Who Is The Extremist?



When in the world of Sheriff Matthews is enough enough? He complains about being attacked when he started this whole mess by falsely acusing people of being extremist because he has some egotistical drive to feel important or something. Even he said the article "When Should You Shoot a Cop",( http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/ ) did not advocate going around shooting officers. If anyone has been extreme it is him. If the Kershaw County Patriots were such an extreme group why did he associate himself with the group going into the 2010 elections? Did he really need the extremist vote to get elected? He came to the meetings regularly until after he was elected. And now he wonders why we are worried about law enforcement intervention. Seriously, I think he quit coming to the meetings because he knew what he was about to do and didn't want the intervention of concerned citizens.

As Sheriff matthews is on the Kershaw County Patriots group page on Facebook it is obvious noone was trying to hide anything from him. He could have commented on the article instead of hiding behind the media. But then maybe having his comments documented in the post would have been more exposure than he would have prefered. That would have meant defending against facts. Easier to have the media put out a story to people who would never read the article and believe what the media had to say about it.

So, who are the extremist as Matthews puts it? These are citizens of the county who want to hold elected officials accountable for what they do. These are people who are asking these officials to stick to the Constitutional oath they swore. They did not swear that oath to codes and statutes or to the UN's Agenda 21 but to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. But for some reason they don't seem to think that matters and the people are extremists if they think it should.

As someone recently expressed to me I bet Matthews would not have a problem picking up a police journal that had an article entitled "When Should You Shoot a Civilian". I'm sure the answer would be when the lives of others or the officer is at stake. Well would he deprive the citizenry the right to protect themselves from an officer if they felt the officer was about to put someones life in danger? Apparently so. Hey, maybe he is wanting to load us all on cattle cars.

I posted the article on Facebook. I never asked anyone if I could post it or told anyone I was going to post it. I posted it as it came through my homepage feed. I read it and thought everyone should. I did hesitate because of the title but figured it would be more likely to get people to read it. I asked that anyone who wished to comment read the article first in an attempt not to have them comment just because of the title. That appears for the most part to be all that did get read.

Matthews decided, for God knows what reason, to lump the entire group to my post. I was the only one to comment on it and that was a statement taken from the article. The particular statement was provocative, but again, it was an attempt to get people to read the article. Jeff Mattox was the only one in the group to "Like" the article because he actually read it and saw some sense in it. And neither Mr. mattox or myself have been trying to get anyone to go out shooting officers. In fact we would have loved for them to have become a part of our group. We never refused anyone at the meetings or kept anyone from voicing an opinion.

Also, when Mr. Mattox decided to join the GOP I distanced myself from that explaining to him I had no trust of the party and knew any candidates he would try to run who were constitutional would never receive party backing. Jim Pratt, who ran against Jim Clyburn, is a prime example of the party not helping its own. The GOP gave that seat back to Clyburn. So when Chris Oviatt lumped the GOP membership from the group with my post he did so erroniously. And when he said they didn't need people like that in the party he had no worries, I wasn't in it. As for Mr. Mattox, he was concerned over the partys attack on free speech with good reason. All I got from Mr. Oviatts actions was that the GOP was anti-first amendment, they appear to only belive in free speech if it is what they want to hear and that Mr. Oviatt is not for free speech. I should thank Mr. Oviatt for justifying my mistrust of the party. I should also point out I neither lean to the left or the right. I don't believe in the two party system because of these childish party politics. And now they are starting to show their true nature.

Whether it was Matthews intention or not he managed to put fear in the people of the group and several would not come to the last meeting because they were afraid of being arrested just for being there. One member was asked by friends to remove them from his e-mail list. A couple even talked of changing the group name which I see as catering to the sheriffs bullying. He has terrorized people who for the most part aren't even on the group page. Yet he calls us hateful and irresponsible.

I would like to point out that there are LEOs out there that DO take their oath seriously. They want to protect the rights of the people even when it does make their jobs a little harder. And there are ex-LEOs out there that left law enforcement because of the likes of officers like Matthews. No, unlike Matthews, we don't judge all by the one.

In closing, I do ask that any LEOs that wish to join the group feel free to do so. We need to work together to save this country from those who wish to destroy it. We have a lot of enemies, both foreign and domestic, and to aide those who wish to destroy this country will only end up destroying you. Even if you wish to debate the article please feel free to do so. I am open to honest debate.