The media mob, political pundits and Republican voters are hyperventilating over the prospect of a contested political convention this summer. Although, the likelihood decreases with each Donald Trump primary victory, the cacophony grows. Shrill voices are predicting Armageddon.
The problem with the verbal histrionics is a lack of historical perspective. Until the 1970's, contested political conventions were the norm rather than the exception. In that decade, however, states began a stampede to hold presidential primaries to pick delegates to the party convention.
Before the primaries, there were some epic convention hijinks in both political parties. Terms like "horse trading," "smoke-filled rooms" and "back-room handshakes" were often used to describe the wheeling and dealing at the raucous conventions.
No convention in this era will likely top the one in 1924. John W. Davis waited until the 103rd ballot to be crowned the Democratic Party's nominee. That record has stood for 92 years. He was a compromise candidate after two other politicians could not muster a majority.
Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson was the last candidate not to win the nomination on the first ballot at the 1952 convention. He secured the nomination on the third ballot. The last GOP convention that went more than one ballot happened in 1948.
That year Thomas Dewey arrived at the convention that year with the most delegates in his pocket. But there were strong challenges from two other candidates. Dewey prevailed on the third ballot. However, it was a hallow victory. He lost the presidency to Democrat Harry Truman.
Throughout history, presidential candidates who secure the nomination on the second ballot or later have suffered the same fate. In 61 percent of the cases, the party nominee lost the general election, according to a study undertaken by Pew Research.
That helps explain why political parties abhor contested conventions. The outcome usually leaves emotional and political scars that make it nearly impossible for the nominee to unite the party. The same concerns arise when no single candidate secures the required votes prior to the convention.
However, it is not necessarily a bad omen for the Republican Party.
Since the Republican Party's first convention in 1856, there have been 10 times when no candidate arrived with a majority of delegates. If you're a Trump supporter, pay attention. In seven of those conventions, the eventual winner was plucked off the also-ran list.
Out of those 10 contested conventions, six Republican nominees went all the way to the Oval Office.
The last time a candidate of either party tiptoed into the convention without a majority of delegates was 1984. Eventual nominee Walter Mondale was a few dozen short of the magic number. But he cruised to the nomination after an eleventh hour blockade by Gary Hart was short-circuited.
In 1976, a battered President Gerald Ford paraded into Kansas City for the Republican Convention 226 delegates short of claiming the nomination. Ronald Reagan had survived the bare-knuckled primary season with only 105 less delegates than the sitting president.
After a bloody floor fight over rules, the Ford forces emerged victorious, clearing the way for the president to secure enough uncommitted delegates to win on the first ballot. But it was a squeaker. Ford's margin of victory over Reagan was 87 delegates.
Notably, both Ford and Mondale saw their dreams of winning the general election dashed.
With that historical perspective, the current fear and loathing over a contested convention appears somewhat justified. There remains a good chance Trump will claim the nomination outright with enough delegates before the gavel goes down on the convention, making the point moot.
If Trump falls short, then the delegates elected by the people will fulfill their duty in nominating a presidential candidate. There is nothing nefarious, illegal or unfair about the process. The delegate rules were in place before the primaries were launched.
But there is one caveat. If a candidate or party deal maker changes the rules at the convention, then all hell will break loose. In that case, the Republican Party will be signing its own death warrant and Democrats will be more than happy to pull the switch to kill the GOP's election chances.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Gene Editing: Science's Brave New Frontier
A single genetic error is blamed for crippling disorders, such as sickle-cell anemia, Huntington's disease and muscular dystrophy. Scientists long ago identified the defective genes responsible for each of these calamities, but have been unable to capitalize on that knowledge.
That may soon change with the discovery of a new method to edit the genetic code. At its basic level, the cutting-edge tool potentially will allow doctors and scientists to edit out unwanted disease-causing genes. Imagine new generations of babies born without these genetic defects.
Although it is an oversimplification, the new technology is like using the "delete" button on your computer keyboard to remove a word. In this case, the gene is removed as easily as correcting a typographical error. It opens up a new frontier for making some diseases extinct in the future.
The pioneering discovery was publicly unveiled about four years ago when scientists realized a protein could be deployed to facilitate gene editing. The protein acts as a pair of scissors, snipping out pieces of viruses or faulty DNA. In addition, it enables the cell to knit itself back together.
The scientific name for the gene editing process is CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR is an acronym for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,"a description of repeating sequences of genomes. Cas9 is the protein that enables the gene editing.
Without diving too deeply into the science, envision a cellular scalpel that is guided through a complex web of genomes until it locates the precise flawed gene. Scientists believe this technology will usher in a new era in biology research, medicine and biotechnology.
Although other gene editing procedures exist, researchers have found that CRISPR-Cas9 is simpler, faster, cheaper and more accurate. That is part of the technology's allure, which scientists believe may make it possible to address complex maladies, such as cancer, which involve hundreds of genes.
Using the science, doctors could potentially eliminate or add genes in human embryos, sperm or egg cells to correct a mutation that otherwise would promote the development of a debilitating disease leading to a lifetime of suffering and expensive medical treatment.
The heritable gene alterations made in humans would be passed on to future generations. It is plausible to believe that the technology could transform evolution itself as heritable genes for certain diseases are forever eliminated from a family's lineage.
Dr. George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, urges prudence to avoid unintended consequences. "If a new technology is an improvement over previous practice, then we cautiously implement it for the clearest needs first, watching for opportunities to make it even safer," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
The Harvard educator suggests beginning with a focus on repairing the most deadly, incurable genetic diseases in newborns. If these trials yield safe, effective results, then Dr. Church advocates moving to other undesirable heritable traits.
However, the prospect of gene-editing is not without ethical concerns, especially because of its intended use on embryos. It conjures up images of designer children, programmed with genes for intelligence, hair color, stature and other desirable characteristics.
That kind of genetic tampering raises eyebrows in the scientific community. Already, Chinese scientists have successfully genetically modified monkeys in the embryonic stage. Another Chinese team pushed the limits further, experimenting with editing genes in human embryos.
However, there are other non-human applications for the genetic technique. For example, it could be used to alter genes in plants to guard against fungus or to develop drought-resistant crops. Even this function, however, has sparked debate about the use of technology to genetically alter foods.
No doubt there needs to be more study about gene editing applications. But the implications for a future free of human disease, punishing disorders and misery is too encouraging to hamstring the progress of trials. Not to forget, the impact on medical expenses for treating the diseases.
The science will remain unproven until carefully monitored, ethical human experiments are green-lighted. America should be at the forefront of this new frontier, leading instead of standing on the sidelines and complaining about the nefarious intentions of others.
That may soon change with the discovery of a new method to edit the genetic code. At its basic level, the cutting-edge tool potentially will allow doctors and scientists to edit out unwanted disease-causing genes. Imagine new generations of babies born without these genetic defects.
Although it is an oversimplification, the new technology is like using the "delete" button on your computer keyboard to remove a word. In this case, the gene is removed as easily as correcting a typographical error. It opens up a new frontier for making some diseases extinct in the future.
The pioneering discovery was publicly unveiled about four years ago when scientists realized a protein could be deployed to facilitate gene editing. The protein acts as a pair of scissors, snipping out pieces of viruses or faulty DNA. In addition, it enables the cell to knit itself back together.
The scientific name for the gene editing process is CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR is an acronym for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,"a description of repeating sequences of genomes. Cas9 is the protein that enables the gene editing.
Without diving too deeply into the science, envision a cellular scalpel that is guided through a complex web of genomes until it locates the precise flawed gene. Scientists believe this technology will usher in a new era in biology research, medicine and biotechnology.
Although other gene editing procedures exist, researchers have found that CRISPR-Cas9 is simpler, faster, cheaper and more accurate. That is part of the technology's allure, which scientists believe may make it possible to address complex maladies, such as cancer, which involve hundreds of genes.
Using the science, doctors could potentially eliminate or add genes in human embryos, sperm or egg cells to correct a mutation that otherwise would promote the development of a debilitating disease leading to a lifetime of suffering and expensive medical treatment.
The heritable gene alterations made in humans would be passed on to future generations. It is plausible to believe that the technology could transform evolution itself as heritable genes for certain diseases are forever eliminated from a family's lineage.
Dr. George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, urges prudence to avoid unintended consequences. "If a new technology is an improvement over previous practice, then we cautiously implement it for the clearest needs first, watching for opportunities to make it even safer," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
The Harvard educator suggests beginning with a focus on repairing the most deadly, incurable genetic diseases in newborns. If these trials yield safe, effective results, then Dr. Church advocates moving to other undesirable heritable traits.
However, the prospect of gene-editing is not without ethical concerns, especially because of its intended use on embryos. It conjures up images of designer children, programmed with genes for intelligence, hair color, stature and other desirable characteristics.
That kind of genetic tampering raises eyebrows in the scientific community. Already, Chinese scientists have successfully genetically modified monkeys in the embryonic stage. Another Chinese team pushed the limits further, experimenting with editing genes in human embryos.
However, there are other non-human applications for the genetic technique. For example, it could be used to alter genes in plants to guard against fungus or to develop drought-resistant crops. Even this function, however, has sparked debate about the use of technology to genetically alter foods.
No doubt there needs to be more study about gene editing applications. But the implications for a future free of human disease, punishing disorders and misery is too encouraging to hamstring the progress of trials. Not to forget, the impact on medical expenses for treating the diseases.
The science will remain unproven until carefully monitored, ethical human experiments are green-lighted. America should be at the forefront of this new frontier, leading instead of standing on the sidelines and complaining about the nefarious intentions of others.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Tax Thieves: The Biggest Scam in U.S. History
By any measure, it will be the biggest heist in American history. An estimated $21 billion will be hauled in this year by identity thieves using fake tax returns to hijack refunds. Since 2011, these crooks have siphoned off more than $24 billion from the U.S. Treasury.
These are no ordinary mom-and-pop criminals. Often the crimes are committed by large criminal enterprises that are well organized. The masterminds behind the schemes employ sophisticated means to scoop up data from sources ranging from hospitals to nursing homes and banks.
The swindlers pilfer Social Security numbers, drivers license information, addresses and other data. The criminals then use the material to file forged tax refunds, often with state revenue agencies as well as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The bandits file the fraudulent returns early in the tax season, betting they will receive the refunds before the unwary victims submit their tax forms. With electronic filing, it is even easier for thugs to register a return and receive a refund via direct deposit.
