Sheriffs vs. Presidents

Sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control laws

It seems that more than 400 county sheriffs in the U.S. are declining to enforce their respective states’ new gun control legislation. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If you do, then do you have any problem with the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States (and the various and sundry federal law enforcement officers that report to them) declining to enforce certain laws in the United States, like immigration laws or assorted portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Essentially, there is no difference. If it is fine for the President to order federal agents and others charged with enforcing federal statutes to use their “prosecutorial discretion” and not deport people for violation of U.S. immigration laws or not to impose statutory punishments for not abiding by the dictates and deadlines of the PPACA (better known as Obamacare), then it would seem to me that it should just as appropriate for the the elected local sheriff to declare that whatever the latest gun control legislation calls for will not be enforce … or be subject to priority enforcement.

Are not the Sheriffs following the example of our President?

Now, I understand not prioritizing enforcement of some statutes because of the vagueness of the law, or its widespread disregard. Heck, speed limits are not strictly enforced in the United States (except in speed traps) and that is because 90 percent of the drivers in the US normally exceed the posted limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour all the time. Heck, I can even understand not enforcing a law if you know the law is unconstitutional.

However, I do have problems granting waivers for laws because they are inconvenient or because they might cause political problems for the law enforcement people.

So, those of you who have a problem with the stand being taken by the sheriffs, I sure hope you are consistent and have equally vehement objections to the failures, or refusals, or downright ignoring the law of the Obama Administration.

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Maybe the rest of the story

Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible
When an Egyptian cleric burned a copy of the Bible last fall in front of the US Embassy in Cairo, it was interesting to read that Egyptian authorities arrested him and his son under that country’s blasphemy laws.
There was a trial about a month later and then the case seemed to drop beneath all radars, until this past week, when an Egyptian news agency reported the cleric noted for his presence on Egyptian broadcast TV had been sentenced for the act.
Apparently, such prosecutions apparently are relatively rare in Egypt, except when it is Christians who offend Muslims (according to most reports).
As a supporter of the rule of law, it is gratifying to see the law applied equally, or some semblance of it (the fine is ridiculously low when compare to the fine levied on a Coptic Christian which is cited in the HuffPo version).
On the other hand, as American and as a supporter of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, I would have opposed prosecution in both cases. People have the right to offend and be offended but that does not always give the State/Government the right or even obligation to punish the offenders. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
As the old saying goes: I may vehemently disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.
Unfortunately, the filmmaker who “started” this phoo-pha-rah apparently remains in a US jail for violating his probation on an unrelated charge. He was jailed after members of President Obama’s administration called for his prosecution. Now that is a sad commentary on the American sense of justice.

Off the radar screen.

Egypt refers case to trial
Does the name Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah ring any bells? Well he is the radical Islamist Egyptian imam who tore up a Christian Bible in front of the U.S. Embassy back in the middle of September.
He reportedly was arrested under Egyptian blasphemy laws. At first he was supposed to go to the local court Sept. 25, then Sept. 30, then Oct. 14, then Oct. 20 … and as far as I can tell, it still hasn’t gone before a judge. Now, those of us in the U.S. are used to these things dragging on in the court system for years, because that is how it is done here … but that is not how it is done in the Middle East. Even on relatively serious crimes you get a very speedy trial (if you are not an international celebrity, and even then it might be dicey) and if convicted, the sentence usually is carried out rather rapidly.
However, in this case, I guess the clerks of the court have lost the paper work and everybody else is distracted by the elections in the US. I think our defendant in this case has just walked right back to his TV studio to resume his life.
The question I have is: where are the riots here in the US demanding he be held accountable for insulting Christianity. Oh. that is right, Christians can’t be insulted in an country following Islam’s Sharia law.
Just thought I would point that out in passing.

PS: The Feds still are holding the alleged  producer of the allegedly insulting YouTube  video in jail on charges of parole violations. No hearings yet. That will have to wait until after the election.

One wonders? A WARN Act warning?

CEO threatens layoffs if Obama gets reelected

Big Bad CEO threatens to fire workers

Ok, the above links provide differing views of the chief executive officer of a company that sells time shares and hosts resorts who e-mailed his employees, presenting them with a stark view of the future. His employees were told that should President Barack Obama be re-elected, he may be forced to lay off employees in order to be able to afford the taxes and other requirements that the Obama Administration has indicated it wants to implement. Obviously, if Mitt Romney is elected, the chances of those taxes and other requirements being implemented go do, and hence their jobs might not be at risk.

In a sense, the business person, whose business employs some 7,000 workers, might just be following the dictates of the WARN Act that requires employers over a certain number of workers to give at least 60 days warning to their employees if they are planning any large layoffs. You know, the law that the Labor Department under President Obama told defense contractors they could ignore. They are considering issuing such warnings because the sequestration of the federal funds that will go into effect Jan. 2, if a budget deal isn’t made.

Now the company, which happens to be the largest privately-held company of its kind in its field, is drawing flak from people who don’t like it when companies oppose President Obama. They think it is unfair.

