War on Drugs: Craig Hunter Salutes 40 Years of Failure

Last week Sheriff candidate Craig Hunter pointed to our Bill Hunt interview on Facebook, ridiculing his opponent’s assertion that a Sheriff does not have to bend to the will of the DEA when it violates states’ rights.

Hunter asks “What kind of leader would put his deputies at odds with the DEA over a poorly written law?”

The answer, of course, is a leader who respects the Constitution and values the rights of his constituents over the intrusive tendencies of an overreaching federal bureaucracy.

What did they want me to say?

So now we know that Craig Hunter does not respect the will of California voters, who have overwhelmingly asserted that medicinal marijuana should be available to patients. Instead, he defers to the federal government, which has blown at least $2.5 trillion dollars over four decades of the “War on Drugs” with almost nothing to show for it. Illegal drugs are now cheaper, stronger and easier to obtain than any other time in American history.

If this is the kind of “leadership” that we can expect from Hunter? An automatic deference to any other agency claiming to hold authority, no matter how detrimental it might be to the citizens who he is sworn to protect?

There is, however, one satisfying statement made in Hunter’s Facebook — he says that all voters should read our blog. Thanks for your support, Craig!

27 Replies to “War on Drugs: Craig Hunter Salutes 40 Years of Failure”

  1. Well done! Once again Travis you have pointed out a blatant lack of local leadership. OC needs a LEADER not a FOLLOWER like Hunter. The OC Sheriff serves the people of Orange County, not a federal drug czar. If we want an inept leader at the County of Orange, why hold an election? It seems we already have enough running the show now.

  2. By the way Hunter, I hope every deputy (and everyone else for that matter) reads it too. They will see in Hunt what they saw in 2006 when they endorsed him for sheriff: a leader who answers to no one but the voters. That is what OC wants and needs, a real public servant, not a federal servant who bends to the whims of an administration.

  3. Oh yeah. That guy is a pure bureaucratic phony. He infers that the real chief over at Anaheim is a figurehead and that he (Hunter) really runs the show. Ok Craig. I suppose you didn’t provide cover on the restrained mexican beating deal? The jury didn’t buy it and walloped the taxpayers of the city of Anaheim for over $300,000. Ouch! I suppose Hunter is providing cover for this Anaheim guy too:


  4. Once or twice I related the story of me being interviewed by a panel of 3 officers for a job at a local PD when I was asked what I would do if I pulled over a drunken off-duty Anaheim cop. That was back in 1997 or so. It looks like 13+ years later Anaheim hasn’t changed much!
    Maybe Fullerton should set up the DUI checkpoints for all cars entering Fullerton via Anaheim… Now that would be service!

  5. Although I previously indicated that I was not supporting anybody for Sheriff, I’ve got to say that this Hunter fellow appears to posses all of the traits I really dislike in cops: arrogance, ignorance, bureaucratic mindset, etc.

    Come to think of it, so does Hutchens.

  6. Perhaps I should bring some clarity to this argument. I can further illustrate Craig Hunter’s incompetence:


  7. Can Bill Hunt naswer the same way if a city police department asked his support to shut down a dsiepnsary?
    If a city has a ban on dispensaries what can a city do to a dispensary owner who operates one? It is a code violation but can the city impose any criminal charges on the owner if it is complience with state law?

    1. Hunt can answer any way he sees fit so long as he is acting to defend the Constitution of the State of California.

      OC has a mutual aid program that would cause deputies to respond to another agency’s call of distress. Aside from emergencies, I would imagine the sheriff’s department won’t get into a city’s enforcement of that city’s municipal code. Let the local PD handle their own code enforcement problems.

  8. Huh, well this is interesting. To those that are here from Mr. Hunter’s Facebook page. Is it starting to dawn on you that Mr. Hunter was only picked because his name is VERY close to Mr. Hunt’s name? Voter confusion seems to be in style over in the Mike Carona backed …..wait I misspoke there Craig Hunter campaign. It’s great to see that those that “waited” for a different candidate they could control….(cough) Mr. Gregg Block (cough) were hoping for a bit of confusion to result in their control of the County. Anyone care to step up and admit that? Mr. Hunter you obviously read this blog, care to step in and share with us who your “backers” and handlers are?

  9. Plus, the lame deference to the DEA and the horror of being “at odds” with them (whatever that means) is just plain horse shit doled out to fat heads.

  10. Jefferson Thomas, I agree and that’s the first thing I thought of when I heard the name. Remember when the anti-airport people backed a complete unknown named Ralph Silva to run against that walking, braindead catastrophe Jim Silva for supe? It didn’t work, but same idea.

  11. Gawd I love this place. Bloggers unfettered from the creeps that think they have the county in their pocket. I would like to drop kick those SOBS back to where they came from but it’s probably not legal. Which reminds me. The Jerb is looking for bloggers to contribute to their blog. I am good with that. How much money do I get paid for blogging for the libs? Business is business ya
    know. Hunter is Mikey Carona the Second. The very same snakes that brought us Carona are slithering around Hunter.

  12. What about a new campaign slogan for Bill Hunt.

    “Not all hunters can actually Hunt!”

    Any other ideas?

  13. Hunter asks “What kind of leader would put his deputies at odds with the DEA over a poorly written law?”

    Answer… One with Balls… Obviously Hunter has had his removed…

  14. “I have heard a rumor that Bill Hunt has cut a deal with Sheriff Hutchens, to give him his old job back if she wins. If this is true he has totally sold us out and we’ll be screwed.”

  15. Well jont,

    That would not be a libelous statement considering that I addressed it with and admitted to what I heard as being a ‘rumor,’ an unconfirmed statement in circulation.

    I’m not saying it is fact. Now if Mr. Hunt was able to prove actual malice in my statements, e.g. finding out I willingly knew my statements to be false, yet made them anyways, your accusation may hold some weight. What I have heard about Mr. Hunt I believe to be true and without falsity.

    And as Mr. Hunt is a public figure, he is open to criticism.

  16. Hey Martin. I heard if the queen had balls, wait I mean Hunter had balls he would be the King.

    Your queen doesn’t have the balls to stand up for the Constitution, you don’t have the balls to produce any evidence of your statement.

  17. You don’t have to agree with me, and I respect anyone who doesn’t. I only say what is on my mind because IF what I have heard is in fact true, then I think there should be some concern.

    If the shoe was on the other foot, while I may liken my responses to those of you who have, I would still be open minded to consider what is being said.

  18. What is there to agree or disagree with, that you said somebody said something about someone?

    Brought to you by Carl’s Junior.

  19. Oh sure Martin. Conversly if Hunt wins Hutchens will be brought back in her old position right? I heard a rumor that the guy that started that rumor wears a tinfoil hat, thinks contrails are a government plot and sees black helicopters everywhere. Rumor has it that there are people out there that are not that stupid.

  20. WTF? If a deal were cut it would have been to keep Hunt out altogether, thus ensuring no run off and an easy Hutchens win.

    That’s just dumb.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *