• Defending Democrats–Well, Sort of

    Hold on to your hats. I’m going to defend Democrats. This may seem a bit odd coming from me, especially only days after Hillary Clinton suffered such a stunning defeat. I consider the defeat well deserved, if for nothing else, for her part in what four Americans suffered in Bengazi. Her myriad other alleged crimes may be illegal and unethical, but what happened in Bengazi appears to have been immoral. As they say, time will tell.

    Of those she’s been accused of, I don’t know what crimes she’s actually committed or policies she’s violated. She’s an American entitled to due process. However, just the amount of information that she and President Obama still haven’t released regarding the attack on the Bengazi consulate staggers credulity. We still don’t even know what Clinton and Obama were doing during much of the Bengazi attack. This reality is not fabricated by her detractors; this empirical information exists, but for some strange reason remains unanswered.

    Where I’ll defend the Democrats is against the hypocritical radicals protesting President-elect Trump’s election because their side didn’t win (Waaaaahhhhh!). I can easily imagine what those civic-minded protesters would be saying about political right people if they dared to protest Hillary had she won. It’s only academic, anyway, as the right doesn’t hit the streets in wild-eyed protests. The right would simply have prepared for the end, having made an unconscious, collective mass suicide pact in case she won! Well, at least we wouldn’t have watched the news for a few months, after which strongly worded editorials would begin to appear in the nation’s newspapers. The right sucks at disrupting society—and, that’s a good thing.

    But seriously, those violent protesters aren’t Democrats. Some of their political desires just happen to intersect with Democrats rather than Republicans. It’s similar to why some of the ultra-right groups’ wishes run tangent to some Republican causes. For example, Democrats tend to want open borders; Republicans want strict control of our borders. It’s not surprising that those on the extreme right, who’d prefer only certain white immigration, would prefer the party opposed to open borders.

    As much as I have a problem with the modern Democrat Party, even President Obama, Senators Warren and Sanders, and Secretary Clinton were magnanimous in defeat and showed patriotism with their statements of concession and congratulations to Mr. Trump. What was in their hearts, I can’t know. But I can appreciate the outward demonstration of respect for our electoral system they conveyed.

    The Trump protesters would have you believe that they are ordinary, mainstream Democrats who are fed up with an oppressive system and were impelled to get off their couches and hit the streets in defense of democratic ideals against a xenophobic tyrant. Yeah, right! These are perennial malcontents. And, unfortunately, statements by Democrats such as President Obama and Secretary Clinton, calling Trump a racist, misogynist, generally a hater, and associating him with the KKK, can’t help but enflame and legitimize the rioters. Hell, if Trump truly were everything the left says of him, I might be out protesting too. Problem is, he didn’t become these things in all the decades he’s been in the public eye. He only became a “degenerate racist womanizer” after he began running for president.   

    The protesters are perennial agitators for whatever cause comes down the left wing pike. They are Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists who clambered out of their parent’s basements, shook off the pot induced fog, grabbed an appropriate sign and mask, and then slithered into the protest pit with the rest of the anti-social vipers. These are poisonous people who are not simply on the other side of political issues; they want nothing less than to bring America down so they can start over in creating their own warped version of America. Imagine what that Utopia would look like.

    I actually feel bad for true, “old-school” Democrats for what their leaders have done by dragging their party so far left. When I was a kid, adults I knew, Republican and Democrat, revered JFK. Today, the Democrat Party would be unrecognizable to President Kennedy. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll do what the Republicans just did. Go outside the establishment for leadership.

    Oh, wait. They tried that with Senator Sanders. But the Democrat Party establishment, especially Hillary Clinton, slapped Bernie down like he was a peasant attempting to rise above his “station.” The sad thing is, Bernie helped them do it. Where was he in the final weeks? Throwing flaccid support to Hillary here and there, leaving his supporters grasping air where there was once substance.

    Though he is a socialist, a belief I abhor, the Vermont senator was honest and was not establishment—well, until he knuckled under to them at the expense of people who believed in him. What did they promise him? Doesn’t matter, now. It’s a promise they won’t be able to deliver. What a disappointment for Democrats looking for change that he let you all down. Democrats should have stuck with Bernie the way Republicans stuck with Trump. Fortunately, Trump didn’t abandon his followers—and that seems to have made the difference.   

  • Myth Affects Cops

    I went to a retirement party the other night for one of the best cops I’ve ever known. The term legendary came up many times during the evening. Most of the stories we told about him were great fun to tell, but it was something he said during his speech that struck me.

    After acknowledging “going out while still vertical,” he said, “I make no apologies for being a cop. I am not ashamed of being a police officer. I am proud of my career.”

    What a sorry state for American law enforcement that a cop like him felt it necessary to say this. The room was full of cops, friends, and family. Yet, the mood of the nation (as expressed by anti-police factions) descended on the celebration.

    As an officer and a sergeant, this man served his community for over three decades. Nearly all of it was in patrol where most police work is done. Sadly, there are people who couldn’t care less about this man’s service and dedication.

    Those people work hard to perpetuate the myth that the cops are “broken,” so they can destroy what cops work hard to build–safe communities.

    The cop haters should be the ones making apologies and feeling ashamed, not the cops.

  • Supreme Court Selections Matter

    Been busy with a manuscript lately but not too busy to respond to the importance of the Supreme Court nomination(s), riding on this election. Seems the split in the Court between conservative and liberal has never been clearer.

    There is a California case involving teachers’ union dues being collected from members which is then used to support political “speech” with which some members disagree. The Court, absent Justice Scalia, split on the case, sending it back to the 9th Circuit, which had ruled in the union’s favor.

    Sitting on a bar stool, around a picnic table, or at supper with family, how many people do you think would support the government taking money from people and using it to promote political positions they don’t agree with?

    With ordinary citizens, Republicans, Democrats, indeed libertarians, nearly no one would agree with this notion.

    Nevertheless, the Court is currently split on the issue. At this august, judicial supper table, 50% of the eight people see nothing wrong with the government using a person’s hard-earned income to pay for political “speech” they oppose—in this case, left wing speech.

    Conversely, thankfully, the other four justices, like most fair-minded people, know the idea of subverting free speech rights through the confiscation of Americans’ money is just what it sounds like—at best corrupt, at worst, theft! 

  • Gun Buyer Background Checks and Gun Registration Are Not the Same–Not At All!

    Police and libertarian issues

    With the increase in news reports, I’ve been writing a lot about gun issues, lately. When I write about firearms/gun rights it’s under two headings: one, as a police issue. The cops will not be there to protect you. If you are ever in a position to need a gun, you will have seconds to act while the cops won’t be there for minutes. This is also a libertarian issue. Put succinctly, the Second Amendment.

    Does Bill O’Reilly support gun registration?

    Last night on FOX News’, The O’Reilly Factor, I heard Bill say people should use “common sense” when it comes to “gun registration” while he was delivering “Talking Points” about background checks. He mentioned people drive and have to register their cars, as if cars and guns are similar. Americans aren’t under the threat of liberals wishing to confiscate their cars (well, maybe SUVs).

    Registration and background check are not the same thing

    I hope Bill isn’t conflating firearms purchaser background checks with gun registration—they are very different issues. I hope he understands that, if gun dealer checks my background, I check out okay, and then I purchase my firearm, that should be the end of the transaction. That weapon then belongs to me to do with, legally, what I will. If that means giving the gun as a gift to a family member or friend, that is my business as a law-abiding American.

    Gun registration provides government the tools for confiscation

    However, if I am made to register my gun, to let the government know what guns I have, how many I have, and where I live, in the unlikely (but, still far too likely for comfort, these days) event that our government descends into further liberal lunacy, this would allow the government to have everything it needs to try to take my guns or to prosecute me if I no longer have them.

    A guard against government tyranny

    Our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to guard against government tyranny. If this is the case, and we know it is, who could think that registering guns with the very government guns are kept to defend against makes any sense?

     

     

  • Obama’s Second Amendment Steam-Roller Continues

    Every morning, it seems I awake to more rights violated

    There exists a great deal of angst regarding President Obama’s latest attempt to circumvent Congress. I’m among those. It’s not as if the executive order will be all that far-ranging, but it’s yet another step that affects law-abiding gun owners and not criminals. I’m tired of getting up every morning wondering what other of my rights this progressive government is trampling. Still, some of the “gun violence” measures the President is “invoking” will need congressional approval, as they require funding, in order to take effect.

    Strong support for background checks

    The increased background checks portion is an interesting one. On its face, of course, background checks are important when done within reason. Anti-gun pundits and some pro-gun folks, for that matter, have been citing strong support in the polls for background checks.

    Trends shift with more information

    But, here’s the interesting part: More often than not, after Americans become familiar with the nuances of such a law, policy, or, in this case, executive order, the trend in favor tends to shift toward the other side of the argument.