The hijackers use bogus wages and other phony information that will result in a refund. Unfortunately, the IRS does not match electronically submitted tax forms with a taxpayers past returns until months after the refund check has been dispatched.
When the real taxpayer files his return, the IRS turns the tables on the victim. The agency will not issue an immediate refund as it did for the embezzler. The IRS notifies the victim that it has already distributed a refund and demands proof of identity from the authentic taxpayer.
In a 2013 report, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found the IRS took an average of 312 days to resolve the matter of a counterfeit refund. That year the inspector general projected the IRS issued 1.1 million refunds to thieves using stolen data.
The problem is growing worse, despite IRS assurances it would crackdown on tax refund theft. In fact, tax cheats utilized the inept agency's own taxpayer system to steal the data of 724,000 citizens between January 2014 and May 2015. A red-faced IRS eventually shuttered the loophole.
There are other signs that the IRS is incapable of policing the issue. For example, Treasury's inspector general uncovered another whooper. In 2011, the agency sent $3.3 million in tax refunds from 2,137 bogus returns to a single address in Lansing, Michigan.
Shouldn't that have set off alarm bells? Apparently, it didn't because that same year the bungling agency transmitted $1.1 million to one address in Belle Glade, Florida. The refunds came from 741 returns submitted to the feds. Another address in Tampa, Florida, was the recipient of $1.7 million.
Before the current tax season, the IRS published a list of the "dirty dozen" scams that snag victims, but dodged responsibility. "Though the agency is making progress on this front, taxpayers still need to be extremely careful and do everything to avoid being victimized," the agency said.
Spoken like a true Washington bureaucrat. "Don't blame the IRS because it's doing all it can. It's stupid Americans who are the problem." You can almost hear the cascading water as Pontus Pilate washes his hands.
For its part, the IRS proudly points to a Security Summit Initiative, which it hosted in 2015 with states and representatives of the tax industry. The goal was to enhance coordination between states, the IRS and tax preparers to create a more secure system for taxpayers.
It must not be working too well. The IRS is responsible for that estimate of $21 billion in tax refund fraud in 2016. Two years ago the figure was $6.2 billion. Does that sound like progress?
Some guffaw when Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz promises to abolish the IRS. "What would happen with tax fraud?" the doubters shriek with disbelief. Well, apparently it couldn't get much worse.
Tax fraud costs taxpayers double. Their taxes pay for the inept IRS. Then taxpayers cover the loses of the U.S. Treasury when it sends out spurious refunds. The insanity must stop. A good first step would be to fire the IRS commissioner and every executive in the agency.
These are no ordinary mom-and-pop criminals. Often the crimes are committed by large criminal enterprises that are well organized. The masterminds behind the schemes employ sophisticated means to scoop up data from sources ranging from hospitals to nursing homes and banks.
The swindlers pilfer Social Security numbers, drivers license information, addresses and other data. The criminals then use the material to file forged tax refunds, often with state revenue agencies as well as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The bandits file the fraudulent returns early in the tax season, betting they will receive the refunds before the unwary victims submit their tax forms. With electronic filing, it is even easier for thugs to register a return and receive a refund via direct deposit.
The hijackers use bogus wages and other phony information that will result in a refund. Unfortunately, the IRS does not match electronically submitted tax forms with a taxpayers past returns until months after the refund check has been dispatched.
When the real taxpayer files his return, the IRS turns the tables on the victim. The agency will not issue an immediate refund as it did for the embezzler. The IRS notifies the victim that it has already distributed a refund and demands proof of identity from the authentic taxpayer.
In a 2013 report, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found the IRS took an average of 312 days to resolve the matter of a counterfeit refund. That year the inspector general projected the IRS issued 1.1 million refunds to thieves using stolen data.
The problem is growing worse, despite IRS assurances it would crackdown on tax refund theft. In fact, tax cheats utilized the inept agency's own taxpayer system to steal the data of 724,000 citizens between January 2014 and May 2015. A red-faced IRS eventually shuttered the loophole.
There are other signs that the IRS is incapable of policing the issue. For example, Treasury's inspector general uncovered another whooper. In 2011, the agency sent $3.3 million in tax refunds from 2,137 bogus returns to a single address in Lansing, Michigan.
Shouldn't that have set off alarm bells? Apparently, it didn't because that same year the bungling agency transmitted $1.1 million to one address in Belle Glade, Florida. The refunds came from 741 returns submitted to the feds. Another address in Tampa, Florida, was the recipient of $1.7 million.
Before the current tax season, the IRS published a list of the "dirty dozen" scams that snag victims, but dodged responsibility. "Though the agency is making progress on this front, taxpayers still need to be extremely careful and do everything to avoid being victimized," the agency said.
Spoken like a true Washington bureaucrat. "Don't blame the IRS because it's doing all it can. It's stupid Americans who are the problem." You can almost hear the cascading water as Pontus Pilate washes his hands.
For its part, the IRS proudly points to a Security Summit Initiative, which it hosted in 2015 with states and representatives of the tax industry. The goal was to enhance coordination between states, the IRS and tax preparers to create a more secure system for taxpayers.
It must not be working too well. The IRS is responsible for that estimate of $21 billion in tax refund fraud in 2016. Two years ago the figure was $6.2 billion. Does that sound like progress?
Some guffaw when Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz promises to abolish the IRS. "What would happen with tax fraud?" the doubters shriek with disbelief. Well, apparently it couldn't get much worse.
Tax fraud costs taxpayers double. Their taxes pay for the inept IRS. Then taxpayers cover the loses of the U.S. Treasury when it sends out spurious refunds. The insanity must stop. A good first step would be to fire the IRS commissioner and every executive in the agency.
Monday, April 11, 2016
New Normal: Americans' Losing Jobs and Wages
Each month when the nation's unemployment numbers are released the Obama Administration's mouthpieces do verbal back flips to celebrate. They brag that the figures are proof of sustained economic recovery, robust job growth and unparalleled prosperity.
American workers are not buying the hype. Pew Research finds that a majority (56%) of Americans say their family's income is falling behind the cost of living. More than a third (37%) believe their household income is barely staying even with inflation. Workers are more apprehensive than ever.
There is a disconnect because the president and his minions are fixated on a number that has lost all meaning for ordinary Americans. The unemployment rate, now at 5.0 percent, has almost no relation to the health of the economy because it has been watered down by bureaucratic definitions.
The number does not include people unemployed for 27 weeks or more. It excludes those who are not in the labor force, but have looked for a job in the last 12 months. It does not count so-called discouraged workers who are not longer seeking jobs. The real unemployment is above 9 percent.
This bureaucratic tinkering hasn't fooled Americans. The economic recovery remains a myth for many employees. Most workers know they are hanging on by a thread to their jobs. Even those with secure job futures, have experienced wage stagnation or worse.
This bureaucratic tinkering hasn't fooled Americans. The economic recovery remains a myth for many employees. Most workers know they are hanging on by a thread to their jobs. Even those with secure job futures, have experienced wage stagnation or worse.
The median household income in 2009 when President Obama took office was $55,415. At the end of 2015, it was $56,058. That's a gain of of $643 in seven years. That won't even pay for the rate increases of the last three years that consumers experienced under Obamacare health coverage.
The Pew Research Center has analyzed the real wages of U.S. workers, which means earnings after adjusting for inflation. After poring over five decades worth of wage data, the research concluded that real wages have been trending downward for years.
Since 2000, wage data from the Labor Department adjusted for inflation reveals that workers' pay has fallen 3.7 percent in real terms. There are many theories being bandied about to explain the phenomenon, but most fall short of identifying the intrinsic cause.
Economists fail to account for the abrupt change in the nature of American jobs. It is hardly news that the country has evolved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. However, there has been little accounting for the sheer numbers of lost jobs and the wage trade-offs of the new economy.
In 1979, there were 19,553,000 manufacturing jobs in America. Today the number is 12,291,000 and tumbling each month. Manufacturing shredded another 29,000 jobs in March. In the last 36 years, 7,262,000 American manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Gone. Forever.
The figures for March job growth underscore the depressed wage issue. There was a gain of 215,000 in payrolls for the month, a figure the ill-informed hailed as a sign of booming job expansion. Nonsense. Most of the hiring was in retail stores, fast-food restaurants and bars.
That means the only payrolls expanding are those for jobs that offer wages below the national average. For example, the current average hourly pay for a manufacturing job is $25.69, according to the Labor Department. Retail and food service jobs average $17.77 and $13.73, respectively.
If you dive below the headline numbers, you also discover the number of Americans working part time for economic reasons rose 135,000 in March. These workers want full-time employment but cannot find it. It means there are more than six million people mired in financial quicksand.
Unfortunately, this has become the new economy ushered in by President Barrack Obama, whose policies have pressured businesses to reduce hours, flatten payrolls and outsource jobs. The next president will face the arduous task of reversing eight years of economic paralysis and wage decay.
The Pew Research Center has analyzed the real wages of U.S. workers, which means earnings after adjusting for inflation. After poring over five decades worth of wage data, the research concluded that real wages have been trending downward for years.
Since 2000, wage data from the Labor Department adjusted for inflation reveals that workers' pay has fallen 3.7 percent in real terms. There are many theories being bandied about to explain the phenomenon, but most fall short of identifying the intrinsic cause.
Economists fail to account for the abrupt change in the nature of American jobs. It is hardly news that the country has evolved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. However, there has been little accounting for the sheer numbers of lost jobs and the wage trade-offs of the new economy.
In 1979, there were 19,553,000 manufacturing jobs in America. Today the number is 12,291,000 and tumbling each month. Manufacturing shredded another 29,000 jobs in March. In the last 36 years, 7,262,000 American manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Gone. Forever.
The figures for March job growth underscore the depressed wage issue. There was a gain of 215,000 in payrolls for the month, a figure the ill-informed hailed as a sign of booming job expansion. Nonsense. Most of the hiring was in retail stores, fast-food restaurants and bars.
That means the only payrolls expanding are those for jobs that offer wages below the national average. For example, the current average hourly pay for a manufacturing job is $25.69, according to the Labor Department. Retail and food service jobs average $17.77 and $13.73, respectively.
If you dive below the headline numbers, you also discover the number of Americans working part time for economic reasons rose 135,000 in March. These workers want full-time employment but cannot find it. It means there are more than six million people mired in financial quicksand.
