Badges of Honor? Yes Constitutional Sheriffs Are Dangerous To Our Democracy…

And I would have to say that that’s true. A constitutional sheriff is somewhat dangerous to our democracy, as in the fact that we are not a democracy. And I would hope that we could actually get away from the concept of being a democracy. Rome started out as a republic and fell into being a democracy, and then eventually was removed from existence. And, you know, the same sort of things happening here in the United States. Once you become a democracy, then individuals have little or no say. It’s only about crowds. Crowds are easily manipulated, and they’re turned into mobs.

And then we have mob rule. And this has happened over and over and over, and the founding fathers were quite aware of it. And it’s been known, you know, all the way back to the days of Aristotle and before. In fact, it’s been known probably since beginning of recorded history in 5395 BC. Anyway, this is a review of Jessica Pisco’s The Highest Law in the Land, How the Unchecked Power of the Sheriff Threatens Democracy. And this is at LawfairMedia.org, and the title is Badges of Honor. Anyway, this particular woman here, Vida B. Johnson, goes on to first, you know, explain that a sheriff is iconic.

Of course, they want to relate the sheriff to the 1800s. So what an outdated concept, right? They got the guy in a white hat on a horse. But now they’re saying that it’s become increasingly far-right, anti-government, and conspiratorial in their worldviews. Now, let’s just stop there and say, okay, I mean, if you want to call far-right the idea of supporting the U.S. Constitution and the legacy culture and heritage of the United States, then, you know, okay, well, we can go with that. If that’s the definition, you have to check these definitions. Anti-government, well, when your government becomes tyrannical, and we can see that this one is doing that and has gone very, very far in that direction over the last 40, 50 years since really the assassination of JFK.

And I would have to say all the way back to 1913, because by the time Woodrow Wilson got into office, you know, we were long gone from a constitutional controlled government. Anyway, so, you know, that’s not necessarily untrue, given the situation we’re here. I mean, would we expect a sheriff to support the government and all of its laws all the way to, you know, a total tyranny? Would we expect them to continue to support them all the way to the point, say, the Soviet Union got to at the, you know, after they had mass murdered the ruling family and then brought in their revolution? Would we say a sheriff was anti-government if he opposed that? I would say probably.

And then we have conspiratorial worldviews. Well, we’re no longer talking about conspiracy theory. We’re talking about conspiracies, and conspiracies are everywhere, and we can see them. There was a conspiracy to lock down everybody in the United States in 2020 to shut our businesses down, to damage the economy significantly while they administered vaccines for a disease that we later found out didn’t exist. But in fact, the actual disease came about by taking the vaccine. Then they had an argument for creating more vaccines to fix the so-called problems that came from the disease, but in fact came from the vaccine.

So that’s not a conspiracy theory anymore. So I would say that, yes, this particular case, the constitutional sheriff is well aware that we now have conspiracies that the government is tyrannical, and leaning far right is just the idea of sticking with the Constitution. Anyway, this woman goes through basically the same kind of hit piece. Modern sheriffs consider themselves part of this movement, see their job as not just traditional law enforcement, but protecting the people from government overreach. Why not? As a result of this delusional view, how is that delusional? These law enforcement officers often publicly undermine other elected officials in higher offices, such as the governor or the state or even the president.

Now, we all know that during the COVID outbreak, the governors were on board 100% with the medical tyranny. I mean, they did everything they were told to do. They enforced all the lockdowns. They made no stand on their own to support the Constitution, which has no provision for these types of lockdowns. There is no authority in the Constitution for people not to be able to go to church or for people not to be able to run their businesses or to close their restaurants at 8 o’clock for some magic reason. By 10 o’clock, COVID must be out in force or whatever.

I mean, these things were just all fiat, and they were all basically tyrannical orders. And so, yes, some of the sheriffs stood against the governors, and rightfully so. So anyway, we see that she’s graduated from the Harvard Law School, which is, of course, where you would be educated in the finer points of Marxism and a variety of other things that I’ll leave for some other conversation. Anyway, the sheriffs are generally anti-immigrant. That means illegal, and therefore unlawful. Anti-black lives matter. I don’t think that they really care about the lives of black people. They want them to live happy in their own place in their own way, just like everybody else.

But when they get together in a gang and destroy stuff, yeah, they might be anti-black lives matter, anti-abortion. We don’t even want to go there. I mean, this word here is, you know, means taking the life of someone who’s alive. Anti-LGBTQ and people, pro-malicia, pro-gun, you know, pro-malicia makes it sound like it’s an evil thing when it’s part of our heritage, it’s part of the founding fathers’ idea on how to protect ourselves. And to be pro-gun means that you’re armed and able to do so. Without that, you can’t have a militia. So really, they’re arguing against everything that is American.

So all we can say about Jessica is that she would like to see the United States and the country of America to be less like the United States and the country of America, and a lot more like other countries that we’re aware of, you know, like the former Soviet Union, China as it is today, and many other European nations that have completely stripped the rights of their people, removed their ability to protect themselves, taken away their weapons, etc. I mean, we don’t even have to go to North Korea to say these sort of things, although they get extreme there.

But regardless, that’s the sort of thing she seems to be promoting. So anyway, I just thought I’d bring this article up to let you know that she mentioned Sheriff Macon here. This is part of the Brookings Institute. It’s not a – let’s just say they’re not interested in right-wing ideology, and they’re going to be attacking Sheriff Mac and the constitutional sheriff idea at every turn, and any time they can. And it’s up to us to be able to understand what’s happening here and put into words what we have to say in order to countermen these things, because this is basically socialist, communist, Bolshevik claptrap.

It’s the same sort of arguments and slogans that were bandied around through the First World War, Second World War, and the total mass destruction of the German population and most of the indigenous intellectual people in Russia. And you could use this argument to say, you know, is this what you’re planning for the United States? This was the same sort of stuff you did prior to violence in those countries. And I believe this stuff is a precursor to violence, and it’s a way in which you baby-step to Bolshevism, and it’s just sad that there are so many people that get taken in by this stuff.

All right, so we’re going to go back to the questions now. Pisko, a JD from Harvard. I believe that was just the author of that. I don’t know what Pisko is. I don’t know if she’s a JD from Harvard, but the person who wrote that article, which was reviewing Pisko’s book, lots of this going on in Canada, she should move up there. I agree, Ian. But you know, I love Canada. I’ve been to Canada. It’s a beautiful place. I mean, at one time, it was a little paradise, you know, 30 million people, peaceful as could be, beautiful ground or beautiful land, beautiful wilderness.

It’s just a terrible thing that people there let people do what they’ve done to it. And you know, and they’re saying, but we are. You have to stand up and take it back. And I don’t know that you can take it back without being somewhat kinetic. And the CSPOA is 100% peaceful, and they don’t advocate violence in any way. But you could still be kinetic and not be violent. Kinetic means you stand up and go places, say things, take some sort of action. Kinetic means you write letters all the time or you create your own website or go on YouTube or whatever you got to do.

But you do something, and that’s basically kinetic. And eventually, if those things don’t work, then it gets more kinetic. And this isn’t the first time that, you know, people have had to get kinetic and take back their government or at least stand up to it. It’s been done a few times in history, not as often as it ought to be done, but it’s been done. All right, what else do we have in here?
[tr:trw].