Cops and the Obama Administration
Cops And The Current Administration
From American Cop Magazine by Jerry Boyd, December 7, 2011
I’ll state two things up front. One: I know this will not be well accepted by all who read it. Two: I have not written this without considerable thought, nor is it based upon partisan politics. I’ve always cast my vote for the one I believe to be most qualified for a particular office without regard to that person’s political party affiliation. Having said that, I don’t believe any ethical professional law enforcement officer can in good conscience support the current administration of this nation.
As law enforcement officers we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to enforce the law without prejudice. There are too many examples in which the facts make it clear the current administration, which should be held to a standard at least as high as us cops, has failed both to uphold the Constitution and to enforce existing laws. It’s almost inconceivable to me how those of us who’ve sworn to uphold certain standards can possibly support so-called leaders who’ve failed to do the same.
If the administration’s bias against law enforcement without making any effort to determine the facts was ever questioned, it’s only necessary to look at the Harvard professor vs. Cambridge, Mass. police sergeant incident and the reaction of the President, for an example. If you question my assertion this administration fails to uphold the law of the land, and, in some cases, blatantly violates those laws, look to the following.
In Your Face Proof
BATF’s “Operation Gunrunner” (aka “Fast and Furious”) clearly violated existing federal law regarding firearms sales. In this misguided, politically motivated operation the lives of many were, and still are, placed in jeopardy. As a result of this boondoggle, guns illegally trafficked into Mexico were used in the killing of a US federal law enforcement officer. Responsibility for this operation rests not with just one department of the federal government, but with the administration itself.
Clear and indisputable videotaped evidence showed voter intimidation (a violation of federal law) by a group of armed thugs. The “Justice Department” declined to prosecute in spite of clear evidence, and did so for blatantly political reasons. Decisions by the Attorney General directly reflect upon the administration, which he’s a part of.
Current federal law makes illegal entry into the US a crime. Illegal immigrants can be prosecuted for that crime or, at the very least, are to be deported. Congress has refused to pass the “Dream Act,” which was introduced to grant amnesty to many who are here illegally. The administration, in violation of the Constitution and in direct opposition to the separation of powers clause, has chosen to ignore the decision of Congress and promote “backdoor amnesty” by restricting deportation of illegals to only those with a criminal record. Supporting Evil Through Selfishness
If you accept my premise that no cop in good conscience can support, through their vote or their financial contributions, a regime engaging in such practices, you might wonder why some cops do exactly that. I think it’s because many LEOs are unionized and this administration, if nothing else, has maintained cozy relationships with unions since day one. Cops who put their own financial well being above their duty and their oath of office support unethical and, in some cases, questionably illegal actions by elected officials. Now more than ever before in our nation’s history, we in law enforcement have a major decision to make. Are we going to allow ourselves to be manipulated and used politically because we think by doing so we’ll benefit financially? Or are we going to stand on the principles that in the past have set our profession apart, in a positive way, from those whose only interest is drinking from the public trough?
It galls me to see men and women in uniform standing behind this President during one of his numerous public appearances, believing as I do they’re being used by one who really does not support the law enforcement mission. It’s one thing to be assigned to a presidential protection detail; it’s a legitimate and necessary activity. But to allow ourselves to be put on display by one who’s the classic Machiavellian politician is quite another.
Maybe we ought to rethink the question of whether supporting an administration, which has little respect for the rule of law, is really in our best interests, or, more importantly, the right thing to do.