RUTHFULLY YOURS

Why aren’t both parties jumping at the chance to offer the new jobs and economic growth that a common-sense infrastructure proposal would bring? With economic activity weak, confidence ebbing and monetary policy all but exhausted, a voter can’t be faulted for asking this question. Upgrading our country’s crumbling infrastructure is tangible and forward-thinking fiscal policy.

House Speaker Paul Ryan is rolling out a six-point GOP legislative agenda that unfortunately omits any mention of such infrastructure investment. In my view, without such investment both parties put in jeopardy achieving many other elements of their platforms.

Both presumptive nominees still have an opportunity to shape the next Congress’ legislative agenda. By taking on the cause of infrastructure repair and upgrade, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could demonstrate their clear understanding of some of our country’s economic problems and the common-sense, economic solution that has material bipartisan support. Each could signal willingness to fight on all Americans’ behalf against the wrongheaded thinking that considers such investment wasteful.

Some object to such funding because they equate it with “stimulus spending” that offers no sustainable benefit and increases the federal deficit. In truth, infrastructure investment increases economic activity, leads to higher incomes and generates a decades-long rise in tax revenues — sufficient not only to satisfy, with interest, the debt initially incurred, but also to generate profit. Once begun, long-lived projects could also bolster confidence and spur private investment and consumption.

Commendably, Clinton has offered a comprehensive infrastructure plan and has committed to submitting it to Congress within her first hundred days in office. In addition, the Democratic Party has just released a draft of its 2016 platform, which includes infrastructure investment https://demconvention.com/platform/. With this infrastructure plank in place, voters could realistically expect a Clinton administration and Democrats in Congress to get behind a major and economically critical initiative. However, the Democrats do not currently hold either the House or the Senate, which could put a damper on or even derail a Clinton proposal. Republican opposition in Congress could still prevent passage of such an initiative.

Trump, on the other hand, could have Republican majorities in both chambers and, as president, might secure the necessary votes (across party lines) to get such legislation passed. The sticking point: He has not yet offered a comprehensive plan or consistently advocated for such a plan.

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.”