Two news items, both from Oregon, and both dealing with the right and ability to defend yourself. Apparently, the fine folks in Oregon are intent on having you as defenseless as possible.

The first one is from a week or so back, and received scant attention before the Memorial Day Weekend. From CBSLocal.com:

An Oregon woman was told by a 911 dispatcher that authorities wouldn’t be able be able to help her as her ex-boyfriend broke into her place, because of budget cuts.

Oregon Public Radio reports that an unidentified woman called 911 during a weekend in August 2012 while Michael Bellah was breaking into her place. Her call was forwarded to Oregon State Police because of lay-offs at the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office only allows the department to be open Monday through Friday.

“Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there,” the 911 dispatcher told the woman. “You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, …can you ask him to go away?

Ridiculous.

The woman told the dispatcher that Bellah previously attacked her and left her hospitalized a few weeks prior to the latest incident. The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes, …before the sexual assault took place.

Ridiculous, …and incredibly tragic.

Police say Bellah choked the woman and sexually assaulted her. He was arrested by Oregon State Police following the incident.

“There isn’t a day that goes by that we don’t have another victim,” Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilberson told Oregon Public Radio. “If you don’t pay the bill, you don’t get the service.”

Ridiculous, tragic, and now …infuriating.

“If you don’t pay the bill…”? Who’s “you“? I’m guessing the Josephine county citizenry is paying its share of taxes, so what’s Gilberson really saying?

And how, pray tell, could Oregon’s sheriffs not have money in their budget to do their most basic of duties: you know, that whole “Protect and Serve” thing?

Oh, you’re just gonna’ LOVE the answer:

The sheriff’s department had to cut 23 deputies and the entire major crimes unit after it lost a multi-million dollar Federal subsidy, according to Oregon Public Radio. There are now only six deputies left.

The sheriff’s department even put out a press release warning domestic violence victims to “consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.”

And there’s the rub. Oregon had previously become dependent upon the largesse of the FEDERAL government to fund its sheriffs. When that FEDERAL funding dried up, they no longer had sufficient money to perform their only essential function.

This is a travesty, but completely typical of what happens when a state succumbs to the siren song of Federal funds. By offloading the cost for critical services, they voluntarily abdicated control to the Feds and utterly failed their constituents.

Mark my words: we’ll all see advice along the lines of “consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services” many more times going forward. Just change the “adequate law enforcement services” to “approved Health Care providers“: this will be the default response when Obamacare gets going.

Why wouldn’t it be? It’s the same situation, and it will ultimately result in the exact same response, for the exact same reasons.

—-

If your blood pressure isn’t up to ‘stroke’ level quite yet, try this on for size.

From Allahpundit over at HotAir:

Quote from Allah:

“Kinsella was jailed on four outstanding warrants, which include burglary and assault. Thompson’s now being booked on three charges himself: Unlawful use of a weapon, reckless endangerment, and menacing(!).

Why the local DA would invite the terrible PR involved in prosecuting a veteran for firing a harmless shot at a potentially dangerous criminal who was, apparently, behaving suspiciously on his property, I have no idea. You’d want to charge him if he had a history of firing unnecessarily at people; there’s nothing in any of the stories I’ve read to suggest that Thompson does.

Oregon, man…”

So let me understand: the state of Oregon has admitted that (A) it doesn’t have the ability to defend your safety or property, unless Uncle Sugar bumps up its weekly allowance, and (B) that it doesn’t want you to defend YOURSELF, either.

Huh? Does any of this sound like a coherent plan or strategy for a free and civil society?

To committed Statists, yeah, I’m pretty sure it does. To anyone else: not so much.

—–

When freedom-loving individuals say “Let’s Take Our Country Back!”, Statists and Leftists often snarkily retort “Take it Back from Whom?“, suggesting that those who espouse freedom are in favor of anarchy or a complete government overthrow.

Beyond being untrue, it misses the point entirely: Government is far too big and (simultaneously) far too ineffective. Taken a step further, the bigger we allow Government to get, the less effective Government becomes as a result.

The two examples above, from the very same state and within a week of each other, are exactly what is meant by “Take Our Country Back”. Towns, cities, counties, states and the Federal Government are working overtime to strip us of our safety and security, eviscerating our ability to live as free people.

And all the while, they’re accusing those people who are questioning this march along the Road To Serfdom of crimes against the state.

—–

A government and its leadership has a pretty simple choice: either protect the populace, or allow the populace to protect itself. By refusing to be responsible for the former, and attempting to criminalize the latter, those leaders (and their enablers) are forfeiting the trust that has been given to them up ’til now.

“Take Our Country Back” from whom, the Leftists and Statists ask?

The answer, of course, is take it back from them.