Today, I watched and listened to a significant portion of the Congressional hearing involving FBI agent Peter Strzok.

I believe this Spanish Inquisition model was perfected by Rep. Trey Gowdy during his multi-year ‘Joseph McCarthy-inspired’ Benghazi investigation.

I also believe that the needs and rights of the American people are being completely ignored by members of Congress who follow this Model, seemingly fully deaf and blind to the needs and rights of the American people.

Trey Gowdy gained a national stage when he took charge of the Benghazi committee in the spring of 2014, prior to which there had already been seven (7) previous House and Senate investigations (plus an internal review by the State Department) into the conditions surrounding the terrible attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost by members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

The Benghazi incident took place in September 2012 when attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans.

Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi consumed significant amounts of American resources, yet it yielded nothing that was not already known.

Today’s performances by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (backed up by Rep. Trey Gowdy) would be worthy of Tony Award nominations had they taken place within a Broadway show.

Although they were not performing on Broadway, they did help to inspire a vicious and highly partisan attack on Mr. Strzok, both professionally and personally.

I am an American citizen, property owner and voter who has become completely disillusioned by the increasingly malignant infestation of our legislative bodies by individuals who seem to be motivated by evil intent, and who further seem to be unwilling and unable to adhere to the commonly acknowledged rules of decorum.

This charade — publicly attacking Peter Strzok, a man who has an exemplary 20+ year history of service protecting and supporting the U.S. Constitution — is completely out of context.

If Strzok is a traitor or is guilty of some heinous crime, that should be determined behind the scenes, perhaps by a Grand Jury.

There is no excuse for a committee of the Congress to attempt to publicly eviscerate and excoriate a sworn federal agent who has proven his willingness and ability to protect the best interests of American citizens while upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisements

The headline comes directly from Steven Mnuchin, our U.S. Treasury Secretary, who recently penned an op-ed piece which appeared in print in the Tampa Bay Times (July 3, 2018).  https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/trump-tax-cuts-strengthened-u-s-economy/

Mnuchin’s opinion piece seems to consist primarily of fluffed-up puffery related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.

Mr. Mnuchin omitted several critical issues which most economists agree must be included in any analysis of the U.S. economy.

First is the ‘business (economic) cycle’.  The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has been tracking the U.S. economy for 160+ years.  NBER defines one business cycle as: A period of economic expansion; followed by a contraction (recession); ending at the next point of recovery.

NBER’s 160+ years of records reflect that (over that time) the U.S. economy experienced 66 business cycles. Since 1945, we have experienced 11 business cycles with an average length of expansions of 5 years, followed by an average length of recessions of 1 year.

We can’t forget that the U.S. economy almost collapsed in early 2008 following a period of ebullience and expansion apparently accompanied by loose regulatory oversight of the financial sector.

Quick intervention in 2008 by our federal government saved the U.S. economy from the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression.  NBER data reflects the point of recovery (beginning of expansion) of the U.S. economy occurred in June 2009, and has now entered its 10th year (109th month) of growth.

Our current economic expansion is now the second-longest expansion on record, exceeded only by the expansion from March 1991 to March 2001, which lasted a full 10 years.

History tells us we are very close to the point of contraction (recession) of the U.S. economy.

Second is the ‘Skills Gap’.  When Mr. Mnuchin tells us that “…there are enough job openings in America for every unemployed person in the country” he fails to explain that the majority of open jobs require skills which the majority of unemployed people lack. In other cases, the unfilled jobs are located hundreds – maybe thousands – of miles away from the location of potential job seekers.

One solution to filling the open jobs is to encourage migration – or immigration — of skilled workers.

Another solution is to recruit, educate and train currently underemployed or unemployed U.S. residents who live in near proximity to the open jobs.

Third involves a dangerous combination of tax cuts and deficit spending to finance those tax cuts.

Mr. Mnuchin touts benefits to U.S. workers as a result of repatriation of hundreds of billions of dollars from off-shore corporate subsidiaries to the U.S.  In fact, companies thus far have paid out dividends and other withdrawals of $305.6 billion from foreign receipts which far outstripped the amount of this cash which was reinvested domestically.  By some estimates, corporations have spent 72 times as much on share buybacks as they have spent on one-time worker bonuses and raises.

