Many of you are aware that, in addition to being a retired NYPD sergeant, I am also a political junkie and this plays a big role in some of the books that I have written.
This morning, I watched something
that I found to be profoundly disturbing to me, as it should be to the
overwhelming majority of Americans.
Congressional Oversight Committee
Chairman, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, was questioning FBI Assistant Director
Jason Herring, regarding the production and distribution of materials, relative
to Congress’ investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. During the course of
his appearance, Agent Herring stated: “Director Comey tried to be as
transparent as he could with this committee.”
Stop for a moment and let that
sink in: “tried to be as transparent as he could..”
Folks, that should send a chill
through you. If it doesn’t, then the problem is greater than you could imagine.
How have we arrived to the point
where an arm of the government, specifically a federally law enforcement agency,
decides to become its own arbiter of what it will and will not provide to
congress?
I cannot begin to warn you of the
seriousness of this and the dire implications for our country going forward.
As many of you know, in the past
I have railed against the ‘party’ system as I believe that this political arrangement
is more of a detriment to us, driving a wedge of dissension between Americans.
I believe that we have a solemn responsibility to elect principled leaders, as
it is the only way our system works. But with each passing day I have come to realize
that the majority of Americans do not have a clue as to exactly how this system
of government works.
First, please understand that we
do not live in a democracy. I keep hearing people say that and I cringe. There
is a significant reason that the United States is not a democracy, best summed
up by founding father and future president, James Madison:
“Hence it is that democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short
in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths …” – Federalist
Papers, #10.
The truth is that democracy is
actually the antithesis of our government. In a democracy the majority can
decide to simply vote away things they don’t agree with, including your rights.
Ever hear the argument about common sense? Well, in a democracy, the majority
can take away any right by virtue of common sense….. you know, for the common
good. Sadly, many do not consider the implications of this. You might be part
of the in-crowd today, enjoying your moment in the sun, but remember that
tomorrow the political winds can shift and you may very well find yourself
looking down the barrel of the gun you helped create. We only have to look back
70 or so years at the rise and fall of Nazi Germany.
So the founding fathers took the
extraordinary path of creating the world’s first constitutional republic. It
established a constitution as the guiding principles, recognizing certain unalienable
rights to the citizens of this nation, and created a framework of co-equal
government that would insure these rights were not infringed upon.
The new government was founded
upon three co-equal branches: Executive, a bicameral Legislative (House of
Representatives and Senate) and Judicial. Without getting into the minutia, because
you should already know this, each has its own separate powers and was thought
to be the best system for insuring that one branch didn’t accumulate too much
power and attempt to exceed its granted authority.
Got that? This system was
designed to prevent one branch from gaining too
much power.
Checks and balances is what it is
called and a good example of this is that the legislative (Congress) has the
power to create laws. The executive (President) can veto any legislation, an
act which can be overridden by Congress, with sufficient votes. The
President nominates judges to the nation's highest judicial authority (Supreme
Court), but nominees must be approved by Congress. The judicial then has the
power to invalidate, as ‘unconstitutional,’ any law passed. The Congress also
has the power of the purse, the
ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. So if the
President does attempt an end-run to establish something the Congress does not
approve of, he won’t have the funding to do so.
This works well, at least in theory.
When George Washington was first
elected president in 1789 there were no political parties. This would soon
change with the Federalist Party in 1791 and, in the following year, the
formation of the Anti-Federalist Party or Democratic-Republicans. By his 2nd
term, party lines and loyalty in the Nation’s capital were drawn to the point
of bitterness and destruction. Personal and professional attacks became common
and they represented a serious threat to the new republic. Washington was
greatly concerned that the parties had sought to, and would again; seek more power
for themselves, using it to exact political revenge on their opponents.
Something he called the ‘alternate domination.’ When reading Washington’s Farewell
Address, it does not take much to see just how remarkably prophetic his
words were:
“The disorders and miseries which
result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute
power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some
prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns
this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public
liberty.”
Does any of this sound familiar?
Just as Washington predicted, two
hundred plus years ago, we are seeing the elevation of man, and party, over the
principled and faithful execution of law.
Party in-fighting, within the hallowed
halls of Congress, has diminished that body to nothing more than a cheerleader
for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A fact eloquently outlined in the accompanying statement by Rep. Trey Gowdy. And the judicial is not
very far behind, becoming more of an activist
judiciary instead of one that uses the Constitution as their guide.
But in the case of Congress, rather
than perform the role they were elected to do, by you, they are actually doing
the will of the party. This has to resonate with the electorate. If not, then
we are truly doomed.
Whatever your political
affiliation is, the current investigation into, Democratic Party nominee,
Hillary Clinton’s email servers has to be taken seriously. I spent most of my
career conducting criminal investigations. Unlike politicians and pundits who
try and couch their words, I can tell you unequivocally that crimes were
committed. Whether a decision was made to not prosecute for those crimes is not
the issue. Congress has, and should act upon, the authority to investigate this
matter, but as we see in the video above, forces are at play to impede it. An
agent of the executive branch, in this case the FBI, should not be allowed to
decide what they will or will not
share with the legislative branch tasked with oversight. That is chilling.
It is something that is even
occurring within lower federal courts where agencies are refusing to turn over
documents to the court.
How did we get to this place?
What happened to the rule of law and not man? Will the foundation that is being
laid now slowly trickle down to the rest of society? What will happen when
society chooses to fail to comply with a court order? Will the judge wring his
hands and bemoan his impotence to do anything? I don’t think so.
I truly believe that something
has to change in this country.
The government of the United States
represents the citizens or as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it: "Government of the people, by the
people, for the people…” We are their bosses and yet somehow we have abdicated
all control to the powers that be.
To be fair, they are not
completely at fault. We, the people, have become co-equal cheerleaders.
Lamenting when someone from the other
side does something wrong, yet turning a blind eye when it is our person. We simply cannot have
different rules for us and them.
If this continues down the path
it is going, we will not survive.
Congress has to stop ‘protecting’
people, because they belong to the same party, and start doing what their
bosses, the people, elected them to do. For our part, we have to be honest with
ourselves and understand that just because someone might have the same party
affiliation as us, doesn’t mean they are the best person for the job.
Unlike the vast majority of folks
reading this, I handled classified information at one time. Folks, this isn’t
an insignificant issue and it certainly isn’t a political one. Understand that
people have lost careers and have even gone to prison for far less than what
Hillary Clinton did, yet we are being told: ‘nothing here, move along.’ If it
were you or I, our lives would be ruined and our freedoms taken away. Don’t you
have a problem with that? Why is it, that by virtue of her place, in some type
of American political lineage, she is getting a free pass on something you or I
would spend a long time in prison for? Doesn’t this bother you at a fundamental
level?
Elections are about the
accumulation of power, not for you or me, but for the party. It is the reason
that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the two major party candidates for president
in 2012, spent close to $1.12 billion, a number which, by all estimates, will probably
be exceeded in this election cycle. All that money for a job that pays a paltry
annual salary of $500,000.00, give or take. Let that sink in for a moment. At
best, the next president, if they are in for two-terms (eight years), will have
earned about 4-5 million dollars. Hillary and Bill Clinton brought in five
times that total amount during one year of speaking engagements.
You still think this isn’t about
power?
If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases,
then please like my Facebook page
and feel free to follow me on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment