Texas, unfuck thyself…

The number of people defending the Alamo is usually pegged at right around 200. At the height of the Pacific war, a fully manned Marine infantry company consisted of 7 officers and 228 enlisted personnel for a total of 235. 

During the school shooting in Uvalde, 376 law enforcement officers were on scene. 

That’s almost 2x the number of men who held the Alamo against the Mexican army. It’s 1.6x the number of troops who would have stormed ashore in an infantry company landing on Iwo Jima.

Those 376 armed and trained law enforcement officers were held at bay by one guy with limited ammunition and no way out.

I’m not necessarily calling into question the manhood or virility of each and every one of those officers, but men have certainly been charged, tried, and shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy for a lot less. 

The biggest question, really, is if and how so many elements of Texas law enforcement will unfuck themselves – and what lessons need to be learned by agencies large and small across the country. 

Selective enforcement…

I’ve got a real issue with any administration that selectively enforces the law. Either an action is illegal or it isn’t, otherwise what’s the purpose of describing yourself as being a nation of laws. By effectively granting amnesty to illegal immigrants under the age of 30, President Obama decreed that both the letter and the intent of current US law regarding immigration is irrelevant. Of course the current president isn’t the first to decide that the law is whatever he says it happens to be at the time. Once safely out of office, I seem to recall Nixon saying something about “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon was wrong then just as much as President Obama is wrong now.

I’m not going to drag this blog into a discussion of whether current immigration policy is right or wrong (for the record, I think it needs to be overhauled and then actually enforced, not necessarily in that order). This isn’t a discussion of right and wrong or good and bad, it’s a simple discussion about whether the President of the United States should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” or just make it up as he goes along. Here’s a hint, one of those two courses of action is spelled out word for word in the Constitution. In cases there’s any confusion, it’s always a good rule of thumb to consult the national user’s manual for guidance.

The president finds the idea of deporting illegal immigrants unethical and unpleasant (not to mention bad for reelection). Fine. I understand that. I find the federal income tax laws unethical and unpleasant. Does that mean I can go ahead and just not pay those this year, or is ignoring the law solely the preserve of the Executive Office of the President? Where does it end? Should companies ignore clean air and water laws or regulations because they’re inconvenient? Maybe it’s ok if soldiers don’t follow lawful orders on the battlefield. After all, the Commander-in-Chief set the precedent that it’s ok just to do whatever it is you happen to agree with.

Even taking away the political implications that will certainly prevent this country from discussing the issue in any rational way, this is bad governance. It’s another step on our race to the bottom. Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you for sneaking in the side door what you don’t have the capital or popular support to get done the right way. Shame on you for putting expediency and political considerations ahead of your sworn duty.