Mesa County sheriff: executive or ideologue?

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

PART 1. I love it that John Pennington’s victory at the GOP County Assembly has the Good Old Boys panicked. I refer to the 3/31/14 editorial titled “Mesa County sheriff: executive or ideologue?” and Jim Spehar’s 3/31/14 column titled “Delegates turn GOP politics upside down in two local races.”
My first impression is that the Sentinel made a strategic error in so transparently attacking Pennington when Spehar’s column would have been sufficient to make the attack without making it so obvious the Sentinel was doing the attacking directly on their own. That threatens the Sentinel’s credibility regarding “fair and balanced” neutrality. But I love it.
There are three segments of those pieces which I consider so manipulative and “spinnish” as to constitute outright propaganda lies:
1.  “Local elected officials certainly have the right to express themselves about federal laws and government agencies. They can also challenge laws or actions they believe are unconstitutional, so long as they do it legally.”
2. “The problem with local elected officials who believe they can decide for themselves which laws to enforce or which federal agencies to ignore is that they almost always lose. This was true of Southern sheriffs who refused to accept racial equality and equal protection laws in the 1960s, sagebrush rebels in the West in the 1980s and critics of federal immigration laws in Arizona recently.”
3. “Just what we need, don’t you think — a bunch of local sheriffs intent on picking fights with the feds based upon their individual interpretations of federal laws and the Constitution. Unless you think busting criminals and operating a jail ought to be the primary responsibilities of local law enforcement.”
Let’s take a closer look at these examples.
No. 1 incorrectly implies that it is illegal for county sheriffs to decide for themselves whether or not a given statute is unconstitutional. In order for county sheriffs to challenge an unconstitutional statute, they have to challenge it in court. That’s a crock on its face. The oath sheriffs take promises to “defend the U.S. Constitution”, it does not promise to defend “what the U.S. Supreme Court says the U.S. Constitution means,” although that is the Sentinel’s clearly erroneous implication/spin.
The wannabe-clever propaganda is based on the idea that most citizens are not aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has, on occasion, outright lied to the American people, when it has. Compare the truth of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870) ( to the revisionist-history lies of Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870) ( Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)  (

PART 2. So the question becomes not whether it is legal or illegal to refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes and edicts made by politicians and bureaucrats higher up on the political food chain, but what are the morally and constitutionally correct ways for a local sheriff to oppose corruption and blatant unconstitutional behavior and edicts by those higher level politicians and bureaucrats and their government-by-secret black-bag cronies whose souls were long ago bought and paid for by the debt-as-money oligarchs.
Example No. 2, as may be expected from wannabe-clever Good Old Boy B.S., tries to rather clumsily draw some sort of imaginary moral equivalency between racist sheriffs in the old South — who were defending racism and segregation on behalf of the privileged few — and modern sheriffs who are doing their best to defend the U.S. Constitution and equal protection of law on behalf of the many against the monetary oligarchs and their political and bureaucratic toadies. Just a small and subtle difference there, wouldn’t you say? But that type of intellectually dishonest manipulation is to be expected from the Good Old Boy propagandists when they become panicked at the very real possibility of their candidate losing an election.
Example No. 2 also tries to pretend that refusing to believe and enforce the propaganda lies of higher ups constitutes “deciding for themselves which laws to enforce”. Then, for good measure, tries to denigrate those courageous people who actually have the intelligence and wisdom to oppose the idea of unconstitutionally automatically creating tens of millions of Democrat voters out of tens of millions of pro-“freebies” illegal aliens.
Example No. 3 tries to draw a fraudulent premise in the minds of readers that being in favor of enforcing the U.S. Constitution as Supreme Law of the Land automatically constitutes being opposed to “busting criminals and operating a jail.” What a manipulative crock! Who in their right mind doesn’t understand that the public is not remotely too stupid to recognize that type of manipulative propaganda for what it is?
The main problem I have with Good Old Boy propagandists such as the Sentinel editorial writers/s and Spehar is their lack of willingness to discuss actual issues with any recognizable level of intellectual honesty.

PART 3. Some people believe in working for a living. Other folks would rather vote for a living. Lot’s of folks would like to talk about those differences and their attendant ramifications. But the Good Old Boys don’t want to talk about that.
Lots of folks would like to talk about the inherent injustice and unsustainability in a international monetary system where corrupt governments worldwide allow a privately owned transnational global cabal of elitist, neo-feudalistic debt-as-money oligarchs to create political-manipulation-based debt-as-money currencies out of thin air and then create fraudulent “national debts” under which the productive-class peoples of the various nations of the world are force to pay interest to the oligarchs for the mere CIRCULATION of their various governments’ own fiat debt-as-money currencies. The mere interest on these fraudulent “national debts” is consuming 70% of the GNPs of some countries. But the Good Old Boys don’t want to talk about that.
No, the Good Old Boys don’t want to talk about those kinds of ideas. In fact, there are lots and lots of ideas (e.g. the fact that 74% of Americans don’t believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK) that the Good Old Boys don’t want to talk about. They’re doing just fine financially in their positions as toadies for the debt-as-money oligarchs. They just want you to think that being in favor of enforcing the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land constitutes being an “ideologue”.
To quote Harvard law professor Edwin Vieira during a 12/14/2008 speech he made at Faneuil Hall: “But the last time I read the Constitution … how does it start? ‘We the judges?’ ‘We the law professors?” No! It’s ‘we the people.’ And there’s a presumption built into that statement that we the people are capable of understanding this document if we the people are the ones who ordained and established it. And we do not need its meaning to be translated for us by some elitist group which has set itself up for that purpose.”
My guess is that pro-U.S.-Constitution candidates such as John Pennington know exactly what they are up against. That’s why I respect their courage so much. That’s why I will not knowingly allow Good Old Boy political propaganda to skate by unchallenged.
I have no respect for manipulators. I also have no respect for political pretenders and bloviators who, like the authors of our three examples, are either too ignorant, too intellectually dishonest, too manipulative, or all of the above, to belong in any serious conversation about the immense problems and tough choices facing the American people, the American dream, and the American culture.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy