RUTHFULLY YOURS

On July 1, 2016 the title of a Washington Times published report, “Nearly 1 million immigrants — including more than 170K convicts — ignoring deportation,” makes clear that the term “immigration law enforcement,” under this administration especially, is an oxymoron.

Reportedly 170,000 of these aliens have serious criminal histories and pose an immediate threat to the residents of the towns and cities where they live and may continue pursuing their criminal “careers.” “Sanctuary cities” that shield them from detection by the federal government may attract these aliens, thereby endangering their decent law abiding residents. A recent article published by the Discovery Institute, “Sanctuary Cities Can Provide Safe Havens For Terrorists,” focused on the threats sanctuary cities pose to national security and quoted from one of my recent commentaries.

My recent article, “Obama’s Victims: Released Criminal Illegals Commit Rape, Murder, Molestation” explained how the administration’s malfeasance has undermined public safety and has resulted in more innocent people being assaulted and killed.

The laws of nature are immutable; the speed of light does not depend on a cop with a radar gun and a summons book. Our legislated laws, however, are meaningless and worthless if they are not enforced.

Law enforcement is a labor-intensive job. In order for law violators to be punished for their transgressions their crimes need to be discovered and they need to be identified. It is essential that an adequate number of law enforcement officers are “out there” to do this work and to make the physical arrests.

Today there are likely fewer than 3,000 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents actually enforcing our immigration laws. More than half of the estimated 6,000 ICE agents are dedicated to enforcing our customs laws which have nothing to do with immigration law enforcement. To put this in context, there are more than 20,000 Border Patrol Agents, more than 45,000 employees at the TSA. NYC has more than 35,000 police officers protecting the “Big Apple.”

Simply stated, in this life and death “game” of hide and seek, there are precious few agents seeking an overwhelming number of aliens who are hiding.

There are fewer than 300 immigration judges who hear immigration cases. It was recently disclosed that on those all-too-rare occasions when an illegal alien is arrested, it may take two years for that alien to have his deportation (removal) hearing. Most of these aliens are not kept in custody and often simply disappear. Many times such aliens will find the opportunity to engage in a marriage — often a fraud marriage, to remain in the United States. There are agents available to uncover such fraud scams.

For years our political leaders, from both political parties, have attempted to focus the debate about immigration on securing the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico.

Congresswoman to Air Force: Put down the tuba, pick up a gun

Rep. Martha McSally has this piece of advice for the Air Force: Ditch the bands and put musicians to work in jobs that boost U.S. national security.

McSally, R-Ariz., on Tuesday said that the service easily complains about its manning levels, and officials make it “their newest excuse” for prematurely retiring essential, close-air support aircraft like the A-10 Warthog, yet “we have hundreds of people playing the tuba and clarinet.”

“If we really had a manning crisis, from my perspective, we would really tell people to put down the tuba and pick up a wrench or a gun,” McSally said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing at which Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford testified. “But we’re not at that place, and I’m just concerned over these conflicting statements.”

The Air Force’s band programs have about 540 enlisted airmen, and almost 20 officers, according to the service. Officials and airmen have picked apart some of the service’s more unusual career fields — including amateur show band Tops in Blue — for using funds that could go for other platforms.

McSally, and other members of Congress who rally behind the A-10, have criticized the Air Force’s reasoning for putting the Warthog in the boneyard as early as 2018. The decision to retire the A-10 would require divesting two A-10 squadrons, or 49 planes, that year, 49 aircraft in fiscal 2019, 64 in fiscal 2020, and 96 in fiscal 2021, an Air Force spokeswoman told Defense News on March 17.

This at a time when the A-10 has been heavily used in the fight against the Islamic State group, throughout Europe and the Pacific.

“We’ve mothballed the equivalent of four A-10 squadrons since 2012, we have only nine remaining, and there are actually less airplanes in them than we used to have,” McSally, a former A-10 pilot, said.

Hillary Clinton broke the law, but she should not be charged with her crimes. That is the gist of FBI director James Comey’s surreal Tuesday-morning press conference, in which he explained how on hundreds of occasions Clinton and her support staff violated the law during and after her tenure as secretary of state — but announced that the FBI, nonetheless, is not recommending criminal charges.

Comey justified his decision on the grounds that the FBI found no “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws.” But the applicable law, 18 U.S.C. §793(f), does not call for any. The standard is “gross negligence,” and Comey’s statement gives ample evidence of that.

Of the 30,000 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained information that was classified at the time the message was sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was “Top Secret,” and seven contained “Special Access” intelligence, the most sensitive classification available. Messages containing classified information were also found among thousands of e-mails not provided by Clinton’s lawyers — who, Comey reports, deleted e-mails that were not in fact “personal” and “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” It turns out, too, that Clinton set up not just one but “several” personal servers during her time at State.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that Clinton’s recklessness put national security at risk. According to Comey, the FBI knows for certain that “hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account” and that she “used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” And, says Comey, it’s entirely possible that our enemies gained access to Clinton’s personal e-mail account, since her use of one was “known by a large number of people and readily apparent.” “Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the e-mails she was sending and receiving, Comey said. “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”

And yet, according to Comey, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case on the basis of the evidence above. If true, that’s a damning indictment of prosecutors as a class.

Notably, though, “reasonable prosecutors” have brought charges against persons accused of much less. U.S. Navy officer Kristian Saucier faces ten years in prison for taking pictures of the engine room of his submarine with his cell phone. Bryan Nishimura, a naval reservist who served in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, was fined and given two years of probation for downloading classified military information to his personal device and taking it back to his California home. And General David Petraeus received a $100,000 fine after he admitted sharing classified information with his mistress.

Legal, but Not Political, Clarity on the Clinton Emails
James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., may have relieved Hillary Clinton of a legal burden on Tuesday, but he left her with a substantial political one. While announcing that the bureau would not recommend criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton for her handling of classified material on nonsecure personal email servers, Mr. Comey issued a strong rebuke of her practices, which he called “extremely careless” — and for which she has never given the public a full explanation. He was right on both points.

Mr. Comey explained that there was no clear evidence Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intentionally broken any federal laws on classified information, and he said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue an indictment in the case.

This legal decision is undoubtedly correct. The F.B.I. investigation, which began a year ago, examined tens of thousands of emails sent to and from Mrs. Clinton during her leadership of the State Department. It found that eight email threads contained information that was classified “top secret” at the time, the highest classification level. Several dozen more contained information that was either “secret” or “confidential,” the lowest level.

For at least two reasons, Mr. Comey said, this did not amount to criminal wrongdoing. First was the lack of evidence that Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intended to break any laws. Second, prosecutions of similar cases in the past have relied on some combination of elements that were missing in this case: the intentional mishandling of classified information, indications of disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct justice.

But Mr. Comey was clear that while these email habits weren’t criminal, Mrs. Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He added that “any reasonable person” in Mrs. Clinton’s position should have known that she was playing with fire.

Mr. Comey’s remarks also contradicted Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertion that she didn’t send or receive material that was “marked classified” at the time. She did.

He went on to say, “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff.”

All these years we have been worried that Obama’s fundamental transformation of America was to Socialism, European Socialism. That is just one of the objectives of the transformation.

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey revealed the real transformation. After listing all of the lies, deceit and laws broken by Hillary Clinton’s us of a private server, he recommended she not be charged. Of course, this was obvious from the actions of Bill Clinton meeting Attorney General Lynch at the Pheonix airport, Hillary joy at testifying on the July 4th weekend and Obama’s making arrangements to campaign with her before the decision to not prosecute her was announced by Comey.

What we are being transformed into is a monarchy. Our elected congressmen have exempted themselves from all kinds of laws including Obamacare. Now, the executive branch has gone a step further. They are exempt from consequences of breaking laws. They can do whatever we want.

If we fail to pay a $500 tax bill, we suffer penalties, penalties worse than Hillary is going to suffer from ignoring laws on the custodianship of secret information, endangering national security.

Does anyone think she will suffer from the obvious corruption of the Clinton Foundation?

This election is our last chance to stop this. The mass media is, by-and-large, supporting these moves of Clinto-Obama. The Democratic Base completely supports this. No matter what Obama and Clinton do, it is fine so long as it pushes their agenda.

Trump is far from an ideal candidate. Many Republican leaders are more than happy to support Hillary over Trump. People are afraid that Trump is a populist aiming to act like a dictator. Hillary, Obama and cohorts are the real populists who aim for autocratic rule.

I fear that the transformation to a monarchy will succeed.

Today we have witnessed a most frightening manifestation of the corruption of our political system. Doubly frightening because of what it augurs for all our futures if Hillary Clinton should prevail in the November elections. At the center of this corruption – but hardly alone – are the criminal Clintons – the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics – and their Democratic Party allies; but we should not fail to mention also the Republican enablers who would rather fight each other and appease their adversaries than win the political wars.

We knew they could fix the Department of Justice; we suspected they could fix the FBI. What we didn’t know was that the fixes would be this transparent: the secret meeting with a chief culprit and the DOJ head; the next day announcement by Justice that the Clinton bribery investigations would be postponed until well after the election; the suspiciously brief FBI interrogation of the former Secretary of State who during her entire tenure had recklessly breached national security protocols, deleted 30,000 emails; burned her government schedules; put top secret information onto a hackable server in violation of federal law; and topping it all the failure of the FBI director after enumerating her reckless acts to recommend a prosecution – all within a single week, and just in time for the Democrats’ nominating convention. It was, all in all, the most breathtaking fix in American history.

And it wasn’t ordinary criminal corruption. It was corruption affecting the nation’s security by individuals and a regime that have turned the Middle East over to the Islamic terrorists; that have enabled America’s chief enemy in the region, Iran, to become its dominant power; that allowed the Saudis, deeply implicated in the attacks of 9/11, to cover their crimes and spread Islamic hate doctrines into the United States; it was about selling our foreign policy to the high bidders at home and abroad, and about making America vulnerable to our enemies.

What can be done? First of all it’s a matter of deciding who you believe – the political elites who are telling you everything is normal, or your lying eyes? The political system is corrupt and cannot clean its own house. What is needed is an outside political force that will begin the job by putting the interests of our country first again. Call it what you will – nationalism or common sense – it is the most pressing need for the country now. Such a force would have to find its support outside Washington. Call that what you will – populism or democracy – no reforming leader can be elected without it. No political leader can begin to accomplish this task, without the support of ordinary Americans registered at the ballot box.

FBI Director James Comey has decided not to recommend that Hillary Clinton be indicted for violating security laws concerning the handling of classified information, among other offenses. By doing so he has compromised a fundamental principle of consensual government: that the laws apply equally to everybody, including those entrusted with the people’s power. Now it is up to voters come November to reaffirm that we are a nation of laws, not men.

Comey chose to do what I suggested on May 20 as a possible scenario: “There are any number of ways the Bureau could spin such a recommendation [not to indict] in a way to let Hillary off the hook: no proof of intent, evidence of carelessness but not criminality, or throwing some staffers and aides under the bus.” Comey in his announcement chose two out of three. He scolded Hillary for being “extremely careless,” but said there was no evidence of intent.

Both statements raise suspicions. First, the statute in question proscribes “gross negligence.” How is “extreme carelessness” different from “gross negligence”? Is there a firm legal distinction between these two? Black’s Law Dictionary defines “negligence” in law as “The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Here is the definition for “carelessness”: “Negligence: failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.” See any difference?

A prudent and reasonable person would not pass classified materials over an unsecured email server. A prudent and reasonable person would also consider Comey’s apparent fine distinction between “gross negligence” and “extreme carelessness” to be a sophistry worthy of Bill Clinton’s metaphysical ruminations on the meaning of “is.” As for “intent,” res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers like Comey say. The very fact that Hillary set up a private server on which to conduct government business, much of it concerning classified materials, is itself a violation no matter the intent. But Comey knows that “intent” is not an issue in determining “gross negligence” according to the statute. A drunk driver doesn’t “intend” to kill anybody, but he’s still going to be charged with a felony for his “gross negligence.” So too Hillary “intended” to shelter her communications from Freedom of Information Act inquiries that might turn up information detrimental to her political ambitions, not to endanger government secrets. That doesn’t affect the criminality of her actions.

Just ask General David Petraeus. In 2012 he didn’t “intend” to “mishandle classified materials” that he shared with his girlfriend. The FBI recommended a felony indictment anyway, which AG Eric Holder reduced to a misdemeanor. A prudent and reasonable person would conclude that the only distinction between Hillary and Petraeus is that the latter didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s political mojo. I’m reminded of Jonathon Swift’s observation that “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” We should wonder what has happened at the FBI in the last few years that has made a relatively minor breach of security protocol worthy of punishment, and then suddenly made a much more serious and consequential breach not worthy of indictment.