Who will guard the guardians?

Americans paying attention have been horrified to learn just how inept and malicious our federal law enforcement agencies have become under the Harris/Biden cabal. Institutions necessary for the preservation of our representative republic have not only failed us but have been turned against us. As Juvenal wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians? The answer, increasingly, is certainly not the Harris/Biden Administration.

The FBI has long been exposed as an institution far more interested in suppressing opposition to the ruling party than enforcing the law. FBI agents have focused on parents berating school boards for the sexual and political indoctrination of their children. Caught pursuing “Radical, traditional Catholics,” Americans who appreciate the Latin Mass, FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed only one FBI field office was doing that, he was appalled and stopped it immediately, until it was quickly revealed more than one was doing it and it hadn’t been stopped.

Graphic: X Screenshot

The FBI, whose motto is “fidelity, bravery, integrity, is now embroiled in another unsavory scandal:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is agreeing to pay out more than $22 million in taxpayer dollars following a class-action lawsuit by female recruits who allege harassment and discrimination during training. The lawsuit, initially filed in 2019, claims that women undergoing training at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, faced sexually charged remarks and false accusations, among other forms of harassment from their instructors.

The settlement, which will require federal judicial approval, involves compensation for 34 women dismissed from the academy. 

Apparently, diversity, equity and inclusion involves more abuse of women than was previously understood. But surely this couldn’t be true of the FBI? Surely this is merely MAGA incitement against an agency bravely struggling to save “our democracy?”  

A 2022 internal watchdog report confirmed many claims in the lawsuit, including fostering a “Good Old Boy Network” that allowed discriminatory behaviors to persist unchecked.

Oh.

But what about the Secret Service (SS)? They’ve had a rough summer with attempted assassinations against Donald Trump barely thwarted, but not without bloodshed and death. Never-ending revelations of incompetence, perhaps even of purposely allowing security vulnerabilities, plague the agency. A DEI focus, imposed throughout government by Harris and Biden, has also handicapped the SS, and its DEI hire former director, Kimberly Cheatle, resigned in the wake of the first assassination attempt. Female agents too small to cover Trump, who appeared to be clueless about what to do next, and who, in one case, couldn’t holster her handgun, did not encourage the public’s confidence in the SS. Equally concerning is the SS’s mandate to make its force 30% female, obviously regardless of whether that 30% was fully qualified. Now, the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is suing the SS over that DEI mandate:

"In our country, it is illegal for the government to discriminate on the basis of sex. That is the Constitution's 14th Amendment," May Mailman, director of the group's Independent Women's Law Center, told Fox News Digital. "But also Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex. And yet you have the Secret Service, of all agencies, saying that they want to have a 30% female quota."

SS brass have complained the SS if badly understaffed and have demanded more money, yet female quotas pose a real problem. If more than enough fully qualified women apply, it’s not an issue, but what’s the probability of enough to comprise 30% of the force? The SS is supposed to be the best of the best, a paramilitary organization where each agent is expected to have the size, strength, aggressiveness and ability to do things most men can’t. Surely there are extraordinary women who can meet those standards, but 30% of the force? What’s the alternative? Lowering standards, of course.

Mailman pointed to three reasons IWF takes issue with the 30% pledge: first, "it's illegal, and you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex," she said. Second, "it's particularly dangerous in the Secret Service" to hire on the basis of sex or other identifying factors rather than solely on expertise and qualifications for the job. Third, "it's particularly harmful to women," Mailman said.

Mailman also noted quota systems turn women into tokens, mere placeholders occupying slots reserved for a specific gender with ability and qualifications taking second place at best. Women should never be discriminated against, but dumbing down standards and breaking the law for the sake of woke ideology in an agency responsible for protecting the lives of our highest elected officials can only end in tragedy and further deterioration of citizen trust in  institutions necessary to the preservation of the republic.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/10/who_will_guard_the_guardians.html