Unfortunately, this has become the new economy ushered in by President Barrack Obama, whose policies have pressured businesses to reduce hours, flatten payrolls and outsource jobs. The next president will face the arduous task of reversing eight years of economic paralysis and wage decay.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Will Hillary Clinton Be Indicted?
Republicans fantasize about a throng of FBI agents swooping into Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters and hauling her off in handcuffs. They daydream about the Democratic presidential front-runner decked out in an orange jumpsuit lolling in a prison exercise yard.
Their swooning has taken social media by storm. Thousands of posts on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and other sites feature unflattering images of Ms. Clinton in prison garb, behind bars or on trial. Judging from the content, the former First Lady's critics have no doubt about her guilt.
However, the decision on her legal future rests primarily with the FBI. There is a cadre of 147 FBI agents investigating Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server to receive and transmit classified materials. That information comes from The Washington Post, a liberal iconic newspaper.
The crux of the investigation revolves around whether Ms. Clinton or her aides knowingly communicated government secrets over a non-secure email system while she served as Secretary of State. Legal experts point out it does not matter if the emails were marked classified or not.
Every government official, including cabinet level executives, are obligated to recognize sensitive material and protect against its release to unauthorized individuals or organizations. No one gets a "Get Out Of Jail" card if the material does not carry the "Classified" stamp.
The episode has raised questions about Ms. Clinton's judgment. But Clinton surrogates have trotted out their standard defense of "everyone else does it," as if that justifies illegal behavior. Her own public utterances about the FBI inquiry have been carefully parsed and not very forthcoming.
However, none of this matters to the Clinton Campaign. They swear that voters have "largely dismissed" the email issue. That is a gratuitous opinion. A majority of Democratic primary voters (56%) view her as untrustworthy. Her unfavorable ratings are among the highest of all candidates.
Despite news leaks about mounting evidence against Ms. Clinton, the email scandal likely will not end with an indictment. No clear thinking person actually believes the Obama Administration will allow any Democrat to suffer the indignation of a criminal prosecution based on its history.
Investigations of the Obama Administration and its top officials suffer early deaths. Benghazi went nowhere. The IRS scandal evaporated. The Veterans Affairs dust up has been buried. Meanwhile, the sycophant news media looks the other way and chastises Republicans for chasing ghosts.
Some guardians of justice point to the stubborn independence of FBI Director James Comey as reason to expect felony charges. The six-foot-eight-inch tall lawman served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, burnishing his credentials as even-handed.
However, Comey serves at the pleasure of the president. What if Comey suddenly steps down under pressure? Sure there would be howls of protest, but so what? This is an administration that has shown it has no shame when it comes jettisoning those who disagree with its political objectives.
Even if Comey recommends a criminal charge, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the final word on prosecution. There is no doubt Ms. Lynch will carry out the president's wishes in this matter. Her office will either dismiss the complaint or foot-drag past the election before dropping the case.
If the president did not plan to run interference for Mrs. Clinton, he would have encouraged his trusted Vice President Joe Biden to enter the presidential race long ago. Only the naive would hold to the notion that Mrs. Clinton has not obtained assurances from Mr. Obama about the outcome.
The betting here is that the FBI will find no criminal wrongdoing, but will issue a strongly worded reprimand for her use of a private server to conduct classified government business. A contrite Mrs. Clinton will offer a half-hearted apology and the incident will be off limits during the campaign.
Truth has never been an admired virtue of Mrs. Clinton or her husband. They prevaricate, deconstruct and evade. Every moral or legal infraction ends the same. The Clintons are political Houdini's who always escape responsibility for their misdeeds.
Their swooning has taken social media by storm. Thousands of posts on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and other sites feature unflattering images of Ms. Clinton in prison garb, behind bars or on trial. Judging from the content, the former First Lady's critics have no doubt about her guilt.
However, the decision on her legal future rests primarily with the FBI. There is a cadre of 147 FBI agents investigating Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server to receive and transmit classified materials. That information comes from The Washington Post, a liberal iconic newspaper.
The crux of the investigation revolves around whether Ms. Clinton or her aides knowingly communicated government secrets over a non-secure email system while she served as Secretary of State. Legal experts point out it does not matter if the emails were marked classified or not.
Every government official, including cabinet level executives, are obligated to recognize sensitive material and protect against its release to unauthorized individuals or organizations. No one gets a "Get Out Of Jail" card if the material does not carry the "Classified" stamp.
The episode has raised questions about Ms. Clinton's judgment. But Clinton surrogates have trotted out their standard defense of "everyone else does it," as if that justifies illegal behavior. Her own public utterances about the FBI inquiry have been carefully parsed and not very forthcoming.
However, none of this matters to the Clinton Campaign. They swear that voters have "largely dismissed" the email issue. That is a gratuitous opinion. A majority of Democratic primary voters (56%) view her as untrustworthy. Her unfavorable ratings are among the highest of all candidates.
Despite news leaks about mounting evidence against Ms. Clinton, the email scandal likely will not end with an indictment. No clear thinking person actually believes the Obama Administration will allow any Democrat to suffer the indignation of a criminal prosecution based on its history.
Investigations of the Obama Administration and its top officials suffer early deaths. Benghazi went nowhere. The IRS scandal evaporated. The Veterans Affairs dust up has been buried. Meanwhile, the sycophant news media looks the other way and chastises Republicans for chasing ghosts.
