Ever utterance of Donald Trump has become fodder for a media thrashing. To be fair, the Republican presidential candidate often has no one to blame but himself. At the same time, his opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton may be the least scrutinized candidate since Barrack Obama in 2008.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Monday, August 1, 2016
Presidential Race: Predictably Unpredictable
Both parties have officially crowned their presidential nominees, signaling the lift-off of their campaigns for the White House. Most political polls are predicting the race between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump will be a nail-biter.
Real Clear Politics, which takes the average of seven national polls, has Mr. Trump with a slight edge nationally over Ms. Clinton. Mr. Trump's support stands at 45.6 percent compared to Mrs. Clinton's 44.7 percent. Since polls have a four percent margin of error, the race is considered a dead heat.
Although national polls are an indicator of voters' sentiment, winning the popular vote does not automatically guarantee a ticket to the White House. Unlike any other American election, presidential contests are decided by delegates chosen in each state to vote in the Electoral College.
In the presidential race of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular contest by 540,000 votes. However, his opponent Republican George W. Bush squeaked out victory in the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin. That was the last time a candidate lost the popular vote, but won the presidency.
A state-by-state analysis of the last 10 presidential elections reveals trends that will shape this election. Unless there are shifts in voting patterns, the Democratic candidate starts with a decided advantage in reaching the magic total of 270 electoral votes.
Based on the past paradigm, the Democrat presidential candidate is nearly assured of carrying states with 207 votes. That's 76 percent of the votes needed to earn victory in the Electoral College. By comparison, Republicans enjoy a historical advantage in states with 137 electoral votes.
Those states which consistently fall in the (blue) Democratic column in the last ten presidential elections are California, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Illinois and Oregon.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have dominated in the same number of states (12), but with 70 fewer electoral voters. Reliably red (GOP) states have included Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona.
The key swing states this election are the usual suspects: Florida, Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina. Together the states account for 75 electoral votes. If Ms. Clinton sweeps those four states and hangs on to the 12 true blue states listed above, she will become the first female to occupy the Oval Office.
Consider this: Mr. Trump could win a clear majority of states (34) and be soundly thumped in the Electoral College. Mr. Trump's only chance to turn the tide is to steal a blue state or two. The good news is early polls show Pennsylvania looks like a toss-up.
Mr. Trump has to hold his own in the swing states, too. That may be difficult because the Democratic vice presidential nominee is a popular senator from Virginia and Ohio Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his disdain for Trump. That leaves Florida and North Carolina up for grabs.
Voter turnout is the one variable that could upset the red-blue balance. Both candidates have sky-scrapper-sized unfavorable ratings, topping negatives for any other presidential hopefuls in history. There are large swaths of voters who have sworn to Never Vote Trump or to Never Vote Hillary.
Those cynical convictions are hardly a rallying cry for generating voter enthusiasm. Democrats do best when turnout is above average and struggle in years when voters are passive. The last two elections bagged by Barrack Obama marked the two highest voter-turnout cycles since 1968.
A Rasmussen Poll conducted in April found that nearly one-in-four voters said they would skip the election if Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the party nominees. Sixteen percent of those surveyed insisted they would vote for a third-party candidate. Only two percent were undecided.
What this means is this election could breed one of the lowest turnouts in years. The winner may end up with the fewest popular votes garnered in decades. If that happens, the nation will remain hopelessly divided, a bleak prospect after eight years of Mr. Obama's strident leadership.
Sharp ruptures also exist in both parties. Significant pockets of Democrats and Republicans remain in a snit over the snubbing of their candidates. Party unity, usually taken for granted in national elections, likely will be will be an unattainable objective for either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump.
Therefore, let the pundits beware. The traditional rules do not apply to this election. Mix two flawed candidates, an angry electorate, the prospect of a mud-slinging campaign, a Democrat Party partisan media and a gusher of political cash and these ingredients may prove a combustible concoction.
This inevitable volatility may produce an explosive ending no one can predict.
Real Clear Politics, which takes the average of seven national polls, has Mr. Trump with a slight edge nationally over Ms. Clinton. Mr. Trump's support stands at 45.6 percent compared to Mrs. Clinton's 44.7 percent. Since polls have a four percent margin of error, the race is considered a dead heat.
Although national polls are an indicator of voters' sentiment, winning the popular vote does not automatically guarantee a ticket to the White House. Unlike any other American election, presidential contests are decided by delegates chosen in each state to vote in the Electoral College.
In the presidential race of 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular contest by 540,000 votes. However, his opponent Republican George W. Bush squeaked out victory in the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin. That was the last time a candidate lost the popular vote, but won the presidency.
A state-by-state analysis of the last 10 presidential elections reveals trends that will shape this election. Unless there are shifts in voting patterns, the Democratic candidate starts with a decided advantage in reaching the magic total of 270 electoral votes.
Based on the past paradigm, the Democrat presidential candidate is nearly assured of carrying states with 207 votes. That's 76 percent of the votes needed to earn victory in the Electoral College. By comparison, Republicans enjoy a historical advantage in states with 137 electoral votes.