Well, sorry folks, but it is a privately-held company. There is no law that says the owner(s) of that company can’t shut the doors if they feel it is necessary. Now, under the WARN Act, they can’t do it tomorrow, but they could do it in 60 days. But then again, how many companies in the current economic world actually have just shut their doors and given up. Quite a few, I imagine. That happens in a recession and we have been in a big one.

So, the CEO made it clear he wasn’t telling his employees whom to vote for. He only was warning them that should Obama be reelected, the company would be forced to downsize in order to meet the increased overhead.

Now, I know this gets the progressives, like those people at the Huffington Posts, panties in a wad, but when did we start requiring employers to employ people. Oh, I know that those under union contracts do have certain obligations, and we do seem to be requiring our governments to employ more and more people, along with paying people who can’t or out of work a stipend in order to permit them to survive.

I am not knocking that per se, since I am myself disabled and get some of that money, but then I was working for the government and you know all those rights those government workers have. You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but look: I am playing by the rules and did pay into the system for 40 years before my health collapsed. So, it is not really hypocrisy to point out that maybe the system needs to be changed. Granted, the government did screw me over big time, but that is only from my perspective.

Now, I have no problem with an employer warning his employees of the unfortunate political realities out there. It may not be a pretty picture, but at least it is being honest.

So, two points to the CEO for at least being boldly honest. You do know that he still does have that right and will, until the progressives make it a crime to shut a business down because the overhead has eaten up the profits. Remember, the world is supposed to be non-profit and it should be to each according to their indefinable and unlimited needs and from each according to the their maximum but necessarily limited efforts.

Political cover for Hillary

Sebelius won’t be punished for Hatch Act “violation”
Office of Special Counsel Advisory on Hatch Act.
Hatch Act of 1939
What part of the following does the Office of the Special Counsel in the Obama Administration not understand?
“(T)the law permits employees who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to widely engage in political activity while on duty and in government buildings, even these employees are prohibited from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”
Office of the Special Counsel – 2/14/2001
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and certain designated high-level employees of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity.
Wikipedia article
It provides that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
Fox News may be reporting the news correctly, but the Office of Special Counsel in the Obama Administration is putting out a line of equine manure.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, did not break any federal law when she spoke at a “Human Rights Campaign Event” back earlier in 2012. Sorry, but you idiots at the OSC need to go back and actually look at what the law says: “An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines polices to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws” is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.
The HHS secretary is, at least the last time I looked, an official member of a president’s cabinet and head of a specific executive department, subject to approval (advice and consent) of the Senate. If Sebelius does not fit that description, then why is she called the HHS secretary.
According to the Fox News report:  In her North Carolina remarks that prompted the report, Sebelius urged voters to make sure Obama "continues to be president for another four years." 
Sorry, but that doesn’t rise to the level of  “soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”  The only area that the Hatch Act does apply to cabinet officers.
No, folks, this is the OSC covering up for the State Department’s and the White House’s claim that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not legally attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte last week. I really wish someone in the national media would get their fricking act together and point out that this OSC statement that Sebelius violated the law, and the subsequent statement, apparently, that all was made good by her changing her status and the campaign paying for the trip, and she would not be prosecuted, is so full of bovine scatology that it isn’t even funny anymore.
Sorry, but the OSC is wrong … and I will continue to say it is wrong, until someone can come up with some specific language in the Hatch Act that unexempts cabinet secretaries from the law.
Doesn’t this tend to make you angry? It makes me angry because this country is supposed to be one of law and when you go about misrepresenting what the law says, then you are doing the country no favors. In fact, you are actively trying to hurt the country and that type of behavior I will oppose to my dying breath.
I may not agree with the law, but I will pledge my life, my wealth and my sacred honor in its defense, of that have no doubt.

Justice upheld

Canada orders deportation of Iraq War resister
It seems a U.S. Army soldier who had a change of heart and fled to Canada to avoid the possibility of being deployed to Iraq no longer is welcome there.
The soldier has been given new marching orders and that is to leave Canada. I am glad our neighbors have declared the soldier persona non grata, although its impact on family members might be difficult.
The soldier, who apparently has four children and a spouse, was living in Toronto and was given until Sept. 20 to leave Canada. Tough, I suppose, but then again, the usual defenses about leaving an army don’t really apply here. The soldier was not drafted into the Army. The soldier was aware that the Army was fighting a war. So, there is no case for saying the soldier was coerced or forced into doing something they didn’t know they were going to do.
Soldiers volunteer for service these days in the United States and not just conscripted into the military, and then swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to OBEY the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them. There is no clause in there that if you disagree with those orders that you can just ignore them, and nowhere does it say if you get tired of what you are doing or don’t want to do what you are going to be told to do that you can just vote with your feet and skip out. Sorry, but that is not an option.
No, the military adheres to some archaic ideas like your oath is your bond. That when you swear something it actually means something, like you will hold up your end of the bargain you made. The military doesn’t promise that you won’t go somewhere that you do not want to be, do not like and do things that you don’t want to do. Sorry, but that is not what you signed up for.
Now, the Canadians could have given this soldier continued sanctuary, but they already have turned two others back to the U.S. and the worst they got was a year in jail. I am sorry, but even our military prisons aren’t that bad that a soldier is being harshly treated by being sentenced to serve 12 months behind their walls. It is difficult for me to see how the Canadian government could have decided on “humanitarian” grounds that the soldier could not come back and face the consequences of the desertion in time of conflict. Granted, it is not like the “old” days when they shot or hanged deserters.
Canada has to look to its own order and discipline in its own defense forces and realize that allowing soldiers to just vote with their feet anytime they don’t agree with their superiors is really a very bad idea. Bad for discipline, bad for good order and definitely bad when the soldiers are  fighting for their lives.
In addition, it is sad that integrity has become something of a passé trait among Americans. No longer, it seems, that when you make an agreement, or a pledge or a promise or swear an oath, that it means much. Sign a contract? Tear it up, it doesn’t matter. Find a loophole, get out of it anyway you can, even if it means violating the law. The law, you say? But that is only meant to apply to idiots and fools. It is meant to be bent, broken and ignored as long as it interferes with our feeling good and enjoying life, especially if it means we might have to face some hardship.
Sorry, soldier, but you swore to do you duty. You didn’t and now it is time to pay the piper.
Oh? Did I happen to mention the soldier was a woman? Sorry, shouldn’t matter. I know it did when I was in, but that was wrong then and it is wrong now.