The U.S. ‘current account deficit’, which measures the flow of goods, services and investments into and out of the country, widened by $8.0 billion to $124.1 billion, or 2.5 percent of national economic output in the first 3 months of 2018, virtually all of which seems to be attributable to the repatriation tax holiday.

To make up for the loss of tax revenue, the Trump administration is relying on a combination of debt financing and mystical economic growth which they expect to occur at the end of an extended business cycle.

Mnuchin tells us that U.S. economic growth is on steroids.

Some observers have noted that the appearance of economic growth is highly influenced by the infusion of repatriated cash – somewhat similar to feeding 2nd graders sugar before sending them out onto the playground.

The energy is intense, but it won’t last very long, and it is just not sustainable.

A recent report (6/21/2108) from the U.S. Office of Government Accountability (GAO) warns that responsible action is needed on the nation’s growing federal deficit, which grew to $666 Billion in FY 2017 (10/01/16 to 9/30/17) and is projected to surpass $1 Trillion by 2020.

According to the GAO’s 2017 financial report, the federal deficit in FY 2017 increased by 13.5% from $587 Billion in FY 2016 and $439 Billion in FY 2015. Federal receipts in FY 2017 increased by $48 billion, but that was outweighed by a $127 billion increase in spending.  (Note that Deficit is an annual measure; National Debt is aggregate, an accumulation of annual shortfalls.)

The aggregate (gross) amount that the U.S. Treasury can borrow is limited by the U.S. debt ceiling. As of April 30, 2018, our National Debt was $21 Trillion, about 78% of GDP.

Since its passage in December 2017, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has warned that TCJA will add $1.84 Trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years, which they estimate will push the National Debt to an unprecedented 152 percent of GDP by 2028, significantly increasing the odds of a new financial crisis.

Interest rates are rising, and National Debt is increasing, thus interest on National Debt will consume an ever-increasing amount of future federal budgets.

And, of great concern is the flattening of the ‘yield curve’.  Traditionally, interest rates on short-term debt are lower than rates paid on long-term obligations.

The spread between the yields of the 2-year Treasury note (2.55 percent) and 10-year Treasury note (2.89 percent) was 34 basis points on June 23. That’s less than half of what it was in early February and the narrowest it’s been since August 2007.

An inversion of the yield curve — when long-term rates fall below short-term rates — traditionally predicts a looming recession.

—————————————————————————-

It’s not clear why Mr. Mnuchin – a seasoned financial services sector professional with a clear expertise in fixed income securities – would omit such important information in his assessment of the U.S. economy.

I am drawn to conclude Mr. Mnuchin is using his position as a high-ranking federal official to ‘butter his own toast’, likely through complex – and undisclosed — derivative positions.

We’ll have to see if the Walrus is correct…..

This event — June 20, 2018 — represents a fabulous ‘photo op’ for Trump, and it results in a Pyrrhic victory for oppressed and victimized mothers and their minor children who are fleeing horrific conditions in their homelands of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala -the so-called Northern Triangle.

Read between the lines of Trump’s Executive Order and you will find little change in the draconian American policy of abusing and torturing women and children.

Trump and his administration have embraced a tactical wholesale approach to focus, apprehend and detain the most vulnerable – and least dangerous – people who seek asylum in the U.S.

Trump has – and continues to – proclaim that “..most immigrant families and minors from Central America who arrive unlawfully at the border cannot be detained together or removed together – only released.  These are crippling loopholes that cause family separation which we don’t want.”

Probably not true, and even if true, completely irrelevant.

Statistics tell us that:  (1) Immigrants who come to United States seeking asylum from horrible conditions in their countries of origin are generally women with minor children who pose little to no criminal or other risk to the U.S.;  (2) Immigrants who come to the U.S. seeking work to support families left behind in their country of origin are predominantly men who strive to make enough money to send for the rest of their family to bring them into a positive environment.

Yes, each of these scenarios illustrates a likely violation of current U.S. immigration laws.

However, let’s not lose sight that the foundation of immigration laws of the U.S. is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sometimes known as the McCarran–Walter Act.  Yes, 1952.

