CriminologyJustice: Mitt Romney

Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 13, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Where Does Law Enforcement Fit In?” Former CIA Director Petraeus and President Barack Obama in the Thick of the Benghazi Investigation

Posted on 9:00 PM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

What role did law enforcement play in the Benghazi, Libyaand Director David Petraeus’s matter? It appears the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been involved in both situations. To date the role and results of the FBI in the Benghazi investigation is unknown. Though in the Petraeus’s matter it appears they have been and continue to investigate several individuals.

Two FBI employees share a laugh with President Barack Obama during his visit to FBI headquarters. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today the Whitehouse continued to dodge what specifically the FBI performed in their lengthy investigation of the Petraeus situation. When asked by a reporter today what has been transpiring with the Petraeus situation Jay Carney, the Whitehouse Press Secretary, referred him to the FBI. Instead of answering the question the Whitehouse continues to allow the cyclical lack of information.

The recent discovery that CIA Director David Petraeus resigned on Friday, November 9, 2012, from his position ‘citing personal reasons for the resignation.’ The personal issues surround the FBI’s discovery that Petraeus was having an affair with his biographer, Pamela Broadwell. Allegedly, Broadwell had sent some threatening and intimidating emails to an employee inside the CIA, Jill Kelley, a family friend of the Petraeus’s. This past week Broadwell’s residence was raided by the FBI. Previously Broadwell was interviewed by s
omeone in the FBI. The results of the interview with Broadwell are unknown.

General David Petraeus (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

The resignation comes at a time where Petraeus was to testify on Thursday, November 15^th in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Since Petraeus submitted his resignation the social media has focused on him not wanting to provide testimony to the Committee about his and everyone’s action in reference to the murder of four Americans at the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11^th.

There are many hypotheses which should be considered reference why Petraeus submitted his resignation on Friday and why he now is refusing to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are as follows:

1. Taking one for the team. It is always possible that Petraeus has agreed to take the responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. This is highly unlikely, but must be considered. The need for President Barack Obama to be as far distant from these murders is important. There are several reasons for this as the manner in which Americans have received information from the Whitehouse has been confusing, misleading, not forth-coming, and so forth. The President has been associated with or promoted much of the misinformation according to many reliable sources and social media outlets.

2. Petraeus’s resignation may have nothing to do with the timeliness of him having to testify. The issue and analysis of the timeliness of the resignation has many people asking the question about the coincidence of why now since the FBI allegedly knew about the extramarital affair six months ago? No matter what the Whitehouse has to offer in way of an explanation it is difficult for people to believe they had nothing to do with one another.

3. If Petraeus testifies the information he may provide may put the President in vulnerable and precarious situations. The need for Petraeus to testify is relevant and material because he knows who knew what. In the debate with Representative Paul Ryan and Vice-President Joe Biden, Biden stated that he and the President did not have any knowledge, he said, “…we weren’t told they wanted more security” at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4. It appears the allegation of Petraeus and Broadwell having an extramarital affair is true. However, the sex scandal appears to be driving the politicians from moving from the Benghazi incident to focusing on Petraeus. It seems reasonable and logical that both Petraeus and his extramarital affair with Broadwell are inter-related. How at this time is unknown.

There are numerous times where the President made statements that he knew nothing about what had occurred early on in Benghazi; that what occurred was in response to a videotape and they are investigating the matter. When the President spoke in front of the United Nations he repeatedly blamed the death of the four Americans on the videotape.

Further, the President did not call the act a “terrorist act” until many days after the incident. Although he did state that our country would not stand for terrorist acts. He didn’t directly state that the incident in Benghazi was a terror act. On Sunday, two days before the presidential election, CBS News released a video clip that provides an interesting dialogue. The clip is from President Barack Obama’s Sept. 12 interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The newly released clip includes this exchange between the reporter and the president.

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. We are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one-way or the other.

In the debate with former Governor Mitt Romney, he told President Obama, “I want to make sure we get this for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. The President responded by check the record. Social media outlets did check the records and the President was mistaken.

5. During his first Presidential term, President Obama has not used the words “Terror, Terrorism, or Terrorists. The reasons will not be known why he will not use these words until years from now. His Presidential campaign surrounded the theme that his administration had Al-Qaida on their heels, using the death of Osama Bin Laden as an indication for his opinion. The explanations are yet to have been revealed at this time why the President is leading the country in this manner.

6. If the resignation of Petraeus would have been disclosed to the public prior to the Presidential election the information may have been harmful to Presidential Obama’s re-election bid. Former Governor Mitt Romney may have been able to use this information along with the other leadership problems in Obama’s administration during his first Presidential term. There appears to be a multitude of problems from the GSA to Homeland Security to Attorney General’s Office to the partying of CIA Agents and etc. There seems to be a pattern which has taken place during the President’s first term in office.

7. President Obama’s reputation as an “ineffective leader” is something he does not want to be an aspect of his Presidential Legacy.

8. The reasons for the FBI investigating Petraeus is something which would not be dealt with without the authority of the President. According to the social media outlets, the allegations about Petraeus having the extramarital affair were known by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper, and Attorney General Eric Holder.

English: U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq, walks with Sen. Barack Obama after Obama’s arrival to Baghdad International Airport in Baghdad, Iraq. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

9. It is illogical and unreasonable to believe that the first time President Obama heard about the allegations against Petraeus was on Election Day. This is not how the President operates nor would those working for the President would have kept this information from him. The President would have immediately been made aware of the situation as soon as one of these three Directors was made aware of the situation.

10. President Obama gives the appearance that he runs a tight ship and for him not to have known weeks or months in advance what was occurring with Petraeus prior to receiving his resignation is simply naïve and ignorant. There is an established chain of command which is in place for just these types of situations.

Once the extramarital affair was uncovered there would have been a time of meetings between the parties involved in the situation. President Obama and his advisors would have held meetings to determine what would be the best course of action.

If the FBI was truly investigating a complaint by a CIA employee, there will be an established timeline supported by written documents, emails, witness interviews, meetings, phone conferences, and any other type of facts and evidence which was uncovered. This is where the President needs to be careful about his rendition of when he became aware of Petraeus’s extramarital affairs, as well as his role in the Benghazi incident. Some social media outlets have alleged that Petraeus had been under investigation for some time, but the reasons for the investigations have yet to be made known to the public. It is possible the investigations by the FBI will never be made public citing confidential and national security reasons.

The investigation of the Benghazi incident and now the resignation of Petraeus continue to be a law enforcement issue. The investigation should be performed by law enforcement experts in the field to analyze all of the information from the beginning of both of these situations to today. The timeline will establish who was involved, who knew what, when they became aware of the information, who made decisions, and so forth.

Apparently the committees will continue to be the ears and voice of the people. Backdoor dealings or the appearance of any backdoor deals should and will cause the public to ask further questions about what happened and who was responsible. Petraeus may not appear for his scheduled testimony, but the committee does have subpoena power and may be able to force him to testify.

The Benghazi incident occurred over nine weeks ago and there has been too much happening in reference to obtaining the necessary information about what happened on September 11^th. Specifically, what has happened since the event, and what roles everyone played prior to, during, and since? The investigation by law enforcement, which ever agency is responsible for both investigations is not complicated and the convoluted manner in which this has been handled to date is incompetent, unreasonable, illogical, and lacking in the basics of a law enforcement investigation. The Committee needs to quit complaining about the resistance they have received from the State Department and the Whitehouse and begin unpeeling the layers of bureaucratic nonsense.

As of today, which law enforcement agency is doing what is unknown? It is a guessing game of who is the leader of the investigation. A strong leader is necessary someone who has the ability to process the information and guarantee Americans are being told the truth and all of the facts. As the information comes to light, there will be a better understanding of what happened in Benghazi and with Petraeus.

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Barack Obama, Benghazi, Criminology Amp Justice, David Petraeus, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jay Carney, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney | No comments

Monday, November 5, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – November 6, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Should Your Community Pay The Tab For Political Rallies?”

