The Rural Sheriffs of the Emerald Triangle Pushback Against Pandemic Restrictions

Constitutional SheriffsAs local, state, and federal governments have acted to combat the effects of COVID-19, the protocols intended to protect the public have been divisive. Opponents of the shelter-in-place orders initiated by Governor Gavin Newsom have cited the Constitution in their condemnation of shuttering the state. The sheriffs of the Emerald Triangle have positioned themselves within this contentious debate as defenders of the Constitution, advocates for local-control, and spokesmen of rural residents underrepresented in the State Capitol.

Portrait of Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsel published along with his statement defying Governor Gavin Newsom's proposed order to close state beaches [Photograph from Humboldt County Sheriff's Office's Facebook page]

Portrait of Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsel published along with his statement defying Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed order to close state beaches [Photograph from Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office’s Facebook page]

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal went viral on social media after his April 30 declaration of defiance to Governor Newsom’s proposed order closing the state’s beaches stating, “As Sheriff, I am the protector of constitutional rights in Humboldt County, and if an order is issued that I believe violates our constitutional rights, I will not enforce it.”

Whether he was influenced by Honsal and others’ statements, Governor Newsom’s proposed broad closure of California’s beaches was eliminated in favor of closing specific beaches in Southern California in areas of high population density. When asked what led to his public defiance of Newsom’s order, Honsal explained that Humboldt County is not densely populated and its beaches are not likely to be crowded.

He went on to add, “I can’t enforce a law that I don’t think is constitutionally sound. I wanted to remind the governor that he needs to be mindful of crafting rules that fit a variety of areas. I believe the governor heard us.”

In a later press conference, Sheriff Honsal explained that despite law enforcement’s chain of command culture, if a law enforcement officer feels the orders given them are not lawful “you are not bound to that order.”  When he publicly protested Newsom’s directives, Honsal explained, “I was just adhering to that same principle when it comes to the Governor. I believe it was unlawful, that it was an overreach and unreasonable, and so [I was] not bound by our constitutional components of the health officer’s order, so that’s where I felt like I had good grounds to stand up and just voice my opinion that way.”

When asked how the Constitution informs his work as a sheriff, Honsal said, “We look at the Constitution as a framework to restrain government, not as a framework to restrain people.”

Syracuse University’s Political Science Professor Emeritus Michael Barkun specializes in the radical right, conspiracy theories, and is quoted in many publications exploring the “constitutional sheriff” movement. [Picture from the Syracuse University website]

Syracuse University’s Political Science Professor Emeritus Michael Barkun specializes in the radical right, conspiracy theories, and is quoted in many publications exploring the “constitutional sheriff” movement. [Picture from the Syracuse University website]

Another school of thought finds Sheriff Honsal and the Constitutional Sheriff movement concerning. Some believe that the movement tries to overturn a central tenet of the Constitution, that the federal government is ultimately the one in charge. Though none of the three sheriff’s of the Emerald Triangle have publicly joined the Constitutional Sheriff movement, like Honsal, both Mendocino’s Matt Kendall and Trinity’s Tim Saxon have expressed ideas similar to that of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

Syracuse University’s Political Science Professor Emeritus Michael Barkun is featured in many publications exploring the “constitutional sheriff” movement. When we spoke to him yesterday, he described assertions of sheriffs’ autonomy and supremacy originating from political movements in the 1960s and 70s that held “the county and the sheriff represented the only legitimate unit of government.”

He saw the rhetoric of the Emerald Triangle’s sheriffs dovetailing with what he calls “‘radical localism’-a tendency on the extreme right to assert the ultimate supremacy of very small units of government to push against the federal or even state governments.”

Carefully clarifying that he is not a lawyer, Professor Barkun argued that proponents of “radical localism” have created a “legal alternative universe in which the assumptions that are generally made about law and constitutional doctrine simply are regarded as invalid.”

A picture of Mendocino County Sheriff Matt Kendall published along with his declaration to uphold "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Picture from Mendocino County Sheriff's Office's Facebook page]

A picture of Mendocino County Sheriff Matt Kendall published along with his declaration to uphold “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Picture from Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office’s Facebook page]

Three days after Sheriff Honsal’s social media post defying Governor Newsom, Mendocino County Sheriff Matt Kendall published an assertion of his duties to maintain the promises of America’s founding documents stating, “As Sheriff of Mendocino County, my first duty is the protection of the public. That includes the protection of basic civil rights. Included in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In the statement, Sheriff Kendall characterized Governor Newson’s Shelter-in-Place orders as “one size fits all” that do not “take into account the needs of all.” He maintained that when it comes to the coronavirus, “The Bay Area counties look nothing like Mendocino County.”

Arguing that Mendocino County should be able to determine appropriate shelter-in-place protocols for themselves, Kendall explained, “We reached a point where we need to think deeper and create a path that works for our rural communities.” Sheriff Kendall urged Governor Newsom to “to have more faith in the locals who have done what is right for our area.”

Sheriff Kendall saw the pandemic restrictions as being designed for California’s urban areas, not taking into account the lives lived in California’s northern reaches: “Everything the state does is geared towards the urban populations,” he argued. Then he went on to theorize that the Governor designs policies with the urban areas in mind because of the percentage of the vote they represent: “23 Northern Counties make up roughly 5% of the vote. If he doesn’t pay attention to us, there’s still 95% of the vote.”

Sheriff Kendall explained that he believes that 99% of a “Sheriff’s job is about protecting rights. 1% of their job is removing individual rights when they break the law.” Kendall said the 4th Amendment (the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures), when applied to the Shelter-in-Place restrictions, stopped his deputies from being able to enforce the restrictions. For example, he described performing a traffic stop on a suspected tourist would not amount to probable cause. [He said however that his officers are alert to traffic violations.*]

Tim Saxon

Tim Saxon, from his candidate page.

In the far eastern reaches of the Emerald Triangle, Trinity County Sheriff Tim Saxon’s assessment of Governor Newsom’s pandemic protocols was very similar to Sheriff Kendall’s. He told us “I think that we have gone far beyond the time necessary for a one-size-fits-all approach to maintaining control of the spread of the virus. It’s time to realize the needs of our rural communities are different and the local leaders have a better idea of how to address our local concerns.”