Those states which consistently fall in the (blue) Democratic column in the last ten presidential elections are California, New York, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Illinois and Oregon.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have dominated in the same number of states (12), but with 70 fewer electoral voters. Reliably red (GOP) states have included Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona.
The key swing states this election are the usual suspects: Florida, Virginia, Ohio and North Carolina. Together the states account for 75 electoral votes. If Ms. Clinton sweeps those four states and hangs on to the 12 true blue states listed above, she will become the first female to occupy the Oval Office.
Consider this: Mr. Trump could win a clear majority of states (34) and be soundly thumped in the Electoral College. Mr. Trump's only chance to turn the tide is to steal a blue state or two. The good news is early polls show Pennsylvania looks like a toss-up.
Mr. Trump has to hold his own in the swing states, too. That may be difficult because the Democratic vice presidential nominee is a popular senator from Virginia and Ohio Governor John Kasich has made no secret of his disdain for Trump. That leaves Florida and North Carolina up for grabs.
Voter turnout is the one variable that could upset the red-blue balance. Both candidates have sky-scrapper-sized unfavorable ratings, topping negatives for any other presidential hopefuls in history. There are large swaths of voters who have sworn to Never Vote Trump or to Never Vote Hillary.
Those cynical convictions are hardly a rallying cry for generating voter enthusiasm. Democrats do best when turnout is above average and struggle in years when voters are passive. The last two elections bagged by Barrack Obama marked the two highest voter-turnout cycles since 1968.
A Rasmussen Poll conducted in April found that nearly one-in-four voters said they would skip the election if Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the party nominees. Sixteen percent of those surveyed insisted they would vote for a third-party candidate. Only two percent were undecided.
What this means is this election could breed one of the lowest turnouts in years. The winner may end up with the fewest popular votes garnered in decades. If that happens, the nation will remain hopelessly divided, a bleak prospect after eight years of Mr. Obama's strident leadership.
Sharp ruptures also exist in both parties. Significant pockets of Democrats and Republicans remain in a snit over the snubbing of their candidates. Party unity, usually taken for granted in national elections, likely will be will be an unattainable objective for either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump.
Therefore, let the pundits beware. The traditional rules do not apply to this election. Mix two flawed candidates, an angry electorate, the prospect of a mud-slinging campaign, a Democrat Party partisan media and a gusher of political cash and these ingredients may prove a combustible concoction.
This inevitable volatility may produce an explosive ending no one can predict.
Monday, July 25, 2016
America Could Use Another Roy Rogers
A deadly war on American police officers. Bloody terrorists attacks in Europe. A failed coup in Turkey. An evil dictator leaving a trail of carnage in Syria. The splintering of the European Union. A nasty political season. The events of the last few months have sowed seeds of universal despair.
What the world needs now is a smiling Roy Rogers. Yes, that Roy Rogers. The singing cowboy who ruled the movie box offices and early television. The King of Cowboys, as Roy was known, was one of the most trusted Americans who ever lived. Everyone believed in Roy Rogers.
Born in 1911, Roy picked fruit and toiled grueling hours in a factory while he was still a teenager. From these humble beginnings, he rose to fame first on radio, then movies and television. He was one of those rare public figures who was the same in real life as he was on the stage.
During his career, he appeared in more than 100 films which often stressed cowboy principles such as honor, loyalty and courage. Roy was a straight shooter, who could ride a horse, yodel and twirl a rope. Rogers lived by an honest, unpretentious code of ethics.
Rogers often shared his values with the legions of his juvenile fans, affectionately known as Little Buckaroos. There are adults today who grew up in the 1940's and 50's who can still quote the principles Roy wove into the dialogue of his westerns.
Rogers' philosophy is embodied in the ten principles promoted by The Center for Cowboy Ethics and Leadership, a non-profit organization in Austin that advocates a set of moral guidelines for people, businesses and organizations. Roy would approve of these ten virtues he championed:
1. Live Each Day with Courage In the face of so much depressing news, Americans need to conduct their lives without fear or trepidation. Never cower in the face of evil.
2. Take Pride in Your Work Made in America used to mean something. It stood for quality, a fair price and craftsmanship. Those values need to be instilled in every workplace.
3. Always Finish What You Start Americans still dream big. But too many allow life to detour their aspirations. If you have an idea or a passion, pursue it with gusto until you succeed.
4. Do What Has To Be Done Americans often feel helpless in the midst of turmoil. Even the least among us can make a difference with a smile and a kind word. Just do it and quit making excuses.
5. Be Tough, But Fair Raising children in today's world requires more than just an app on a smart phone. Parents need to be involved and demanding while loving each child unconditionally.
6. When You Make A Promise Keep It Presidential elections are the mother of all promise generators. Candidates pledge free stuff, vow unity and profess equality. Few deliver.
7. Ride For Your Brand A handshake and your word are your bond. Never go back on either. How you act tells everyone what you stand for. Your good name is your brand.
8. Talk Less And Say More It is almost impossible to have an honest political debate anymore in America. Everyone wants to be heard, but no one wants to listen and compromise.
9. Remember That Some Things Aren't For Sale Integrity, fairness and decency should never be traded for a sale, a deal or a job. Your moral compass should always be worn with pride.
10. Know Where To Draw The Line Americans need to stand for freedom at home and abroad. The nation needs patriots who know when to rise up against tyranny.
Who will be the next Roy Rogers? Amid the world's turmoil, America needs decent and noble leaders like the white-hatted cowboy who will stand for honor, generosity and hope. Not just leaders in Washington, but in neighborhoods, schools, businesses and civic organizations.
Whatever your station in life, accept the challenge to make a difference by standing for principles that will change the world for the better.
Happy Trails everyone.
Name: Leonard Franklin Slye
What the world needs now is a smiling Roy Rogers. Yes, that Roy Rogers. The singing cowboy who ruled the movie box offices and early television. The King of Cowboys, as Roy was known, was one of the most trusted Americans who ever lived. Everyone believed in Roy Rogers.
Born in 1911, Roy picked fruit and toiled grueling hours in a factory while he was still a teenager. From these humble beginnings, he rose to fame first on radio, then movies and television. He was one of those rare public figures who was the same in real life as he was on the stage.
During his career, he appeared in more than 100 films which often stressed cowboy principles such as honor, loyalty and courage. Roy was a straight shooter, who could ride a horse, yodel and twirl a rope. Rogers lived by an honest, unpretentious code of ethics.
Rogers often shared his values with the legions of his juvenile fans, affectionately known as Little Buckaroos. There are adults today who grew up in the 1940's and 50's who can still quote the principles Roy wove into the dialogue of his westerns.
Rogers' philosophy is embodied in the ten principles promoted by The Center for Cowboy Ethics and Leadership, a non-profit organization in Austin that advocates a set of moral guidelines for people, businesses and organizations. Roy would approve of these ten virtues he championed:
1. Live Each Day with Courage In the face of so much depressing news, Americans need to conduct their lives without fear or trepidation. Never cower in the face of evil.
2. Take Pride in Your Work Made in America used to mean something. It stood for quality, a fair price and craftsmanship. Those values need to be instilled in every workplace.
3. Always Finish What You Start Americans still dream big. But too many allow life to detour their aspirations. If you have an idea or a passion, pursue it with gusto until you succeed.
4. Do What Has To Be Done Americans often feel helpless in the midst of turmoil. Even the least among us can make a difference with a smile and a kind word. Just do it and quit making excuses.
5. Be Tough, But Fair Raising children in today's world requires more than just an app on a smart phone. Parents need to be involved and demanding while loving each child unconditionally.
6. When You Make A Promise Keep It Presidential elections are the mother of all promise generators. Candidates pledge free stuff, vow unity and profess equality. Few deliver.
7. Ride For Your Brand A handshake and your word are your bond. Never go back on either. How you act tells everyone what you stand for. Your good name is your brand.
8. Talk Less And Say More It is almost impossible to have an honest political debate anymore in America. Everyone wants to be heard, but no one wants to listen and compromise.
9. Remember That Some Things Aren't For Sale Integrity, fairness and decency should never be traded for a sale, a deal or a job. Your moral compass should always be worn with pride.
10. Know Where To Draw The Line Americans need to stand for freedom at home and abroad. The nation needs patriots who know when to rise up against tyranny.
Who will be the next Roy Rogers? Amid the world's turmoil, America needs decent and noble leaders like the white-hatted cowboy who will stand for honor, generosity and hope. Not just leaders in Washington, but in neighborhoods, schools, businesses and civic organizations.
Whatever your station in life, accept the challenge to make a difference by standing for principles that will change the world for the better.
Happy Trails everyone.
Name: Leonard Franklin Slye
Monday, July 18, 2016
Hillary: Not Guilty But Hardly Innocent
Anyone paying attention understood the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton was going nowhere the second former president Bill Clinton waltzed on a plane for a secret meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Seven days later, the FBI gave the former Secretary of State a get-out-of-jail card.
Coincidence? That's what Democrats and the news media would like for you to believe. But it requires a suspension of reality to conclude the "chance" meeting had nothing to do with the swift resolution of an FBI investigation that had been plodding along since at least August of last year.
Consider the breathtaking speed of events that unfolded after Ms. Lynch welcomed Mr. Clinton onto her government jet in Phoenix. Within short order, the long-awaited FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton was held in New York. After a three-and-one-half hour grilling, she sauntered to a Broadway show.
In the meantime, an embarrassed Ms. Lynch conducted a damage-control tour. She appeared on television to assure Americans she was taking a hands off approach to the email inquiry. Ms. Lynch is FBI director James Comey's boss. Yet she intimated she was out of the loop.
Ms. Lynch's subordinate was handling a high-profile case, involving the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Are Americans supposed to believe she never bothered to ask about the FBI's progress? There is no question Ms. Lynch was thoroughly briefed on the inquest.
Days after Ms. Lynch's 20-to-30 minute private chat with the former president, the FBI put a neat ribbon on its investigation, concluding that "no charges are appropriate in this case." A Clinton campaign spokesman immediately crowed "this matter is now resolved."
Is there any doubt Bill Clinton lobbied Ms. Lynch for a speedy resolution of the probe? Did he also dangle a promise Ms. Lynch would remain AG if his wife is elected? These questions may sound like little more than conspiracy theory to some, but the meeting altered the trajectory of the FBI probe.
Even if the meeting had not happened, there never was going to be an indictment of Mrs. Clinton. That was obvious after Mr. Obama's endorsement of his former Secretary of State and his expression of confidence that she would be exonerated by the FBI.
As far back as April, Mr. Obama sent public signals to Comey about what the president expected. In an interview, the president called her use of a private server "carelessness" and added Mrs. Clinton "would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy." Comey obviously paid attention.
Not coincidentally, the six-foot-eight inch FBI director almost used Mr. Obama's exact words and same logic in declining to recommend prosecution.
In his media briefing, Comey tried his best to appear transparent in presenting the FBI finding. However, he relied on a legal definition of the former secretary's "intent," even as he acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said. His conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton did not "willfully mishandle classified information."
Clearly, Comey's decision hinged on his belief Mrs. Clinton was not guilty of intentionally mistreating classified documents. That is a curious finding in light of her intentional deployment of a non-secure private server to handle her email, instead of using the State Department's secure system.
Even Comey tried to tap dance around the obvious contradiction.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," he told reporters. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
His explanation was an obvious attempt to head-off his critics, who contend he applied a different standard to Mrs. Clinton. By raising the specter of serious repercussions, he hoped people would infer the director could have nailed her except for the legal interpretation he was compelled to follow.
Under questioning by Congress, Comey was forced to admit that Mrs. Clinton's version of her handling of emails did not square with his agency's findings. The FBI found she sent and received classified documents, she used more than one device and her server was likely compromised.
On numerous occasions, Mrs. Clinton had unequivocally denied every one of those offenses. Curiously, the FBI did not require the former secretary to testify under oath, sparing her a future prosecution on perjury charges. This wasn't the only unusual accommodation that Comey made.
Days after Comey's briefing, it was learned that FBI agents who worked the investigation of Mrs. Clinton were required to sign an unorthodox non-disclosure agreement banning them from talking about the case. Obviously, Comey wanted to prevent leaks that might embarrass the secretary.
An ABC/Washington Post poll delivered a stunning rebuke of both Clinton and the FBI. A majority (56%) of those surveyed disapproved of the federal agency's decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime. Only 35 percent approved of the FBI verdict.
Americans know a fix when they see one. The FBI and Justice Department colluded to make the email scandal disappear before the Democratic Convention. The probe's ending has left Americans shaking their heads in disbelief as once again the Clintons escape legal prosecution.
Coincidence? That's what Democrats and the news media would like for you to believe. But it requires a suspension of reality to conclude the "chance" meeting had nothing to do with the swift resolution of an FBI investigation that had been plodding along since at least August of last year.
Consider the breathtaking speed of events that unfolded after Ms. Lynch welcomed Mr. Clinton onto her government jet in Phoenix. Within short order, the long-awaited FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton was held in New York. After a three-and-one-half hour grilling, she sauntered to a Broadway show.
In the meantime, an embarrassed Ms. Lynch conducted a damage-control tour. She appeared on television to assure Americans she was taking a hands off approach to the email inquiry. Ms. Lynch is FBI director James Comey's boss. Yet she intimated she was out of the loop.
Ms. Lynch's subordinate was handling a high-profile case, involving the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Are Americans supposed to believe she never bothered to ask about the FBI's progress? There is no question Ms. Lynch was thoroughly briefed on the inquest.
Days after Ms. Lynch's 20-to-30 minute private chat with the former president, the FBI put a neat ribbon on its investigation, concluding that "no charges are appropriate in this case." A Clinton campaign spokesman immediately crowed "this matter is now resolved."
Is there any doubt Bill Clinton lobbied Ms. Lynch for a speedy resolution of the probe? Did he also dangle a promise Ms. Lynch would remain AG if his wife is elected? These questions may sound like little more than conspiracy theory to some, but the meeting altered the trajectory of the FBI probe.
Even if the meeting had not happened, there never was going to be an indictment of Mrs. Clinton. That was obvious after Mr. Obama's endorsement of his former Secretary of State and his expression of confidence that she would be exonerated by the FBI.
As far back as April, Mr. Obama sent public signals to Comey about what the president expected. In an interview, the president called her use of a private server "carelessness" and added Mrs. Clinton "would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy." Comey obviously paid attention.
Not coincidentally, the six-foot-eight inch FBI director almost used Mr. Obama's exact words and same logic in declining to recommend prosecution.
In his media briefing, Comey tried his best to appear transparent in presenting the FBI finding. However, he relied on a legal definition of the former secretary's "intent," even as he acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said. His conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton did not "willfully mishandle classified information."
Clearly, Comey's decision hinged on his belief Mrs. Clinton was not guilty of intentionally mistreating classified documents. That is a curious finding in light of her intentional deployment of a non-secure private server to handle her email, instead of using the State Department's secure system.
Even Comey tried to tap dance around the obvious contradiction.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," he told reporters. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
His explanation was an obvious attempt to head-off his critics, who contend he applied a different standard to Mrs. Clinton. By raising the specter of serious repercussions, he hoped people would infer the director could have nailed her except for the legal interpretation he was compelled to follow.
Under questioning by Congress, Comey was forced to admit that Mrs. Clinton's version of her handling of emails did not square with his agency's findings. The FBI found she sent and received classified documents, she used more than one device and her server was likely compromised.
On numerous occasions, Mrs. Clinton had unequivocally denied every one of those offenses. Curiously, the FBI did not require the former secretary to testify under oath, sparing her a future prosecution on perjury charges. This wasn't the only unusual accommodation that Comey made.
Days after Comey's briefing, it was learned that FBI agents who worked the investigation of Mrs. Clinton were required to sign an unorthodox non-disclosure agreement banning them from talking about the case. Obviously, Comey wanted to prevent leaks that might embarrass the secretary.
An ABC/Washington Post poll delivered a stunning rebuke of both Clinton and the FBI. A majority (56%) of those surveyed disapproved of the federal agency's decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime. Only 35 percent approved of the FBI verdict.
Americans know a fix when they see one. The FBI and Justice Department colluded to make the email scandal disappear before the Democratic Convention. The probe's ending has left Americans shaking their heads in disbelief as once again the Clintons escape legal prosecution.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Time For Healing: America's Leadership Crisis
Pandering politicians, race-baiters, cop-haters and the biased media need to shut the hell up. Their racially incendiary rhetoric has stoked the national fires of hated, distrust and hostility. Americans need healing, reconciliation and honest dialogue based on factual evidence not raw emotion.
America's crisis began with the shooting of two African-Americans by police. The killings were captured on amateur video, an increasing by-product of violent confrontations. The crude footage exploded on social media, unedited and without informative context.
Unfortunately, many people jumped to conclusions based on the recordings. The cops were guilty. However, as Americans should know by now, often the pictures capture but a snippet of the evidence. Only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and assign liability.
No one should know that better than President Obama, who studied law in college. Yet there he was on national television within hours of the shootings suggesting the police were to blame. His politically motivated statement, instead of reassuring Americans, helped ignite discord.
Black Lives Matter, a growing movement launched in 2013, took their cue from the president and launched protests. Its founders and supporters include many involved in Occupy Wall Street, ACORN and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The group has become increasingly volatile.
During the recent protests, supporters are captured on video screaming such epithets as: "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry Em Like Bacon." How exactly does that create an open discussion of legitimate racial issues? As the nation soon witnessed, anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.
A heavily-armed African-American ambushed police during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas, killing five and wounding seven others. The murderer bragged to police negotiators that he wanted to kill "white people" in retribution for the two shootings earlier in the week.
How does a nation descend into this kind of violence? When cooler heads and words were needed, the American public was whipped into a frenzy by wall-to-wall media coverage of the black killings accompanied by heated words from faux journalists and discredited experts.
There was a universal rush to judgment. The country's tradition of assuming innocence was brushed aside by the Justice Department, President Obama and vulgar politicians eager to solidify their standing with the black community or police. Everyone took sides. No on spoke for all Americans.
For its part, the news media sowed seeds of fear with a false narrative about white cops out to get blacks. America's news organizations fan racial alienation by highlighting police shootings involving only black victims. Forty-six per cent of cop violence victims are white. Can you name one?
Lost in the nasty discourse are these inconvenient facts that should form the nucleus of our national discussion.
Police killings have risen an alarming 44 percent this year. Twenty-six police officers have been killed by firearms this year. At the same time last year, there were 18 police deaths by gunfire. Here are a few facts that don't fit the media narrative: Nearly 30 percent of the police victims were black. The most recent FBI statistics show that 40 percent of cop killers are black. Why are more policemen and women being gunned down? Americans need answers to that question as part of any conversation about race and police. The war on police must stop.
African-Americans represent 15 percent of the population in America's big cities, but 26 percent of the police shooting victims. A disproportionate percentage of blacks are killed, however, the police shooters are most often not white. Black and Hispanic cops are more likely to fire a gun at African-Americans than white officers, according to a Department of Justice Report in 2012. Another study by a University of Pennsylvania criminologist in 2015 found that black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun at a crime scene than other police. White officers killing African-Americans represent four percent of all fatal police shootings, the Washington Post recently reported. Why are confrontations between African-Americans and police increasingly becoming more violent? Without an answer to that question, no solution is worth serious consideration.
Crime in big cities is increasing after years of decline. Murders have risen nine percent in America's 63 largest cities during the first three months of this year. The statistics are part of the Violent Crime Survey released by the Major Cities Chiefs of Police. So far this year, there have been 16,121 homicides nationwide. In all of 2013, the country recorded 14,827 killings. What is driving this deadly crime wave? Crime creates more occasions for police and crooks to confront one another under tension-filled circumstances. That's why a hike in crime matters.
In these troubled times, America needs leadership that understands what unites us rather than demagogues who preach division. The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, an organization representing 330,000 officers, provided a sober assessment of national leadership.
"We'd like to see the president make one speech that speaks to everybody instead of one speech that speaks to black people as they grieve and one speech that speaks to police officers as they grieve," said Jim Pasco, the police union executive. "We don't need two presidents, we only need one. We need one who works to unify the United States."
Amen.
America's crisis began with the shooting of two African-Americans by police. The killings were captured on amateur video, an increasing by-product of violent confrontations. The crude footage exploded on social media, unedited and without informative context.
Unfortunately, many people jumped to conclusions based on the recordings. The cops were guilty. However, as Americans should know by now, often the pictures capture but a snippet of the evidence. Only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and assign liability.
No one should know that better than President Obama, who studied law in college. Yet there he was on national television within hours of the shootings suggesting the police were to blame. His politically motivated statement, instead of reassuring Americans, helped ignite discord.
Black Lives Matter, a growing movement launched in 2013, took their cue from the president and launched protests. Its founders and supporters include many involved in Occupy Wall Street, ACORN and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The group has become increasingly volatile.
During the recent protests, supporters are captured on video screaming such epithets as: "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry Em Like Bacon." How exactly does that create an open discussion of legitimate racial issues? As the nation soon witnessed, anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.
A heavily-armed African-American ambushed police during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas, killing five and wounding seven others. The murderer bragged to police negotiators that he wanted to kill "white people" in retribution for the two shootings earlier in the week.
How does a nation descend into this kind of violence? When cooler heads and words were needed, the American public was whipped into a frenzy by wall-to-wall media coverage of the black killings accompanied by heated words from faux journalists and discredited experts.
There was a universal rush to judgment. The country's tradition of assuming innocence was brushed aside by the Justice Department, President Obama and vulgar politicians eager to solidify their standing with the black community or police. Everyone took sides. No on spoke for all Americans.
For its part, the news media sowed seeds of fear with a false narrative about white cops out to get blacks. America's news organizations fan racial alienation by highlighting police shootings involving only black victims. Forty-six per cent of cop violence victims are white. Can you name one?
Lost in the nasty discourse are these inconvenient facts that should form the nucleus of our national discussion.
Police killings have risen an alarming 44 percent this year. Twenty-six police officers have been killed by firearms this year. At the same time last year, there were 18 police deaths by gunfire. Here are a few facts that don't fit the media narrative: Nearly 30 percent of the police victims were black. The most recent FBI statistics show that 40 percent of cop killers are black. Why are more policemen and women being gunned down? Americans need answers to that question as part of any conversation about race and police. The war on police must stop.
African-Americans represent 15 percent of the population in America's big cities, but 26 percent of the police shooting victims. A disproportionate percentage of blacks are killed, however, the police shooters are most often not white. Black and Hispanic cops are more likely to fire a gun at African-Americans than white officers, according to a Department of Justice Report in 2012. Another study by a University of Pennsylvania criminologist in 2015 found that black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun at a crime scene than other police. White officers killing African-Americans represent four percent of all fatal police shootings, the Washington Post recently reported. Why are confrontations between African-Americans and police increasingly becoming more violent? Without an answer to that question, no solution is worth serious consideration.
Crime in big cities is increasing after years of decline. Murders have risen nine percent in America's 63 largest cities during the first three months of this year. The statistics are part of the Violent Crime Survey released by the Major Cities Chiefs of Police. So far this year, there have been 16,121 homicides nationwide. In all of 2013, the country recorded 14,827 killings. What is driving this deadly crime wave? Crime creates more occasions for police and crooks to confront one another under tension-filled circumstances. That's why a hike in crime matters.
In these troubled times, America needs leadership that understands what unites us rather than demagogues who preach division. The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, an organization representing 330,000 officers, provided a sober assessment of national leadership.
"We'd like to see the president make one speech that speaks to everybody instead of one speech that speaks to black people as they grieve and one speech that speaks to police officers as they grieve," said Jim Pasco, the police union executive. "We don't need two presidents, we only need one. We need one who works to unify the United States."
Amen.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Declaration of Independence Needed Today
America's Declaration of Independence turns 240 years old on July 4. The revolutionary document, approved by the Second Continental Congress in 1776 at Philadelphia, articulates the founding principles that fueled the building of the greatest nation on Earth.
Our nation's greatness can be traced to the courageous patriots who debated, wrote and approved the document that changed the course of American history. With the whole world watching, partisans drafted principles that created a democracy where colonists switched roles from subjects to citizens.
The document can rightly be called the birth certificate of the United States of America. Its adoption by the 13 original colonies transformed the identity of Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and North Carolinians into Americans first and foremost.
They were united as one nation, no longer autonomous dominions. Colonists took their cue from the opening lines of the declaration which referred to newborn America as "one people." That principle was not lost on future immigrants, who surrendered their old loyalties and embraced American ideals.
In retrospect, a document, even one as old as the Declaration of Independence, must be preserved against unfaithful interpretations and defended by those in power, including elected representatives, the judiciary and executive branch of government.
America's future greatness is dependent on continued diligence. As history has proven, democracies can splinter and collapse in a blink of an eye. Recent examples include Thailand, Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Turkey. When abuses erode democracy, tyranny fills the power vacuum.
America's founders, smarting under the sting of the British yoke, made certain future generations would be forewarned about freedom's threats. That's why the Declaration of Independence includes 27 grievances against iron-fisted King George III of England, who ruled the colonies.
The indictment cites violations of colonists' civil, political and natural rights by the crown. It is worth recalling a few of the complaints as a history lesson on the tyrannical injustices which should make Americans today wary of the direction of the country.
"Imposing taxes on us without our consent." Obamacare, the president's signature insurance plan, contains a raft of 20 new or higher taxes cleverly hidden in the law to avoid public detection. It wasn't until after the bill was rubber-stamped by Democrats that Americans learned about the tax increases for small businesses and ordinary citizens. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sheepishly confided during the debate: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people..." Under President Obama, the powerful Internal Revenue Service unleashed its army of enforcement agents to intimidate political organizations aligned against his party, targeting those groups with non-profit status. Despite the harassment, no IRS officials were charged with a crime.
He has suspended our "legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." State legislatures, duly elected representatives of the people, have been overridden numerous times by the federal government and courts on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion and voter ID laws.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people." By failing to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration, the president has wrecked havoc on the budgets of states, allowed foreigners to usurp American jobs, increased crime especially in cities and states bordering Mexico and fostered human trafficking violations. An estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants have flooded into the country since Mr. Obama became president.
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government." True to his threat, President Obama has used the power of his pen to issue 235 executive orders during his presidency with still six months to go before he leaves the White House. In addition, the federal bureaucracy has spun out 184 new regulations with an estimated cost of $80 billion for businesses and consumers.
It may be time for American citizens to again convene in Philadelphia. Once more Americans need to reaffirm their independence from an intrusive government in Washington, determined to manage our lives from afar as the bully English King once tried.
(Answer: George Mason)
Our nation's greatness can be traced to the courageous patriots who debated, wrote and approved the document that changed the course of American history. With the whole world watching, partisans drafted principles that created a democracy where colonists switched roles from subjects to citizens.
The document can rightly be called the birth certificate of the United States of America. Its adoption by the 13 original colonies transformed the identity of Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and North Carolinians into Americans first and foremost.
They were united as one nation, no longer autonomous dominions. Colonists took their cue from the opening lines of the declaration which referred to newborn America as "one people." That principle was not lost on future immigrants, who surrendered their old loyalties and embraced American ideals.
In retrospect, a document, even one as old as the Declaration of Independence, must be preserved against unfaithful interpretations and defended by those in power, including elected representatives, the judiciary and executive branch of government.
America's future greatness is dependent on continued diligence. As history has proven, democracies can splinter and collapse in a blink of an eye. Recent examples include Thailand, Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Turkey. When abuses erode democracy, tyranny fills the power vacuum.
America's founders, smarting under the sting of the British yoke, made certain future generations would be forewarned about freedom's threats. That's why the Declaration of Independence includes 27 grievances against iron-fisted King George III of England, who ruled the colonies.
The indictment cites violations of colonists' civil, political and natural rights by the crown. It is worth recalling a few of the complaints as a history lesson on the tyrannical injustices which should make Americans today wary of the direction of the country.
"Imposing taxes on us without our consent." Obamacare, the president's signature insurance plan, contains a raft of 20 new or higher taxes cleverly hidden in the law to avoid public detection. It wasn't until after the bill was rubber-stamped by Democrats that Americans learned about the tax increases for small businesses and ordinary citizens. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sheepishly confided during the debate: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people..." Under President Obama, the powerful Internal Revenue Service unleashed its army of enforcement agents to intimidate political organizations aligned against his party, targeting those groups with non-profit status. Despite the harassment, no IRS officials were charged with a crime.
He has suspended our "legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." State legislatures, duly elected representatives of the people, have been overridden numerous times by the federal government and courts on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion and voter ID laws.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people." By failing to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration, the president has wrecked havoc on the budgets of states, allowed foreigners to usurp American jobs, increased crime especially in cities and states bordering Mexico and fostered human trafficking violations. An estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants have flooded into the country since Mr. Obama became president.
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government." True to his threat, President Obama has used the power of his pen to issue 235 executive orders during his presidency with still six months to go before he leaves the White House. In addition, the federal bureaucracy has spun out 184 new regulations with an estimated cost of $80 billion for businesses and consumers.
It may be time for American citizens to again convene in Philadelphia. Once more Americans need to reaffirm their independence from an intrusive government in Washington, determined to manage our lives from afar as the bully English King once tried.
(Answer: George Mason)
Declaration of Independence Needed Today
America's Declaration of Independence turns 240 years old on July 4. The revolutionary document, approved by the Second Continental Congress in 1776 at Philadelphia, articulates the founding principles that fueled the building of the greatest nation on Earth.
Our nation's greatness can be traced to the courageous patriots who debated, wrote and approved the document that changed the course of American history. With the whole world watching, partisans drafted principles that created a democracy where colonists switched roles from subjects to citizens.
The document can rightly be called the birth certificate of the United States of America. Its adoption by the 13 original colonies transformed the identity of Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and North Carolinians into Americans first and foremost.
They were united as one nation, no longer autonomous dominions. Colonists took their cue from the opening lines of the declaration which referred to newborn America as "one people." That principle was not lost on future immigrants, who surrendered their old loyalties and embraced American ideals.
In retrospect, a document, even one as old as the Declaration of Independence, must be preserved against unfaithful interpretations and defended by those in power, including elected representatives, the judiciary and executive branch of government.
America's future greatness is dependent on continued diligence. As history has proven, democracies can splinter and collapse in a blink of an eye. Recent examples include Thailand, Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Turkey. When abuses erode democracy, tyranny fills the power vacuum.
America's founders, smarting under the sting of the British yoke, made certain future generations would be forewarned about freedom's threats. That's why the Declaration of Independence includes 27 grievances against iron-fisted King George III of England, who ruled the colonies.
The indictment cites violations of colonists' civil, political and natural rights by the crown. It is worth recalling a few of the complaints as a history lesson on the tyrannical injustices which should make Americans today wary of the direction of the country.
"Imposing taxes on us without our consent." Obamacare, the president's signature insurance plan, contains a raft of 20 new or higher taxes cleverly hidden in the law to avoid public detection. It wasn't until after the bill was rubber-stamped by Democrats that Americans learned about the tax increases for small businesses and ordinary citizens. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sheepishly confided during the debate: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people..." Under President Obama, the powerful Internal Revenue Service unleashed its army of enforcement agents to intimidate political organizations aligned against his party, targeting those groups with non-profit status. Despite the harassment, the top official with the IRS was allowed to continue in his job and no officials were charged with a crime.
He has suspended our "legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." State legislatures, duly elected representatives of the people, have been overridden numerous times by the federal government and courts on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion and voter ID laws.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people." By failing to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration, the president has wrecked havoc on the budgets of states, allowed foreigners to usurp American jobs, increased crime especially in cities and states bordering Mexico and fostered human trafficking violations. An estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants have flooded into the country since Mr. Obama became president.
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government." True to his threat, President Obama has used the power of his pen to issue 235 executive orders during his presidency with still six months to go before he leaves the White House. In addition, the federal bureaucracy has spun out 184 new regulations with an estimated cost of $80 billion for businesses and consumers.
It may be time for American citizens to again convene in Philadelphia. Once more Americans need to reaffirm their independence from an intrusive government in Washington, determined to manage our lives from afar as the bully English King once tried.
(Answer: George Mason)
Our nation's greatness can be traced to the courageous patriots who debated, wrote and approved the document that changed the course of American history. With the whole world watching, partisans drafted principles that created a democracy where colonists switched roles from subjects to citizens.
The document can rightly be called the birth certificate of the United States of America. Its adoption by the 13 original colonies transformed the identity of Virginians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and North Carolinians into Americans first and foremost.
They were united as one nation, no longer autonomous dominions. Colonists took their cue from the opening lines of the declaration which referred to newborn America as "one people." That principle was not lost on future immigrants, who surrendered their old loyalties and embraced American ideals.
In retrospect, a document, even one as old as the Declaration of Independence, must be preserved against unfaithful interpretations and defended by those in power, including elected representatives, the judiciary and executive branch of government.
America's future greatness is dependent on continued diligence. As history has proven, democracies can splinter and collapse in a blink of an eye. Recent examples include Thailand, Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Turkey. When abuses erode democracy, tyranny fills the power vacuum.
America's founders, smarting under the sting of the British yoke, made certain future generations would be forewarned about freedom's threats. That's why the Declaration of Independence includes 27 grievances against iron-fisted King George III of England, who ruled the colonies.
The indictment cites violations of colonists' civil, political and natural rights by the crown. It is worth recalling a few of the complaints as a history lesson on the tyrannical injustices which should make Americans today wary of the direction of the country.
"Imposing taxes on us without our consent." Obamacare, the president's signature insurance plan, contains a raft of 20 new or higher taxes cleverly hidden in the law to avoid public detection. It wasn't until after the bill was rubber-stamped by Democrats that Americans learned about the tax increases for small businesses and ordinary citizens. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sheepishly confided during the debate: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people..." Under President Obama, the powerful Internal Revenue Service unleashed its army of enforcement agents to intimidate political organizations aligned against his party, targeting those groups with non-profit status. Despite the harassment, the top official with the IRS was allowed to continue in his job and no officials were charged with a crime.
He has suspended our "legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." State legislatures, duly elected representatives of the people, have been overridden numerous times by the federal government and courts on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion and voter ID laws.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns and destroyed the lives of our people." By failing to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration, the president has wrecked havoc on the budgets of states, allowed foreigners to usurp American jobs, increased crime especially in cities and states bordering Mexico and fostered human trafficking violations. An estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants have flooded into the country since Mr. Obama became president.
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government." True to his threat, President Obama has used the power of his pen to issue 235 executive orders during his presidency with still six months to go before he leaves the White House. In addition, the federal bureaucracy has spun out 184 new regulations with an estimated cost of $80 billion for businesses and consumers.
It may be time for American citizens to again convene in Philadelphia. Once more Americans need to reaffirm their independence from an intrusive government in Washington, determined to manage our lives from afar as the bully English King once tried.
(Answer: George Mason)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)