Posted on 11:13 PM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

President Obama has scheduled a visit Keene State College to promote his candidacy for the office of the Presidency of the United State. The crowd is over 1000 partisans who are at the College to support their candidate. There are law enforcement officers at each entrance, special details cover the inside perimeter, and others assist the Secret Service deal with the details of the Senators visibility to the crowd, his entrance and exit out of the college, and other responsibilities.

It is probably an awesome event for someone to attend, but the question is raised reference who is paying for law enforcement to assist the Secret Service in protecting the Senator from the crowd or outside individuals and organizations which want to bring harm to him? This question is one which is complex when trying to answer it.

Depending on the city, county or state law enforcement agencies that provide manpower for these rallies the costs to protect and serve the politician and those who organize a political rally may costs the local taxpayers a significant amount of money. Therefore, depending on the financial agreement between the politicians and the city, county or state administrators where the event is to take place, there may be a reimbursement for the protection they provide prior to, during, and after the rally.

In the City of Keene, New Hampshire, then Senator Barack Obama and then Senator Hillary Clinton had political rallies at two locations. According to research, both campaigns paid for the hiring of law enforcement officers to handle crowds. The cost of hiring law enforcement officers is not an inexpensive process. In the City of Keene for each officer hired, it cost the campaigns $56.00 an hour to have a law enforcement officer present and controlling the crowds.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The costs across the nation are similar with some law enforcement agencies being more or less expensive. Most of the hourly wages are determined on what the law enforcement agencies or promoters will have to pay the officers and how much money the city, county or state or promoters want to profit from the event. Moreover, the local law enforcement unions may have a required fee the law enforcement administrators or promoters will agree to pay. Some of the officers hired work their daily shift and then travel to the event where they are assigned a position. This is considered an off-duty job and therefore either the law enforcement agency will pay for the officer’s time, or the political event coordinator/promoter.

The policy when Secret Service requests assistance from the local law enforcement agency, the agency will incur the costs. This policy and procedure depends upon the demands of the Secret Service and the size of the event. The greater the event in reference to the size and the number of people who will be attending may end up costing the campaign or Federal Government.

The law enforcement agency may require specific law enforcement officers to attend and be a part of the training which is necessary prior to the event occurring. An officer needs to know specifically what and where they will be assigned prior to the event. Further, the Secret Service and Criminal Intelligence will have intelligence about potential danger areas, individuals, and organizations that may be a problem prior to, during, and after the event.

Yesterday while President Obama was in the battleground state of Ohio, President Obama found himself on the receiving end of heckling from a pro-life advocate. According to LifeNews.com, “The pro-life protester held up a cardboard sign that read “this moral wrong should never be a constitutional right.” The sign included some grisly photographs of aborted babies.”

In August, 2012, while Mitt Romney was speaking to a group of supporters in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Sunday night alongside his newly selected running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-W), was heckled by a protester in the audience. But Romney took the opportunity to forcefully shout down the protester and admonish him for his lack of respect and civility.

Most hecklers at political events are shouted down by the audience and asked to calm down and listen to the speaker. Law enforcement will move in on hecklers who fail to heed the warning which is generally given by the audience or the politician. Hecklers vary from disagreements with the political candidate to just being obnoxious because others will listen to them for that special moment and time.

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

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity (Wikipedia, n.d.).

The reason the Hatch Act is of importance is it regulates what a civil employee can and can’t do when it comes to political activities. The Act does not limit one’s right to participate in a political campaign, but their behavior as long as it follows the Act will not cause them any repercussion. Law enforcement officials are limited to what is permissible and impermissible when it comes to their political activities. An example of what is permissible and impermissible is as follows:

It is permissible for officers to:

• Attend fundraisers, display yard signs, or bumper stickers, and attend political rallies;

• Give a speech or keynote address at a political fundraiser, so long as the officer is not on

duty and does not solicit contributions. The invitation for the speech or address may have the

officer’s name, but may not solicit contributions or state the officer’s official title;

• Canvass for votes in support of or in opposition to partisan political candidates or a candidate

for political party office;

• Endorse or oppose a partisan political candidate in a political advertisement, broadcast,

campaign literature, or similar material, so long as the officer is not on duty and not wearing a

uniform, badge, or insignia;

• Run for any nonpartisan office (The entire election must be non-partisan—if any candidate in

the race runs on a partisan ticket, the candidacy of the officer is not permitted under the Act).

A nonpartisan race is not covered by the Hatch Act, and the officer may therefore solicit and

receive political contributions;

• Write a personal check to a political candidate;

• Participate in a committee for a lodge regarding endorsements of candidates, so long as the

endorsement comes from the labor organization and not an individual police officer, and the

duties do not involve personal solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of political contributions.

It is impermissible to:

• Allow one’s name or likeness to be used in campaign literature in the police officer’s

professional capacity;

• Host a fundraiser for a political candidate and recruit attendees using the officer’s official title

(however, a spouse who is not covered under this Act may host such a fundraiser and the

officer may attend, but may not personally solicit contributions to the fundraiser);

• Allow the officer’s name to appear on an invitation to a fundraiser as a sponsor of the

fundraiser or as a point of contact for the fundraiser;

• Engage in campaigning during working hours;

• Use any official authority for influence for political purposes, including using the officer’s

official title or authority to coerce individuals to participate in political activity;

• Run for any elected partisan office;

• Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated individual volunteer services from a subordinate for

any political purpose. (Fraternal Organization of Police, n.d.)

Law enforcement officials either participate in rallies or are employed by the law enforcement agency they work for or are associated with. However, due to their position in law enforcement they have to and will follow the rules of the Hatch Act. It would seem the Federal Government would try to associate other professions into an Act which monitors and requires specific behavior. However, the First Amendment provides for the right to participate in protests and etc. The issue of which is more compelling, is something which needs to be researched.

Citizens in each community where a political rally occurs need to monitor who is paying for what. In small towns where there are minimal law enforcement officers and their budget is based on local taxes, the campaign and/or Federal Government needs to repay the cities for the expense of having their officers work the political event. It is important to have law enforcement officers in place to protect any politician but the costs if at all possible should be paid by the politician and the event organization. If you had a political rally in your city, county or state have you checked to ascertain who paid the tab?

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Barack Obama, Criminology Amp Justice, Crimiology Amp Justice, Hatch Act of 1939, Keene State College, Mitt Romney, Secret Service, United State | No comments

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report – October 3, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Will The Presidential Debate Discuss The Ever Declining Law Enforcement Concerns And Issues?”

Posted on 9:20 PM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly

Forensic Expert Senior Author

If you watch television, surf the Internet, listen to the radio, talk to your family, friends, or co-workers then you should know that tonight is the first presidential debate to occur in Denver, Colorado.

English: President Barack Obama walking with Vice President Joe Biden in The White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There will be three debates between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. There will be one debate between Vice-President Joe Bidenand Congressman Paul Ryan. In the first debate between the President and Romney the topic is to be specifically about ‘domestic issues’. Therefore, the focus will be on what is happening in the United States.

There are many domestic issues for the President and Romney to debate about. However, if you are a person who expends time listening to the media and the domestic issues, the issue that has not been discussed and needs to be is about what affect will these debates and the election have on law enforcement agencies and their officers?

There has been much discussed about how the middle class will be affected if one of the candidates win or lose. Each of the Democratic and Republican Parties has their individual opinions, arguments, alleged facts and etc. However, the argument seems to focus on the financial aspects of what will happen to the middle class, but not on who will protect and serve them.

Depending on who you vote for, the argument from both parties point to the fact that the rich will benefit and the middle class will be taxed. One of the issues which hasn’t been discussed is if one or the other wins the election what will this mean to the middle class communities and the protection they receive from their local, county, and state public services.

