Reblogged:Secret’s Out: No Bullet for Trump, Says Lawless Federal Agent

[Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.]

A senior U.S. Secret Service member suggested she would not take a bullet for President Trump in an October post on Facebook.

Kerry O’Grady said she would rather do “jail time” than take “a bullet” for Trump — who is a “disaster to this country,” she wrote in a post obtained by The Washington Examiner.

She also endorsed Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton for president.

In her post, O’Grady acknowledged that expressing her political beliefs on social media is a violation of the Hatch Act. The act prohibits executive branch members, excluding the president, vice president and other designed officials, from making partisan statements. [Source here and here and here.]

 

Wow. If a Secret Service agent had expressed reservations about taking a bullet for Obama when he was president, the ensuing mayhem would have looked like the media equivalent of martial law.

It’s fascinating—and distressing—how lawless these Democrats and leftists have become, even at the very highest and most sensitive levels of the government. By “lawless” I mean an unstated premise that rules, laws and principles don’t apply to them, at least not when their views, values or self-perceived virtues are in any questioned.

Whether it’s setting a limo on fire, crashing Starbucks windows, beating up people who voted for Trump, or doing your sworn duty to protect the President from a bullet, the attitude is the same: If you’re anything other than a Democrat, the laws and rules don’t apply.

Our entire Constitutional system depends on a nation of laws, not of men. Granted, laws have to be passed by the legislature and upheld by the judicial branch. It’s up to the executive branch to figure out how to implement them. But laws, in the end, are all that stand between each one of us and total anarchy or total dictatorship (same thing).

Laws provide objectivity and context. It seems self-evident that a Secret Service agent charged with protecting the president’s life would not be permitted to state his or her unwillingness to take a bullet for any particular president. Otherwise, how can remaining in that job possibly be justified?

Trump is now in office. So far as I know, this senior Secret Service agent did not leave her job prior to the inauguration. Why not? If she meant what she said, why would she even want to be in the position of protecting a man who does not, in her view, even deserve protection?

It’s kind of like the idiotic celebrities who threaten to leave the country if Trump is elected, without any intention of ever doing so. Yet we’re talking here about a senior member of the Secret Service, publicly expressing her refusal to ever accept a bullet for the current Commander-in-Chief. How far must affirmative action and gender quotas extend in tolerating the self-evidently intolerable?

What about the 50 percent or so of citizens who voted for Donald Trump? If their rights to have his presidency respected do not matter, then what’s this wretched federal agent to count on when a candidate she does like gets elected? If a Secret Service agent had said he wouldn’t take a bullet for President Hillary Clinton, would she tolerate that agent, as she expects us to tolerate her now? If laws only apply when it’s emotionally convenient, then what’s the purpose of laws in the first place? Why don’t we all just do as we please, including to each other, and leave it at that?

“As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle to not violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median. To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position,” she wrote. “Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides. But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her.”

But according to what she’s saying, she should not have to accept jail time. The Hatch Act only applies if you’re not a progressive, it seems. That’s what I mean by lawlessness. If you’re a Secret Service agent and you’re against President Donald Trump, then you don’t have to respect the law. Even if you’re one of the highest law enforcement professionals in the country.

It’s quite literally the policy of a Communist or fascist country, a policy that protects the politically correct and ignores (or executes) the politically incorrect at every level of society. America was supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men (or women). Laws are not infallible. Laws can be unjust—profoundly so. That’s why we have three branches of government. But if law enforcement agents may now decide which laws to follow or not, then what’s to become of us?

Note that O’Grady does not wish to challenge the rationality or Constitutionality of the Hatch Act. She’s perfectly fine with the Hatch Act, so long as a candidate she supports is president. But if anyone else is president, you can temporarily suspend the law. In effect, this means a one-party system of government. Why even have elections?

The moment we allow feelings – some people’s feelings, not others’ – to supplant the objectivity of laws is the moment we have entered the realm of civil breakdown, if not civil war. That’s the big concern I have about where America is headed. Half the country no longer feels bound to accept the legally binding reality dictated by the other half. Forget about who’s president at the moment. This problem is much bigger than any one president.

If Kerry O’Grady is prosecuted (or even criticized) for her comments and statements, brace yourself for the hysteria. She’ll be painted by Hollywood, the established media, unemployed couch potatoes, twenty-something basement dwellers, George Soros lackeys and federally-funded professors as a victim with no accountability whatsoever for her actions.

Once we give up on the validity and objectivity of laws, all the “social justice” and progressive, subjective emotions in the world are not going to save anyone. The fools who cheer this federal agent just because they hate Donald Trump will go down with the rest of us, should her violation of the law be treated with anything other than the full justice it deserves.

 

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!

Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.

 

 

The post Secret’s Out: No Bullet for Trump, Says Lawless Federal Agent appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com