Some guardians of justice point to the stubborn independence of FBI Director James Comey as reason to expect felony charges. The six-foot-eight-inch tall lawman served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, burnishing his credentials as even-handed.
However, Comey serves at the pleasure of the president. What if Comey suddenly steps down under pressure? Sure there would be howls of protest, but so what? This is an administration that has shown it has no shame when it comes jettisoning those who disagree with its political objectives.
Even if Comey recommends a criminal charge, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the final word on prosecution. There is no doubt Ms. Lynch will carry out the president's wishes in this matter. Her office will either dismiss the complaint or foot-drag past the election before dropping the case.
If the president did not plan to run interference for Mrs. Clinton, he would have encouraged his trusted Vice President Joe Biden to enter the presidential race long ago. Only the naive would hold to the notion that Mrs. Clinton has not obtained assurances from Mr. Obama about the outcome.
The betting here is that the FBI will find no criminal wrongdoing, but will issue a strongly worded reprimand for her use of a private server to conduct classified government business. A contrite Mrs. Clinton will offer a half-hearted apology and the incident will be off limits during the campaign.
Truth has never been an admired virtue of Mrs. Clinton or her husband. They prevaricate, deconstruct and evade. Every moral or legal infraction ends the same. The Clintons are political Houdini's who always escape responsibility for their misdeeds.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Terrorists Winning The War On The West
Brutal massacres of innocent victims in Brussels are grim reminders of the utter failure of western countries to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. This most recent slaughter comes on the heels of deadly terrorist ambushes in Paris and in San Bernadino, California.
In fact, since the start of the new year there have been 22 terrorist attacks worldwide. Much of the savagery has been done in the damnable name of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. World leaders have thundered in moral outrage about the carnage, but have done little to halt terrorism.
America and its European allies have lobbed a few bombs over ISIS-held territory with minor impact. For his part, the U.S.Commander-in-Chief Barrack Obama has struggled to articulate a coherent strategy for dismantling the terror network. He also has consistently underestimated ISIS.
It is difficult to understand how an enemy with a rag-tag army and unsophisticated weaponry can render impotent the world's powers. Europe and America appear unwilling to stop the bloodthirsty rampage committed in the name of Islamic jihad. They preach patience without solutions.
Meanwhile, scores of recruits from the west are heading overseas to join this growing menace. The director of Europol, the European Union's law enforcement arm, recently estimated that as many as 5,000 Europeans left to join ISIS in just the month of February.
Last year the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) surmised there were up to 31,500 jihadists in Iraq and Syria. Recently a Kurdish leader in Iraq put the number at 200,000, labeling the CIA figure rubbish. In actuality, both are guesses. No one really knows, underscoring the lack of intelligence.
The tentacles of this terrorist organization have spread to 20 countries. In Syria and Iraq, ISIS now controls an area about the size of Great Britain and rules a population roughly between 10 and 12 million. The thugs behead, rape and pillage with impunity in their self-proclaimed caliphate.
Every leader on the world stage calls for a coalition to destroy ISIS. But no nation, including the U.S., appears willing to accept the command role. Leadership dawdles, procrastinates and finger points. The foot-dragging is allowing ISIS to win a battle no one wants to fight but the enemy.
How many more killings will it take to finally awaken the world to this threat to civilization?
No leader wants to say aloud that ISIS can only be wiped off the face of the Earth with a targeted ground and air war. But that is the truth. Half-hearted measures such as random bombing raids and drone strikes will not deter ISIS one iota. If it would, the enemy would be defeated by now.
Leadership must convince a skeptical public, especially in the United States. Most Americans (53%) oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iraq and Syria even as a part of a coalition to annihilate the Islamic scourge. Mr. Obama also has made it clear he wants no part of a ground campaign.
Despite the reticence, Americans overwhelmingly (84%) view ISIS as a critical threat to security, according to the latest Gallup Poll. But the public has no appetite for a protracted military clash with ISIS. Americans want peace and protection without sacrifice.
Public opinion has wilted the resolve of America's politicians. They cower at the thought of rallying a suspicious public of the need for military action. Weak-kneed politicians including the president are emboldening Islamic assassins to wage terror without fear of reprisal.
Strong leadership is needed to convince the world that anything short of a full-scale offensive will not be effective against a determined foe. Great leaders have risen to the task in World Wars I and II. Yet no one on the world stage today appears willing to lead a crusade to eradicate Islamic jidhadists.
It certainly won't be Barrack Obama, who refuses to even identify the butchers as Islamic terrorists. He kowtows to political correctness while lecturing Americans on religious tolerance and ignoring the ISIS genocide against Christians. The man is detached from reality when it comes to terrorism.
If the world wants to see what good leadership looks like, it needs to gaze no further than ISIS. These monsters have terrorized entire countries, massacred thousands and grabbed bloody headlines all over the world. Their band of followers are motivated and willing to die for their Islamic cause.
The world can no longer afford to dither in the face of an evil that will never go away unless it is exterminated. Words are no substitute for military action. War is never a painless undertaking, but in this case, it is the only option if the world wants to rid itself of the radical Islamic beast.
The alternative is to hunker down and wait for the next terrorist attack. Perhaps, that will become the default policy of the United States, a once great nation that no longer wants to accept the mantle of world leader.