DENVER, CO - OCTOBER 01: Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney greets supporters during a campaign rally at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum on October 1, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Mitt Romney arrived in Denver ahead of his first debate with U.S. President Barack Obama which will be held on Wednesday October 3. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

If middle class will be responsible for paying the majority of the taxes to support the economy, then will law enforcement services improve, expand, or will the opposite occur, where services will be diminished in that although the taxes may be greater it may not be enough to pay for the public services the middle classes have been used to.

Another major discussion has been what will either party do for woman’s rights. Which party will be able to provide or guarantee that woman will be taken care of? In researching this issue studies have detailed that there has been a major increase in woman becoming business owners. The need for law enforcement protection is necessary to minimize thefts, property damage, robbery, burglaries, and the safety of those who work within the business. Man or woman if they own a business the political party who provides the greater tax breaks, lower health costs, and provides law enforcement support and services are consideration these business owners will most likely contemplate before they cast their vote.

Today, the federal government disclosed they purchased the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois for $165 million. This is the State where President Obama began his political career and is considered his home state. The purchase comes at a time where Republicans are arguing that this was more of a political tactic more than a purpose than a specific reason. However, if this prison opens in the near future, law enforcement may benefit by the generation of new jobs. The decision of when the prison will open is still unknown and who the prisoners will be is a major concern by many of those who live in the community where the prison is located. It has been rumored, although the current laws do not allow it, that prisoners may come from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where terrorists are currently housed.

The Democratic Party has and will continue having movie stars talk about their beliefs about why people should vote for the President. Again, there has been no mention of the affect voting for the President or Romney will have on your individual community and the strength of your law enforcement agencies and the number of officers will be patrolling the streets in your neighborhood. Since most movie stars live in high class residences, their safety doesn’t seem to be an issue they would talk about. Most of them have never had to call the police for issues dealing with theft or violence. They live in a glass dome which is not accessible by criminals.

The economy is in the worst condition since the Depression. Over the past four years the President has accumulated more than 6 trillion dollars in debt, which included a trillion dollar stimulus bill which was to create jobs. In this bill minimal jobs were created especially in the law enforcement community. In fact, cities in California have filed for bankruptcy and either officers have had their wages reduced or many of the officers lost their jobs. If the President is re-elected the experts, depending on which Party pundit you talk too or listen to has stated that more jobs will be lost.

In order to pay for the Presidents current new jobs which the majority have been federal government jobs, the middle class will be taxed at a higher rate than any of the other classes. This is problematic because the unemployment which has affected all of the classes remains and has remained for the past 41 months at 8.1 percent or higher. As seen by the reaction of the California cities who have filed for bankruptcy when the middle class no longer can handle the burden of paying higher taxes and gas prices, law enforcement agencies and officers will be affected financially and job loss.

If you have not considered what the affect either Party will have on your individual community and law enforcement agencies and officers it may be time to make a telephone call to your local politicians and ascertain what they project will happen if either Party wins the election.

The type of questions you need to ask is who will pay for your law enforcement agencies to maintain the same services you are receiving now, and if so what will be the cost to you i.e. “How much in taxes will I be forced to pay?” The argument that the upper class pays little to no taxes will not help you during the next four years. No matter what either Party states, no laws will be passed in time for anyone to reduce your tax responsibilities. Bottom line if you want the same or greater law enforcement services, then you will eventually have to pay a greater amount of money.

If you were able to ask the President or Romney tonight during their first debate on domestic issues just how either of them will maintain law enforcement services it would be interesting how either person would respond.

It is common sense that one of the Parties will cost you more money than the other. The problem is depending on your individual preferences, choices, beliefs, opinions, and so forth if you vote for the wrong person your law enforcement services and the costs for public services may cost you more than you ever imagined.

Trust is a major issue which many people struggle with because your opportunity to directly ask what is important to you will never be discussed. Imagine living in the lower class and relying on law enforcement to protect you from individuals who injure and murder others, such what is happening in Chicago, where homicides have increased by 40% since last year. If law enforcement services are diminished then the people who rely on them may become one of the victims who are either injured or murdered.

In July of 2009, the President told the citizens of the United States that Obama Health Care would guarantee you that you would be able to keep the same doctor you currently have. Today, the Sears Company and Olive Garden Company will no longer provide health coverage for their employees. It will now be the responsibility of the Federal Government to find you a doctor and deal with your health coverage.

