Our nation remains numbed by the horrific shooting at a Florida high school. The random murder of innocent children is so evil we cannot comprehend it. In our grief, we fumble for answers and motives but none make sense. How can they? Our despair leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless.
This is becoming an all too familiar nightmare. Since 1990, there have been 70 shootings at kindergartens, elementary, middle and high schools killing more than 150 children and adults, according to a Wall Street Journal review of federal statistics.
In the aftermath of each shooting, a pattern emerges. Police missed the telltale signs of a troubled individual prone to violence. School kids and often teachers knew the shooter was a ticking time bomb. Yet no one stopped the youth from his deadly desire. That should haunt every American.
In the hunt for answers, the narrative always shifts to gun control. It is the false-hope solution. There is no evidence gun control stops violence. Countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have stricter gun control laws but their mass shooting rates are as high as the U.S.
Pandering politicians often single out Australia as a shining example to emulate. In 1987, Australia launched a buyback program for certain lethal weapons. More than a million guns were confiscated. Since then, gun ownership in Australia has grown three times faster than the population.
Guns aren't the villain. Guns have always been a part of America. What has changed is the media's cultural appropriation of weapons and death. Influential media--music, movies, video games, Internet and social media--celebrate guns and violence. The evidence is all around us, but we ignore it.
Consider that as this is written there are scores of rap songs with lyrics about weapons and killing. A current rap song contains this line: "I gotta gun and your family will be resting with you." From raw country to gangsta rap to hardcore hip hop, lyrics and music videos glorify violence and guns.
Exposure to such swill pollutes young souls. A 2017 study shared by JAMA Pediatrics concluded that "children who see movie characters use guns are more likely to use guns themselves." Even movies rated PG-13, often contain brutal killings, guns, bloody fights and wanton destruction.
The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) has published a number of studies that document playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in real life. In fact, researchers have concluded video games are more harmful than movies because they are interactive.
Social media is the newest platform for gratuitous violence. Young people on social media and the Internet are exposed to a steady stream of dehumanizing, graphically violent, ghastly images. Teens spend nearly nine hours every day consuming media. Nine hours. Think about that.
Americans have no excuse for claiming they are unaware of the cultural rot. As early as 2000, the American Psychiatric Association and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry cited more than 1,000 studies asserting the connection between media violence and behavior.
How many more young people have to become addicted to violence peddled in music, movies, social media and video games until we act? Before we ban a single gun, our children would be safer and less troubled if America outlawed gun killings, violence and graphic mayhem in media.
Hollywood glitterati, musicians and others will protest that freedom of expression protects their right to hawk violence. These hypocrites are the first to clamor for banning guns but the last to take ownership of their contributions to the problem. Why do we allow them to skirt responsibility?
In addition to banning violent gun images and words, America should compel the news media to quit making celebrities out of criminals whose only claim to fame is killing human beings. Their names and faces should only appear after they are charged. And then never again in public.
Perhaps, this latest slaughter of children will be the wake up call that finally shakes Americans out of their tendency to fall for easy solutions. Every American who wants to protect children should fight to clean up the raw sewage that is being dumped on our impressionable kids by irresponsible media.
How long must we wait until America tackles this festering problem?
Monday, February 26, 2018
Monday, February 19, 2018
Why Stocks Are Riding Market Roller Coaster
Just when the US stock market appeared to be defying gravity, it tumbled back to Earth with a resounding thud. Jittery investors rubbernecking at the Dow and S&P market numbers gulped Alka Seltzer. Panic gripped Wall Street traders who triggered a massive sell off of stocks.
Even before the dust settled, everyone from small individual investors to institutional fund giants were asking the same question: “Is the Bull Market over?”
That question dangled over the market as stocks began a roller coaster ride recently, giving new meaning to the word volatility. After the end of the bear market in March 2009, stocks have soared into record breaking territory, making this the second longest Bull Market in history.
But the recent gyrations have Wall Street analysts calling the downdraft a correction, a term reserved for a 10 percent drop in market averages. A 20% slide would have signaled the start of a Bear Market. Last week the market rallied, but the gut-wrenching steep swings may not be over.
Despite the conventional market wisdom, the gyrations are a product of the Federal Reserve’s experimental policy over the last eight years. The Fed propped up the stock market during President Obama’s tenure by lowering interest rates while increasing the supply of money.
Under former Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke, the country embarked on an unprecedented monetary experiment. The strategy was to repress the bond market by lowering interest rates, nudging investors into riskier assets such as stocks. The policy worked as assets prices rose.
Everything from real estate to junk bonds and stocks gained as the Fed drove interest rates to nearly zero while purchasing longer term securities issued by the federal government. At the same time, the Fed flooded financial institutions with capital to promote increased lending.
As a result of the the Fed’s unprecedented maneuvering, stocks leapfrogged to new highs. However, the market was built on quicksand. There was no underlying growth to support rising stock prices. Economical fundamentals were soft. The result was overheated stock prices.
After Bernacke stepped down, new chair Janet Yellen followed Bernacke’s script endorsed by Mr. Obama. In the twilight of Obama’s reign, when the economy began showing signs of a pulse, Yellen acquiesced and signaled a modest plan for raising interest rates.
Many leading economists were stumped by Yellen’s slow pace. The experts believed it was time to unwind the Fed’s asset purchases and allow interest rates to move upward at a faster clip. Despite the lack of economic evidence to continue to weigh down interest rates, Yellen clung to her policy.
The reason for her recalcitrance is the stock market was the one gem in an otherwise dismal economic performance under Mr. Obama. Fed chairs always insist their monetary decisions are unaffected by politics. Don’t believe it. Everything in Washington is influenced by politics.
That’s why this recent market nosedive should be named the Obama Correction. The Fed’s policy, which some claim saved the financial industry from collapse, resulted in the slowest recovery from a recession in U.S. history. Stock traders became rich, but the average American saw far less benefit.
The good news is the United States economy is shaking off its long malaise. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measurement of economic growth, hit 3.2 percent in the second quarter and finished the third at 2.6 percent. GDP numbers for 2017 will be released February 28.
Unemployment has dipped to historic lows. Wages are showing signs of inching upward. Corporate profits are now energized by top line revenue growth. And more firms are raising their profit estimates for future quarters, an indication there are better days ahead.
Of course, economic growth has a down side for the market. Analysts are now hand-wringing about interest rates putting a damper on consumer borrowing and spending. Wall Street is also spooked about fears of inflation as growth inevitably leads to a tight labor market and higher wages.
Even with an improving economy, no Bull Market lasts forever. The longest Bull Market in history was from October, 1987 to March of 2,000, a period of 4,494 days when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached 308 all-time highs and spiked 582%.
The current Bull run is approaching 3,000 days. The average Bull Market lasts about nine years (3,282) days and adds 480%. Looking at those numbers, the current Bull has room to grow, having added 260% in under eight years. This Bull may yet become the longest in U.S. market history.
Even before the dust settled, everyone from small individual investors to institutional fund giants were asking the same question: “Is the Bull Market over?”
That question dangled over the market as stocks began a roller coaster ride recently, giving new meaning to the word volatility. After the end of the bear market in March 2009, stocks have soared into record breaking territory, making this the second longest Bull Market in history.
But the recent gyrations have Wall Street analysts calling the downdraft a correction, a term reserved for a 10 percent drop in market averages. A 20% slide would have signaled the start of a Bear Market. Last week the market rallied, but the gut-wrenching steep swings may not be over.
Despite the conventional market wisdom, the gyrations are a product of the Federal Reserve’s experimental policy over the last eight years. The Fed propped up the stock market during President Obama’s tenure by lowering interest rates while increasing the supply of money.
Under former Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke, the country embarked on an unprecedented monetary experiment. The strategy was to repress the bond market by lowering interest rates, nudging investors into riskier assets such as stocks. The policy worked as assets prices rose.
Everything from real estate to junk bonds and stocks gained as the Fed drove interest rates to nearly zero while purchasing longer term securities issued by the federal government. At the same time, the Fed flooded financial institutions with capital to promote increased lending.
As a result of the the Fed’s unprecedented maneuvering, stocks leapfrogged to new highs. However, the market was built on quicksand. There was no underlying growth to support rising stock prices. Economical fundamentals were soft. The result was overheated stock prices.
After Bernacke stepped down, new chair Janet Yellen followed Bernacke’s script endorsed by Mr. Obama. In the twilight of Obama’s reign, when the economy began showing signs of a pulse, Yellen acquiesced and signaled a modest plan for raising interest rates.
Many leading economists were stumped by Yellen’s slow pace. The experts believed it was time to unwind the Fed’s asset purchases and allow interest rates to move upward at a faster clip. Despite the lack of economic evidence to continue to weigh down interest rates, Yellen clung to her policy.
The reason for her recalcitrance is the stock market was the one gem in an otherwise dismal economic performance under Mr. Obama. Fed chairs always insist their monetary decisions are unaffected by politics. Don’t believe it. Everything in Washington is influenced by politics.
That’s why this recent market nosedive should be named the Obama Correction. The Fed’s policy, which some claim saved the financial industry from collapse, resulted in the slowest recovery from a recession in U.S. history. Stock traders became rich, but the average American saw far less benefit.
The good news is the United States economy is shaking off its long malaise. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measurement of economic growth, hit 3.2 percent in the second quarter and finished the third at 2.6 percent. GDP numbers for 2017 will be released February 28.
Unemployment has dipped to historic lows. Wages are showing signs of inching upward. Corporate profits are now energized by top line revenue growth. And more firms are raising their profit estimates for future quarters, an indication there are better days ahead.
Of course, economic growth has a down side for the market. Analysts are now hand-wringing about interest rates putting a damper on consumer borrowing and spending. Wall Street is also spooked about fears of inflation as growth inevitably leads to a tight labor market and higher wages.
Even with an improving economy, no Bull Market lasts forever. The longest Bull Market in history was from October, 1987 to March of 2,000, a period of 4,494 days when the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached 308 all-time highs and spiked 582%.
The current Bull run is approaching 3,000 days. The average Bull Market lasts about nine years (3,282) days and adds 480%. Looking at those numbers, the current Bull has room to grow, having added 260% in under eight years. This Bull may yet become the longest in U.S. market history.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Auto Revolution: Shocking Electric Car Forecast
The electric car industry may be poised for a shocking sales jolt. By 2050, research indicates there may be as many as one billion electric vehicles gliding silently on roads worldwide. That's the prediction of Morgan Stanley, one of the world's leading global financial services firms.
In a report dated September 28, 2017, the Morgan team forecasts advances in battery technology and growing consumer acceptance will fuel rapid sales growth during the next three decades. Under their scenario, electrics would comprise as much as 90 percent of all sales by mid-century.
Thirty-years is a long horizon, but there are headwinds that make the prediction a stretch. For one thing, at the end of last year there were only 1,039,988 electric powered vehicles on roads. In the U.S., the number was 199,826. Today electrics account for less than 1 percent of vehicle sales.
Promoters of electrics autos tout the fact U.S. sales are increasing at prodigious rates. The number of battery electric vehicles (BEV) in use have nearly quadrupled in five years from 2012 to 2017. But there were a scant 52,607 produced in 2012. Consumer adoption has been nothing to brag about.
Electrics enjoy one major advantage over gasoline powered cars. The federal government doles out a tax credit of $7,500 to incentivize BEV purchases. Some sates, such as California, tack on a rebate of up to $7,000. Car manufacturers worry what will happen to sales if the subsidies evaporate.
Despite the government incentive, cost remains a barrier to many consumers. Electrics are more expensive than their combustion engine siblings with similar features. Market leader Tesla carries a price tag of more than $50,000 with some models costing north of $100,000.
Then there is the issue of battery distance. Tesla leads the pack with 335 miles on a single charge for its Model 585D. A Chevy Bolt EV has a range of 238 miles. Ford's Focus Electric taps out at 115 miles. The KIA Soul EV can travel 120 miles between charges.
When an electric car runs out of juice, there are few places to recharge. Currently, there are 16,541 charging stations in the country. Most are located in four states: California, Texas, Florida and New York. Good luck finding one in Montana. There are more than 121,000 gas stations nationwide.
The top four selling electrics in the U.S. last year were Tesla, Chevy Bolt EV, Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf in that order. The vehicle that led all sales in the country was the gas-gulping Ford F Series pickup with 896,764, more than all electrics combined. Let that sink in.