    Background check before transferring gun to close family member

    For example, once people find out that the background check mandate could apply to a father giving a gun as a birthday gift to his son—with an additional sixty or more dollars plus the time involved, people begin to see how onerous—and useless—such regulations can be. Criminals won’t comply, only the law-abiding will.

    Professor Nicholas Johnson writes it like it is in the WSJ

    Today in the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University, puts the situation into perspective in his column, “A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction.” Essentially, with his executive order, President Obama is expanding the definition of “gun dealer.” Now, a person who sells a few as one gun could be mandated to obtain a federal license (government permission) or wind up in federal prison.

    This has been shown a failure in the past

    Johnson explains this was the original result of progressive gun legislation back in the 1960s–to license more gun-selling Americans. Initially, the progressives praised it as a success. However, in the end, the law was a failure (ineffective for the purpose intended) because, the progressives posited, it resulted in “too many” FFLs issued in America. In the 1990s, under President Clinton, the policy was reversed and FFLs fell by 79% between 1994 and 2007. Humorously, the progressives, now, saw this reversal as a success. What’s that definition of insanity, again?

    Moving furniture…

    Now, here goes President Obama, as Johnson writes, “…moving the furniture around again.” This is a perfect demonstration of the “do-something” disease meant to politically placate the easily placated. People on the left who just want to hear pretty words designed to pacify but that will accomplish nothing in reality except to burden honest American gun owners.

    Finally, the President shows emotion

    The President, now, famously, came to tears over this issue. I won’t question his sincerity. A madman shooting little schoolchildren should make all of us shudder to our cores. However, when I think of his emotionless speeches regarding so many other issues, also highly emotional for Americans, such as about people whose lives have been snatched away by Islamist terrorists, by the most brutal methods imaginable, it just leaves me baffled.

     

     

     

  • A Chief of Police or a Chief of Mayor?

    Does a chasm exists between cops and their chiefs?

    Could a problem in policing today be the gaping chasm that seems to exist between many American police chiefs and their rank and file cops. The position is known as Chief of Police. However, it seems a mayor appointing a person to the office, instead, expects him or her to be the Chief of Mayor. Sheriffs, who are directly elected, may have similar problems depending on the politics of the electorate, but at least they run their own departments.

     

    Alchemy in achievement.

    Police chiefs rise through the ranks either within their departments or are appointed by mayors of other departments to serve as their top cop. These chiefs are usually good people, but many are also, evidently, politically malleable (i.e., the ladder seems to lean to the left as they climb it). Could the philosophical and political separation between cops and their chief come from the alchemy that occurs within some people who rise through the ranks? Sadly, many succumb to the adage: go along to get along. There may be a necessary professional distance that exists between employees and their bosses, generally. However, law enforcement, being a risk-laden, paramilitary organization, poses additional considerations, and trust and loyalty in both directions is crucial.

     

    Conservative cops vs. Liberal leaders.

    It’s no secret that the vast majority of street cops tend to be politically conservative. It is also no mystery that the people running cities such as Seattle are liberal, have oodles of leftist-sanctioned diversity, but scant political diversity. So, what happens when it’s time for the liberal city leadership to choose a chief of police to “lead” its police officers?

     

    The selection process.

    We cops used to parody Seattle’s police chief selection process. We could imagine the mayor meeting the police chief candidates at SeaTac Airport and requesting the candidate hand over his or her ______ (balls for men and, for women, the female equivalent) before then being pre-qualified to be invited to city hall for the formal interview. The city employs a ruse that the rank and file has a “vote” because the Police Officers Guild interviews the candidates and makes recommendations. However, in reality, the guild leadership essentially has to choose among candidates who range from politically left to, far left to, have left the building.

     

    Chief of the cops?

    There hasn’t been Chief of “Police” in Seattle for a long time—probably since Patrick Fitzsimons (the chief who hired me). Coming from the NYPD, many officers may have had legitimate issues with Chief Fitzsimons, but there was no doubt he was the Chief. I often saw Fitzsimons visit the precinct–and pound his knuckles on officer’s chests to make sure they were wearing their ballistic vests. To the contrary, even if I were missing three fingers, I could count on one hand how many times I saw Chiefs Stamper, Kerlikowske or Diaz in a precinct roll call during either of their tenures. How should patrol officers feel knowing they will never work for a chief they can trust—someone they could follow with confidence. The truth is, the mayor and city council will never appoint a chief who the rank and file approves of, because city leaders have never seemed very interested in the cops’ perspective (just shut up and be good little socialists, as a certain officer once put it).

     

    Chief of Police or Chief of Mayor?

    Does this mean the rank and file won’t give a new police chief the benefit of the doubt? Of course not. We gave it to Chief Norm Stamper, R. Gil Kerlikowske, John Diaz (in whom we had the most hope, because he came from us) and most recently, to Kathleen O’Toole. Still, while all of these chiefs, from a patrol officer’s perspective, made good and bad moves, officers were mostly disappointed after these chiefs seem to have been (or are a) puppet(s) of the municipal handlers, more concerned with following political protocols than with truly leading police officers. While a chief, ostensibly, has authority over his or her officers, should we have to wonder who actually runs the police department in Seattle? Shouldn’t it be an apolitical (as much as possible) chief of police? If Seattle weren’t lead by its liberal elite, its police department might not have become the petri dish for liberal, social justice experimentation that it is today. And it would have a Chief of Police, not a Chief of Mayor.

  • Teach Victimhood, gets Victims; Teach Responsibility, get…

    What’s going on today on America’s college campuses? Students are shouting (I’m talking, screaming invective-laden screeds that would make a banshee blush) down professors who dare to express something other than radical, liberal orthodoxy. A professor—of media studies, no less—soliciting “muscle” to help her eject a reporter attempting to cover a race relations gathering on public property (she must have missed the free speech day in grad school). These liberal bastions (did you think I was going to use another word?) are now reaping what they have sown. It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad. Check out the U.K. Daily Mail article.

    If our colleges and university professors teach young, impressionable students that they are victims of a fundamentally “bad” nation, students will look for what’s wrong with America, and then discover how best to express their victimhood. Hmmmm, who could have ever seen this coming?

    What would happen if, instead, professors taught students that they are not victims and encouraged them to take responsibility for their own success?

    Well, since teaching victimhood creates victims, perhaps, teaching responsibility might create responsible people. Hmmmm, just a thought.

  • Border Patrol Pauses to Reflect on Police Body Cameras

    Is it time to pause and reflect about police video?

    It appears the U.S. Border Patrol has provided American law enforcement legitimate cause to pause and reflect on the use of police video, particularly, body cameras. I mentioned in a previous blog that a barista berated a friend of mine, still an active duty cop, for daring to answer another barista’s question about police body cameras by telling her the truth regarding arguments for and against police body cameras. During the rude barista’s tirade, she said, “I’d rather be filmed naked than let you cops get away with what you do.” I don’t think we have to decipher her open-mindedness on the issue. What happens when officers enter an innocent residence in error or while chasing a suspect on foot? (Yes, this happens) What happens when those people are caught on camera in legal, but compromising, situations? That footage is still open to public disclosure. Would you also rather be filmed naked, and then viewed by strangers–perhaps, a lot of them?

    U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

    Despite the barista’s neurotic fears, and acknowledging the pros, there are also legitimate cons regarding law enforcement officers wearing body cameras. Recently, on www.PoliceOne.com, an Associated Press article written by Elliot Spagat reported that the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection is recommending against the use of body cameras (US border agency staff rejects body cameras). The reasons cited were refreshingly “old school,” as the reasons reflect the concerns of cops as human beings. And, I’m saying this despite numerous officers being exonerated of wrongdoing due to vehicle and body camera footage. Still, the objections are valid and should be considered.

    A distraction and morale suffers.

    According to the article, “The yearlong review cited cost and a host of other reasons to hold off, according to two people familiar with the findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings have not been made public. It found operating cameras may distract agents while they’re performing their jobs, may hurt employee morale….” They also cited difficulties with the hot, dry weather conditions for agents stationed on the southwest border experience.

    Training

    The training many officers initially received on dash cam videos demonstrated that many officers concerns are valid. I remember attending in-car video training several years ago. One of the issues of concern instructors attempted to dispel immediately was that administrators and supervisors would proactively cull videos for use in disciplining or even retaliating against officers. Our instructor assured us videos would never be used in “fishing” expeditions against officers. Every officer in the class snickered with skepticism. Talk to any officer today, and you’ll find evidence that vindicates the skeptics.

