Play - Or Pay - American Cop

badge

Some month’s back, I authored a column entitled “Cops and the Current Administration” (Jan/Feb 2012). It suggested supporting an administration, which frequently acts in a manner inconsistent with the US Constitution, is not in our profession’s best interests. I received a substantial amount of reader feedback … but no one argued my point. In fact, some of you claimed I should’ve been more forceful in my criticism. I believe in calling it as I see it, but only when my views are supported by verifiable facts.

There are some recent developments which clearly suggest, at least to me, the philosophy of the administration in power at the moment is to reward those who play ball with its politically correct agenda and to make those who fail to do so pay a price. Given the President’s pattern and practice of condemning law enforcement in situations where deadly force has to be used against certain minorities, it’s not inappropriate to conclude he is not a particular fan of men and women in blue — most radicals aren’t.

I don’t think it’s a misplaced criticism to suggest the administration, as perhaps best exemplified by the attitudes of DOJ and Homeland Security, really only tolerates law enforcement to the extent it furthers their greater agenda. When law enforcement has the gall to buck the liberal tide, the administration, in sometimes not so subtle ways, does its best to make life miserable for us. Let me provide several examples.

Not Fooling Anyone

Love him or hate him, Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has not played ball with the administration on the subject of border security, and the impact of illegal alien criminal behavior in his jurisdiction. The payback? The Maricopa Sheriff is subjected to DOJ investigations on multiple fronts.

Meanwhile, ample evidence suggests a DOJ investigation is warranted of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on issues ranging from allegations of prisoner abuse, corruption, granting of promotions for political support of command staff, and bidding irregularities relative to LASD aircraft. Allegations only, but sufficient in volume, scope and seriousness, and were it not for the politically correct ball playing by the LA County Sheriff, Leroy Baca, a DOJ investigation would be almost certain.

Across this nation there’s an effort, primarily by elected officials who share the President’s political philosophy, to negate the constitutional power and authority of the Office of Sheriff. There is no law enforcement official in our system with greater independence than our elected sheriffs. If one wants to control them, and what aspect of our government does this administration not want to control, the best way to accomplish that is to strip them of their authority. That is precisely what, in the state of Delaware and elsewhere, the political hacks of this administration are attempting to do.

Modern Day Robin Hood?

It’s no secret — control over as much as possible is what this regime is all about — and is particularly true when it comes to the environment. For those who’ve been paying attention, we bought into the bogus global warming garbage spewed by the UN. One of the effects of falling for it, at least in the western states, has been massive closures of national forests to public access. In addition, millions of acres have been decreed to now be wildlands (Goggle: Wildlands Project), and again, are closed to the public — the very public who owns the land.

What does this have to do with law enforcement? It’s simple; federal law enforcement agents must enforce such closures. Until recently, such agents lacked authority to enforce state and local laws unless they were appointed by the local sheriff to do so. Many of our western sheriffs, seeing the closure of public lands for what it is rather than what it’s purported to be, have refused to give federal agents such as Forest Service LEOs authority within their counties. The administration’s response through its minions at the state level? Emasculate the sheriffs by taking away their authority. It’s play or pay — the Chicago way of doing things, which Obama was brought up on and clearly favors.

Getting Furious Fast

The DOJ, who should be above reproach, is suspected of violating criminal statutes in the much-discussed “Fast and Furious” gunrunning debacle. For months congress has been investigating just who within DOJ gave the stamp of approval to this enforcement program. Rather than provide the documents subpoenaed by Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to comply, leaving them no choice but to hold “Contempt of Congress” deliberations.

And while the Obama administration demands cooperation from state, county and local entities, it refuses to cooperate when it is under investigation! President Obama even tried to shield Holder from the very real (and warranted) prospect of criminal prosecution by asserting executive privilege — the same privilege he chided his predecessors for using “when trying to hide behind executive privilege, every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place.”

We were promised “the most transparent administration in our nation’s history.” Really? It’s clear to me in the administration’s mind there’s one set of rules for it and an entirely different set of rules for everyone else.

I’m aware of at least one study underway which is attempting to determine just how much quid pro quo there is in the federal government today. That is, just what is the correlation between supporting the current administration through such things as not towing cars owned by illegal aliens (politically correct LAPD) and the receipt of federal grants? On the flip side, what’s the correlation between opposing the administration and being excluded from grant consideration? I have my suspicions, and will be watching closely for the results of the study.
By Jerry Boyd

The author may be contacted with comments or suggestions for future columns via [email protected]