Sheriff Saxon argued the nature of the Emerald Triangle’s geography and demographics indicate a need to revisit the “one-size-fits-all” protocols developed by Governor Newsom. He explained, “In our rural counties, we have a limited population, large areas that are undeveloped and natural terrain that restrict the movement of large crowds.  In Trinity County, with our 13,000+ population, we already practice social distancing without even trying.”

Sheriff Saxon explained that the protocols developed by the State of California reflect the urban/rural divide. He pointed out, “The protocols that were put into place do not take into consideration the diversity that is so very evident between urban and rural California.  The basic need for certain services that are not available in rural counties creates a hardship for us when services are closed. Our economy is very fragile and cannot survive a continued shutdown.”

Sheriff Saxon shared his thoughts on the relationship between the Constitution and his role enforcing the Shelter-in-Place protocols: “I’ve been in law enforcement for 35 years. I believe there is a balance between the Constitution, California law, and what’s right for the safety and well-being of the people.  With regard to the current COVID-19 situation, the Health and Safety Code and the  Government Code grants the Sheriff of the county the authority to enforce orders of the health officer for preventing the spread of contagious disease.”

Professor Barkun argues that the sheriffs’ stance is a product of “radical localism” typical of the far right. He points out, “You don’t see the constitutional sheriffs in urban areas because there are multiple jurisdictions interacting. You’ve got mayors, city councils, all kinds of political and legal jurisdictions. The sheriff has to negotiate with a lot of political forces. In rural areas, the sheriff has a kind of primacy not seen in urban areas.”

*Sheriff Kendall asked that we clarify this.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

146 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DivideByZero
Guest
DivideByZero
3 years ago

“Radical localism and typical of the far right” and then this “Carefully clarifying that he is not a lawyer, Professor Barkun argued that proponents of “radical localism” have created a “legal alternative universe in which the assumptions that are generally made about law and constitutional doctrine simply are regarded as invalid.”

What is idiot babbling about? Professor of nonsense. I’m willing to bet this “professor” sees our Constitution as a “living document”, subject to the whims of the latest culture craze.
That said, thank you Sheriffs Honsal, Kendall, and Saxon, for bringing common sense, and the rule of law to a very obvious over-reach by 3rd tier bureaucrats. Well, off for a good laugh reading another milk toast statement by Dr. Frankfurter.

bigblok442
Guest
bigblok442
3 years ago
Reply to  DivideByZero

Love your post DivideByZero, you are SO right! Opps, I mean ‘radical.’ lol

Willow Creeker
Guest
Willow Creeker
3 years ago
Reply to  DivideByZero

You don’t think the constitution is a living document? So it never should have changed from the original? The founders designed it to be able to change with the times, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. Do you like the fifth amendment?
I think these sheriffs are right in a lot of ways, and Honsal is a decent sheriff, one of the more thoughtful we’ve had here in humboldt. He’s wrong about beaches though. I’ve never seen them so packed or filled with peoples trash, local river beaches especially. We have been lucky with the virus so far, but that doesn’t mean it won’t blow up here like it has in other places that become complacent.

Mike
Guest
Mike
3 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

If your upset with trash then it has nothing to do with the pandemic. If seen lots of people complaining about people parking, their trash and human waste but that is a completely seperate issue from anything being discussed.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

It’s “living” in the sense that is amendable. It’s not living in the sense that words used in the 18th century can be manipulated into definitions for the current time. If that were the case it would turn from a rock that binds our government from overstepping it’s authority into sand.

Willow Creeker
Guest
Willow Creeker
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Don’t you think that’s what anyone who would be against an amendment would say? The amendments are what make it a fluid document. The specifics can change but the ideal stays intact. Things are not black and white, and the framers understood that. They were pragmatists, deal makers, and negotiators. Also known as politicians. They were not idealists.
I think hardcore constitutionalists are getting it wrong.

Ronald Bernstein
Guest
Ronald Bernstein
3 years ago
Reply to  Willow Creeker

There’s a difference between the constitutional amendment process, and judges shifting law as a result of their personal reasoning and judgements about what is “right”.

It’s always tempting to use shortcuts to achieve an aim you believe is just… but it will erode the strength of a framing that in the long run will be a detriment the nation and it’s people.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

Yes, Ronald.

The consolidation of wealth and power Must not be overlooked.

The wealthy have been working on the game for centuries.

It goes without saying that the only thing working class people have is there inalienable rights.

There’s so much bureaucratic red tape, which has been created , by design, to raise the stakes for those who have to compete with multi national corporate structures.

There are so many people who don’t know the onerous regulations that the government requires, on top of a tax structure that grows government at the expense of middle class.

It’s a con, it’s always been a con, and you have to get your hands dirty to get ahead in this world.

The bigger the government bureaucracy grows the more it needs funding.

No wonder people are rioting over George Lloyd.

They killed that man in broad daylight.

No Human Should Be Given That Kind Of Power.

I hope that man goes to jail.

Burn the mother fockers house down.

Jesus, Chris
Guest
Jesus, Chris
3 years ago
Reply to  DivideByZero

I am moved to comment here, since I have not encountered three philosophical Sheriffs in one region prior to this “fear epidemic”, during a long life…

When Billy Honsal first uttered his statement regarding the beaches, I was pretty surprised! For a local Sheriff to go against the Governor’s orders, was remarkable!

Billy Honsal, as well as Dr Frankovich, are persons hired from outside, to do salary-jobs, in a remote, backwards, and pretty lawless county on the North Coast. They both found themselves plunged into a situation beyond experience, and where they were expected to take the government’s line.

Our government, has been pretty lost, throughout this incident in cosmic time.

Really, we have only been locked down less than 90 days, but we have been exposed to a massive onslaught of government directives, as well as many examples of completely phony news. Messages from local governments have been parroted ad infinitum, but are basically designed to enforce compliance with some poorly thought out and rapidly assembled programs, which were apparently thought to be valuable to limit the effects of this largely misunderstood infectious disease.

The worst part of the whole “handling package” wrought by our governments, is the absolute suspension of some constitutionally guaranteed inalienable rights! I’m talking about the right to assemble, the pursuit of happiness, free enterprise and commerce, and the right to practice religion!

These Sheriffs, while expected to do their jobs for their (rather high) salaries and benefits, have expressed thoughts that the average citizen is well advised to consider!

Has our government exceeded it’s authority? Has the government broken the law? Have our rights been infringed?

My opinion is that we are well advised to fear not the illness, but to fear the government!

