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: Upgrades and Contributions

It is no surprise that recent events have put a greater strain on our rights with particular focus on the second amendment. I am actually surprised that the tragedy in Turkey hasn’t filter back into the debate more than the occasional mention. Thus far, the right decisions have been made overall but this debate and the attempted infringement is by no means concluded. It is because of this simple fact that we have continued to be vocal about our rights and, when able, we have contributed to this fight in a variety of different ways.

It really comes down to the individual. Some have more flexibility in their schedule than others and can be in attendance at events, campaign, and volunteer their time to one or more groups. I have had many opportunities to do this but, as of yet, I have been unable to find any free moments that could be dedicated to this endeavor. Maybe in the future but I am really not holding my breath on this one.

Others apply their efforts in the few minutes stolen from each day to write blogs, letters, article, and other means of communication, dissemination, and advocacy for our rights. This is where my efforts are applied because while there is no way that I am able to set aside hours or days to dedicate to a particular endeavor, I can find the minutes scattered throughout my day between various projects and assignments to write letters, emails, articles, and blog posts such as this. A lot can be done with this found time and this defense of our freedom needs every minute that each of us can spare.  

And, of course, there is the financial means of support of which we are all very familiar. This is especially true now as the campaign calls have increased over the last couple of months driven by recent events and the natural progression of the campaign season. This is an area where I do what I can. Lately, I have been looking more at transitioning from annual to life memberships and, in other situations, upgrading my life membership. Thankfully, the extended payment options for most of the major second amendment organizations is very reasonable and financially possible for most members.

There isn’t a cut and dry answer that one can give when asked “how can I contribute or make a difference?” What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. In the end, we all have to figure out how we can support our second amendment rights and we all must be willing to stand our ground. That is how one goes from contributing to making a difference.

Mortgage Monday: New Polling Place

One of the things that many people forget about when they move is the simple fact that, for many of us, our polling place changes. For those of us who move to a different district or county our representatives change as well. Thankfully, I know exactly where I need to be tomorrow morning to vote as I pass the municipal building on a regular basis. Of course, what will be interesting to find out is how the space is organized, how active the campaigning is outside, and whether I will be casting an electronic (as in Bala Cynwyd) or paper (as in Chester Springs) ballot.

However, knowing where to vote it only a small part of the equation. It is important to learn as much as you can about your new place of residence by researching your representation, finding out where they stand on positions important to you, and, when needed, getting involve in the process. After all, for those of us who are looking to stay in our homes for the long term, this is more important and we must be active in making it the best place to live as possible.

And while there are many political aspects about our new community with which I agree, the representation can sometimes be a little confused to figure out as we are bordering on many different areas. Simply put, there are clearly some moments and decisions when they didn’t know what to think. This is why I took things a bit further in my research, got on the phone, and asked them (at least their office) about certain positions that they have taken. After all, they are now representing me and I want to know if I can support them.

While voting this time around won’t be as crowded as November, it is a decent little practice run for the fall. And while I couldn’t help but laugh at the Bernie Sanders volunteer that called the house tonight, I hope that I will be a little more composed in the coming months so that I can challenge the positions of the politicians who chose to ignore my Do Not Call requests. It is a process for sure but, at least for me, it is necessary to more fully understand where I live and whether or not I need to take things to the next level in ensuring that my voice is heard. Now all that is left is more research and bracing for the conventions (traffic should by lovely around Philadelphia) and the general election when hopefully the right candidate is elected.  

Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Funding Campaigns

Well, the time has come. While I have tried to avoid this for as long as possible, the time that it takes to maintain this blog and the resources that it requires (and the simple fact that I am running out of free ideas) that I start a fundraising campaign. I have also been asked about donating on a few occasions so this also provides the means for me to now accept those generous offers. Actually, because of the projects that I am working on, I am actually starting two fundraising campaigns through Patreon and Kickstarter respectively.

The Patreon campaign is ongoing and is designed to help with the recurring costs of maintaining this blog and raising the funds to take the blog to the next level. To this point, I have funded all research, travel, equipment, review products, and other expenses to maintain the daily stream of content. Obviously, this has come on a pretty tight budget and has hindered the growth of the blog which currently receives over 2,000 views per month. Patreon allows readers to donate monthly to the blog to support these efforts. Additional details about the campaign as well as incentives and ways the funds will be used can be found at https://www.patreon.com/SeanMT4D.

Understandably, not everyone is able to contribute on a monthly basis and many readers have specifically asked me about one topic in particular… genealogy. With those suggestions in mind I have started a Kickstarter campaign to raise $20,000 to really dig deep into my family tree. I admit that it is a lofty goal but it is also one that would allow me to expedite the process. The project is titled “Pruning The Family Tree: Questioning Facts and Fiction” and will result in a book most likely with the same title. Overall, the purpose of this project is not only to find those elusive answers but also to give shape and character to the lives of my ancestors and tell their stories, as eventful or uneventful as they may be, to the world. Additional details about this campaign, how the funds will be used (there is some overlap with the Patreon campaign), as well as the incentives for these onetime donations can be found at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1751333165/pruning-the-family-tree-questioning-facts-and-fict.

If you have the means to contribute I would greatly appreciate your support with one or both of these campaigns. If your finances do not allow for such an expense I completely understand. I never have and never will maintain this blog solely for profit and to change that now would be disingenuous. I appreciate all the support that I received in maintaining this blog and I will continue to provide you with the free content that you have come to expect. Thank you all for your support.

Firearms Friday: Taking Over The NRA?

It really isn’t a surprise, especially with the campaigns in high gear, that following another incident of evil there are numerous politicians taking aim at gun owners and the NRA. This has been a potent topic for years and was particularly prominent during the first Democratic debate this week with Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuing to be a vocal proponent of gun control. Oddly enough, this was in direct contrast with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who has a long record of voting against such legislation. Of course, that kind of stance never lasts with a socialist leader so I don’t give much credence to his past performance. Basically it doesn’t matter who ends up being the nominee for the Communist party, the rights of ALL law abiding citizens will be a particular point of contention between the parties.

While all of this back and forth was happening on the national debate stage, there were also a few headlines being grabbed by a New York State Senator, Liz Kreuger, who is advocating her fellow rights abolitionists to join the NRA and force a change in stance on the issue of gun control from the inside. As was reported by the New York Daily News, “Krueger first raised the issue at a roundtable on gun violence issues hosted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) after someone suggested meeting with the NRA to try to find common ground on a gun control law, the New York Observer reported.” Yes, this is how far and how demented their ideas have become.

First of all, as was noted in the same article, Thomas King, president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA board member, “the NRA has more than five million members and scoffed at the suggestion there are enough "anti-gunners" to make an impact on the organization.” This is true, and those of us who are proud members would not stand for that kind of drastic “change” in policy… that is not why we donate our hard earned money. We choose to support and strengthen our rights be fighting those who wish to continue limiting our freedom.

Secondly, keep in mind that the same people who support this kind of radical action are the ones that would be filing suit if every Republican in this country were to register as a Democrat in order to change the party and support candidates that would oppose those policies that they currently hold so close to their empty hearts. Either action should be seen simply as perpetuating a fraud against those who support the basic principles of the organization. And what they are underestimating is that by proposing such actions they are actually galvanizing support for the NRA by the current membership (especially those of us who are life members), including me, which is why I have decided to join the NRA Golden Eagles. 

Firearms Friday: Here We Go Again

Another tragedy, another barbarous act, another opportunity for politicians to further their agenda. As has been the case many times over in recent years, in the wake of a murderous rampage by a deranged individual, the President took advantage of the situation and promoted his gun control agenda. And it was not a side note buried in a mountain of words, it was front and center, prominently on display… opinion inserted into the limited facts known by officials at the time.

“I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.”

While heinous events such as the one in Charleston are leveraged for the sake of naïve political ideology, the facts at the end of the day are quite simple. This was a mass killing by a disturbed individual who, given his previous indictment, was illegally in the possession of a firearm. While there are various theories as to how he obtained it, if he was aided in acquiring that weapon in any way, those individuals should be held responsible for their actions in assisting in the perpetration of the crime.

Criminals will always find a way to carry out their evil acts. No amount of regulation or control will ever stop this from happening. As President Reagan wrote in 1983 (after the attempted assassination by Hinkley two years prior), “It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” If you believe otherwise you are delusional in your utopian thoughts.

Of course, this is coming from a former President who was also an NRA member. Furthermore, he was known to have carried a revolver on at least several instances while in office as was recently noted by Brad Meltzer and previously reported by Ron Kessler in his book “In the President`s Secret Service”, However, lets look more closely at the beliefs held by those who appose the Second Amendment. While this article is nearly 40 years old now, it still holds true today. Here is an excerpt from an article published by then Governor Reagan in the September 1975 issue of Guns & Ammo:

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism--government.”

The issues in this country are not in the rights that have been granted to the citizenry, the problems are in the individuals. This includes those who refuse to accept others as equals, those who don’t respect that sanctity of human life, and those who fail to fear the overindulgence of power. These issue are not the burden of law abiding citizens who believe in self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. This is not a time to strip people of their rights (especially while there are attempts to expand the rights of others). One person committed this act (potentially with the assistance of others) and that person / those people are the ones who should burn for this!

Leaving Things Unfinished

While it inevitably happens from time to time, I hate leaving things that are half finished but sometimes other priorities come to the fore and there is no other option. Eventually, I go back and complete that item or project but there is generally no guarantee when that will happen. However, that task is always on my mind and it doesn’t take much for me to return to the work that was once abandoned.

I was reminded of this when hearing the president speak last week. Unfortunately, his hand had to be forced in order to return to an unfinished war. There was no golf course to which he could retreat that would hide him away from that speech that you could tell he was dreading. When the words were spoken we listened hoping that we would hear of a solution that we could all stand behind. For many of us, the ‘solution’ presented fell far short of what we wanted to hear.  

The threat that we currently face from ISIL is one that many of use feared would grow out of our abrupt departure from the region. We hoped to hear of an all-out campaign to obliterate this terrorist organization that some report to be as much as 31,000 strong. While we have been engaging in targeted strikes, this does not seem to be stemming their growth. We need to show strength but we were left with the following rhetoric from the president:

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL.  And any time we take military action, there are risks involved –- especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions.  But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.  This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.  This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.  And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year:  to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order. 

With a government a mere days old at the time of the speech and our greatest source of intelligence in the region, Israel, having to fight alone to defend their borders, we have little regional support that could counter this growing threat. There are times when overwhelming force is not the answer but this is not one of those situations. We gave up once, we let this threat grow unchecked, and we failed in finishing the job. We can’t let that happen again and trying to claim victory from a distance is not a viable solution.

There is a time for rhetoric… not now. There is a time for negotiations… not now. There is a time to let others handle the problem… not now, we started it. There is a time to step on their necks and not stop until they are wiped off the map and relegated to the biography of a failed president… that time is now. Now is the time to claim victory and fight for the peace and stability of the region.

I Guess I’m Not Welcomed At The Cool Kids Table…

Forgive me for not being as excited as some others about this whole Ice Bucket Challenge thing. I have been a joiner and a follower in my life and it doesn’t really agree with me. I have other charities and causes to which I contribute both my time and, when I am able, a little money now and again. While ALS is a great cause which to donate, I have others which are where my passion lies and that are much more personal to me… that is where I chose to focus my efforts.   

With that said, I have to give credit to the person that started this campaign/fad. At this moment, I can’t recall a nonprofit having such a huge social media campaign that has crossed so many cultural, economic, and international lines. It’s the kind of marketing/fund raising campaign that makes you just marvel at the speed and efficiency of how fast this has spread. And while there is tremendous purpose and a great cause behind these videos, pictures, posts and the campaign in general, there is a bit of a downside to such success.

While this has raised awareness for ALS which is a great thing to have happened and probably the primary purpose behind this campaign’s creation, the campaign itself seems to be overshadowing the cause. It is no longer about how much money has been raised for ALS or really any education about the disease, it is all about seeing someone pour ice cold water on their head. It is slowly descending into the realm of an entertaining fad that people insist on being a part of… it is membership to the cool kids table.