In fact, since the start of the new year there have been 22 terrorist attacks worldwide. Much of the savagery has been done in the damnable name of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. World leaders have thundered in moral outrage about the carnage, but have done little to halt terrorism.
America and its European allies have lobbed a few bombs over ISIS-held territory with minor impact. For his part, the U.S.Commander-in-Chief Barrack Obama has struggled to articulate a coherent strategy for dismantling the terror network. He also has consistently underestimated ISIS.
It is difficult to understand how an enemy with a rag-tag army and unsophisticated weaponry can render impotent the world's powers. Europe and America appear unwilling to stop the bloodthirsty rampage committed in the name of Islamic jihad. They preach patience without solutions.
Meanwhile, scores of recruits from the west are heading overseas to join this growing menace. The director of Europol, the European Union's law enforcement arm, recently estimated that as many as 5,000 Europeans left to join ISIS in just the month of February.
Last year the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) surmised there were up to 31,500 jihadists in Iraq and Syria. Recently a Kurdish leader in Iraq put the number at 200,000, labeling the CIA figure rubbish. In actuality, both are guesses. No one really knows, underscoring the lack of intelligence.
The tentacles of this terrorist organization have spread to 20 countries. In Syria and Iraq, ISIS now controls an area about the size of Great Britain and rules a population roughly between 10 and 12 million. The thugs behead, rape and pillage with impunity in their self-proclaimed caliphate.
Every leader on the world stage calls for a coalition to destroy ISIS. But no nation, including the U.S., appears willing to accept the command role. Leadership dawdles, procrastinates and finger points. The foot-dragging is allowing ISIS to win a battle no one wants to fight but the enemy.
How many more killings will it take to finally awaken the world to this threat to civilization?
No leader wants to say aloud that ISIS can only be wiped off the face of the Earth with a targeted ground and air war. But that is the truth. Half-hearted measures such as random bombing raids and drone strikes will not deter ISIS one iota. If it would, the enemy would be defeated by now.
Leadership must convince a skeptical public, especially in the United States. Most Americans (53%) oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iraq and Syria even as a part of a coalition to annihilate the Islamic scourge. Mr. Obama also has made it clear he wants no part of a ground campaign.
Despite the reticence, Americans overwhelmingly (84%) view ISIS as a critical threat to security, according to the latest Gallup Poll. But the public has no appetite for a protracted military clash with ISIS. Americans want peace and protection without sacrifice.
Public opinion has wilted the resolve of America's politicians. They cower at the thought of rallying a suspicious public of the need for military action. Weak-kneed politicians including the president are emboldening Islamic assassins to wage terror without fear of reprisal.
Strong leadership is needed to convince the world that anything short of a full-scale offensive will not be effective against a determined foe. Great leaders have risen to the task in World Wars I and II. Yet no one on the world stage today appears willing to lead a crusade to eradicate Islamic jidhadists.
It certainly won't be Barrack Obama, who refuses to even identify the butchers as Islamic terrorists. He kowtows to political correctness while lecturing Americans on religious tolerance and ignoring the ISIS genocide against Christians. The man is detached from reality when it comes to terrorism.
If the world wants to see what good leadership looks like, it needs to gaze no further than ISIS. These monsters have terrorized entire countries, massacred thousands and grabbed bloody headlines all over the world. Their band of followers are motivated and willing to die for their Islamic cause.
The world can no longer afford to dither in the face of an evil that will never go away unless it is exterminated. Words are no substitute for military action. War is never a painless undertaking, but in this case, it is the only option if the world wants to rid itself of the radical Islamic beast.
The alternative is to hunker down and wait for the next terrorist attack. Perhaps, that will become the default policy of the United States, a once great nation that no longer wants to accept the mantle of world leader.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Privacy Battle: Who Protects Your Personal Data?
The titanic struggle pitting high-tech Goliath Apple against the nation's top law enforcement agency the FBI has turned into a blood sport with both sides refusing to budge. The case has received breathless news coverage, but a linchpin issue has been glossed over in the hostile confrontation.
The courtroom drama has focused on Apple's contention that allowing the FBI access to the data on an iPhone used by a San Bernardino terrorist would compromise the security of its product. Other high-tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have joined in support of Apple's position.
The open warfare between Apple and the FBI is just a symptom of a larger issue that requires a national debate. Ultimately, the case spotlights the growing public concern over the safeguarding of personal data. It's an issue with implications far beyond the Apple dispute.
Every day consumers are virtually forced to disclose mountains of personal data to open a bank account, apply for a credit card, sign-up for Social Security, obtain wireless service, acquire a home mortgage, secure a U.S. passport and procure health care coverage. And that's just a partial list.
Consumers have little choice in the data they must provide. Social Security numbers, bank account information, personal medical data, telephone numbers, previous addresses, debts, gambling losses and even skirmishes with the law must be revealed for basic services and benefits.
All that information is primarily stored on computers at thousands of businesses, government agencies, banks, medical facilities and data firms. It no longer belongs to the consumer, who is at mercy of these entities to protect their personal data from cyber thieves who troll the ether world.
Unfortunately, companies and governments have done a lousy job of protecting the data.
