More ugliness from the National Sheriff’s Association

Press Release from the NSA: Gupta Nomination Concern

On behalf of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the 3080 elected sheriffs nationwide, Sheriff John Aubrey, NSA President and Sheriff of Jefferson County, Kentucky wrote today to The Honorable Chuck Grassley to advise him of our strong concerns over the potential nomination of Vanita Gupta as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. NSA believes that Ms. Gupta’s previous statements on a range of issues make her ill-suited for this important post.

If Ms. Gupta is formally nominated, NSA urges Grassley to investigate her previous statements on the legalization of drugs. As recently as 2012, she wrote in the Huffington Post that “states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.” Decriminalization of all drugs—including heroin, LSD, cocaine, and more—would have disastrous effects on our communities and our citizens. Communities have been crippled by drug abuse and addiction, stifling economic productivity and destroying families. Ms. Gupta’s short-sighted statements on legalization and her apparent beliefs would put her at odds with the goal of public safety day in and day out. As the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, it is imperative that any nominee understand the challenges faced by law enforcement in protecting our communities.

Note the unwillingness to even engage in critical thinking – the automatic assumption that like the law of gravity – unable to be questioned, or alternatives considered.

Oh, and remember — they don’t make the laws; they just enforce them.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to More ugliness from the National Sheriff’s Association

  1. Servetus says:

    If the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) really “is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising the level of professionalism among sheriffs, their deputies, and others in the field of criminal justice and public safety”, then NSA boss Sheriff John Aubrey absolutely needs Vanita Gupta to be selected as Assistant AG for Civil Rights.

    Only then can Ms. Gupta raise Sheriff Aubrey’s professionalism by instructing him on what constitutes actual civil and human rights. Such advice is especially critical now that Mr. Aubrey has turned in his white robes and pointed hoodie for a brown shirt and badge.

    • Windy says:

      I highly doubt that all 3080 elected Sheriffs agree with him on this, some of those Sheriffs are Constitutional Sheriffs and they would support the decriminalization (as in NO penalties criminal or civil) of drugs. America needs to rid itself of Sheriffs who are NOT Constitutional Sheriffs.

  2. Will says:

    Proclaiming concern for “public safety” and promoting the continuation of drug prohibition are mutually exclusive. Of course, we all know the biggest concerns of law enforcement organizations are reduced budgets, especially if civil asset forfeiture laws continue to change over time.

    Another thing: the age old practice of putting the words “The Honorable” in front of any politician’s name is an aberration.

  3. kaptinemo says:

    Like I keep saying, the more we win, the crazier they get. And that crazy is becoming ever harder to hide. Crazy like this. They might as well be flashing neon signs and sending up signal flares. They really, truly think they’ll stay in power forever, when the political ground beneath them is turning into quicksand, daily.

    It is evident that Mr. Aubrey thinks his position confers infallibility, like The Pope. All statements are to be considered absolute truth, and ex cathedra, must be taken as law. Why? Because he’s wearing a badge, that’s why. Forgetting, of course, that that badge is loaned to him, not bought by him.

    Like The Pope, Sheriff positions are electable, too. Unlike The Pope, a ‘mistake’ can be remedied. As in voted out of power.

    Well over 50% of the US population wants cannabis legal again. I’d say that covers a very large portion of the citizens of Kentucky. And given that Kain-tuck’s economic situation is perennially dismal, and it is always in need of greater industry and revenue, and that people like Mr. Aubrey are directly thwarting that, I shouldn’t have to connect the last dot for Jefferson County, Kentucky residents.

    As things get worse for them, the prohibs will ‘out’ themselves for the mercs they are…and the intended targets of their ravings will see just what they’ve really been paying for, and how much damage they’ve caused and will continue to do so. That is until the ones that can be are voted out.

  4. claygooding says:

    The addiction to drug war grants is becoming a real problem and should be addressed with rehab clinics that can wean law enforcement from the government teat.
    Or it could be as simple as moving the grants from drug crimes to violent and blue collar crimes,,even technology crimes,,anything that would raise the IQ requirements needed for law enforcement would help.

    PS:If law enforcement wants to get in on cyber crime I suggest they do not test their “hackers” for marijuana use..

    • Will says:

      “PS:If law enforcement wants to get in on cyber crime I suggest they do not test their “hackers” for marijuana use..”

      Your quote reminds of a conversation I overheard not too long ago. My wife and I were sitting at a restaurant that had communal seating. A young couple was conversing with an older couple sitting across from them. The guy of the young couple was describing his new job. At one point he turned to his girlfriend/wife and said, somewhat incredulously, “And no drug test was required to get the job”. This got my attention. When asked where he worked, he said, “Hewlett-Packard” (note: this is in Texas). As a high tech employee for many years now, this really grabbed my attention. Maybe some small start-ups don’t test, but all major tech companies still do. I suspect HP is not announcing the end of drug testing, just possibly — quietly — eliminating the requirement. That might represent a small crack in the drug war wall, but cracks like this add up.

      • Freeman says:

        That’s pretty awesome. I’ve worked in the tech industry (Avionics) all my career, and I’ve been lucky to have never had to take the test, but most of my jobs have been at small shops (10 – 20 employees).

