Federal Bureau of Inconsistency

A little less than a year ago, on July 29, 2015, the FBI released a statement that wasn’t covered by any of the major news outlets, wasn’t the leading story on the local news, and was never committed to the black and white of the newspaper. It wasn’t news “worthy of dissemination” but, given the recent statement issued by FBI Director James B. Comey regarding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server the verdict announced last summer is finally being brought to light. First, let us review a small section of the statement from 2015:

“Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced… According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

When looking at the “crime” and the penalty it is pretty straightforward and should be easily applied to future situations. This is especially true when you consider the fact that this is pretty much a textbook example of Section 793, subsection (f),”Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information“, of the US Code which outlines the following:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

So now let us consider the case at hand. While clearly a much more complicated investigation than the one previously detailed, the results are much more concise in the transgressions committed by Secretary Clinton during her time at the State Department. First let us determine if any of those emails contained classified information that would warrant charges based on the aforementioned statute. For this, I reference two sections from the recently issued statement:  

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”

…

“Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

And, just as in the case of Bryan H. Nishimura, intention is not a factor in determining whether or not someone has broken the law. There is a reason why security measures are in place, systems are monitored, and all correspondences are catalogued… these are steps we need to take to protect our information and maintain the level of security necessary in this world. While the FBI is kid in the following section, I would qualify the actions of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, as grossly negligent:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

What really matters here is that this was a breach of national security and, while they haven’t been able to determine whether or not hostile parties have accessed classified information the FBI admitted noted that “…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” We were put at great risk by Secretary Clinton and she should be facing charges. But…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

And there is the double standard clearly stated by the FBI Director himself. Of course, today’s testimony makes me think a little about his “interesting” perspective on the law:

Yet Comey said while Clinton showed “great carelessness,” he did not see evidence she and those with whom she corresponded “knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law.”

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based only on what is known as “gross negligence.” At the same time, he suggested that if Clinton had worked at the FBI, she could be subject to a range of disciplinary measures including suspension or termination.

“You could be walked out,” he said.

Basically, he is stating that if you get pulled over on the highway but you didn’t realize that you were speeding then you didn’t break the law. Yeah, my head hurts too. While there are many trying to assign motive to Director Comey, I am not going to do so, his more recent statements pretty much sum up his thought process and qualification to hold his position.

All I will say is that there is no way I will ever trust Secretary Clinton… not now and certainly not as someone running for the Presidency. But, if you believe in double standards and hypocrisy, by all means cast your vote for Hillary. Personally, I would much rather vote for someone who believes in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility… but I will settle for Trump.  

Firearms Friday: A Time Of Contradiction

In the wake of the mass murder at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando this past weekend I didn't want to simply react to the tragedy but rather take the time to think and give the space to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. This is not a partisan issue, we should all be mourning their loss. After all those people who were murdered were human beings and fellow citizens of this county and should not be assigned or limited to a specific group or label. To me, right or wrong, it really is that simple. While there have been various halfhearted comments, disgusting accusations, and ludicrous statements made to date from a wide variety of groups and individuals, I have found the most succinct responses to this tragedy to be that of The Pink Pistols and that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  

What we should be doing now is not placing blame on any party, person, or group of people unrelated to the actions of the individual who committed this heinous act. These psychotic actions and other mass murders that have become and an unfortunate part of our collective conscious aren’t going to be cured by the rhetoric that is currently being bandied about. We will never truly know why these person did what they did. The fact of the matter is that we are facing an unprecedented crisis regarding mental health in this county.  

Those who wish to ascribe blame on these rampages on firearms are completely off base in their assertions as the PEW Research Center already noted that the “nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent.” Additionally, nonfatal gun victimizations has dropped from 725.3 per 100,000 in 1993 to 174.8 per 100,000 in 2014. Max Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post noted that “Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift.” He subsequently listed five very plausible reasons for this decline which included more police officers on the beat, police using computers, decreased consumption of alcohol, decreased exposure to toxic lead, and an improved economy.

However, while overall gun violence has experienced a precipitous drop, the FBI has noted a marked increase in the number of active shooter incidents from 2000-2013 with the average number of incidents increasing from 6.4 from 2000-2006 to 16.4 from 2007-2013. This is in direct contrast to the decrease in the violent crime rate reported by the FBI which noted a 27.1% decrease in violent crime from 506.5 per 100,000 in 2000 to 369.1 per 100,000 in 2013. Consequently, questions must be asked as to why we have such a chasm between the two stats and why the numbers going down with regard to crimes committed with firearms and violent crime as a whole but active shooter incidents and mass killings are on the rise?

The truth is that firearms know no race, gender, age, height, weight, economic status, political viewpoint, national identity, immigration status, or sexual orientation. Firearms are inanimate objects that require the user to impose their will. This is why, despite the aggressive and illogical accusations of some to the contrary, the National Rifle Association’s slogan is indeed true: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Contrary to what many zealots may suggest, the increased frequency of these heinous acts has nothing to do with firearms or the politics related thereof.

