Selective Law Enforcement: Is It Just One More Nail in the Coffin?

September, 21, 2018

I’ve written about some of the very serious issues that currently threaten our democracy for well over a year. These issues are complex and in some cases quite overwhelming. These problems will most likely worsen over time if they are not addressed and resolved. In my opinion, the rift between the left and right is so severe that bipartisanship may not be possible. If the country is not able to come together and confront these issues, I fear we may not recognize the country that emerges.

One of the main problems that needs to be addressed is the Federal Budget. We have gotten into the very dangerous habit of hyper deficit spending. Currently our national debt stands at roughly $22T and is projected to grow at an increasing rate. This massive amount of debt seriously threatens the financial well-being of the country and even its very existence. High-ranking members of our military have called our debt situation the single most serious threat to our national security. This issue, by itself, could be our undoing.

Another issue that will have to be dealt with is our trade relationship with China. Our trade relationship with the Chinese is heavily weighted in their favor. President Trump is currently trying to rectify the imbalance by leveling the playing field. If he and his team are unable to reach an acceptable compromise, it would be in our best interest to develop other markets and sources of supply while reducing trade with China as much as possible. Because a portion of every dollar China makes off of trade with the US goes to build up and improve their military, I would be in favor of cutting off trade with China altogether. Who in their right mind would help their own most dangerous adversary become stronger militarily. There could very well be a military confrontation between the US and China in the future, so it makes no sense to help the Chinese build up their military with our money.

The war on terror of—which seems to be in a lull here in the US—is alive and well in other parts of the world. ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and in parts of Africa. With the power of the internet, these groups are able to influence and persuade weak-minded followers to commit acts of terror here and in Europe. This will be a generational war and it will need to be dealt with from time to time.

Although the aforementioned issues are significant and are being dealt with to some degree every day, I would like to discuss the issue of Selective Law Enforcement. Here in the United States there are basic precepts built into our legal system. For example, we are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. Another basic legal precept is that the law is supposed to be administered equally and fairly. This is why one of the symbols of our legal system is a blindfolded lady holding a set of scales in her hand. This symbol represents blind justice. I could go on with examples, but I trust my point has been made: The legal system in the US is without equal. Period.

Selective law enforcement was bad enough when it occurred at the local level of government. Local town sheriffs and big city police have been known to purposely plant evidence or misplace evidence in an effort to help the case of one side or the other. Fortunately, this type of activity is rare in today’s police departments, but years ago I think it was more prevalent.

Our country is now experiencing examples of selective law enforcement at the highest of the federal government. Ever since I was a child, which was a long time ago, I heard nothing but praise for the work and the professionalism of the FBI. Except for the petty retribution of J Edgar Hoover, the reputation of the FBI has been spotless. It has been called the premier law enforcement agency in the world. In the last two years the public has become aware of possible, even probable, corruption and bias in the FBI and DOJ. These allegations are currently being investigated by the Judiciary Committees of both the House and the Senate. There are high-ranking people in the FBI and the DOJ who have been implicated in this activity. Approximately twenty off these people have resigned, been demoted or been fired. Some of these same people are under criminal investigation and may be indicted. These people have allowed their political bias to affect their work performance—and in one case a fraud may have been committed on the FISA court. The investigation is ongoing and hopefully will continue until the entire truth is revealed.

In recent months words such as “obstruction,” “slow walking,” and “stone-walling” have been in the news, almost on a daily basis. This wouldn’t be a major revelation if not for fact that it’s the FBI and DOJ doing the obstructing. I believe this to be a form of selective law enforcement. These agencies honor requests from congress for documents when it suits their purpose and ignores congress when it doesn’t. This is selective law enforcement.

 A Special Prosecutor was named to investigate the Trump Campaign for possible Russian Collusion. For eighteen months Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating these claims at a cost of $25M to $30M. So far, they have found absolutely no evidence of collusion with the Russians.

There have been people associated with the Trump Campaign who have pled guilty to process crimes, such as lying to investigators. There have also been convictions of other people associated with the Trump Campaign for crimes totally unrelated to Russian collusion. Some of the crimes were committed in 2005, long before Donald Trump ever thought of running for President. These prosecutions were initiated to get these defendants to flip and turn against people above them. There is, thus far, nothing that connects anybody related to the Trump Campaign to anything other than Russian dressing.

 In one case General Michael Flynn, a decorated soldier, who has served his country for over thirty years, was charged with lying to investigators. He was charged even though those who interviewed him were not of the opinion that General Flynn was trying to deceive them. He was put in a situation where he was forced to either plead guilty or lose his home and go bankrupt paying legal fees. In another major arrest, a young staffer (who I believe was unpaid) was also charged with lying to investigators. This young man also pleaded guilty, probably for the same reasons as General Flynn, and was recently sentenced to fourteen days in prison. It probably cost taxpayers four or five hundred thousand dollars to get this conviction. Really? Is it any wonder that this country is $22T in debt?