    Video “fishing expeditions”

    Prior to the Department of Justice (DOJ) arriving in Seattle and presenting their bogus investigation findings, Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) investigations were relatively infrequent with some officers having gone without receiving a white envelope with a red stamp in their department mailboxes for years. I went nineteen years, all on the streets in patrol, without being a “suspect” officer in an investigation before the DOJ consent decree debacle. Following DOJ’s arrival I was investigated several times, mostly from internal, department initiated charges. Today, it is rare to find any officer who hasn’t been under investigation for some alleged violation. And video is often the weapon used to find these allegations.

    Now, even examples of police excellence are often questioned

    An example: Before I retired I was involved in what would normally be viewed as an exceptional example of great police work. Several units responded to a report of a knife-wielding suspect threatening a gas station owner. On arrival we determined that not only had the suspect threatened the store owner  with a knife, he’d also punched her. We arrested him, recovered a knife as well as items that indicated the suspect may have been posing as a police officer (though not during this incident).

    After receiving information from the primary investigating officer, we arrested the suspect. After the arrest, while waiting for the primary officer to gain additional information from the victims, one of the officers determined the suspect’s vehicle would be impounded, as it was blocking access to the gas pump island. Prior to a tow truck arriving to hook the car, officers routinely inspect the car’s interior and trunk to be sure there is nothing hazardous in the vehicle. In fact, policies and procedures at the time dictated officers do this. One officer did this.

    From my location, I could see a cardboard box, a piece of rope and maybe some other innocuous items within the trunk—essentially nothing of note. So innocuous, later, I barely recalled that portion of the incident. Subsequent to the inspection, the suspect’s sister arrived at the scene. The suspect requested his sister take possession of the car rather than it being impounded. The officer who’d inspected the trunk cancelled the tow truck and allowed the sister to take the car.

    Recap: We’d arrived in time to stop any further assault against the victim and arrested the armed suspect, confiscating a knife from him. Great police work, right? Commendations all around, right? Not post-DOJ. Resulting from this investigation, every officer present was investigated for alleged wrongdoing.

    The suspect–yeah, the guy who’d assaulted a poor business owner, punched her and threatened her with a knife–filed a complaint contending the officers had conducted an unlawful search of his car’s trunk. Due to the fact that the suspect’s sister was allowed to take the car—by officers at the scene, it was no longer an “impound” therefore investigators determined that the inspection of the trunk was illegal. OPA investigated we three officers for an “illegal” search. Despite only one officer having physically inspected the trunk, they also investigated the other two officers: the primary officer, who was inside the store interviewing the victim and witnesses, and me, standing by with the prisoner in the parking lot. Apparently, they investigated us simply for being on the property at the time the vehicle inspection occurred.

    The officer who inspected the trunk was sanctioned for conducting an “illegal” search, and the primary officer and I were eventually “cleared” but were referred to our supervisors for further “training.” Training in what? How to stand inside a store or in a parking lot while another officer peeks into the trunk of a car?

    Cameras

    This is where the camera issue comes back into play. In training, we were all taught some basic protocols. One was that sometimes the vehicle camera direction simply wouldn’t be pointed at where the “action” is occurring. After all, Steven Spielberg isn’t on scene directing this stuff. On arrival at an incident where a suspect has assaulted a victim and is armed with a knife, officers are not concerned with where their cameras are aimed, only their guns. Another protocol taught was if there is no audio to go with the video, there is no video. On arrival, my car happened to be pointed toward the west exterior wall of the store. The incident was taking place in the parking lot on the north side and the suspect’s car was at the west fueling island. When I arrived, I parked, jumped out of my car and ran to assist the other officer in taking the armed suspect into custody.

    Due to the parking lot configuration, the other officers’ vehicles were also facing directions not where the arrest was taking place (suspects and victims rarely stand still). In this instance, because the audio was not married to the video, officers were taught video was not required.

    Still, each one of us was investigated for not activating our video cameras during the incident. Having done great police work, protected a victim and arrested an armed suspect, my two fellow officers were officially sanctioned for not having their cameras activated during the incident. I only ducked the same fate because, during my transport of the prisoner to the precinct, I had activated my camera, videotaping the suspect in my backseat. Therefore, I actually had video of at least a portion of the incident recorded–a technicality. How I actually remembered to turn the camera on at all is a mystery to me. We were all still getting used to something very new to us.

    Let reason, not emotion,inform policy

    The Border Patrol’s findings give us a valid reason to pause and take a hard look at both the benefits and liabilities of these developing technologies and how best to deploy them without neglecting the humanity of those required to wear them. I wonder: would the politicians so interested in cops wearing body cameras be interested in wearing them too. After all, they are public servants.