The non-profit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse found that from 2005 to 2009 data crooks stole more than 497 million records containing sensitive personal information. Research by the Ponemon Institute showed that 85 percent of U.S. firms had experienced at least one data breach.
The list of companies that have suffered data violations reads like a Who's Who of Corporate America: Home Depot, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Anthem, Wendy's Restaurants, Sony Pictures, Target, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank and the federal government's Office of Personnel Management.
The problem is widespread and growing worse. Some 44 percent of consumers report having their personal information pilfered as a result of a data intrusion, according to a recent research report entitled, "Retail's Reality: Shopping Behavior After Security Breaches."
Businesses have a vested interest in data protection. Breaches have cost firms billions of dollars to repair systems, defend lawsuits, pay fines and inform consumers. More importantly, research chronicles businesses lose customers after their reputation is tarnished by a data hijacking.
Although there are at least four federal laws that address the issue, the U.S. lacks a comprehensive privacy protection measure. Current laws deal with the responsibility of companies that obtain and store the personal data, including the notification of customers. That is not sufficient protection.
Congress should enact a new Bill of Privacy Rights that mandates the following:
1. Place limits on the data consumers are required to provide. Too many credit firms, businesses, banks and government agencies collect data beyond what the transaction requires. Also, limit the sharing of consumer data between companies and government agencies.
2. Spell out universal standards for the protection of consumer data. Some organizations have data security guidelines, but compliance surveillance is almost non-existent. A company or government entity in violation of the standards should be fined and its leaders sent packing to jail.
3. Institute reimbursement for victims of cyber theft. Currently, consumers are usually forced to join class action lawsuits to obtain any financial assistance to cope with the fallout from cyber crime. Every consumer impacted by a breach should receive immediate and sufficient compensation.
4. Each consumer's data should be separated from other customers' information in computer files. In the event of a data breach, that could limit the number of consumers' impacted. The technology to achieve this separation already exists, but no one wants to incur the expense.
Consumers deserve to know their personal information is secure. If businesses and governments fail to safeguard the data they demanded from the public, they should be held accountable. Action cannot come soon enough on this issue.
The courtroom drama has focused on Apple's contention that allowing the FBI access to the data on an iPhone used by a San Bernardino terrorist would compromise the security of its product. Other high-tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have joined in support of Apple's position.
The open warfare between Apple and the FBI is just a symptom of a larger issue that requires a national debate. Ultimately, the case spotlights the growing public concern over the safeguarding of personal data. It's an issue with implications far beyond the Apple dispute.
Every day consumers are virtually forced to disclose mountains of personal data to open a bank account, apply for a credit card, sign-up for Social Security, obtain wireless service, acquire a home mortgage, secure a U.S. passport and procure health care coverage. And that's just a partial list.
Consumers have little choice in the data they must provide. Social Security numbers, bank account information, personal medical data, telephone numbers, previous addresses, debts, gambling losses and even skirmishes with the law must be revealed for basic services and benefits.
All that information is primarily stored on computers at thousands of businesses, government agencies, banks, medical facilities and data firms. It no longer belongs to the consumer, who is at mercy of these entities to protect their personal data from cyber thieves who troll the ether world.
Unfortunately, companies and governments have done a lousy job of protecting the data.
The non-profit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse found that from 2005 to 2009 data crooks stole more than 497 million records containing sensitive personal information. Research by the Ponemon Institute showed that 85 percent of U.S. firms had experienced at least one data breach.
The list of companies that have suffered data violations reads like a Who's Who of Corporate America: Home Depot, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Anthem, Wendy's Restaurants, Sony Pictures, Target, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank and the federal government's Office of Personnel Management.
The problem is widespread and growing worse. Some 44 percent of consumers report having their personal information pilfered as a result of a data intrusion, according to a recent research report entitled, "Retail's Reality: Shopping Behavior After Security Breaches."
Businesses have a vested interest in data protection. Breaches have cost firms billions of dollars to repair systems, defend lawsuits, pay fines and inform consumers. More importantly, research chronicles businesses lose customers after their reputation is tarnished by a data hijacking.
Although there are at least four federal laws that address the issue, the U.S. lacks a comprehensive privacy protection measure. Current laws deal with the responsibility of companies that obtain and store the personal data, including the notification of customers. That is not sufficient protection.
Congress should enact a new Bill of Privacy Rights that mandates the following:
1. Place limits on the data consumers are required to provide. Too many credit firms, businesses, banks and government agencies collect data beyond what the transaction requires. Also, limit the sharing of consumer data between companies and government agencies.
2. Spell out universal standards for the protection of consumer data. Some organizations have data security guidelines, but compliance surveillance is almost non-existent. A company or government entity in violation of the standards should be fined and its leaders sent packing to jail.
3. Institute reimbursement for victims of cyber theft. Currently, consumers are usually forced to join class action lawsuits to obtain any financial assistance to cope with the fallout from cyber crime. Every consumer impacted by a breach should receive immediate and sufficient compensation.
4. Each consumer's data should be separated from other customers' information in computer files. In the event of a data breach, that could limit the number of consumers' impacted. The technology to achieve this separation already exists, but no one wants to incur the expense.
Consumers deserve to know their personal information is secure. If businesses and governments fail to safeguard the data they demanded from the public, they should be held accountable. Action cannot come soon enough on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)