The crisis that this country faces is that of mental health which has always been a matter of public safety since the first patient was admitted to the Public Hospital for Persons of insane and Disordered Minds in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1773. The sad fact of the matter is that care for the mentally ill is not a priority in this country today. While a touch dated, the evidence is clear that the mentally ill are not receiving the care that they need because the care simply isn’t available in the United States.

This is in large part due to various deinstitutionalization policies that have been wreaking havoc on the system for the past 60 years. A staggering statistic to exemplify this point is that “in 2005 there were 17 public psychiatric beds available per 100,000 population compared to 340 per 100,000 in 1955” which translates to a 95 percent reduction in the number of the beds in 2005 compared to 1955. For those unfamiliar with the term, The Treatment Advocacy Center defines it in the following way:

“Deinstitutionalization, the name given to the policy of moving people with serious brain disorders out of large state institutions and then permanently closing part or all of those institutions, has been a major contributing factor to increased homelessness, incarceration and acts of violence.”

Note the last part of that sentence. Further proof of that point in particular can be found in our prison system as a 2004 study, as reported in Mother Jones, suggested that “approximately 16 percent of prison and jail inmates are seriously mentally ill, roughly 320,000 people. This year, there are about 100,000 psychiatric beds in public and private hospitals. That means there are more three times as many seriously mentally ill people in jails and prisons than in hospitals.” Later in that same timeline, it is also noted that “In the aftermath of the Great Recession [2010], states are forced to cut $4.35 billion in public mental-health spending over the next three years, the largest reduction in funding since deinstitutionalization.”

The further reduction in funds has had a significant impact on the mental health system in this country which was noted in a report from The Treatment Advocacy Center titled “No Room at the Inn: Trends and Consequences of Closing Public Psychiatric Hospitals”. The reality we currently face is that there was an additional reduction in the number of beds available between 2005 and 2010 by 14 percent with the current per capita falling to a level not seen in this country since 1850 at 14.1 beds per 100,000 with additional decreases having been experienced since then. To put this is further perspective, the consensus target for providing minimally adequate treatment is 50 beds per 100,000 (the ratio in England in 2005 was 63.2/100,000). This has resulted in “states that closed more public psychiatric beds between 2005 and 2010” to experience “higher rates of violent crime generally and of aggravated assault in particular.”

There is plenty of blame to go around, in both political parties, across decades, as to the insufficient mental healthcare system that we have in place today. And, at this point, I would like to make it very clear that while the institutional system is by no means perfect, it clearly makes a difference regarding the evil acts that are perpetrated by the mentally unstable. And the degradation of this system and the care available overall to the mentally ill population is something that we need to address if we are truly motivated to change the climate in which we live. In the end, the slaughter of innocent people was committed by an individual who was clearly mentally ill and motivated, by self-proclaimed during his 911 call, by a group that preys on the mentally malleable. That is where your finger should be pointing.

And You Thought Wal-Mart Was Crowded!

There were a lot of 4473's filled out on Friday
which means we will soon be accused of killing trees. 

Black Friday Facebook posts seemed to be the norm this past week especially for the local shops in the area that don’t put the money into fancy commercials or newspaper inserts. This was especially true for the small shops around the region. Even the local gun shops took to Facebook to promote the discounts that they were offering this weekend (Tanner’s Sports Center is a perfect example of this). And, as it turns out, my local mom and pop shops were not the only ones cutting prices.

While I kept reading about the lines at various retailers across the country, it didn’t quite click that the same thing would be happening at the local gun shops and big chain stores. Just like last year, I didn’t have the need to go wait in those lines and none of those stores are along my usual commute so I was fairly oblivious to the rampant sales that were happening across the nation. Those thoughts were soon chipped away when I started reading through some of the comments left on the Facebook sale posts.

These demonstrated that there was a higher than normal pace to the sales but the volume was still something that I didn’t fully grasp until additional posts were made by a few of these stores. As it turns out, the PICS system was completely overloaded (no back door gun control theories here just the pointing out of a crappy antiquated system). Something that I cannot remember happening for some time and not this bad since the first few months of 2013. That is when I really began to wonder how many firearms were being sold on Black (Rifle) Friday.

And then I came across a CNN article (via The Blaze) that summarized the mass buying that was taking place across the country and why the system was unable to handle the load. Here is a little bit from the article:

The busiest shopping day of the year also saw a major boom for gun sales, with the federal background check system setting a record of more than 175,000 background checks Friday, according to the FBI.

The staggering number of checks -- an average of almost three per second, nearly three times the daily average -- falls on the shoulders of 600 FBI and contract call center employees who will endure 17-hour workdays in an attempt to complete the background reviews in three business days, as required by law, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said.

"Traditionally, Black Friday is one of our busiest days for transaction volume," Fischer said.

Indeed, Friday saw the highest number of background checks ever for a Black Friday, and second in history. The highest day on record was December 21, 2012, with more than 177,000 background checks.

Without any major controversies or political maneuvering currently being considered, it really came down to price this year. While there may not have been great Black Friday deals to be had overall, it seems as though the firearms industry is doing well and the real deals were in the gun shops. Like it or not, firearms are part of our culture and the ownership thereof is our right. Thankfully, there are many people out there who choose to exercise that right and Black Friday was there opportunity to embrace that right… and at a discount.