Electric enthusiasts point to China as the shining example for the future. Eleven percent of all vehicle sales in that country were BEV's, according to the most recent report. China registered 352,000 new electric cars in 2016 alone. The government is building 150,000 charging stations.
China’s Communist regime has gone one step further.. It has announced plans to the phase out of new combustion engine vehicles entirely. No date has been set, but the United Kingdom and France both have approved bans on the sale of new gasoline powered vehicles beginning in 2040.
But the threat of a ban has not disrupted China's auto market. BEV's still account for a sliver of the 28 million automobiles and trucks purchased by Chinese in 2016. Yet electric boosters are forecasting more than 5,000,000 electric cars will be traveling China's roadways by 2020.
China alone has tackled the cost hurdle, producing an ultra-affordable gasoline alternative. The country manufacturers low-speed electric mini-cars that sell for $5,000 and max out at 40 miles per hour. The golf-cart looking cars are powered by a lead-acid battery. But it's decidedly low tech.
Despite the skepticism of consumers, automobile manufacturers are going all in for electric. Global automobile firms have earmarked $90 billion to develop plug-in electric vehicles. Some researchers are convinced that investments will equal consumer adoption. The assumption may be flawed.
Bill Ford Jr., the executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, marveled at the the many electric car prototypes that were being introduced at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit. He was impressed with the volume but admitted he had a nagging concern.
Mr. Ford mused, "The only question is will the customer be there with us?" His point was Ford and its competitors are rushing headlong into electric vehicles and spending the equivalent of the GDP of a small country to bring more BEV's to market even as customer response has been tepid.
Will that change once there are millions of shiny electric vehicles sitting on auto dealers showroom floors? Consumers hold the answer to the multi-billion dollar question and many appear reluctant to part with their combustion powered vehicles, especially in a era of falling gasoline prices.
In light of that reality, how long will it be before politicians in Washington decide they know better than consumers and force Americans to give up their gasoline powered cars in favor of electric vehicles?
In a report dated September 28, 2017, the Morgan team forecasts advances in battery technology and growing consumer acceptance will fuel rapid sales growth during the next three decades. Under their scenario, electrics would comprise as much as 90 percent of all sales by mid-century.
Thirty-years is a long horizon, but there are headwinds that make the prediction a stretch. For one thing, at the end of last year there were only 1,039,988 electric powered vehicles on roads. In the U.S., the number was 199,826. Today electrics account for less than 1 percent of vehicle sales.
Promoters of electrics autos tout the fact U.S. sales are increasing at prodigious rates. The number of battery electric vehicles (BEV) in use have nearly quadrupled in five years from 2012 to 2017. But there were a scant 52,607 produced in 2012. Consumer adoption has been nothing to brag about.
Electrics enjoy one major advantage over gasoline powered cars. The federal government doles out a tax credit of $7,500 to incentivize BEV purchases. Some sates, such as California, tack on a rebate of up to $7,000. Car manufacturers worry what will happen to sales if the subsidies evaporate.
Despite the government incentive, cost remains a barrier to many consumers. Electrics are more expensive than their combustion engine siblings with similar features. Market leader Tesla carries a price tag of more than $50,000 with some models costing north of $100,000.
Then there is the issue of battery distance. Tesla leads the pack with 335 miles on a single charge for its Model 585D. A Chevy Bolt EV has a range of 238 miles. Ford's Focus Electric taps out at 115 miles. The KIA Soul EV can travel 120 miles between charges.
When an electric car runs out of juice, there are few places to recharge. Currently, there are 16,541 charging stations in the country. Most are located in four states: California, Texas, Florida and New York. Good luck finding one in Montana. There are more than 121,000 gas stations nationwide.
The top four selling electrics in the U.S. last year were Tesla, Chevy Bolt EV, Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf in that order. The vehicle that led all sales in the country was the gas-gulping Ford F Series pickup with 896,764, more than all electrics combined. Let that sink in.
Electric enthusiasts point to China as the shining example for the future. Eleven percent of all vehicle sales in that country were BEV's, according to the most recent report. China registered 352,000 new electric cars in 2016 alone. The government is building 150,000 charging stations.