Parts of that Act remain in place today.  It has been amended several times and was modified substantially by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.  Yes, 1965.

No doubt, there exist a small percentage of people who illegally enter the U.S. with nefarious intent. It seems that most of these ‘bad actors’ do not travel with children; are not female; and do not enter over the southern border.

If Trump — and his band of complicit Republican cronies – really desire to improve our national security through better immigration strategy and policy, they need to focus on fact-based, root cause analysis, and to invest in solutions which utilize “evidence-based targeting,” an approach which uses objective data to focus limited resources toward those individuals who pose the highest risk of danger to the U.S.

Evidence-Based Targeting is a strategic approach which requires planning; careful research; and a blind approach to race, religion, gender, national origin or other irrelevant factors.

Yes, Mr. Trump, we are in lock-step with you on secure borders.  We – even those of us who are not registered Republicans – demand secure borders and we want to have modern policies and procedures in place which keep bad actors out of the U.S.

That said, we need to ask you to stop acting as a bully, stop picking on defenseless women and children, and start focusing on Evidence-Based Targeting to help protect our domestic security.

And, concurrently, it would be really great if you could work with Congress to modernize that 1952 McCarran–Walter Act which probably made sense back then, but seems to need some tweaks to address the huge demographic changes which have occurred since then.

Please, Mr. Trump:  Stop the puerile ‘Beavis & Butt-Head’ rhetoric and start acting like a leader.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was approved by the One Hundred Fourth U.S. Congress, and was signed into law by President Clinton on September 30, 1996.

The evolution of this federal law began just after Republicans assumed majority party status in the House and Senate after the 1994 mid-term elections. Moved forward under the leadership of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the evolution of this Act was long and contentious.

The Act was a major step forward on securing our borders. Among other things, it provided for a dramatic increase in the number of Border Patrol agents; allocated $12 Million for a 14-mile triple fence along the US border from San Diego eastward; provided funding to the INS for acquisition of state-of-the-art equipment including aircraft, helicopters, night vision goggles and four-wheel-drive vehicles.

A critical focus of the Act was to provide stronger enforcement efforts and penalties for persons who: attempt to enter the U.S. illegally; smuggle immigrants into our country; or live inside U.S. borders without proper documentation.  A key driver of the legislation was a popular groundswell to improve oversight of immigrants to reduce and/or eliminate those aliens who had strong propensities toward bad behaviors.

By way of background, a wave of people fleeing from Central America’s ‘Northern Triangle” in the 1980’s –El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras – helped to create a perfect storm to challenge U.S. immigration enforcement.

The great percentage of these Northern Triangle immigrants were people who wanted to find a stable environment for their family; to assimilate; and to become productive members of their new community.

A small number of these individuals were survivors who had fought in civil conflicts — some of whom were naturally drawn into street gangs, including MS-13 — most of whom were unattached males with no children.

One of the tenets of this 1996 Act clarifies and codifies the role of an examining immigration officer to determine when an arriving alien is inadmissible for admission to the U.S. for having engaged in fraud or misrepresentation, or because the alien lacks valid documents.  The Act empowers the officer to order the alien removed without further hearing or review, unless the alien states a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum

It further provides that an alien subject to expedited removal who states a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum shall be referred for interview by an asylum officer, and if that officer finds that the alien has a credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum under normal non-expedited removal proceedings.

When the asylum officer determines that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the asylum officer will order the alien removed from the United States.

The alien may then request a review by an immigration judge of the asylum officer’s credible fear determination. If the immigration judge also finds that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the alien will be removed from the United States pursuant to the asylum officer’s order.

What is missing from the Act is a clear prohibition of separating immigrant children from their parents.

Why is that prohibition missing from the Act?

One has to conclude that no one in 1996 – not even Newt Gingrich – could have imagined that any official in the United States would consider this approach to be a viable solution.

True, Bill Clinton signed the law which made some major strides forward in our responsible and rational enforcement of U.S. immigration policy.

Yet, there is nothing — NOTHING — in this — or any law — which encourages separation of children from their parents.

April, 11, 2018:  Paul Ryan announced his plan to retire from Congress in January 2019, at the end of his current term, and further stated that he will not run for re-election.