The Sheriff is advised to do his job, but in this case, all three Emerald Triangle Sheriffs have wandered into a field where the crops are previously uncultivated, and the effects of our consideration will be sown again and again as the blow-back against the government’s incompetent management of the crisis is mounted.

Work to release your fears and move forward, while arming yourself against loss of your basic freedoms!

The government has screwed us, and these Sherrifs are giving the wake-up call!

Dragincar209
Guest
Dragincar209
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

You are mistaken about Sheriff Honsal being hired from the outside. He like most Sheriffs is an elected official as opposed to Dr Frankovich who was hired.

Jesus, Chris
Guest
Jesus, Chris
3 years ago
Reply to  Dragincar209

Sheriff Honsal was appointed, following the retirement of the last Sheriff. Not elected. Near as I can tell, he’s from Southern CA.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-honsal-892b7318a/?msgConversationId=6608493163009105920&msgOverlay=true

Dr Frankovich is a Pediatrician, from Michigan.

Downriverlady
Guest
Downriverlady
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

I cannot speak as well as all you People but this is ridiculous. Are we actually thinking about supporting these rogue Sheriffs in a power grab because the time is right. I am offended by this article. It seems they are playing to a certain demographic not about the people at all. It seems to me they just want more separation in society.

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Billy Honsal graduated from Eureka High. His father was a former EPD Captain. He was elected. He wasn’t “hired from the outside.”

WC666
Guest
WC666
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Jesus you sound like you would be the perfect candidate for sheriff next time around. Then we can have an insider and you can take care of that pesky paid too much money and lower your salary. I look forward to your name on the ballot.

Jesus, Chris
Guest
Jesus, Chris
3 years ago
Reply to  WC666

Honsal was paid $240,000, in 2018. How much do YOU make…

I can’t be Sheriff, cause I won’t carry a gun, and I refuse to shoot anyone…

Sorry, Ms Kemp, I don’t know where he was born!

https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-honsal-892b7318a/?msgConversationId=6608493163009105920&msgOverlay=true

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Jesus, Chris, there’s not much you CAN tell! You didn’t know where Honsal was born and raised or that he is a second generation LEO from Eureka so you made up whatever crap felt good to you and can’t bring yourself to fully apologize for your BS. You should run for President!

onlooker
Guest
onlooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Um. I stopped when you claimed that Honsal is “brought in from the outside…hired.. ” Honsal was elected. For better or worse.

Jesus, Chris
Guest
Jesus, Chris
3 years ago
Reply to  onlooker

My recollection is that Mr Honsal was appointed from Undersheriff, to Sheriff, when Downey resigned. In the election of 2018, he ran unopposed, which happens often in Humboldt, so it’s not really like there was a choice…

I graciously retract my assertion that he was brought in from outside. Apologies.

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

OK. I like Sheriff Honsal. Peace and love. Hope we can get through this mess. We all make our share of off-comments. I know I do. Good luck and carry on J.C. and Ullr Rover.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Billy Honsel is an honorable man and a good guy. I didn’t know him personally in HS, he was a little younger than me, but I can’t remember anyone saying a bad thing about him, but I remember many good things said. Comparing him to any radical faction of society because he feels strongly about his responsibility to uphold the Constitution as he interprets it is ridiculous.

Jesus, Chris
Guest
Jesus, Chris
3 years ago
Reply to  Kurt Russel

I agree, in principle, with your erudite statement.

punkybrewstersmind
Guest
punkybrewstersmind
3 years ago
Reply to  Jesus, Chris

Every word you wrote comes crashing down when its YOUR loved one who this horrible virus has killed.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago

No

bigblok442
Guest
bigblok442
3 years ago

Professor Barkun is the typical Liberal/Progressive, they believe the U.S. Constitution and those who defend it are ‘radical.’ They, the Liberal/Progressive, want the government to be in control of our lives from cradle to grave, for them the U.S. Constitution gets in the way of that.

onlooker
Guest
onlooker
3 years ago
Reply to  bigblok442

The US Constitution forms the basis of our rights and limits interference of them by the government. It doesn’t allow sheriffs to decide what legal orders they will or won’t enforce. Honsal isn’t protecting your Constitutional rights, he’s infringing in them. But go ahead and celebrate those chains. You seem to think they’re your “freedom.”

The Real Brian
Guest
The Real Brian
3 years ago

Good article, Kym. Thanks

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  The Real Brian

It’s Matt’s. When I formatted it, I did something wrong and it left my name on it. Until Matt gently pointed it out.

THOGM
Guest
THOGM
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Matt is killing it this week with this article and also the one on Operation Facemask. Well done!

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  THOGM

He is!

HotCoffee
Guest
HotCoffee
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Bravo Matt!

Well done.

Now we know where our sheriffs stand and we can hold them to their word.

Ronald Bernstein
Guest
Ronald Bernstein
3 years ago
Reply to  HotCoffee

Best article, and in turn, best comment section I’ve read in awhile.

There needs to be an airing of people’s opinions about the dramatic changes to our society currently afoot. This piece set the stage for a civil debate, (as civil as we heathens can be) about a charged topic… not an easy task.

Nice work Matt and thanks for providing the forum Kym!

guest
Guest
guest
3 years ago

The Constitution of the United States and the laws enacted pursuant thereto are the Supreme Law of the land. Every elected official in the State takes an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, State law notwithstanding. Pandemics do not suspend the Constitution and its Amendments. Pandemics do not suspend our unalienable rights. Thank you Sheriff Honsal, Sheriff Kendall and Sherif Saxon for taking your oath seriously and protecting us as you swore to do. Hoorah!

triniboldticino
Guest
triniboldticino
3 years ago
Reply to  guest

Yup. Spread the virus! The Dems really, really want to shut everything down and make everyone stay home! You should be proud. America has about 8% of the world’s population and 30% of the world’s COVID deaths. And every single expert says the latter number is probably unrealistically low. Good job! 100,000 dead! But overall that number is SOOOO low compared to whatever the sycophants feel like comparing it to. Of course, until it kills one of them or one of their family. Mass graves in NY. You got quite a president there.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago

Are you familiar with federalism? Cuomo is responsible for execution of policy in NY and Newsom in California.

Who Cares
Guest
Who Cares
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

The No Child Left Behind generation has grown up. No they don’t get it, they were taught to obey, not to think.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Who Cares

Not to obey as much as to think there are no harmful consequences.

Still A Scholar
Guest
Still A Scholar
3 years ago

A professor from Syracuse has no say nor sway over the denizens of the emerald triangle. A product of the urban dysphoria he inhabits, he wishes to project his unease and dissatisfaction on others.

The US has long had sheriffs, marshalls, and other LEO as the only true symbol of the Constitution in local areas.

These local sheriffs are doing their jobs as they best see fit and seeing us as free people, not peons to be lorded over. Bravo for them and lucky for us.

triniboldticino
Guest
triniboldticino
3 years ago

Anyone gets in my or my children’s faces and I’ll show you something about being lorded over. As you have Constitutional rights, those rights don’t include spreading a virus so someone else can drown in their own bloody snot. You’re quite a scholar. Supreme Court and judges nationwide have already established that this revolves around the Commerce Clause and authorities DO have authority to try to save American lives. But you don’t get that, do you?

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

Censorship is UNAMERICAN.

censoring the public who push back against the war/covid propaganda.

https://mises.org/wire/coronavirus-propaganda-mimics-war-propaganda

Commerce Clause.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html

Ronald Bernstein
Guest
Ronald Bernstein
3 years ago

The commerce clause is a runaway excuse for Federal oversight of issues that should be left to the states.

It was the commerce clause that was used to uphold the Federal ban on California’s medical cannabis law.

The justification was stretched extremely thinly in that case, and the rationale that the ruling leaned on set a dangerous precedent limiting an individuals right to autonomy.

The Federal government argued that if you grew your own, on your own land, and didn’t sell or distribute any on the open market, it still affected interstate commerce, because you were in turn relieved from having to “enter into the marketplace”, which had a theoretical influence on the market conditions, thereby justifying their oversight.

This “logic” essentially grants the Federal government the right to regulate anything you may do on your own land that would KEEP you from engaging in a market.

This a direct affront to the most basic human rights of autonomy and self sufficiency. Our area should understand the value of these principals more than most.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

Bingo

Erik
Guest
Erik
3 years ago

This^^^. It’s amazing that somebody tacked an “its for the children” and praise for the commerce clause together in the same argument, assuming, like the ivory tower professor above, that centralized government exists for your benefit and wellbeing. This is, at face value, a logic fail, starting with the indigenous people of this continent, the standing military and the resulting wars, the surveillance state, etc. etc. Lack of government restraint, in combination with corporate + banking bureaucracies and the resulting incestuous regulatory capture have put all life on this planet in peril, which is obvious at face value and yet people keep voting and acting like our 2 party system has legitimacy. This explains why so much energy is placed on narritive management and control. It is quite frustrating to me that the “left” doesn’t understand the concept of enumerated rights, which are pre-political and not subject to democratic processes, while the “right” tries to claim ownership of the constitution, except where it doesn’t suit them. The purpose of the bill of rights and the intent of the anti-federalists and states that insisted on amending the constitution during ratification was to put a hard stop on power structures that seek to control the peoples government, and to keep the balance of power where it should be, decentralized and in the hands of the many.

b. aka Not A Constitutional Fundamentalist
Guest
b. aka Not A Constitutional Fundamentalist
3 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Thank you. Yes.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago

Yeah, you’re going to do something “if” and you are an incredibly tough guy who should probably keep staying at home in fear.

triniboldticino
Guest
triniboldticino
3 years ago
Reply to  Kurt Russel

LOL! Constitutional degenerates. I don’t vote with nazis, but you “constitutional scholars” clearly vote with them. I studied Conlaw for 3 years. I was a registered republican until I changed to independent because of your moronic hero. America is coming unglued intentionally in order to move closer to true facism, and you have been fed a line of bunk just to keep money moving to the top of the pile. I’m too old to argue, but I can see who the real [edit] are.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

Intelligence is not wisdom.

HotCoffee
Guest
HotCoffee
3 years ago

It’s one reason why many of us choose to live here.

Willow Creeker
Guest
Willow Creeker
3 years ago

Scholar- just because someone isnt from here doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be listened to. In fact, considering the education of most people here, we should be listening to people who know what they are talking about. When you need your toilet fixed, you call a plumber, when you need facts about a virus, you ask a professor in infectious disease. The virus CAN blow up here, as it has in little rural places in Georgia for example.

Gardener
Guest
Gardener
3 years ago

The rights to life and liberty require one to be alive to enjoy them.

“God will save us.” You think One invisible being is supposed to save us from another invisible being – Coronavirus? Lulz

Please go on living your life without a care in the world. Don’t forget you could win big at the casino, too. And there’s always a bridge for sale in NYC!

If you are still feeling all starry eyed and gullible about the “as seen on tv” situations we face in pandemic reality, I feel sorry for you and I hope when you get it that you have a very mild case and don’t infect others. Because even though I think pandemic deniers are bat shit crazy, I defend their rights and freedoms to be bat shit crazy in the face of deadly bat flu.

DivideByZero
Guest
DivideByZero
3 years ago
Reply to  Gardener

I think you’re missing their point. It’s not the deadly bat flu, it’s the deadly big city bat flu. When you stack people like cord wood, there’s always a risk. That’s the trade off for living in an environment where that great take-out and plethora of entertainment options are a mere block away.

sprinklesareforwinners
Guest
sprinklesareforwinners
3 years ago

Everyone should stand back and take a good look at the entire content of this article. I don’t know the political leanings of Kym but she did a good job of providing two sides of a current situation we all face. She needs to be commended for providing information and letting the readers form their own opinion. Journalism as it should be!

DivideByZero
Guest
DivideByZero
3 years ago

Kym, in my opinion, as always shown a willingness to print “both sides” of the story and to allow a diversity of opinion in the comments section.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago
Reply to  DivideByZero

Yeah, so Matt offers a dissident opinion from some radical communist professor from Clemson University. Wow.

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago

Matt wrote this. Not Kym. He did an excellent job on this piece.

Pepperwood
Guest
Pepperwood
3 years ago

I’m still trying to figure out why it’s ‘concerning’ (from the Other School of Thought) that we would challenge the idea of Federal control (which was definitely not the case when our country was young).

The Profs argument feels like another reminder that Dillans Rule will hold us until it hangs us.

And why is it Radical Right? That’s complete nonsense.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Pepperwood

Considering the State of California’s and many of it’s local entities’ own active opposing of the Federal government of the side of leftist agendas, it’s not just the right that has made a shambles of unity, it’s the radical left too. But is there a “Professor” specializing in studying of Radical Left, socialist warriors conspiracy theories to patronize the public media with their beneficent opinions? Or do publicly paid, self righteous, protected and tenured jerks own no mirrors? Does the press?

