Newspaper Archive of
Hells Canyon Journal
Halfway, Oregon
Lyft
March 23, 2016     Hells Canyon Journal
PAGE 9     (9 of 12 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
 
PAGE 9     (9 of 12 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
March 23, 2016
 

Newspaper Archive of Hells Canyon Journal produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2017. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.




r- fLette Continued from page 8 ticular article - Mr. Brown stipulates that Baker County Oath Keepers are not bound by any particular thing Mr. Rhodes says, and that we've a long way to go before armed insurrection is necessary. I certainly hope so. In my 64years of watching the world, I've learned that big governments without functioning checks and bal- ances are bad - we could certainly stand to do some work on our own, and I've spent much of my adult life inveighing against executive branch malfeasance- but that government by small groups of armed zealots is almost always worse. The Baker County Oath Keepers' website is not their only presence on the internet. Googling Kody Justus to find out more about him as the head of the local chapter, I encountered a You Tube video clip of his remarks at the Halfway rally, posted by Jake Brown. A click on his name led to Mr. Brown's YouTube page and his list of "liked" videos. There are a number of interesting clips there - a good many expressing rather militant support for the occu- piers of the Malheur Refuge- but the most interesting of all is one entitled "USA Militia & When to ShootEnemy Trai- tor Cops!! 2015 USA. "Spoiler alert: it's okay when they're violating your rights. As we've already learned, the Consti- tutional citizen knows his rights, and doesn't need any- one else to tell him what they are. Doing the math here, I have to wonder here just how many of the people arrested every day in the United States assume their rights are being violated, and would therefore feel justified in shooting the officers involved if they bought into this reasoning- I'd guess from the feds, what makes you think you "re going to get a piece of it? If it's sold on the competitive market, you won't be competitive, and you'll end up on the wrong side of a fence. If it's taken over by a "collective,"as Mr. Brown has suggested, how will that work exactly? If it's just a big free- for-all until the resources are gone, how will you deal with the fact that counties all over the western USA would be marketing the same re- sources? What happens to prices when there's a glut on the market? 5. Assuming things don't get as radical as all that, and we just end up with a "Constitutional" sheriff, how will that look? They have one in Grant County- Sheriff Palmer- and Sheriff Palmer is known for deputizing local supporters as his "eyes and ears," regular folks rather than law enforcement profes- sionals. Asked who should have access to law enforce- ment data bases - you know, all the information the gov- ernment can get about each one of us = he said, "Anyone I deputize." Does that sound like a system designed to en- sure your Constitutional rights? When it's all said and done, I guess I'll stick with trying to change what needs to be changed within the frame- work for peaceful change that's been left to us by our forebears - and within the understanding that all o four levels of government are nec- essary for any of them to work. Along the way, I guess I'll try to remember that democracy isn't always going to go the way I want it to, and learn to live with that. Robert Crawford Halfway, Oregon a substantial percentage. If any youngperson Icared . .... . Even :More on about was thinking oI getting ~_ ...... involved with a group like the ' mterpreung me Oath Keepers, I'd have some Constitution questions. 1. What will be the struc- ture of government once the feds are out of the way? Frankly, if you follow the Oath Keepers'reasoning very far, it seems the only authority is the written framework of the very nation you're rejecting, rather than any actual gov- erning entity. The Oath Keep- ers make a big deal out of county supremacy - but clearly don't think the county has any powers of enforce- ment except what's "Consti- tutional." Apparently each individual is entitled to de- cide what that means and defend his interpretation with lethal force. What happens if members of your chapter hap- pen to disagree with one an- other on the fine points- or if you encounter other groups of armed "patriots" with their own ideas? Would our form of government be anything like Syria's in recent years, or Bosnia's back in the day? 2. If the federal govern- ment is such an insidious ty- rant, why are you all over the internet proclaiming your in- tentions, holding rallies and marching with your guns? If I were planning to take action against a government as bad as you say this one is, I guess I'd keep my mouth shut about it except among close and trusted friends, which brings us to... 3. What do you really know about the people urging you to radical action ? How do you know they're not provoca- teurs, pushing you to do some- thing illegal so you can be arrested? (The FBI has actu- ally done this with a number of young Muslims in recent years - guided them to ex- tremism, then actually helped them to commit crimes for which they could be arrested. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same thing to you? It's an ugly practice, for sure - but would the answer be walking right into the same trap rather than working to get the practice stopped at the national level?) 4. Once the land is w~sted To the Editor: I realize that Mr. Craw- ford's allegations and putting words in my mouth is really him venting against the founders of our great nation as well as the Constitution itself. But I have thick skin and can absorb it. I am not a "self-appointed expert" nor have Iever claimed to be. But I can read. I've never had a hard time accepting the Supremacy Clause that Mr. Crawford says "anti-federalists have a hard time accepting." Remember, it's the laws passed that are not in the pursuance of the Constitution that every American should be taking issue with. If you agree that judges should do all your thinking, then consider the following: Princeton and Northwestern Universities concluded in their 2014 exhaustive study that America's current form of government is in fact run by a group of few and wealthy elitists wherein they overwhelming dictate public policy instead of We the People. In fact, the exhaustive collegiate study concluded that of nearly 2000 public policies passed by congress (many of which were upheld by Mr. Crawford's infallible court system), that We the People actually influence public policy barely 18% of the time. For this reason, I'll still contend that a single person trying to change Washington results in futility. That's why local governance was foundational instead of an all-powerful central~national authority. I'm sure some folks have an aptitude for understanding the Constitution better than others. But the context and history of the document and its process is there if you need it. Use it. Madison said it and I agree. He was an expert. "Modern Constitutional Fundamentalism?" Is that a derogatory term? Doesn't the constitution mean what it [_ says, regardless of when you read it ? What would "Modern ORS fundamentalism" look like ? "Modern IRC fundamentalism"? I'm not sure I understand Mr. Crawford's term. Corruption from a central and all-powerful authority and controlled by only a few, blanketing the entire country with one slam of the gavel, is far more likely to result in tyranny than the odds of multiple republics (50 states) all becoming corrupted at the same time on the same issues. Both Dredd Scott and Jim Crow laws were wrong, but Dred Scott was far more expansive and inclusive as it was a federal decision that ended up affecting the entire country. This is why local governance was to remain the norm excepting the few and defined powers of the federal government as it mainly applied to war, peace, negotiation and treaties, and foreign commerce. This is what had always been understood by the founders as general welfare (not healthcare, energy, education, obamaphones, food stamps, massive spying operations, and free loader lifestyles supported on the backs taxpaying productive serfs). The objects of the Union... were few - first, defense against foreign danger; second, against internal disputes and a resort to force; thirdly, treaties with foreign nations; fourthly, regulating foreign commerce, and drawing revenue from it... All other matters, civil and criminal, would be much better in the hands of the states." Roger Sherman Roger Sherman was the only man to sign all four main documents relating to the United States' creation: the Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Consti'tution. He was one of the Committee of Five who wrote the final draft of the Declaration and was on the supreme court of Connecticut. But I'm sure that he was greatly unqualified for any of these achievements or contributions in Mr. Crawford's eyes as Sherman never formally studied law and would therefore be viewed as a "self-appointed expert". The powers of the general government are only of a general nature, and their object is to protect, defend, and strengthen the United States; but the internal administration of government is left to the state legislatures, who exclusively retain such powers as will give the states the advantages of small republics -- Francis Corbin, Virginia Ratifying Convention I've never stated nor believe the country should follow my opinions or that we should all interpret the constitution ourselves with guns. I believe this assertion by Mr. Crawford was shallow and cheap and used for dramatic effect. Who in "society" entrusted only judges with the interpretation of the Constitution? Show me where that commission is delegated in Article 3 (which is the governing authority of the federal judiciary)? In fact, to the contrary, Hamilton stated in the Federalist Papers that the judiciary was to interpret laws BASED on the Constitution, and that the Constitution itself was to be "ascertained'by them (as in understood the way it was written), NOT interpreted or re-defined at their pleasure. I've never claimed that I was interpreting the Constitution on behalf of everyone in the country nor have I ever identified with the "sovereign citizen" movement. That is Mr. Crawford putting words in my mouth. The Constitution has been changed, and rightly so through the Article V amendment process; not by the whims or "rulings" of judges outside of it. I hope we can lay this issue to rest. We're Page 9 Hells Canyon Journal March 23, 2016 starting to beat a dead horse on this one. ,. I don't need to be an expert to realize that the president "~nfringing" on my right to bear arms isn't supremo law. That would directly conflict with the Bill of Rights. No judge can lawfully change that and I'll fight to defend the entire Bill of Rights. And Imay go to my grave doing it, but it will be done morally, ethically, legally, and lawfully. A judge can't justify illegal acts of the President or congress just because he's a judge. And if you assert that it's merely my opinion against the judges, I'll take that challenge and so will nearly every other American that reads the Bill o fRights with a shred of "ordinary understanding and common sense". "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." .... The people themselves .... [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."