China’s Communist regime has gone one step further.. It has announced plans to the phase out of new combustion engine vehicles entirely. No date has been set, but the United Kingdom and France both have approved bans on the sale of new gasoline powered vehicles beginning in 2040.
But the threat of a ban has not disrupted China's auto market. BEV's still account for a sliver of the 28 million automobiles and trucks purchased by Chinese in 2016. Yet electric boosters are forecasting more than 5,000,000 electric cars will be traveling China's roadways by 2020.
China alone has tackled the cost hurdle, producing an ultra-affordable gasoline alternative. The country manufacturers low-speed electric mini-cars that sell for $5,000 and max out at 40 miles per hour. The golf-cart looking cars are powered by a lead-acid battery. But it's decidedly low tech.
Despite the skepticism of consumers, automobile manufacturers are going all in for electric. Global automobile firms have earmarked $90 billion to develop plug-in electric vehicles. Some researchers are convinced that investments will equal consumer adoption. The assumption may be flawed.
Bill Ford Jr., the executive chairman of Ford Motor Company, marveled at the the many electric car prototypes that were being introduced at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit. He was impressed with the volume but admitted he had a nagging concern.
Mr. Ford mused, "The only question is will the customer be there with us?" His point was Ford and its competitors are rushing headlong into electric vehicles and spending the equivalent of the GDP of a small country to bring more BEV's to market even as customer response has been tepid.
Will that change once there are millions of shiny electric vehicles sitting on auto dealers showroom floors? Consumers hold the answer to the multi-billion dollar question and many appear reluctant to part with their combustion powered vehicles, especially in a era of falling gasoline prices.
In light of that reality, how long will it be before politicians in Washington decide they know better than consumers and force Americans to give up their gasoline powered cars in favor of electric vehicles?
Monday, February 5, 2018
The Secret Court Behind the Scandal
A little known court cloaked in secrecy is at heart of the unraveling Washington scandal involving surveillance of the Trump campaign. The acronym for the court--FISA--has been peppered throughout news reports and in the just released GOP House Intelligence Committee memo.
FISA is an enigma to most Americans. That's because it is intentionally hidden from the public. It operates in stealth secrecy behind closed doors in a nondescript federal court building in Washington. Although records are kept of its proceedings, the details are unavailable to the public.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was shepherded through Congress by Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy. The law, signed by President Carter, was spawned by President Nixon's use of government resources to spy on political and activist groups.
FISA spelled out procedures for electronic snooping and collection of information on foreign powers and their agents. The law created a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee government requests for surveillance warrants.
There are 11 FISC judges currently on the court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints sitting federal judges to this part-time assignment. The judges serve seven-year terms in addition to their regular duties as federal magistrates. FISC judges are on call 24/7.
Their job is to review requests for warrants sought primarily by the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) for surveillance of foreign intelligence agents operating inside the U.S. The hearings are a one-sided affair with no one present outside the federal government.
If the FISC court rejects a request for a warrant, law enforcement agencies can appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. That court is staffed by a three-judge panel. It doesn't get much businesw because the FISC court rarely rejects a request out of hand.
In the 33-year period from 1979 to 2012, federal agencies made 33,942 requests for surveillance warrants. Judges rejected a grand total of 12. In a few cases, the FISC court orders the government to modify its surveillance request before approving it. But the majority are rubber stamped.
In the years since the law became effective on October 25, 1978, Congress has tacked on a number of amendments widening the surveillance net. FISA gives law enforcement the right to conduct a physical search of the premises, information or material used by a foreign agent or power.
However, the FISC court is limited to overseeing foreign--not domestic-- intelligence surveillance. American citizens can be surveilled with a FISA warrant ONLY if there is evidence a crime has been committed while they were acting on behalf of a foreign government.
After the deadly attacks of 9/11 on American soil, the act was again altered to include terrorists who are not backed by a foreign government. In addition, the president is authorized to green light electronic surveillance of international calls and email linked to terrorist groups in case of an attack.
Americans have now discovered the FISA court was used to authorize eavesdropping on members of the Trump team. The so-called evidence that justified the court-sanctioned surveillance was a salacious dossier bankrolled by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.