Again, trust is something you must have when you come to the politicians you elect. When it comes to promises and those who guarantee you something which is important to you, you must trust that they will come through and keep those promises. So tonight when you are watching the debate between the President and Romney listen closely to their answers, because if they answer in a way that tells you all is alright when it comes to the 16 trillion dollar debt, the 23 million people who are unemployed, the 48 million people on food stamps, and the 100 million people receiving some type of financial benefit from the Federal Government, the answer is simple, there needs to be changes made whoever wins the election.

As a former law enforcement officer, if I was still employed by the city or county and I was relying on who can I trust to make sure I have a job after November 6^th, 2012, I have to reason that the last four years I have seen other law enforcement agencies and officers being affected, I believe it may be time to make a change at the top. If my police chief wasn’t being successful in his job, the city manager, mayor, or community would terminate his or her services and hire someone to come in and make the agency successful.

Tomorrow night, I hope that either Obama or Romney would take the time to explain how the criminal justice system will be affected depending on who wins the election. Listen closely because the answers may be there. If there not, then you will know what to do come November 6^,2012, election day.

Lawrence W. Daly

www.onedaly.com

206-650-0229

onedaly@onedaly.com

Kent, WA

Posted in Criminology Amp Justice, Democratic Party, Denver, Joe Biden, Law enforcement agency, Mitt Romney, Romney, Thomson Correctional Center, United States | No comments

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Today’s Investigative Special Report September 9, 2012 “Dealing With Today’s Law Enforcement Specialized Investigations” “Fifty-Eight Days Left To The Presidential Election – What Does This Mean For Law Enforcement, You, And Your Community When It Comes To Your Safety?”

Posted on 9:00 PM by Unknown

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc

Forensic Expert and Author

Depending on what side of the political fence you are on, you may believe you understand what effect the presidential election will have on the law enforcement community and what it means to Americans.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The jobs report was released Friday and it was not good

for Americans. You can point fingers at one party or the other stating it is President Obama’s fault or the conservatives, or both of them, but for the law enforcement community, especially those who are the first-responders, crimes continue to occur and not only are they occurring but the economy is causing some of the problems. People have grown frustrated in losing their jobs, homes, paying gas prices now over $4.00+, displaying their mental, emotional, and stress problems, little hope that they will find a job, how they will feed their family, and so much more.

Some cities recently declared bankruptcies and some law enforcement officers have either lost their jobs or their pay has been reduced to the pay of minimum wage. Either situation would lead law enforcement officials to be concerned about how they are going to protect the communities they work in and the citizens of those communities should be worried as well.

Today, in Denver, Colorado, a 19 year-old male took a hostage at a Radio Shack and shots were fired. Allegedly, the unidentified male had planned to rob the Payday Loans store, which is next store to the Radio Shack, but things went sideways and he grabbed a hostage and moved he and the hostage into the Radio Shack. It took multiple law enforcement officers, specialized units such as SWAT and other specialized officers who have dealt with hostage situations to handle the situations. The hostage was released and the perpetrator was taken into custody.

So let us look into the future for just a moment and have a discussion about reality in the law enforcement community. Taking the Denver, Colorado situation which occurred Friday, if the city or county councils, state legislatures, or the Federal Government decide to begin reducing their law enforcements budget, the first thing to go will be the manpower i.e. first-responders on the street.

Those who are employed to protect and serve may not have a job in the near future. With some cities, counties, and states declaring bankruptcies or about to declare bankruptcies the first to go in the public service divisions will be law enforcement jobs.

Recently in the county of King, in Washington State, many deputy sheriffs have lost their jobs due to budget constraints. It is only the beginning of what is to happen nationwide. The problem is no one and this means no one has come up with a plan to get the economy moving forward in the local, county, state, or Federal Government arena. Nobody is spending their money or saving their money as they have no idea what the future holds.

Mitt Romney (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course President Obama, Vice-President Obama, Governor Mitt Romney, and Congressman Paul Ryan believe they have the answers to solving the economy. President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s economy plans are miles apart, and until the election is over the citizens of the United States, which includes law enforcement officials, jobs are on the line. Even then the winning party may not be able to stop the downward spiral.

So who will secure the jobs of law enforcement officials? Most importantly if the law enforcement community is brutally dissected to a minimal police force, the law enforcement community will not be the only people who will suffer.

Those who will suffer will be the citizens in the communities whose crime rate is higher than it ever has been in years. Homicide rates have risen to unacceptable levels in most of the major cities in the United States.

These politicians want you to believe that the formula to these questions is simple and law enforcement jobs are not at risk and safety is a number one priority for those who live in high-crime neighborhoods, but where are the indicators that things are changing.

President Obama advocates that building a bigger government is the way to keep law enforcement officers on the streets. Governor Romney advocates that investing into small businesses will keep law enforcement on the streets and communities safe.

The differences between the two parties may not resolve some of the cities, counties, states, and Federal Government financial problems. Let us examine President Obama’s plans. In order for law enforcement officers to keep their jobs, the President would need to have the money to funnel into these government agencies. Unfortunately, the 16 Trillion National Debt has people more than concerned, but has predicted that if the President continues on his plans to spend more money, the United States does not have the money to pay for the entitlement programs as well as law enforcement budgets. The financial experts are of the opinion that the Federal Government is on their way to bankruptcy and he will be a one-term president.

Governor Romney believes that if the government agencies invest into small businesses, people will be hired, a positive increase in revenue would be created and law enforcement jobs would no longer be in jeopardy. The positive facts about the Governor’s proposal are that history has demonstrated that investing into small businesses has turned the economy around, where building a bigger government won’t and hasn’t worked. Of course the citizens have their responsibilities in paying their taxes if they have jobs to do so.

Either leader, President Obama or Governor Romney have not told you, “By the way if we are both wrong, the criminals will be taking over, because no one will be at the crime scenes to protect the innocent and apprehend the criminals.”

Studies have shown that when there is a reduction in the number of law enforcement officers, there will be an increase in criminal behavior, and activity. This analysis is common sense at its best. It is like taking all of the correctional officers out of a prison and leaving the prisoners to run the prison.

In Los Angeles, California Friday, criminals abducted a woman who works at a local bank, went to her home abducted her, and strapped a bomb on her. Then they had her drive to the bank in which she is an employee, told them she had a bomb and had the other employees throw money outside the door to the bank robbers. The door where the employees threw the money out just happened to be the door where there were no cameras. The facts of this case are under police investigation. It appears that the abduction and robbery may be an inside job.

As a citizen you should be concerned about what happens to your local, county, state, and Federal law enforcement officers. It does matter who you vote for and this author will leave that up to you.

However, it is my concern and should be your concern of which political party has the answer in keeping our law enforcement officials on the street preventing, protecting, stopping, apprehending, prosecuting, and imprisoning those who commit crimes.

If the citizens in their communities do not step forward and ask the politicians about what happens if President Obama is re-elected or Governor Romney is elected, “What will happen to the men and women who wear the uniforms 24/7?” Then where is the protection of life, liberty, and happiness?

As the title of this article states, there are 58 days until the presidential election is decided. So the question(s) are do you know which politician will have the greatest positive effect on your communities public services? Is it Obama’s or Romney’s plan which guarantees that law enforcement are safe from being a casualty of an economy which has not been this bad since President Jimmy Carter was in office?

Do your research and make your vote count. Ask you political party for specifics and details when it comes to which politician will guarantee your safety, protect your family, your home, your job, your co-horts, and so forth. Shouldn’t you know what will happen to the law enforcement community, if one of these politicians are victorious.

Over the next 58 days, take the time to do your due diligence in finding out how the presidential election will affect not only you, your community, but also the law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve you. They deserve your best. Give law enforcement the opportunity to strive and survive and you can do this by asking your political party what they are going to do to keep every law enforcement official employed and ultimately guarantee your protection and safety.