Are rural people so despised by their own government and public media that they consider us as only worthy of providing water the cities suck up, food their citizens demand and empty places to dump their waste? Radical localism my foot! It’s survival as best we can . That the Sheriffs stuck up for us is noticeably only because it is so rarely done even by our own few representatives.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago
Reply to  Pepperwood

Because he is a radical communist instigator

Matthew Meyer
Guest
Matthew Meyer
3 years ago

It’s hard to make out a real doctrine behind the situational constitutionalism of these sheriffs.

When it comes to covid-19, they are concerned with individual liberty, and not concerned with the impact of an individual’s actions on others, even though those actions could cause others to die.

When it comes to weed, on the other hand, the sheriffs in this area express a lot of concern about the potential for weed cultivation to bring harm to others, and very little concern for the liberties of the weed growers.

Rod Gass
Guest
Rod Gass
3 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Meyer

Thank you Matthew.

That’s a center field home run, knocked it out of the park!

I’ve always known that weed growers need constitutional clarifications. The history of acceptable prohibition has ruined lots of LEO careers.

triniboldticino
Guest
triniboldticino
3 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Meyer

Individual liberty is complete bullshit when it comes to spreading a virus to others. Killing others. Virtually intentionally. An absolutely false canard by people who are clueless about the Constitution and it’s true, legal application. America is filled with morons that feel that they have a RIGHT to go out and infect others an do ANYTHING they want. They just want to be careful who they’re doing it around, because some of us won’t put up with the stupidity.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago

Are you willing to have the whole country shut down for flu season? Yes, this virus is more deadly for some, but for others is significantly less deadly. At what point are we responsible for our health rather than the State?

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

It’s the urban way to demand that government take responsibility to provide.

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

“In 2018, over 46,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses. Over 36,500 died in traffic accidents. Nearly 40,000 died from gun violence.” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

Not even four months into 2020, over 100,000 people in the US are already dead of COVID-19 (during an unprecedented shutdown). If we continue to die at that rate, in a year, we’ll have over 300,000 deaths of COVID. At what point, how many deaths, would you consider the state could step in and try and stop a few of those?

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Answering a question with a question.

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Good try, man, but Kym offered a reasonable rebuttal. This virus is like a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 every single day. Yeah, we need to get back to work and yeah our treasonous, cretinous president made it worse. So, what exactly IS your plan? Nothing? Just full steam ahead? That was president Jackass which has put us numero uno in world-wide deaths. Finally a Trump victory. We’re number one in covid deaths.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago

Are you familiar with federalism?

I asked a question and got the same question reciprocated. That’s not a reasonable rebuttal.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

The question is not whether you may or may not catch it, but will society be forever set back because of the economic disaster perpetrated on the healthy and under employed?

People want their tenants to pay the rent, but how can they do that if the economy just hit the bottom.

Mortgage payments aren’t stopping because of this, it’s a sad situation not many people are focused on.

Just wait til you shelter skelters start having to pay much more for food, if you can get it.

Government officials should be forced to take a look at not getting paid if the economy is shut down on their behalf.

You can’t expect to get paid if you are preventing people from working.

What a mess.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

So, in this vain, 650,000 will die of heart disease this year. Are you ready to confiscate spoons and cigarettes?

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

You’ve been been putting up with stupidity ever since you entered grade school.

In fact, you are helpless to do anything about it, except pay, pay, pay for the luxury to play, play, play.

Stanley Milgram warned us about people like you.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/your-immunity-passport-future-begins-materialize-airlines-call-digital-id-tracking

Get your kids chipped like a good citizen., since you love that commerce clause so much.

Country Bumpkin
Guest
Country Bumpkin
3 years ago

How will anyone be able to willingly spread the virus to you if you stay home? Do you envision roving bands of virus carrying home invaders?

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago

The two people who died at Alder Bay weren’t exactly gadding about. Even those trying hard to isolate have to get groceries.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

They were infected by those “gadding about.” Which is why there is no victory in quarantining masses. Only endless guerrilla war.

Country Bumpkin
Guest
Country Bumpkin
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Protecting nursing homes and the most vulnerable among us should be of the highest priority. I don’t claim to know exactly how that should be done but there are some common sense guidelines that are a good start. I don’t think a complete stifling of the vast majority who are relatively low risk is the right way to go about it. My comment was not directed toward nursing home residents , but toward triniboldt who seems to be threatening violence against anyone who willingly tries to spread the virus to them or they children. I was merely trying to understand how that would happen if they where safely sheltered at home.

Ronald Bernstein
Guest
Ronald Bernstein
3 years ago

My retort to people that seem to be willing to have no end to what could be justified in the name of saving lives is….. where does your rationale reach its breaking point?

The government could control citizens lives endlessly while pointing to how what they’re requiring “saves lives”.

This same logic is the cover the government used to place Asian Americans in internment camps in WW2, and it’s the same logic the government has used to justify the war on drugs or the patriot act as well.

I understand your concern for protecting your life and your families lives, but I would ask you to consider that people in positions of power often use crises, where fear is palpable, to gain leverage over their subjects.

This has been going on for all of history and is something I think is important to remain cognitive of.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

That was the census data made available that resulted in the Japanese Americans being sent to the internment camps.

CENSUS 2020.

WHAT ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN?

Antichrist
Guest
Antichrist
3 years ago

Just as persons have a right to not wear masks and the like others have a right to wear them and if they still are worried because someone isn’t wearing a mask they have the right to avoid said non mask wearers by staying at home . One persons right do not out weigh another’s . It is like tv. You have the right to change the channel but you do not have the right to demand what is being shown on each channel.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Antichrist

But people who don’t want to wear a mask can equally stay home. Think of it as wearing clothes- you can walk around naked all you want but society has decided not inflict that sight on others. Please observe the similarity.

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  Guest

Well said…And as I stress ate another Oreo…I had to laugh at the “inflict that sight on others”…Also I put the Oreos away so I thank you for the laughter.