It is been publicly disclosed that the FISC court was not informed that the dossier was a paid political hit piece. This is a serious omission that would have been challenged in an open proceeeding where the government is not the only party appearing in court.
This underscores what can happen when courts operate in secrecy without public oversight. It is chilling to consider the country's top law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), can be weaponized against a political candidate by deceiving the FISA court.
This is not merely a political issue. Spying on Americans without probable cause is a gross violation of civil libirities. It smacks of the tactics of a Russian regime that operates in the shadows to intimidate opposition and limit freedoms. Nothing justifies illegal surveillance of Americans.
Yet Democrats are desperately trying to shield the Obama Administration. They fought tooth and nail to cover up the collusion between the FBI, the Department of Justice and the administration by opposing public release of the memo. It stinks. Every American should be sickened.
In the days ahead, there will be calls for reform of surveillance laws. The first act of Congress should be to shine some light on the FISC court. This current kerfuffle cannot be the first and only abuse of a system shrouded in mystery. Lift the veil of secrecy or eliminate the FISC. And do it now.
FISA is an enigma to most Americans. That's because it is intentionally hidden from the public. It operates in stealth secrecy behind closed doors in a nondescript federal court building in Washington. Although records are kept of its proceedings, the details are unavailable to the public.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was shepherded through Congress by Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy. The law, signed by President Carter, was spawned by President Nixon's use of government resources to spy on political and activist groups.
FISA spelled out procedures for electronic snooping and collection of information on foreign powers and their agents. The law created a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee government requests for surveillance warrants.
There are 11 FISC judges currently on the court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints sitting federal judges to this part-time assignment. The judges serve seven-year terms in addition to their regular duties as federal magistrates. FISC judges are on call 24/7.
Their job is to review requests for warrants sought primarily by the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) for surveillance of foreign intelligence agents operating inside the U.S. The hearings are a one-sided affair with no one present outside the federal government.
If the FISC court rejects a request for a warrant, law enforcement agencies can appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. That court is staffed by a three-judge panel. It doesn't get much businesw because the FISC court rarely rejects a request out of hand.
In the 33-year period from 1979 to 2012, federal agencies made 33,942 requests for surveillance warrants. Judges rejected a grand total of 12. In a few cases, the FISC court orders the government to modify its surveillance request before approving it. But the majority are rubber stamped.
In the years since the law became effective on October 25, 1978, Congress has tacked on a number of amendments widening the surveillance net. FISA gives law enforcement the right to conduct a physical search of the premises, information or material used by a foreign agent or power.
However, the FISC court is limited to overseeing foreign--not domestic-- intelligence surveillance. American citizens can be surveilled with a FISA warrant ONLY if there is evidence a crime has been committed while they were acting on behalf of a foreign government.
After the deadly attacks of 9/11 on American soil, the act was again altered to include terrorists who are not backed by a foreign government. In addition, the president is authorized to green light electronic surveillance of international calls and email linked to terrorist groups in case of an attack.
Americans have now discovered the FISA court was used to authorize eavesdropping on members of the Trump team. The so-called evidence that justified the court-sanctioned surveillance was a salacious dossier bankrolled by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.
It is been publicly disclosed that the FISC court was not informed that the dossier was a paid political hit piece. This is a serious omission that would have been challenged in an open proceeeding where the government is not the only party appearing in court.
This underscores what can happen when courts operate in secrecy without public oversight. It is chilling to consider the country's top law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), can be weaponized against a political candidate by deceiving the FISA court.
This is not merely a political issue. Spying on Americans without probable cause is a gross violation of civil libirities. It smacks of the tactics of a Russian regime that operates in the shadows to intimidate opposition and limit freedoms. Nothing justifies illegal surveillance of Americans.
Yet Democrats are desperately trying to shield the Obama Administration. They fought tooth and nail to cover up the collusion between the FBI, the Department of Justice and the administration by opposing public release of the memo. It stinks. Every American should be sickened.
In the days ahead, there will be calls for reform of surveillance laws. The first act of Congress should be to shine some light on the FISC court. This current kerfuffle cannot be the first and only abuse of a system shrouded in mystery. Lift the veil of secrecy or eliminate the FISC. And do it now.