Ryan said that he is proud of the accomplishments which occurred during his 20 years of service in Congress, although he regrets that ‘they were unable to achieve Entitlement Reform’ during his tenure in office.  Despite his vocal regrets, he is planning to leave Washington in January 2019 with some of the most generous and egregious entitlements remaining in the U.S.

It has been said that Ryan’s remaining goal (‘Entitlement Reform’) is razor focused on cutting federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs as a way to temper extraordinary increases in the federal deficit.

These increases in the deficit were willfully enacted as a component of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a result of rare, curious, wild and crazy tax cuts combined with wild and crazy spending increases, at a point in our economic cycle which begs for caution and restraint.

Paul Ryan said that he is extremely pleased to have played a significant role in the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which he considers to be a highlight of his service in Washington.

Background on Jobs:

Since 2010, the U.S. economy has supported the creation of almost 17.5 Million jobs, leading to a November 2017 unemployment rate of 4.1%, a 17-year low. (Perspective: Unemployment reached 15% toward the end of 2009; many economists agree that “full-employment” occurs when the unemployment rate is at 5% or lower.)

Hundreds of U.S companies have been looking to hire workers for skilled positions to help them meet growing demand for their products and services. These jobs are often called “family wage jobs” because they provide compensation and benefits sufficient to support a family in the local economy.

The number of job openings in the U.S. (October 2017) remained at the 6 Million level, marginally lower than at the end of 2016. (Perspective: When the Great Recession was at its worst in 2009, job openings fell to 2.2 million, an all-time low.)

Average hourly earnings had risen just 2.5% over the 12 month period ending in October 2017, helping to support the theory that a significant skills gap continues to impede hiring for family wage jobs which typically require advanced reading, math and computer skills.

In addition to the dilemma of finding skilled workers in shrinking regional labor market pools (“skills gap”), hiring managers and economic development experts also report obstacles cited by job seekers such as: transportation (including long commutes); day care/child care; and noncompetitive wage rates.

Despite these documented facts, Paul Ryan, many members of Congress and President Trump actively and enthusiastically supported “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” of 2017, telling us – among other things, “Our legislation is focused entirely on growing our economy, bringing jobs back to our local communities, increasing paychecks for our workers…”

At a point in time when we had apparently reached full employment; when some 6 Million higher-skilled, family wage jobs were unfilled, at least 2 questions remained unanswered:

– Other than engaging in war, or the innovative programs launched in the 1930’s (CCC, WPA, etc.), has the federal government ever succeeded in an effort to create sustainable private sector employment?

– If new family wage jobs are created, who would be available to fill them?

Background on the tax side:

When George W. Bush (POTUS 43) took office in January 2001, he inherited a federal budget from his predecessor.

Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) 9/30/2001 resulted in revenues of $2.39 Trillion and expenditures of $2.23 Trillion, resulting in a budget surplus of $0.15 Trillion. FYE 2001 federal debt held by the public was $3.34 Trillion, representing 31.7% of GDP.

Fast forward to his final full year in office (FYE 9/30/08), Bush watched over a federal budget which included revenues of $2.52 Trillion and expenditures of $2.98 Trillion.

That left a FYE deficit of $458.6 Billion, which (combined with prior deficit spending) resulted in total federal debt of $9.99 Trillion at FYE (9/30/08), representing 67.7% of GDP.

The federal budget for FY 2009 was developed by then-president Bush, submitted to Congress, and inherited by Obama (POTUS 44). The actual federal revenues for FY 2009 were $2.10 Trillion; expenditures were $3.52 Trillion. That left a 2009 FYE deficit of $1.41 Trillion, which (combined with prior deficit spending) resulted in total federal debt of $11.88 Trillion at FYE (9/30/09), representing 82.4% of GDP.

Most reasonable people will agree that a newly elected President who inherits a spending plan from his predecessor should not be given credit for its success or failure.

POTUS 44 (Obama) presided over 7 years of steady economic growth in the U.S., and under his watch, the close of FY 2017 budget reflects an increase of total federal debt to $14.67 Trillion, which was a numerical increase, but which represented a relative decrease to 76.3% of GDP.

Not great, but a clear improvement over what Obama inherited from Bush.

Some economists have suggested a 60% ceiling for publicly held debt vs. GDP which seems to make sense.

Although policies enacted during the Obama administration did reduce the ratio for 82% to 76%, we have a long way to go.

The correct way to address this situation is through tax policy reform designed to create balanced federal budgets, focused on reducing federal deficits.

That is not what our Congress has approved, and what President Trump signed into law just prior to Christmas 2017.

Most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (4/10/2018) estimates that the combined effect of the 2017 tax cuts and the March 2018 budget-busting spending bill is sending the annual federal deficit toward the $1 Trillion mark in 2019.

The CBO report says our nation’s current $21 Trillion debt would spike to more than $33 Trillion in 10 years, with debt held by investors spiking to levels that would come close to equaling the size of the economy, reaching levels that many economists fear could spark a debt crisis.

CBO says economic growth from the tax cuts will add 0.7 percent on average to the nation’s economic output over the coming decade. Those effects will only partially offset the deficit cost of the tax cuts.

The administration had promised the cuts would pay for themselves.

Best I can see, only Robert Reich has focused on the Real Facts, and who would listen to a guy like Reich, who has degrees from Yale, Oxford, Dartmouth — clearly a left-wing Liberal Snowflake….

As interim Pres. Trump tweeted today, “We are with you, Paul!”

Common Sense Legislation?

March 12, 2018

This Old Walrus just doesn’t get it.  We don’t rely on the Mattachine Society to write legislation on sodomy with young boys.  We don’t (usually) weigh in with the Russian Mafia to write our laws on money laundering. So, why is it that the NRA has become the singular expert – the ‘Go-to People’ – for all issues concerning firearms?

Over the past decade, or so, we’ve had enough mass murders in the U.S. to spot some common ingredients:  (a) Perpetrator is an under-25 white male; (b) He is angry, isolated and/or socially challenged (often described in retrospect as ‘mentally disturbed’); and (c) The weapon of choice is an AR-15 (or equal), accompanied by high-capacity magazines.

Young men mature physically much faster than they mature mentally and emotionally.  A typical 18 to 20 Y.O. male physically looks like an adult, but just hasn’t attained the emotional and mental maturity that post-25 year old adults generally possess.

There is a ton of research which supports the notion that changes in cognitive abilities occurring in males between ages 18 and 25 are essentially a continued process of brain development that start during puberty.  At age 18, a young man is roughly halfway through the entire stage of development. The prefrontal cortex doesn’t have nearly the functional capacity at age 18 as it does at age 25.

It is unfortunate that Congress passed legislation in 1996 which effectively precludes the CDC from conducting research on the causes of gun violence (the Dickey Amendment).

There is some colloquial evidence that people who act out their Rambo fantasies are angry, isolated and/or socially challenged, and there may be a preventable linkage between male brain development and assault weapons, but until qualitative research is conducted, we really won’t know.

Meanwhile, there seem to be a couple of simple interventions which we could enact tomorrow that would put this issue on ‘pause’ until some qualitative research can be conducted:

  • Ban the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic military-style assault weapons in the U.S.;
  • Ban the manufacture, sale or possession of magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and outlaw devices like bump stocks that make weapons more deadly;
  • Institute universal background checks and close loopholes that let too many people slip through the cracks and purchase firearms despite being a threat to themselves or others;
  • No weapons for suspected terrorists, domestic abusers, or individuals convicted of hate crimes;
  • Impose a three-day waiting period for the purchase of all firearms, and raise the minimum age for buying those weapons to 21;
  • Institute a Gun Violence Restraining Order that allows law enforcement to confiscate weapons from individuals who are deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

These are common-sense solutions to help reduce gun violence in all communities across the U.S. – including accidents, suicides, domestic violence, mass shootings, and acts of terrorism. Most of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans – not just Democrats or Republicans, but ALL Americans.

And, once we have obtained high-quality qualitative research on the causes of gun violence, our elected officials will be in a much better position to adapt and/or modify these interim interventions to reflect data-driven conclusions on the causes of gun violence in the U.S.

What are we waiting for?

Is it time yet?

October 2, 2015

Another massacre on a school campus, this time in Oregon. On average, more than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence.

The solution to enacting some 21st century rules and regulations around firearms is really very simple; the barriers to attaining rational and appropriate rules and regulations which reflect the realities of life in our current world seem to be insurmountable; but they really are not.

The NRA is the elephant in the room. With a base of about 6 Million members (about 2% of the U.S. population) they are wearing a mighty big hat, but they really don’t have many cattle.

Yet, anytime there has been even a whisper regarding legislative restrictions on ammunition — even bulk sales of armor-piercing ammunition to casual civilian buyers — the NRA has mobilized their base to scream about 2nd Amendment rights!

The same is true about restrictions on the types of arms which are appropriate for people to own and use, for legitimate and reasonable purposes.

The ‘poster child’ for these 2 issues centers on the NYS SAFE Act, which was passed by the NYS Legislature in January 2013 following the unspeakable massacre in Sandy Hook (CT) in December 2012.

Where a majority of New Yorkers — rational and responsible firearm owners and users included — find no problems with the NYS SAFE Act (yes, there were some early glitches which were quickly fixed), there continues to be a vocal contingent of ideological zealots who cling to the thread of some inaccurate information they received about the 2nd Amendment.

The greatest obstacle we face in reforming gun laws in the U.S. is the NRA. They are well-funded by interested parties; they have developed an effective lobbying effort; and they know when and how to ‘juice the system’ to make their position both well-known and well-loved.

Where the NRA {closely aligned with Gun Owners of America} presents a loud and singular voice of renegades and gun rights advocates, the rest of the population has elected to form their own organizations — hundreds of groups with similar, but slightly different mission statements — thus wasting resources and diluting the message.

If only the silent majority could figure out where to invest some money and/or other resources to help enable the gun control movement to score a victory against the ‘2nd Amendment fantasizers’ I think most of us would write the check today.

Unfortunately, until the gun control people sit down and find common ground, and agree to speak with a singular voice, the NRA and their lobbyists will continue to dominate the national stage.

For those who are able to consider new or different perspectives, you may find this analysis helpful: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9437187/obama-guns-terrorism-deaths

Donald Trump: Update

July 13, 2015

Reliable sources have told The Walrus that Donald Trump may be behind the recent prison escape of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, a notorious Mexican drug lord.

Although Mr. Trump has been extensively cited for some derogatory remarks about undocumented Mexicans who have entered the United States, it is believed that his remarks were just a cover for his extensive work with several Central American drug cartels which help to stabilize and enhance cash flow for the Trump Organization.

Rumors that El Chapo is temporarily staying at a Trump property in Chicago could not be confirmed or denied.

More to come….

As the calendar moves forward toward an expected announcement from current NJ Governor Chris Christie on his candidacy as the potential GOP nominee for president in the 2016 election, stories about – and soundbites from – Christie abound.

With the radio tuned to news in the background, I listened to some of these stories and soundbites today.

I’m left feeling that Chris Christie has no moral compass. Christie is apparently willing and able to lie about almost anything and everything.

Here’s a soundbite from Christie’s appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, June 7, responding to recent comments from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who called out for significant expansion in voter access, calling out several prominent GOP leaders – including Christie – accusing them of purposefully limiting voter access in their states through policies such as voter identification requirements and limited early voting.

Said Christie: “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. In New Jersey, we have early voting available to people. I don’t want to expand it and increase the opportunities for fraud. Maybe that’s what Mrs. Clinton wants to do. I don’t know.”

Christie continued, “But the fact is: folks in New Jersey have plenty of an opportunity to vote. And maybe if she took some questions some places and learned some things, maybe she wouldn’t make such ridiculous statements,” he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-christie-hillary-clinton-is-clueless-on-voter-fraud/

What Christie failed to note in his response is that it is more common in New Jersey (and many other states) for elected and appointed public officials to commit fraud then it is for a voter to commit fraud.

And, more alarming: Just 31% of eligible voters in New Jersey exercised their voting rights in the 2014 election. [http://www.electproject.org/2014g]. Seems to me that the real opportunity here is to address and/or eliminate existing obstacles or impediments to help increase voter participation, not creating more obstacles which have the probability of discouraging potential voters.

Chris Christie: You are both a phony and an opportunist, and it’s very sad that you were elected to a position of trust (Governor of New Jersey) and as such, (a) you have tremendous power over the infrastructure and inner workings of our 11th largest state, and (b) you have tremendous influence over the functionality and decisions of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the public authority which builds, operates, and maintains critical transportation and trade assets in the NY Metro area.

PANYNJ controls a network of aviation, rail, surface transportation and seaport facilities which annually move millions of people and transport cargo throughout the New York/New Jersey region.

We can only hope that the ongoing ‘Bridgegate’ investigation will soon expose your culpability in the ensuing mess that (at best) inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of bridge users on those days where access to the bridge was restricted; and (at worst) exacerbated economic losses well into the 100’s of millions of dollars through a ripple effect to commercial entities in the Tri-State region, and throughout the U.S.

I, for one, would be delighted to see you spend the next 8 years, or so, in the Big House, not any other house.

The current U.S. Senate atrocity involves a letter released on Monday, March 9, 2015 from Senate Republicans to Iran’s government (the “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran”), saying that any agreement made by President Obama amounts to a “mere executive agreement” goes well beyond the arena of conduct which disregards the laws of our nation.

I believe a significant number of mostly Republican elected officials in Congress are guilty of depriving the people of the United States the intangible right of their honest services, for at least the past 5 consecutive years.

That is a domestic issue, and it is described in Federal Law as ‘Honest Services Fraud’ (see 18 U.S.C. § 1346).

It seems pretty clear that some of these boys elected to the U.S. Senate just can’t resist acting like 3rd graders let loose on the playground with no supervision.

These boys have now pushed into a new and dangerous place. Whether they are guilty of Treason, as some have suggested, is really not the point.

At minimum, they are guilty of acting like narcissistic brats, and their behavior casts a dark shadow over an institution with a proud 250 year history.

This act of cowardice and ignorance engaged in by 47 elected officials in the U.S. Senate ought to be a wake-up call to all Americans that we have a major problem in Washington, D.C. and that our problem is not at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This letter was signed by 47 of 54 Senate Republicans, and was authored by Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave it his approval and signed the letter. Among the Senators who also signed the letter are Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) all of whom are considering running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

In their letter, they wrote, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution – the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices – which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress…. Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.”

They also reminded Iran that “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

The letter – and the 47 Republican Senators – faced an immediate negative reaction from the White House; President Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Senate Democratic leadership; Congressional and Senate Democrats; and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; as well as many more.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized the letter finding it either (a) undermining the president’s authority; or (b) counterproductive.

Among other things, Zarif said, “This kind of letter is unprecedented and undiplomatic. In truth, it told us that we cannot trust the United States.”

Alabama freshmen Senator Tom Cotton has become a center of attention, facing both criticism and accolades, and he has been the key defender of the letter’s message. Many media sources have fixated on Cotton and the other Senators who signed the letter, led by the New York Daily News headline on March 10, “TRAITORS”.

Even Fox News (Megyn Kelly) was critical of this apparent publicity stunt: “What’s the point in writing to the Iranian mullahs? What are you going to do? They dismissed it already like ‘pfff, whatever’. And you’ve offended the Obama administration. And you may have offended some of the Democrats who would have come over with the Republicans, if depending on what happens with this deal, to have a stronger say in the Senate.”

Not to dismiss some incremental support from the Right: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former Texas Governor Rick Perry have expressed their support for the letter.

Among the seven Republican senators who did not sign the letter, several have commented that, ‘they did not find it appropriate, helpful or productive.’

While it seems likely that 46 of the 47 Republican elected officials are now questioning their decision to sign the letter, Tom Cotton himself is probably saying, “That worked out great!”

Overnight, Tom Cotton has risen from an unknown and obscure Alabama Senator to a household name!

Tom Cotton has demonstrated that a U.S. Senator who’s been in office just a few months can accomplish a great deal, with a little initiative and creativity.

Much like the boy who shouted “FIRE” in the crowded movie theater, Cotton may have caused a major panic. In this case, the resulting impact includes: irreparable damage to the reputation of the U.S. Senate; to the Republican Party; and to the security of the United States.

But, to the Tea Party base from which Cotton draws his support, he is now a hero. The more criticism he gets, the more convinced they become of his heroism.

The Koch Brothers must be mighty proud!