My Point-By-Point Rebuttal Of ‘Community Blogger’s’ Anti-Sheriff Brad Rogers Column
Written by Casey Hendrickson
A recent column by ‘community blogger’, and Major League Baseball delusionist, Rich Preheim in the Elkhart Truth newspaper was a decidedly delusional, hypocritical ad hominem attack on Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers.
I will offer my point-by-point rebuttal of Preheim’s fantasy world in a second, but first I wanted to address critics of the Elkhart Truth for publishing the piece. The Truth did not write the column, they published it. As they do with a variety of columns that are essentially guest posts. It should be viewed as a positive that a paper provides this opportunity, instead of just the typically letter to the editor format we usually see. A community newspaper should provide a forum for all, and allow community engagement. It’s no different than me taking callers on my show you disagree with. People always ask me why I put certain calls on the air. Would you prefer I censor them? With that said, Preheim wrote the piece, not the Elkhart Truth.
Preheim starts off his post by saying Sheriff Rogers (who’s seeking his second term as Elkhart County Sheriff) wants “unsurpassed power in law enforcement.” He then goes on to say that isn’t really accurate and that Sheriff Rogers “wants to not only enforce laws, but also decide which laws aren’t legitimate and therefore can’t be enforced.”
Considering Sheriff Rogers’ is very vocal practitioner of constitutionalism, he is opposed to unsurpassed power in law enforcement. Preheim’s assertion that Rogers supports all powerful law enforcement is not only false, but wonderfully hypocritical. More on that later. We’ll also get to his claim that Rogers wants to decide which laws to enforce in a bit. It all comes together throughout this piece. I’ll now quote Preheim’s column and offer my rebuttal below each quote.
“That’s a right-wing extremist agenda to make Elkhart County stop in its tracks.”
I love hyperbole, don’t you? Has anyone on the left actually defined what ‘right-wing extremism’ is yet?
“Rogers’ ideological inclinations have been evident locally, particularly with his 2011 confrontation with the Food and Drug Administration over unpasteurized milk from a local dairy”
You mean the elected Sheriff protecting his constituents from repeated violations of their 4th Amendment rights by a federal agency? Does Preheim think it reasonable for a federal agency to repeatedly harass a citizen without a warrant for engaging in the perfectly legal practice of cow sharing? It wasn’t that the farm was inspected to ensure no illegal selling of raw milk was going on, it was the repeated warrantless inspections (that the farm initially allowed) that were designed to harass and intimidate a law-abiding citizen that was the problem. Both the DOJ and FDA acknowledge that searches must have a warrant, or meet constitutionally consistent benchmarks to be carried out. Wouldn’t supporting constant, repeated, warrantless searches of one’s property be the very definition of ‘unsurpassed power in law enforcement’ Preheim is trying to warn us Sheriff Rogers wants?
“And with his grandstanding with Cliven Bundy in Nevada this past spring.”
Since when is a holder of a constitutional office not allowed to inject themselves in a constitutional discussion? On their own vacation time? At their own expense? I’m from Las Vegas (only been in Indiana just over 3 years), and I know more about BLM land grabs than probably anyone reading this. I won’t bore you with the details in this post. I will ask, however, why is it acceptable for police chiefs and sheriffs from around the country to comment on various multi-state issues such as immigration and gun control while wearing their uniforms at rallies and on TV, but it isn’t acceptable for Sheriff Rogers to do the same on a multi-state federal land grab issue? What about the common practice of law enforcement being allowed to wear their uniforms while traveling out of state for conferences, or while providing security as a second job on the side?