Commission candidate extreme views dangerous

Before George Washington became the first president of the newly formed United States of America, he was named president of the Potomac Company. The Potomac Company, in which he was also an investor, was formed to facilitate an agreement between the States of Virginia and Maryland to assure free navigation on the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Washington had become one of the largest absentee landlords of the day having managed to procure more than 63,000 acres of trans-Appalachia during the War of Independence and was keen to ferry goods via America’s inland waterways.

Complications to this otherwise straightforward plan arose in that the newly formed country was then operating under the admittedly flawed but nonetheless reasonably democratic Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own labor rates, tariffs, tolls and regulations for allowing passage through their territory. Frustrated, Washington and other landed gentry wanting to facilitate the exploit of America’s vast resources perceived a need to wrest authority over commercial activities away from the states.  Eventually, this gave rise to the constitutional conventions, establishing a federal authority over interstate commerce.

This brief history is meant to help illustrate how our founding fathers were not, as some candidates for Coos County office believe, divine prophets guided by God, or even scholarly philosophers determined to create the ideal democracy securing freedom, justice and liberty for all. In truth, they were mere capitalist profiteers, tired of sharing the spoils of the resource rich New World with the Crown and thoroughly terrified of direct democracy as James Madison best explains in the Federalist Papers:

         “The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process of time… when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small… will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future elections? And, unless wisely provided against, what will become of our government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, and subsequent Amendments, the “supreme law of the land” is deeply skewed toward protecting the privilege and interests of the opulent over the fundamental rights of the majority. (This is one reason I have not considered public office as I don’t want to be bound by an oath to a document that is undemocratic.).

Before undertaking any official duties, an elected official swears an oath to protect and defend the constitution, both state and federal. Given the solemness of swearing in, we can but hope that these candidates have read these documents they promise to uphold.

There is ample reason to suspect county commissioner candidate, Citizens Restoring Liberty founder and January 6 insurrectionist, Rod Taylor has not. As recently as May 2, speaking on a local talk radio program, Taylor again repeated his erroneous claim about the US holding property in reference to a discussion about the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

“… the Federal government is precluded in the US Constitution from owning land outside of the 10 square miles outside of Washington, DC,” says Taylor in an authoritative voice. “It’s unconstitutional to control the Wagon Road Lands… the current board of commissioners is not cognizant of that fact. I am and have the resources to put these issues out…”

Whatever flavor of the constitution he is cognizant of or how he chooses to interpret it, Taylor might do well to refer to Article IV of the US Constitution and the numerous scholarly articles and court decisions that belie this oft claimed radical right canard.

As a community rights activist who placed a measure on the ballot to establish a local bill of rights to make the county self-determining, I am sympathetic with Taylor’s interest in challenging federal and state authority over local affairs, namely our right to protect ourselves to higher standards than industry regulators allow. Unfortunately, he wants to acquire federal land to plunder with wild abandon what is left of the county’s old forests without regard to future generations.

Ironically for someone heading a group claiming to defend liberty, he has an outrageous proposal to violate the civil liberties of the poor, impoverished and mentally ill by repurposing Shutter Creek Correctional Institution into a concentration camp where the county’s houseless persons and families would be forcibly interned. In April of 2021, Bandon Police were called to a private residence because Taylor, using a bullhorn, was hurling insults at a family he accused of reporting a business to OSHA for violating COVID safety protocols.

While a nonpartisan position, it is worth considering how much Taylor, a “constitutional Trump supporter” and his extremist views will inform his decision making should he be elected to the commission. As an example, he opposes state and federal grants because “there are strings attached.” According to Commissioner Cribbins, government grants account for approximately $100 million of the county’s total budget and I’ve asked Taylor how he expects to supplant that shortfall and maintain county services.

Grants do come with strings, of course. The grantee must not spend the money outside the scope of the grant, for example, or violate labor laws, or use the funds to facilitate partisan or political matters. Grants are one way that local jurisdictions take advantage of the income tax we all pay into the federal and state coffers.

Taylor presents an air of civility, (when he isn’t using a bullhorn against citizens he disagrees with). He’s articulate, uses multisyllabic words, usually correctly and has decent grammar. There is a crack in this façade betrayed by the associations he keeps including local talk show host, Rob Taylor (no relation) and whom he calls a “local treasure” and homeless harasser, Matt Wilbanks. Both use the radio program to insult and offend teachers, liberals and environmentalists. They deliberately misgender transgenders and call the houseless “bums” and “scum” and it can be argued foment violence against these people. Rod Taylor remains silent and without protest as these blanket characterizations of his fellow citizens goes on next to him and even appears to be heavily influenced by their tirades.

Taylor is running against incumbent Melissa Cribbins and anyone can do a search of this site to see the issues I’ve raised over the years which includes her acceptance of corporate and special interest campaign donations. Normally, if I don’t care for my ballot choices, I leave that race blank or write in a candidate. Over the years, however, and despite our differences I have found Cribbins open to discussion and generally helpful when I have questions of the county or board. Yes, I cast my ballot for Melissa and not just because I don’t want to see the commission invaded by extremists like Taylor.

Taylor has not responded to an email asking for clarification on the issues raised above including his definition of liberty but I will update this piece should I hear back from him.