- Thomas Jefferson Rob Crawford seems to believe that" the federal court system is the final arbiter of its own power. He implies that the court can amend the constitution at will based on its own opinions (because apparently, society has commissioned them to do so). If this is the case, then we don't live in free and independent States bound together in a union. We rather live as subjected colonies under a federal crown. Some contend that the Constitution doesn't "prohibit" the federal government from owning land beyond the Enclave Clause. However, why should it?. How many millions of pages would be consumed.for the founders to have listed all prohibitions in the realm of all possibility to the few and limited powers of the federal government? Wouldn't it have just been easier to merely have said that those powers not DELEGATED to the United States are RESERVED to the States and to the People? Oh wait, that IS what it says. Nevermind. So having said that, where does the Constitution "delegate" the fe~leral government the authority to own 635 million acres of states" land. And if it doesn't say that, then where was it amended? And I'm looking for an amendment here, not some congressional act passed way down stream and upheld by bought and paid for judges legislating from the bench against states" rights. And for the Sheriff issue ... different jurisdictions. Federal vs. local. The Feds have no more authority or power over the county sheriff in his county than he does over them in federal enclaves or territories. "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." James Madison- The Federalist, No. 39 at 245. "No method of procedure has ever been devised by which liberty could be divorced from local self- government. No plan of centralization has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction and decline." George Mason - Virginia delegate, Philadelphia Convention The powers of the general government are only of a general nature, and their object is to protect, defend, and strengthen the United States; but the internal administration of government is left to the state legislatures, who exclusively retain such powers as will give the states the advantages of small republics.-- Francis Corbin, Virginia Ratifying Convention. The founders were clear about the separation of jurisdictions. Where is Crawford's source to support the constitutionality for federal LEOs executing federal laws over State's rights? Merely pointing out that corrupt sheriffs exist, which I won't argue, doesn't justify federal LEO'S stepping over their lawful boundaries against local LEO's any more than Mexican Federales doing the same. Federal authority doesn't bleed over into State's jurisdictions...unless of course you agree with a ruling class of oligarchical elites who've bought off your judges to allow themselves unmitigated and self- appointed power. As to Sheriff Ash, I like him too. I think he's a nice guy who has a bright future and I'm sure he enjoys his guns. I was personal witness to what Ash said; Rob Crawford was not in spite of his "bet"that it didn't happen. I'm voting for a sheriff that will not only refuse to aid federal law enforcers strip me of ANY of my Bill of Rights, but will defend those rights for me as the only elected and highest law enforcement officer in the county. But Sheriff Ash has stated publically that he will not. While not knowing him well, I do consider Travis a friend as I'm sure Mr. Craw ford does. But this issue goes well beyond a common friendship. And for that reason, I won't vote for him in the capacity of Sheriff. Americans from 13free and independent nation-states created the federal government. The states were the parties to the compact, the newly formed government was the product. How can the product be greater than those that created it? Mr. Craw ford, is a teacher. If he delegates a couple of students to help him grade papers at the end of class, does he lose his right and authority to grade them himsel~ Do those students now possess an indefinite authority to grade all the papers? Do they now have authority to subject him to their directives beyond the scope of his delegation to them? If congress passes laws that are upheld by judges that violate the Bill of Rights, I don't need a Harvard educated and Obama appointed judge (apparently picked by "society" according to Crawford) to notify me that I'm wrong in my common sense and obvious plain understanding of the terms "shall not infringe" "not delegated to" or "shall make no law against" Because that would obviously be making a law contrary to the Constitution. And of that Hamilton said, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master," that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Now Iexpect Mr. Craw ford to try and counter "my" argument by disagreeing with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. And I will merely continue to quote them because they debated these very issues far better than he or Icould. But I'm starting to re-quote them because he has not adequately rebutted them. I will continue to disavow the authority of judges that rule outside of the framework of the Republic's creation. And as this gets further down the road, it will become ever more obvious to Americans that in far too many cases, judges rule in favor of the oligarchy running this country that Jefferson warned us about. After all, the people being the true ~'corrective" to the ~abuses of constitutional power.are Jefferson's words, not mine. We're not to the point where a revolution or armed uprising is justified. We must exhaust every peaceful remedy. We need to restore our Republic. It's the law. And we are a nation of laws.. We the people can stand up. States can nullify any law contrary to the Constitutio~ To get there, we'll continue to educate, rally, and do everything in our lawful power to elect good and righteous leaders that wilt stand for our liberties in Baker County. Iunderstand we're way behind at this point as complacency and progressivism have taken our population hostage. But over time, we'll keep chipping away and truth will prevail. "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."- Maximilien Robespierre Jake Brown Halfway, Oregon Nature's Pantry Vitamins Herbs Natural Foods Home of The Natural Nutritionist Linda Clayville, CN, MS lclayvillet~eoni.com (541) 963-7955 www.naturespantrynatural foods.corn 1907 Fourth Street La Grande, OR 97850 ! Podiatric Physician and Surgeon Treatment and Surgery of the Foot and Ankle Bunions. Gout. In-Grown Nails- Warts- Corns & Callouses Diabetic Foot Screening. Foot Odor. Athlete's Foot Treatment for pain in feet, shins, heels, knees, & lower back Custom-molded orthotics La Grande - Wednesdays Baker City 1022 Spring Ave, Suite I 2830 10th Street 963-3431 524-0122 Dr. Rushton is a Preferred Provider for Lifewise and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and is a Medicare participant.