California Politics = SNAFU

I don’t hide the fact that I am a rather partisan person when it comes to politics. However, in my life, there are instances when I have broken with party lines and voted for another candidate. Granted, there has to be darn good reason to do so but it has happened and I believe that I made the right choice at the time. There are people in this country that are ardent supporters of one party over another regardless of the actions of the candidates… welcome to California!

Back in March, anti-gun California State Senator Leland Yee (D) was arrested by the FBI on corruption and bribery charges. Unfortunately, it is not surprising these days to hear such charges being leveled on a politician. However, what made this case unique and rather disturbing is the fact that the anti-gun legislator, who has attached his name to nearly every anti-gun piece of legislation since he took office, was also arrested by the FBI on charges of conspiring to illegally import and distribute firearms, allegedly including machine guns and “rocket launchers”. Since that time additional details have surfaced. Specifically, he was arrested for conspiring with the Chinese mafia (Triads) to import and sell full-auto rifles and rocket launchers (I wonder if any of them were “ghost guns”). The full warrant affidavit can be read here.

This week, Leland Yee was back in the news. Mr. Yee, supposedly possessing either the worst memory or biggest balls in history, was running for Secretary of State. This is not a punch line, this is reality. I heard about this some time ago and, like many law abiding gun owners, I was confident that no one would vote for such a criminal. Well, like many times before, I underestimated the stupidity and partisanship of many voters. Leland Yee collected nearly ten percent of the vote in the California primary. This translates to a third place finish with 300,425 Californians who decided that legal firearms are bad but illegal guns are perfectly acceptable.

Results such as this really bring to light that not all the issues in politics can be blamed on the politicians themselves, it all comes down to the voters. This isn’t a new problem, this has been a part of politics since the beginning when politicians realized that they had four primary ways of running a campaign: run an honest race and position yourself as the best person for the job; manipulate the perceptions of the voters and attack your competition; use your celebrity status (entertainment, sports, politics, etc.) to garner popularity votes; or, run for office in a place where your party is guaranteed to win by blind party vote. The first has long since withered away while the other three strategies are what have taken root in this country. This is why it really doesn't matter if you are an adulterer (happy belated 50th birthday to Monica Lewinsky), left someone to die after driving your car off a bridge, you are an arms trafficker, or your biggest accomplishment is finishing second on American Idol... you still have a chance to be elected.

A blind vote is supporting the Political SNAFU that we all despise. While I don’t think this is ever going to go away, we should at least do all we can to stunt it’s growth by educating ourselves as to the candidates that are running, knowing who is currently representing us, and giving a crap about the decisions that these people are making in office. While we may all have opinions as to whether their actions are good, bad, right, or wrong, we should take those policies, actions, and charges into account before we pull that lever or hit that button. I am not against voting along party lines so long as you know who you are voting for.

Throwing Around The F Word!

There is a certain four letter word that keeps getting thrown around and few people are taking note of the vulgarity that is behind its usage. To be completely honest, I use that word on a daily basis and while it has never caused any problems I am always cognizant of the company around me because there are certain people that will throw a tantrum when those four letters fly from my mouth. Ironically, those same people use the term, most of them more frequently than I do, but I guess it is all about perception.

The word ‘fact’ frequently makes me cringe upon it initially reaching my ears. All too often the usage doesn’t fit the definition or is stretched so thin that the meaning becomes frayed and almost unintelligible. Opinion is being crammed into the public perception of the word and the culprits of this bastardization are all around us. The most glaring misuse of the word stems from the processes that are employed to tailor statistics to fit the needs of a group, political party, or publication.

Recently, CNN conducted a poll asking the following question: “Does the United States need stricter gun control laws?” At first glance this seems to be a valid survey question to be asking the American people. After all, it would provide insight into the breakdown in the US population of those who support the second amendment and those choose not to honor the constitution (you know me, I had to phrase it that way). However, the question is not being asked of the US population. The poll can only be found on the CNN International site. No mention is made on the US edition. Don’t believe me? Take a look for yourself:

• CNN: International Edition (scroll down to the bottom right of the webpage).
• CNN: US Edition (that’s right, nowhere to be found).

Seems like it would be more appropriate to have those in the United States casting their votes rather than those in other parts of the world weighing in on our rights. While most things I really don’t mind if the entire world voices their yes or no opinion but the poll itself is exclusionary in where they have decided to post it. This is particularly problematic when you consider the fact that the ‘results’ are not going to be used internationally, they are to be leveraged domestically for the purpose of promoting a certain point of view which I clearly do not share.

Of course, this may be a moot point as the poll I currently in my favor even with the “news” agency not counting all the votes. So, and I am speaking to everyone, stop throwing around the F word when most of the things reported as such need at least two words to describe them. And, in this instance, focus on the real threat and make fists, knives, and hammers illegal (or at least make people pass a background check before using them). After all, if it’s good enough for the UK its good enough for us. Right?