But it is not my fault I went crazy!

Aurora Gunman's responsibility

It is interesting in our quest to understand what makes an adult walk into a crowded theater and try to kill a whole bunch of people; our society always tries to absolve the individual of his responsibility.

The New York Times spent a whole lot of ink trying to explain that the shooter in the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting that killed 12 (plus the shooter) and wounded something like 55 was obviously mentally deranged and therefore, obviously, not responsible for actions. Barley Corn.

Yes, there were warning signs. Yes, I suppose, that the appropriate mental health professionals at the University of Colorado at Denver campus could have done more. But you know something; the young man in question could have done a lot more to stop himself. You do realize that this person is an adult, a very smart one from all testimony.

Ironically, he knew he was slipping off the edge. He could have made a choice. He could have gone to the psychiatrist that he sent the tome to and said, “Doctor, I have a problem, and I fear I might go out of control.”

With his intelligence and background, particularly since CU-D is the campus of the CU medical school, one would think that he would have enough awareness to know that he was slipping over the edge. He obviously did, because he told “friends” that he was going to do something, but nothing specific enough to run to the cops and say “you need to investigate him.”

What bothers me is that this young man probably will be determined non-guilty by reason of insanity, or at least the NYT is laying the groundwork for that defense.

How about this, folks: A young man makes some really horrendous, atrocious choices, relatively deliberately and rationally. He is aware what he is doing is not correct, and actually does seek some help from the mental health community. He could go the next step and be honest with the mental health professionals dealing with him, or he could just go to them and say “put me somewhere I won’t hurt myself or other people.”

I know I am sounding far too rational for this case, but since the young man did not make those choices, then I fear he should pay the penalty for committing aggravated murder with malice aforethought.

Given the information that we have at this point, insanity is not a defense. Of course, then we can ask ourselves why people do this. Why do seeming intelligent, rational people choose to kill, maim or rape people? It is a good question, and one I don’t have a simple answer to.

However, if you look through history, you find so many cases where this happens that you begin to wonder about people. Whether is small mass murders to mass murders on the scale of the Holocaust or other genocides, people you would think would know better get swept up in the dementia of killing, torture and rapine.

It is not unique to any society. If you think it is, then you are the one who is deluding yourself. It is a plague upon mankind and cuts across all societal structures.

How do we stop it? I don’t know if we can, given the emotional, rather than rational, nature of humans. How many times a day do we do something that defies even our own sense of rationality? Take a moment and examine your own behavior and analyze how many times you let your emotions of the moment, day, week, month, year, to overwhelm what people would tell you is rational behavior.

Yes, humans are rational creatures, but they also are very irrational creatures. That probably is what sets us apart from all the other animals in the animal kingdom. We have the capability to be both rational and irrational at the same time.

As I said, I don’t have a solution to this dichotomy. I am, however, a reluctant proponent of capital punishment, in that there are some behaviors for which there is no forgiveness. There are some things that people can do that transcend the boundaries of civilized behaviors and therefore those people have forfeited their right to live in civilized society. Since we no longer have the Botany Bay option (sending them off to a deserted island where there is no chance of escape and return to civilization), then the only way to remove them, and the threat they pose, from society permanently is for them to forfeit their lives. You can make a case for perpetual incarceration, but these people still pose a threat not only to the people who perforce must watch over them to ensure they stay behind bars but also to the other people who must, by necessity, share accommodations with them. At some point, society has to say that mere banishment to some penal facility is not enough. In those cases, when the crime has been so wanton or so heinous (killing or attempting to kill a large number of people qualifies, in my humble opinion), then the killer’s life is forfeit.

I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this point, and I do understand. However, some things truly are evil or unacceptable and have to be eliminated. In those cases, there are no excuses.