V lux
Guest
V lux
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

As a child of the hippie movement, I seem to remember them talking a lot about the right to nudity and to feel secure in their bodies. Remembering my mother who is an early feminist, it was also a large part of the movement that if men can wander around with their shirts off women can as well. also as I remember the whole “your naked bodies must be covered so I don’t have to look at them” shtick was always considered a very conservative sentiment. Also Kim what’s up with allowing the dude to make physical threats based on a perceived medical threat to his family? New poster longtime reader, thanks for everything.

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  V lux

I’m tired so maybe I’m missing something but the only thing I see by Trimboldtcino is “I’ll show you something about being lorded over.” Which is not an actual physical threat in my books.

V lux
Guest
V lux
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Yes, that was the comment. To me he’s pretty clearly saying if someone without a mask gets within his perceived proximity he’s going to physically Lord over them.
No worries though, thanks again for what you do.

Willie Bray
Guest
3 years ago

🕯🌳So when they start opening everything up what’s to stop people from outside this area from cominging to enjoy the free and opening up spaces with the virus and spreading what ever they have. Its already been proven that most of the virus that we got came from people that were here from New York so now we have four unaccounted contact strains running through our county, hee haw open up let them all come from all directions.🚑🚑🚑🚑🕯

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Willie Bray

Nothing but then there was nothing before. See any road blocks on the road? See any camps for those violating the quarantine? You yourself say New Yorkers introduced viruses. Wake up and smell the bleach!

Lurch
Guest
Lurch
3 years ago

Seeing the governor’s actions as centered around the urban areas, and speaking out for their rural counties does not a “radical right” make. This is a very unique situation with the pandemic. If these sheriffs begin questioning the state and federal authorities on a regular basis then we may wonder if they are becoming “constitutional sheriff’s”. I have not seen any indication thus far of far right leanings from any of the Emerald Triangle sheriff’s.

Jacob
Guest
Jacob
3 years ago

In the article, it said the 23 northern counties only represent 5% of the vote. That’s not from low voter turn out. It’s time for the state of Jefferson. It’s time that northern ca gets it’s fair share!

Pissed off Marine
Guest
Pissed off Marine
3 years ago
Reply to  Jacob

I agree totally and whole heartedly! It’s past time. Why should outside our area speak for us ? We should have a word. We are enslaved to the populace, we don’t matter ? Is it because we choose to live rural like we do ? Is it acceptable for others to speak for us, steal our water, tell us where to live ? Thank you jacob

2s4u
Guest
2s4u
3 years ago

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

V lux
Guest
V lux
3 years ago
Reply to  2s4u

Amen…

HT
Guest
HT
3 years ago

These elected officials seem to think resistance to authority is some kind of toy related to re-election. Stupid, backwoods politicians.

Mike
Guest
Mike
3 years ago
Reply to  HT

In a rural area with allot of semi conservatives resisting heavy handed policy by a liberal govenor is a great re-election tactic. That being said there is another take on this whole situation, so if you break it down the governor basically said here’s a list of things you need to enforce and the sheriff was like “nah we’re good, reason? Like the constitution and stuff”. Maybe they just didn’t want to do extra work, that sounds more on par for what the sheriffs have done here forever. They don’t even show up when your house is robbed, you think they want to start checking IDs in every beach and river bar? When my boss ask me to something I don’t want to do I’m going to try the constitution as an excuse.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  HT

Yes. Backwoods. As opposed to citified. That’s the point.

Canyon oak
Guest
Canyon oak
3 years ago

Radical localism, pretty sure that’s a theory we all practice daily.
Not sure if our decorated professor has noticed the bioregional or permaculture movements.
Radical localism is well rooted in most people that are part of, or have integrated well into a local landscape.
Even in the urban and suburban areas, the phycology of the average human is still village level.
Urban people are lost villagers, not unlike ourselves.
That’s what we want, it’s what we expect, it’s what we dedicate our lives too.
And it’s certainly a reason we scoff at outsiders who speculate about why and what we do, in our, not their, world.
Who is he beyond his education?
His title?
Does he even have a village or does he just float on the clouds with Whitney Houston?
I don’t totally love our sheriffs, but you get the point, go local, go native,
Tourism is terrorism.
If you can’t walk there, it’s not your community

Who Cares
Guest
Who Cares
3 years ago
Reply to  Canyon oak

Yes!

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago

“Some believe that the movement tries to overturn a central tenet of the Constitution, that the federal government is ultimately the one in charge.” This runs counter the preamble and is antithetical to the Constitution.

The People are in charge:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

steve adams
Guest
steve adams
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Yes it would be good if everyone understood that this is a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected Representatives who are to represent the people. They are to uphold both the needs of rule of law (including if you are Sheriff to keep the peace, that tranquility thing, and investigate all crimes and misdemeanors within their jurisdiction, for that more perfect union, and all the while protecting all, not some, of the rights and the amended changes to that document to extend the scope of human rights.

As for the Professor, I got a MS and not an MA or Phd or law degree from Syracuse but I have read Federalist Papers, Tom Paine and Constitutions both State and Federal. A hero of mine was the former Associate Justice of the Supreme court of the United States William O. Douglas. He was one of the most prolific writers of dissenting opinions on overreach of the state, and protection of rights most notably our first amendment. He had his life in two worlds, balancing existence in D.C. and being a westerner from the wilds of east central Washington State. The Professor would likely have called Douglas a radical. He was a radical who believed dissent from overreach by the State is healthy. I do too, Covid or no Covid.

That said, Japan was more protective of rights with it’s Three C’s approach to the threat of Covid-19 than most states and limited intrusion into the economy. Similarly rights and responsibilities were handled differently in consensus driven Denmark. Denmark handling it differently in their Covid lockdown regarding securing it’s workers. Both bear looking at.

Now what I want to know if the Sheriffs will be at the county line to turn away that lawyer, sociopath and friend of the former Jeffery Epstein, Alan Dershowitz who says the government has the right to come and take your arm and inject you with a vaccine for the good of the people. I take strong exception to that taking away of rights! If Dershowitz or his minded folks showed up at my door they would not find a warm welcome. You Sheriffs, what do you say to that?

Finally, for those considering radical change it bears reading John Locke on government Chapter 19 On the Dissolution of Government. Goes to the understanding of who are the real rebels in a society with a structured one like ours.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago
Reply to  steve adams

Great Comment.

Thank you.

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

So we should disregard all traffic laws ‘cause the people are in charge. To hell with stop lights, signs, everything. Oh, we’ve already done that.

Russian Bot
Guest
Russian Bot
3 years ago

Recall all of these idiots who are living proof that a person should be required to pass an intelligence test AND have their BA degree BEFORE they become a cop at taxpayers’ expense. These must be the dumbest law enforcement officials in the entire state. They should resign.

Doggo
Guest
Doggo
3 years ago
Reply to  Russian Bot

Thank you

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago

10th Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In addition, if the federal government can’t find authority delegated to it in the 4,543 words of the US Constitution, then that authority does not exist. The united states of America was built on federalism with the understanding that one size does not fit all as these Sheriff’s are asserting. The powers of the government are derived by consent of the People. From there it moves to local governments and then the state. The federal government is extremely limited in its scope of authority as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment.

Treebones
Guest
Treebones
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Local governments are a product of the State. Their authority is based on State laws and the State Constitution. There is no Trinity County Constitution giving Sheriff Saxon authority. Our votes for a sheriff are based on State Constitutional authority.
Constitutions, State and Federal, are subjugating documents at their core in that it creates parameters that we must live under. A social agreement that we didn’t choose but are born into.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Treebones

Local governments are a product of the People. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is a product of the People. The California Constitution is the product of the People. The Sheriff is a representative of the People who functions as the executive between the government and the People. It is the People who grant the authority, not the government.

Guests
Guest
Guests
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

Well said.

Treebones
Guest
Treebones
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

The US Constitution was ratified by State governments, not by a vote of the people. It originally restricted all sorts of people from participating in government at the time. We the People give our consent to be governed under this framework and can change it according to the rules under this framework, which includes a branch of government, the courts, that are the sole arbiter in defining what is constitutional or not. People have the “right” to push their view in order to affect change, but those “rights” are limited. Look at the Whiskey Rebellion and how George Washington responded, or John Brown in Harpers Ferry and the response of Abraham Lincoln.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Treebones

I agree that the application of the Constitution was abused from the onset… Shay’s rebellion/ Whiskey rebellion was egregious out of the gate. But that doesn’t change the letter of the contract.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Jury Nullification clearly shows the power is with the People; the trouble is the People continually abdicate our power to the State.

Treebones
Guest
Treebones
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

I don’t think that the Constitution was abused from the onset, except of course by John Adams and the Sedition Acts, and it took a bit for the Supreme Court to assert themselves, but the Constitution itself was, as I stated earlier, a document that codified a form of subjugation. It still is unconstitutional to take up arms against a government entity and Washington and Lincoln both adhered to the Constitution in their response to rebellion.

I agree with you on Jury Nullification and how we continue to abdicate our potential power to the people we put in to represent us. We now have about 700,000 constituents per Congressman when it was originally around 30,000. The first amendment passed by the House of Representatives never made it past the Senate. It would have capped the representative to constituent ratio, which I think we should do to regain some control over our representatives.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Treebones

The state is made of the People. This is a great book on how the Founders compromised and cajoled into getting the new states to agree on the ratification of the US Constitution.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22889768-the-quartet

Lost Croat Outburst
Guest
Lost Croat Outburst
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

So, what then? Anarchy? No laws at all? Oh, we’re trying that. Gerrymandering and voter suppression, typically by Republicans, is the greatest threat to representative democracy.

P*** W***lies
Guest
P*** W***lies
3 years ago

Ignorance is even worse.

Guests
Guest
Guests
3 years ago

Good sheriff, agree with sheriff honsal,
in this.

If he would give the shelter animals more time like before he’d be perfect.

In this instance, kudus to you sheriff,
thank you,
good job.

Bob Taylor
Guest
Bob Taylor
3 years ago

These sheriffs never cared about your civil liberties before but you dumb ass right wingers are eating the shit soup they’re serving because you’re so wrapped up in tribalism. They should be caring about our civil liberties at all times. Not when it makes them famous on Fox News. Vote these losers out.

Ullr Rover
Guest
Ullr Rover
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob Taylor

I’d rather have a sheriff who, at least, pays lip service to civil liberties rather than one who ignores civil liberties outright.

Erik
Guest
Erik
3 years ago
Reply to  Ullr Rover

It’s hilarious how the left accuses the right of tribalism, and vice versa. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

– Former CIA Director William Casey.

Kurt Russel
Guest
Kurt Russel
3 years ago
Reply to  Erik

Great comment, and very true.

Doggo
Guest
Doggo
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob Taylor

Thank you

Rumbustious
Guest
Rumbustious
3 years ago

Sheriffs and other law enforcement have always had the discretion to selectively enforce laws — for example, to ignore your jaywalking when there was no hazard to yourself or traffic, or that your dog was off lead on a trail when the ordinance said it should have been leashed, or, if the governor had said all beaches were closed, that you were on a nearly empty beach with plenty of room between individuals so there was no safety hazard….

Diane
Guest
Diane
3 years ago

This Professor Barkun is off mark. He is giving his opinions

yesmeagain
Guest
yesmeagain
3 years ago

The sheriffs may have the constitutional right, etc etc, but that does not make their decision right, in the sense of factually correct. Since many of the same people who feel their civil rights are being violated by the state’s quarantine orders also seem to not believe in science, only time will show who is “right” in this case. When/if more people start dying, especially those close to us, then we’ll know for sure. And if things go bad, we will all suffer for it regardless of who is “right” in any sense.

Doggo
Guest
Doggo
3 years ago
Reply to  yesmeagain

Thank you

Jeffersonian
Guest
Jeffersonian
3 years ago

Honestly, it’s hard to take this non directive seriously when Honsal puts out this absurd portrait of himself. I realize that’s probably a face mask, but he sure looks like a gay man dressed up as a cop ,with a silk hanky tied around his neck. No one else see this….?

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

Normally, I delete comments that sneer at (or sexualize) someone’s appearance. But I’m curious…You apparently think looking like a gay man is a bad thing? Can I ask why?

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Hmm… Liberace in uniform. An interesting concept. Maybe there just isn’t a uniform gayness dress at all. But a person insists on there being one, entailing them dressing differently, maybe being police is not a sensible choice?

Jeffersonian
Guest
Jeffersonian
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Yes, dressing up like a gay male dancer in cop uniform is mildly funny, especially when that wasn’t what was intended. I’ve a hard time believing you don’t see the humor here. Not all snickering comments are meant to be taken as some grand insult. I have no problem with gay people. Try to forgive my careless chuckle..