It is currently against the law for anyone to enter the country illegally. That said, why did President Obama change the enforcement of this law to “catch and release”? The enforcement procedure for this federal law was changed to allow illegals to stay in our country. They are then given an appearance ticket which orders them to appear before an immigration judge and have their cases heard. This “catch and release” policy is nothing short of legal subversion of the law.

To make matters worse, there are cities, and some states, that have declared themselves areas of sanctuary for illegals. Being a sanctuary city or state means that these government entities will not assist federal authorities in apprehending illegals, even those who have open federal warrants pending. Some government officials in these areas have actually alerted illegal immigrants that ICE was coming into their jurisdiction. That sure sounds like obstruction to me. In some cases, illegals with open federal warrants have been purposely released by local authorities in spite of the fact that ICE had requested that those people be held. These illegals have committed violent crimes such as murder and rape against American citizens. Some of these crimes were committed by these illegals after they were released by local authorities. This means that American citizens have been killed by illegal immigrants who should not have even been on the street.

The Clintons (with the possible exception of Chelsea) have been accused of just about everything from rape and sexual abuse to mishandling classified government documents. Some of these accusations go back as far as the 1980s. Specifically, Bill Clinton has been accused of rape and sexual abuse by several women. Where was the outrage of the Democratic Party when these allegations were made? Why did senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Leahy and Schumer say nothing about this? The reason is that this is selective law enforcement based on political affiliation, plain and simple.

In 2012 Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State during the first term of the Obama Administration. Her entire tenure as head of the State Department was for the most part unremarkable. The Benghazi affair which cost the lives of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens—is on her head. Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security for the embassy and other consulate locations. His request, to the best of my knowledge, was unanswered. Instead, spokespeople for the administration made up a false narrative which stated that the attack was in response to an anti-Muslim movie, a story which turned out to be totally bogus. It was a “cover your ass response” by the administration. Too bad everybody forgot to cover the asses of Chris Stevens and the three other Americans who died.

In addition to Benghazi, there was also her decision to install a private email server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. This server sent and received State Department emails, some of which were classified or highly classified. My understanding of a highly classified document would be defined as “top secret or above top secret.” There were no denials or excuses given by Mrs. Clinton. This happened. It is widely believed that the server, which did not have proper State Department safeguards, was hacked, possibly on more than one occasion. Mishandling of classified government documents is a federal crime; it is a felony. Mishandling of thousands of government emails is a lot of felonies. Yet, to date, Mrs. Clinton has neither been charged with a crime or investigated. I would consider this to be blatant selective law enforcement.

In 2017 there were several violent protests at UC Berkeley and on other college campuses as well. On February 1, 2017 a protest was organized at UC Berkeley to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative columnist and speaker, from giving a planned speech. The video of the protest was then played on various news channels all day. I repeatedly saw protesters dressed in black with their faces covered. This is called the “black box tactic.” Over the course of the video I saw these black box protesters breaking windows and glass doors with what looked like baseball bats. One of the most zealous of these protesters was a young woman of rather small stature who was wielding her baseball bat in an almost fanatical manner.

Another observation that I made was that the crowd that had gathered to watch this destruction seemed like they were just along for the ride. I would go even further and say that most of these observers wouldn’t be able to tell you who Milo Yiannopoulos was or argue intelligently about what Mr. Yiannopoulos was there to say—let alone his constitutional right to say it.

The video also showed that police officers there were acting only as observers. I don’t know how many police were there, nor do I know if these officers were campus police or Berkeley municipal police. They stood by watching the entire so-called protest, as illegal and destructive as it was. I would also consider this to be selective law enforcement. Campus property was destroyed and the police did nothing to stop it. Remember the old police motto, “To serve and protect?” That motto was completely ignored. Were any of these vandals ever held accountable? What is the point of paying a police department if they fail to engage when a crime is being committed? I would be willing to bet that if the homes of these local police were vandalized, there would have been a very different response.

Another egregious example of selective law enforcement was the biased treatment of Tea Party Advocates and other conservative-leaning groups who were applying to the IRS for tax exempt status. These groups applied for tax exempt status through the Exempt Organization Division of the IRS. This department was headed by Lois Lerner. These organizations were turned down, not because they failed to meet the requirements for this status, but because they were known to be conservative-leaning groups. There were several lawsuits brought against the US government, specifically the IRS, alleging bias treatment by Lois Lerner and her staff. Lois Lerner was the Director of the Exempt Organization Division at the time. It was her job to approve or disapprove requests for tax exempt status. It eventually became common knowledge that these requests for tax exempt status were being denied, out of hand, based on the political leanings of the applicants. As is the case with other types of illegal or unfair behavior, the longer this kind of activity goes on the more likely it is that it will be exposed. Lawsuits were filed against the government and millions in damages were awarded. How does it benefit the American taxpayer when millions of tax dollars go to awarding damages to citizens who were treated unfairly by government employees?

