yes, Paul, and he was wrong.
    What was he worried about? That if black students were let into white schools, white students and a white way of life would be threatened.
    Paul, you and Steve are worried that, if someone buys a gun you or someone you care about will get shot… in short, as far as rights are concerned, you’re taking the George Wallace side.

    Like

  21. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    The site is just comedy Michael….
    I think its telling that Greg thinks Paul and I are just concerned that someone we love will get shot. Kind of shows me the world view of someone who cares only if something affects them.

    Like

  22. Gregory Avatar

    “Yeah, Greg, the victim in not enforcing state and federal gun laws is the poor sap who gets shot in the head.”
    -Frisch at the top of the thread
    Just so we remember. I figured Steven and his friends are the saps he was referring to.
    On point, there are a number of gun bills on Governor Brown’s desk, some of them particularly onerous, but as yet, none have been signed. Here’s the latest signed batch from Friday:
    http://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18214

    Like

  23. Gregory Avatar

    “YOU are the one who wants to distract peoples attention with the emotional issue of whether they love their guns or not…I really don’t give a crap.”
    No Steve, YOU are the one who wants to distract peoples attention with the emotional issue of whether one more gun might be used improperly, or that we’d better make everyone who wants to possess a gun come in and register it to make sure we know where all the guns are.
    Oh, and while we’re at it, we’ll exempt criminals who are already forbidden the legal possession of guns from being charged for having one that’s unregistered. That law is only for the lawful.

    Like

  24. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    “Bill, your statement is so stupid and defamatory it does not even deserve a response.”
    Thank you for the response. Silence is golden.
    Mr. Paul Emery: Have to say comparing going from the Civil Rights Movement gaining momentum after World War II and growing more in the 50’s (despite setbacks) and coming to a head in the 60’s…comparing all the “what ifs” of American history to a Sheriff of all things taking his cause to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and winning hands down is something else.
    I should not be surprised. The Civil Rights Movement? People taking to the streets for equal protection denied because of the color of their skin? Something they had no control over, something they were born with? Even the late Sen Robert Byrd of the KKK and Storm Thurman (non KKK) went from the pro segregationist manta to see the light.
    Not surprisiung at all. Its the mindset of some of us still stuck in the 60’s.
    Been missing my Brother Ben who no longer frequents these pages. He sees everything, big and small, through the prism of race. You citing the Civil Rights and its opposition by State Governments and going back in history 52 years to equate with the rhetoric of a handful of locally elected sheriffs is…well, predictable.
    My dearly departed Brother Ben is predictable as well. Thanks to Dr. Rebane’s link, I saw my Brother from a different Mother sees this whole thing as a racist issue. Racism I tell ya, racism.
    “local law enforcement can push back against federal overreach is by not enforcing those laws at the standard of the federal government not a thinly veiled call to arms that is being fueled by racism. Yes racism,….doesn’t mean I cannot be honest about the undercurrent of racism within all of the right’s opposition to Obama. Not all on the right or racists but to appeal to the largest amount of people they embrace the racists. It is a double edged sword.”
    Oh, how I miss Brother Ben. Its like poetry in motion. I’m already waxing nostalgic.

    Like

  25. fish Avatar
    fish

    Actually I find this whole thing very funny.
    No you don’t! You’re the one on the board who is always the most prone to “twisting off” when others challenge the standard lefty catechism.
    You’re a true believer Steve!

    Like

  26. Gregory Avatar

    An aside… on CSPAN-2 BOOKTV as I write, Emily Miller of the Washington Times and the author of “Emily gets Her Gun, But Obama Wants to Take Yours” is being interviewed by a Craig Whitney, author of “Living with Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment”.
    I can think of three of you that really need to watch it, and a bunch of you who don’t need it but would get a hoot out of doing so. It’s being replayed at least once or twice between now and O’ Dark 30 Monday morning.

    Like

  27. Gregory Avatar

    “Actually I find this whole thing very funny.
    No you don’t! You’re the one on the board who is always the most prone to “twisting off” when others challenge the standard lefty catechism.
    You’re a true believer Steve!

    Ridiculing an opponent is an old rhetorical trick. While SF is a believer, claiming folks he’s arguing against give him chuckles is probably just a lie to inflame and denigrate. I expect he’s seething and on the brink of doing his usual Cartmanesque exit stage right… ‘screw you guys I’m going home’.

    Like

  28. Gregory Avatar

    The Emily Gets Her Gun piece on CSPAN 2 runs again tomorrow, Sunday, at 6PM and 9PM Pacific time.

    Like

  29. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    In the still quiet of this fine evening, I would like to address one sentence of Dr. Rebane’s post:
    “As pointed out regularly in these pages, it is always the looney Left that wants to proscribe anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with their message.”
    Rather than pooh-ppoh that sentence out of hand, I happened to notice more than a grain of truth in Dr. Rebane’s sentence. Apparently, some get way too emotional and lose control of their statesmanship. Statespersonship? Anyway, cooler heads always prevail in the end. Finally, a story with a happy ending:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/21/california-dem-apologies-for-death-rant-on-family-cruz-staffer/
    Welcome friends to the caring side of adulthood. We know you just can’t help yourselves at times. Those irksome bursts of temper and sexual indiscretions are all part of growing up with an underdeveloped frontal lobe. We understand your lack of self restraint and forgive you. We always forgive you. Its not fun and it is quite frankly a thankless task to be the adults in the room. Its what intelligent parents have to go through when dealing with the emotional responses of those still in the sand box. A thankless task and we see your pain and frustration. We understand.
    We always extend the hand of friendship knowing you are trying your best with what you have to work with. We wait patiently for your mind to catch up to your emotions and words. We have hope. A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste. There is hope for the hopeless. We are long suffering as well.

    Like

  30. fish Avatar
    fish

    Ridiculing an opponent is an old rhetorical trick.
    One of my personal favorites……..

    Like

  31. Eugene Limousines Avatar

    Very nice article, just what I needed.

    Like

Leave a comment