Erik
Guest
Erik
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeffersonian

I see this, and iI think it works. All he needs is a little eye shadow and some adjustment to the lighting, a slight lowering of the camera angle, and a bit of cheek plumping from makeup, and he’s ready for prime time as a leo influencer extraordinaire. Rumor says he has nice hands, they should definitely be in the frame, telling their own story, but not before a professional manicure of course.

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
Ernie Branscomb
3 years ago

Back in the 50’s and 60’s there was a VERY popular singer by the name of Connie Francis that wrote a song called “Folks are just Fools making too many Rules”. The song could apply to today’s world,

The only rule that should apply in a civilized country is the Golden Rule, that basically says, “treat others as you would like to be treated”. Full disclosure, I am not at all religious, it’s just that some things make sense.

I find it rather humorous that it has gotten to the point that even officers of the law have started to question the “laws” that they are asked to enforce.

I fully support Sherriff Honsel in his decision. This time he is right.

We should be very wary of our law-makers that are trying to take advantage of this crisis. Quote: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” (Winston Churchill)

michelob
Guest
michelob
3 years ago

Hill Billy Honsal grandstanding about the constitution and not closing beaches is a joke-he knows they don’t have the man power to enforce the loitering bums on 2nd street. Cool way of beating your big hairy chest though. Rogan might not have thought you were so cool if he knew about how you pillage small farms up here to line your pockets. Those 10k+ per day fines are coming due…

Doggo
Guest
Doggo
3 years ago
Reply to  michelob

Thank you

Meee
Guest
Meee
3 years ago

This professer gets it all wrong. The ultimate power does not belong to the federal government as he is states the sheriffs are taking on. They are saying and i believe that the ultimale power belongs to the.people. not govenment. People just do not het that the govenment works for us not us for them.

Who Cares
Guest
Who Cares
3 years ago

Hes got my vote. Glad the Sherf gets it. Globalism is THE problem…Localism for the win.

What’s that? something hippies and rednecks can agree on?…Yes! Localism is good for everyone.

Reject the Globalist lie. It’s No Good, for No One.

Who Cares
Guest
Who Cares
3 years ago

There is a queit war in America right now. The Co opted , globalist, entrenched deep State vs the Constitution. The Constitution is what makes America America.

Choose wisely….you give up your American Freedoms….you and all future offspring will never get it back.

Inalienable….look it up. It’s an important word to understand.

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
Ernie Branscomb
3 years ago
Reply to  Who Cares

Been there, done that. Knew that.

Definition of Inalienable Rights
Noun:
Rights that are not alienable
Rights that are not transferable or capable of being taken away or nullified
Origin: 1635-1645 French- inalienable

Who Cares
Guest
Who Cares
3 years ago

Glad you get it. Many others dont, and this country is suffering because of it.

People have no idea the authoritarian technocrats they are handing the power to, and the mess they will make of USA.

The propaganda is an effective emotional appeal, which overrides logic through fear. Think people!

For sure
Guest
For sure
3 years ago

Sheriff does what he thinks is right& appropriate for our county, defying the Governor. I like that part, but, why can’t that segue to the 6 plant in a 10×10 canopy rule? Or the greenhouse size?
Civil disobedience shldnt be a $10,000 a day fine! Go after huge egregious grows, not a 10-20 plant garden!

M
Guest
M
3 years ago

I see a lot of double talking and hypocritical behaviors when it comes to protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when it comes to Trimigrants coming into the county to perform their already deemed essential services work. This is how you can test if this is actually what a sheriff believes to be fact and truth or if they manipulate and shift circumstances and the meaning of the Constitution to only fit the outcome that they desire.

izzy
Guest
izzy
3 years ago

“Don’t give an order you can’t enforce”

– Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré on coronavirus. March 28, 2020

Road Weary
Guest
Road Weary
3 years ago

I approved of Honsel’s defiance of the beach closing order, not because it was legally defensible, but because it pushed the Governor into issue a more appropriate order.
As Sherriff of Humboldt County Honsel must recognize the chain of command. He does not get to be the arbiter of constitutionality. I am pleased that he is working so well with the County Health Officer, and has clearly recognized her civil authority in responding to the current health emergency.

Conundrum
Guest
Conundrum
3 years ago

Elected?
Technically I suppose. I thought he was appointed, and then ran unopposed.
Does that mean we had a choice?
That his dad was EPD does sound like cronyism, though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against him being Sheriff.
I just think the beach thing is an odd place to draw a line in the sand.
In a way I guess it makes perfect sense.
It would be nice if he would take a stand against everything unconstitutional, not just the freedom of beach.

I don’t think the US Constitution should be cherry picked.

It just seems to be an awkward appearance for an authority such as the Sheriff to be publicly questioning an authority such as the Governor.

How should we, as citizens, respond?
By questioning abuse of authority?

Maybe it’s a good example he is setting in that abuse of authority should always be rejected.

I’m ok with authority, it’s the abuse of authority that rubs me the wrong way.

It happens in County government as well.

Look inward.

$30,000 a day fines are fine for infractions, but don’t say we can’t go to the beach, that is not ok.

Something is wrong with the picture.

Buzz
Guest
Buzz
3 years ago

Elected and Respected! It’s really Nice to see some public officials representing the majority of their constituents.

Conundrum
Guest
Conundrum
3 years ago
Reply to  Buzz

What would be really nice to see is some public officials representing all of their constituents.
Its not about a majority or a minority of them.

Ann
Guest
Ann
3 years ago

It’s time to eliminate the position of sheriff. They’re a law unto themselves and many throughout the country are crooked. When we have hundreds of deaths in Humboldt due to covid, Honsel will be partly to blame.

Guest
Guest
Guest
3 years ago
Reply to  Ann

And then what?

M
Guest
M
3 years ago

Maybe someone could interview the three Sheriff’s regarding George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police and give their opinions and support to our communities. Many law enforcement leaders across the CA counties are speaking to their community regarding this and nothing but crickets from the Norther counties Sheriff’s. Why is that?

Pro Se
Guest
Pro Se
3 years ago

Anyone care to cite the constitutional language that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the federal government is ultimately the one in charge? I’ll wait…

“a central tenet of the Constitution, that the federal government is ultimately the one in charge.”

#indoctrinatednation
#swisscheeseeducation
#miseducatedyouth
#HOCUSPOTUS

Kym Kemp
Admin
3 years ago
Reply to  Pro Se

Article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”