     

  • Workers Need the Rich to Buy Limos, Yachts and Mansions

    Anti-capitalism seems all the rage. Malcontents in many cities throughout the world recently held demonstrations, including here in Seattle. Amusingly, in the Jet City, the police tasked with escorting the protesters outnumbered them, as they attempted to express their First Amendment “rights” by blocking Seattleites pursuits of happiness. For the left it was business as usual; it seems nothing is more important than what they believe.

    It’s nearly impossible to imagine what, besides time and experience, could get through those granite noggins. The fact—yes, fact—that free market capitalism has made the world a much better place than the one it found on its arrival in the arsenal of American Exceptionalism, is undeniable. However, it’s also no mystery that these perennial protesters deny the undeniable. Logic seems to play a small role, if any, in their thinking and actions.

    The anarchists, the socialists, the communists and the ignorant whine about the so-called “One Percent.” They ask derisively, how many jets, houses or yachts a rich person should have? I have two answers to that. One: as many as they want and can afford—it’s their money! Two: Hopefully, as many as possible. The second answer comes from all the aviation, marine and housing laborers who are responsible for putting food on their tables and keeping roofs over their heads.

    The white-collar one-percent don’t physically build the cars; their blue-collar employees do. For every limousine, private jet or mansion built, companies need skilled and unskilled laborers to build them. Try making a list tracking all the hands involved in the manufacture of these products. General contractors, subcontractors, and designers; mechanics, carpenters, and bricklayers; stone masons, electricians, and plumbers; painters, landscapers, and gardeners; pilots, drivers, captains and crews; architects, accountants, and insurance agents and on and on. And this is just off the top of my head and not nearly a complete list. It doesn’t include the myriad ancillary businesses supported by the dollars these companies spend on materials, hardware, and parts, not to mention what their laborers pour into the economy.

    No issue is as black and white as the social justice agitators would like to have us believe. Then again, critical thinking has never been one of the left’s strong suits.

     

  • Liberals Give Their Own–IRS–a Pass

    I’ve been thinking about Watergate. Why? Because Democrats give their own a pass no matter how egregious the offense. I wonder what today’s Dems would have thought if Nixon and company had gotten a pass on their corruption and crimes. Or, is it always worse if a Republican does it? What would the Dems have said about and thought of a government that would ignore wrongdoing and protect a high official simply because he or she was on “their” side?

    I think we all know what that would have looked like. They would have been incensed and outraged by such a travesty that would let someone get away with such offenses because of who they are or who they know. Isn’t that a significant part of what is supposed to make our country different from others. Are we a nation of laws or not? Shouldn’t Democrats be concerned about such corruption?

    Of course, they should, but they’re not–unless a Republican does it. It seems liberals are willing to overlook all sorts of corruption as long as their ideology advances. The ends justify the means. We have two preeminent cases (out of many other examples of corruption that have been overlooked—can you say fast and furious?), Benghazi and the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. Anyone have any doubt whatsoever that had the secretary of state or head of the IRS been Republican in these cases that the media and Department of Justice would have been all over them like stink on… well, you know.

    What are those of us who hold justice in high esteem supposed to do with a government where, if you’re a high official and your timing is right, you can avoid liability and sanctions for policy and law violations just as long as those responsible for investigating you are also Democrats? And these Democrats constantly scream that the police do not enforce the law equitably.

    When this involves non-violent “white collar” violations, that’s bad enough. But the Benghazi catastrophe involved the horrible deaths of four human beings.

    Lois Lerner spat in Americans’ faces and has gotten away with her corruption. However, as repugnant as her violations were, they didn’t involve anyone’s death. Now we have to ask, will Hillary Clinton also get a similar pass on Benghazi and the email scandal?

    The scary thing is we know four Americans died. We know there were some six hundred requests for increased security at the embassy. We know the video cited by Clinton and others in the Obama administration well after they had known the truth did not cause the attack on Benghazi. How do we know? Secretary Clinton’s congressional hearing testimony confirmed it.

    We know the above items occurred for certain. To continue to support Clinton, you have to “accept” that these things happened and decide that it is somehow okay that she did them. Would these Democrats be okay with the government had it given Nixon a pass? Is it okay with them that Nixon’s supporters chose to overlook his corruption–his crimes? Again, I think we know the answer.