Ms. Lerner was summoned to appear before a congressional committee to testify. When she was questioned her attorney advised her to plead the fifth amendment. There was something not quite legal with the way she made her plea. She was held in contempt of congress and her case was referred to the Obama Justice Department for prosecution. The DOJ refused to prosecute. Is that a shocker or what? Does the issuance of tax exempt status based on political affiliation sound like selective law enforcement to you? Rather than being dismissed from her job, Ms. Lerner decided to retire and collect her government pension. The US taxpayer really took it on the chin in this case.

For the last eighteen months the American public has been subjected to an onslaught of political excrement, the likes of which I have never seen in my seventy years on this planet. During this time the country has had to endure this politically motivated investigation into allegations of Russian collusion by the Trump Campaign. This premeditated, well-planned and well-coordinated scheme has cost the American taxpayer between $25M and $30M. In addition, this bogus investigation has divided this nation in a way not seen since the Vietnam War. To date, not one iota of actual evidence showing collusion has been made public. This, in spite of the efforts of the Mueller Investigation and every liberal minded journalist in the entire world and beyond. This entire affair was the product of a fake narrative made up by high-ranking officials in the DOJ and the FBI. In addition, the so-called evidence presented to the FISA court was bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). When this biased “witch hunt” finally comes to an end with nothing more than a $30M price tag, I’m sure the Democrats will come up with some other false narrative to further undermine this duly elected President of the United States.

During the past eight years the Democrats had the President’s ear. When President Obama left office, they lost their claim on power. They had lost both the House and the Senate and now with the election of President Trump they also lost the White House. At this point it became too difficult and way too much work and effort to negotiate with the Republicans. Regardless of the fact that they had lost both the executive branch and the legislative branch, the Democrats wanted their way. That’s not the way it works in America. They got spoiled and they got lazy and they lost. Boy, I bet they miss the good ole days when you could sidestep the constitution and Barack Obama was the self-proclaimed king. Having his DOJ not enforce laws currently on the books or write executive orders (some of which were subsequently thrown out by the courts) was just another way of engaging in selective law enforcement.

Remember the good ole days when entire industries were harassed by the government almost to the point of non-existence? Yes, the good ole days when landowners were told by unelected bureaucrats what they could and could not do with their own property. The good ole days when the IRS could enforce its regulations based on political affiliation. The good ole days when the DOJ under Eric Holder and the FBI were weaponized “for the public good.” Ah yes, this takes me back. It doesn’t get any better than the days of biased, politically motivated law enforcement. This reminds of the old Soviet Union or fascist Germany—the good ole days.

Selective law enforcement is one of the most serious and dangerous domestic threats facing the country today. It has the ability to undermine the public trust in its government and also its legal system. This is not acceptable in a country that holds law and order so dear.

Since the US became a sovereign nation there have been many basic legal precepts that have defined the very foundations of our legal system. One such precept is that “justice is blind.” This means that the law is unbiased, non-political and without regard for race, color or creed. As citizens, we are entitled to fair treatment and due process under the law. Another such precept, which is currently in the news, is that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. These fundamental rules are the foundation of our legal system. Every one of these basic precepts are under attack by the radical Left. You only need listen to Democratic senators such as Blumenthal, Booker, Harris, Whitehouse and Schmer to hear them attack the basic legal rights afforded every citizen by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Regardless of what you think personally about a candidate or a nominee for public office, they are entitled to the above-mentioned basic rights guaranteed by our legal system.

We seem to be at a crossroads. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle better give serious thought to what they say publicly and to the actions they tell their constituents to take. They may want to think about their failure to condemn violent protesters because they happen to be of the same political persuasion as they are. Some of these violent protests are full-blown riots and still there is no condemnation. Property is destroyed, businesses are burned,  and people—including police—are hurt. Any elected official who supports violence or tells their constituents to act out or harass people of another political party should be careful what they wish for. Some people do not take kindly to being harassed and may retaliate. What I’m saying is that someone might get seriously hurt and at least part of the blame would be on the head of the elected official who suggested this type of action.

We need to decide whether we want a lawful, stable, and peaceful society or whether we prefer anarchy. Do we want to maintain equal justice or do we not? We will either live by the legal precepts set down by the founding fathers or we will not. We will either be a free, law-abiding, and thriving country or we will descend into anarchy. We had better make the right choice. For those of you who don’t like the system of government that we have, I can absolutely guarantee that if we as a country are not able to resolve our differences, the system of government that emerges will be even less to your liking.