I consider myself a bit indifferent at this point slightly leaning toward tired of seeing all the nonsense on the internet. While I don’t hold the same view of this campaign as one of my friends, I think it is important to share the views from the other side:

 

While there is a lot said in this screen shot, the comment he made following this post adds the color that as apropos to this discussion:

“And please don't take this the wrong way. I'm happy that these "games" seem to work and perhaps in some cases lots of people are helped, provided more than 5% of donations actually go to people in need and not administration. I might get ALS tomorrow, who knows! It's just that anything that is overdone tends to turn me off. I know it raises awareness. Just consider it a quirk in me or even a character flaw; I just can't help it; it's the way I am.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am by no means against supporting this or any other charitable cause I just wish that people knew what they were donating to and truly raising awareness about the disease. It really makes me wonder whether these kinds of campaigns, in the end, do more harm than good for the cause. In the coming years will this cause be considered ‘so last year’ among the celebrities and their followers? I honestly can’t give you a definitive answer to that. I hope not but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

However, if there is one message that I hope that everyone takes away from this social media one up game is that if you have a charity or cause you are passionate about take the time to not just donate but put some effort into supporting the cause and the work that they do. Don’t just post an over the top video, channel that effort into supporting a cause close to you. That is how we can make a greater difference above and beyond a clever social media marketing campaign.

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.

Third Times Is The Charm (Or Is This Four)

Yesterday I had to leave the office much earlier than I usually do. I was in the car and on the road by 3:00pm. Not for anything bad, it was actually for a darn good reason even though I knew I would be sacrificing some of my evening in the process. Had I not double booked myself to be on two calls at the same time I could have held off until 4:00pm but sometimes those things happen and you have little choice in the matter so I headed out the door a hour early so that I could borrow some office space from a client for a call.

So, I got to my client’s office with about five minutes to spare until I had to get on the phone. Cutting it a little closer than I like but, hey, I made it and that is what really counts. While I was waiting for the call to begin, I pulled out my computer and started getting a few other things done. It’s great having access to a secure and reliable wireless network. The call went off without any issues, as I would expect from the people on the line. With about 30 minutes until my next commitment I had just enough time to get my tie on and prep for the next event, the reason I had to leave the office early which you know I don’t like doing.

A quarter to five and I could hear some very familiar voices carrying across the building. Knowing that things were obviously getting started a little early, I hurried myself back out to the car and dropped off my bag and coat, it was a mild evening, so that I wouldn’t have that clutter later in the night. On my way back, my colleague joined me and we entered the reception, mingled (with plenty of work mixed in) and awaited the Governor’s arrival.

That’s right, for the fourth time in the last six months, I was able to meet Governor Corbett and hear him speak as well as honestly answer every question that is presented to him. It was and evening when I wish my boss was able to attend as her views are similar to mine but she has yet to meet the Governor. With that said, her substitute representative, this being his first encounter, left that evening impressed by the fact that he finally met a politician who took his time, spoke to everyone, and was honest and sincere in his answers and views.

There were other business items that came up during the evening that brought the evening back to some of the issues that we have been facing time and again, nothing which I am at liberty to discuss here, but it was an excellent evening nevertheless and our client seemed to be pleased with the overall experience and results of the evening. And, personally, the evening served as greater motivation to do my part in participating in the process and ensuring that Pennsylvania continues along the right path during a second term by Governor Corbett.

In the end I only left with one question unanswered: when asked if there is any media in the room, should I start raising my hand? It is an interesting dilemma and one that will only become more complicated as some other projects, hopefully, come to fruition. I guess I will have to take this day by day, event by event, until I reach a clear conclusion. Until that time, my hand will stay down. No need to complicate things.  

“The economy, stupid”

You may have noticed yesterday that when I spoke about the State of the Union address I glossed over a huge topic. That was not a mistake, I chose to focus on the other items that came to my attention rather than having economic issues dominating the post. And that is exactly what it would have done. With all that is happening (and, more accurately, not happening) with the economy it would have overwhelmed the post.

If you have never watched the documentary “TheWar Room” I encourage you to do so as soon as possible. If you have seen it but it has been a while I think it is time for you to watch it again. Regardless of your political affiliation, it offers fascinating insight into the daily operations of a presidential campaign and shows just how effective a simplified message can be and how much power can be harnessed by hammering home a single, unified message that resonates with people.

I have written on this topic before but, now, when looking back and applying that messaging to the current political climate it is interesting to see how much things haven’t changed. In 1992, a long shot candidate won the democratic nomination for the Presidency. Facing an incumbent President with an unmatched war chest, Bill Clinton had to find a strategy that would turn the election tables. While Clinton is known for his speaking ability, it was a simple trilogy of tenets that served as the backbone of his campaign.

1. Change vs. more of the same.
2. The economy, stupid.
3. Don’t forget health care.

James Carville scrawled these three principals on a white board in the Little Rock, Arkansas campaign headquarters known as “The War Room.” These points kept the staff and the candidate focused. By hammering these basic points both in supporting Clinton and criticizing Bush, Carville was able to bring the rain that would lead to the electoral landslide in November.

Over two decades have passed since that stunning election and yet the same three points resonate today. However, this time the tables have turned, a Democrat is in the White House (can we still say white house or is that now deemed racist), and the Republican party is in need of a lesson in messaging. So, why don’t we take a page from history, from the radically changed opposition, and use their own three points against them? I find myself asking that very question on a daily basis.

All of the problems that the country is currently facing can be distilled into these three principles. We are facing more of the same policies and tactics that have shut out the press, dictated policies, and questions regarding the Constitutionality of many decisions. All of this while we face an increasing healthcare crisis that is crippling the ability of doctors to offer the service and attention that was once a source of pride in their practice. And questions have come to the surface as to the negligence that may be caused by the forced reporting of certain medical records so as to limit the freedom of people seeking assistance.

Of course, there is the economy. Most of our problems are rooted in the heinous economic policies currently running rampant. The debt ceiling has been treated with such disregard that inflation is becoming more of a probability rather than a farfetched possibility. Unemployment and underemployment has become a matter of false facts with fewer jobs being created than the number of people coming off unemployment while reports state that the unemployment rate continues to fall. Yes, like many financial decisions made in Washington, 1 + 1 = 3.

Even many of the economic policies that seem like great ideas the first time we hear them are nothing more than utopian fantasy. A prime example would be raising the minimum wage. Of course people want to get paid more but what happens when the other dominos fall. When the person making $8 per hour gets bumped up to an hourly rate of $10, what do you think the person who was originally getting paid $10 per hour is going to want? That’s right, they are going to want a bump in salary to at least $12. The dominos continue to fall and while some businesses may be able to support the radically increased overhead costs, many if not most small businesses will either have to decrease staff or close their doors completely. This is not the path to economic growth and a stronger middle class.

Some of the issues that don’t seem related to the economy are actually a part of the crisis as well. People today are polarized by one of the rights that the majority of the country exercises, firearms ownership. While not the determining factor in the debate (by a long shot), the limitation of gun rights has had a detrimental effect on many states. In addition to the hours spent by politicians and law enforcement (salaries paid by the people), many manufacturers have moved factories, offices, and other resources from one state to another because of limitations placed on the people (Magpul moving out of Colorado exemplified this issue). Also to be considered is the increased costs faced by government and law enforcement agencies due to the refusal to sell to certain states and departments which is their right as privately owned companies (see Ruger, STI, Barrett, Smith & Wesson, and others).

There are many issues that this country faces and it is going to be a painful recovery when we are finally able to right the ship. Can it be done? Yes! Change may be difficult but it is not impossible and as long as we have hope there is nothing that can keep us from returning to prosperity. While the times have changed the challenges remain the same and while we have not been able to prevent the repetition it is never too late to learn from the past.

Say Goodbye To Baseball Bats

I know the title has some of you thinking about the meaning behind the statement but it really is very simple. I have decided to take the advice of the President and will start doing anything I can to save lives. After all, “if it saves one life, it’s worth it.” And so begins the campaign to ban baseball bats or, at the very least, require a background check in order to purchase one. It only makes sense to start looking at sources of unregulated weapons (especially if they’re black and scary looking) to ban or control first before going after other items (themselves innocuous) used in crimes.

Essentially, a criminal can walk into any sporting goods store, Wal-Mart, or thrift shop and buy a weapon without showing any form of idea, without filling out any forms, and without a background check having been completed. Even children can buy bats at numerous retailers, even the tactical black models. How long are we going to sit on the sidelines quietly and wait for these kids to recreate the meeting scene from “The Untouchables”. This unregulated market needs to stopped and only professional athletes paid to play this sport and certified trainers should have access to these items with such deadly potential.

Of course, this is only the first of many initiatives. Knives are also an unregulated weapon which children and the mentally unstable have easy access to and the same can be said for household cleaners, fast food, and power tools. All of these things have been the cause of death on countless occasions. Also, while tobacco, alcohol, cars, and prescriptions are regulated to a certain degree, they are still prevalent aspects of daily life which also cause a substantial amount of deaths every year. Ban them all and save thousands of lives. Maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.

I know what you’re asking, but why would I chose to go after baseball bats and not guns? Well, they simply aren’t as big of a concern. Contrary to the rhetoric being bandied about recently, those statistics are trending in the right direction and, therefore, should not be our first priority. After all, at least you have to pass a background check to legally buy a firearm. But why take my word for it…

As was reported by the U.S. Department of Justice and Pew Research Center, gun crime statistics continue to steadily decline while gun ownership, especially in recent years, has experienced a sharp rise. According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

Additionally, Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.

In the end, if you really want to save a life, turn in your baseball bat and buy a gun.

Change Is Good

(L-R) Rotarian Sean Teaford and City Controller Candidate Terry Tracy at the Union League during a meeting of the Rotary Club of Philadelphia (Photo by Assistant District Governor Richard Trivane)

On Thursday, for the second day in a row I was off to a Rotary meeting. The reason for my Rotary double down was to hear the guest speaker presenting at the Rotary Club of Philadelphia. Not only was I interested in what he had to say I was also the one who introduced him to the opportunity earlier in the year.

In Rotary, as many of you know, we do our best to remain neutral when it comes to politics. This is a rule that I respect and abide by no matter what my views are on a particular subject. However, I fully support the discussion of ideas and the sharing of opinions as to the best solutions for problems that we face both in our club and in the community. It is for this reason that I set up the date for Terry Tracy to open up a dialogue with my fellow Rotarians over lunch at The Union League of Philadelphia.

I met Terry a number of months back at a Commonwealth Club event in center city and was immediately impressed with his reasonable views and how his background would offer a unique perspective to the position of Controller in the City of Brotherly Love. As Rotarians we all bring different abilities and talents to the table to serve each other and the community and I believe that we should look for those same traits in those running for office. His experience running retail stores throughout North America for major multinational fashion brands grants him with exceptional ability to view the city through a lens of global appeal and appreciation for the creative management necessary to spur growth in tough times.

  

I can hear some of you commenting now about neutrality and party politics. Rest assured, Terry abided by the 4 Way Test throughout his discussion.

It is the truth? He stuck to the facts and was completely honest in his background and opinions.  

Is it fair to all concerned? He did not venture into conjecture and made no mention of party politics.

Will it build good will and better friendships? In a time when partisan politics is running rampant, the meeting ended with complements from Rotarians across the political spectrum.  

Will it be beneficial to all concerned? Regardless of location, the race for controller is often overlooked. This brought focus to a position that has a great impact on the health of the city but regularly receives little attention. All benefited from the awareness of this important position.

Just because someone is in politics and/or is a member of one party or another, it doesn’t mean that neutrality can’t be achieved. Ones personal views will always color your perspective but it shouldn’t prevent us from seeing both sides of a political race or a discussion in general. In fact, you could be surprise by what you see. Who knows, maybe your opinion will change. Maybe change is something we need.