        I worked at a larger shop (2000+ employees) back in the ’80’s. There was some talk of testing us, and we hinted that they’d better be careful with that if they didn’t want to lose most of their workforce. It didn’t happen until well after I left the company, but now I hear they’re testing new hires. Glad I’m not there any more.

        The job I had before the one I’m in now landed a contract that required them to drug-test any employees working on the contract. My boss told me I should “study” for the test, and I told her I would refuse to take it if asked. They never asked and I ended up not working on that contract.

        Sometimes I’m amazed that I’ve been able to work in the industry for so long (30+ years) without being tested. Drug-testing is required by the FAA for anyone certifying airborne avionics, but I certify the test equipment they use to certify the avionics, and that’s beyond the FAA’s regulatory scope. I’m crossing my fingers that I’ll be able to continue in my career path without worrying about testing until either I retire or drug-testing becomes a thing of the past.

      • Atrocity says:

        HP was one of the last of the majors to start pee sniffing and (according to someone I used to know who worked there) only did it out of fear they would wind up with everyone else’s rejects. A few years later they became one of the only companies to do a serious cost-benefit analysis and decided that it wasn’t worth it.

        • Will says:

          Apparently HP still tests but possibly only for certain departments. On there’s an entry for HP as of this month. It was for a hair test (the person passed using a special shampoo). I have a friend who failed a hair test years ago. She was seeking employment in a financial department (not at HP). It’s possible that’s what the recent HP entry represents. I entered a brief chat with someone from testclear. They said their database relies on people who have experience with being tested, or not, and entering that info on their site. Aside from the HP info, some of the entries are a bit old. Hopefully more recent entries will be added for those who are in need of updated drug testing information.

      • claygooding says:

        That is funny because Microsoft and Apple have always shunned drug screening,,the entire Silicone Valley were known for not testing.
        And yet the US government buys their products.

        • Atrocity says:

          I think the “Silicon Valley doesn’t test” thing has been overstated for years. Intel and AMD have been doing it forever, just to name two majors. I’m sure it’s rare amongst youthful startups, but there are plenty of plodding dinosaurs there.

    • kaptinemo says:

      And every time, without fail, we are reminded:

      Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High IQ Scores

      from the article:

      “The policy became solidified as a concrete federal ruling almost a decade and a half ago with little fanfare from the mainstream media. Back in 1999, a Federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a police applicant who was barred from the New London, Connecticut police force. The reason for the disqualification was literally because he had scored “too high” on an intelligence test. The department made it clear, they didn’t want the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence, but they didn’t want anyone “too smart” either.

      The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature, was denied an opportunity to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high test scores…

      Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments. Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.” (Emphasis mine – k.)

      So, the guys in LEAP had to camouflage their brains all their years of service? I call BS. I’ve known plenty of smart cops.

      The problem is, the system doesn’t want smart cops. It wants a biological version of a robot. What does that say about the system?

      Nothing very flattering, obviously.

  5. Rat Park Hipster says:

    Dear NSA, meet me at the playground after school. My science will kick your dogma’s ass.

    On a serious note, what has Holder been smoking if he’s putting up such a qualified candidate? Does Wall Street know what he’s up to? Did he get their approval on this like everything else?

    • Frank W. says:

      She’s cannon fodder. Holder expects automatic opposition to any candidate he offers, and will have a Corporation Thrall up his sleeve as a “compromise”.

  6. thelbert says:

    feeling paranoid yet? the dea wants to know where you go. and when you go there, i suppose:

  7. Hope says:

    Vanita Gupta is an honorable woman and she is all about justice. Not racking up convictions. Justice.

  8. Duncan20903 says:


    Every time I think that I’ve seen the outer limits of prohibitionist stupidity they turn around and prove me wrong without breaking a sweat. Hold on to your hats, this one is from the “beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life on this planet” category:

    Supporters, [Alaskan] legislators befuddled by convoluted marijuana bill

    The bill would retain the current prohibition against possession, sale and manufacture of marijuana. But it would add a provision allowing someone charged to use the recreational marijuana initiative as a legal defense in court.

    How exactly the bill’s phrase, “defense to prosecution,” would play out in the real world was the subject of much of Monday’s discussion.

    During the meeting, Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, asked Hilary Martin, counsel with the Legislature’s legal services department who helped draft the bill, if a person carrying less than 1 ounce of marijuana could be arrested, charged and taken to trial under the provisions of the bill.

    “Technically, that is a possibility,” Martin replied.

    “Technically” (and in every other manner conceivable) Ms. Martin, you’re a brain dead idiot. Absolute flatline.

    If they outdo themselves this time it’s going into the “may god have mercy on our soles” category.

  9. DdC says:

    If “cops don’t make laws, they just enforce them”, why are police opposing marijuana?

  10. DdC says:

    ☛ Policing for Profit
    ☛ Forfeiture $quads

    Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts
    when you have forgotten your aim.
    — George Santayana,
    “The Life of Reason”

  11. Pingback: Sheriffs’ Association Urges ‘Investigation’ Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments | Technology

  12. Pingback: Sheriffs' Association Urges 'Investigation' Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments -

Comments are closed.