In Sacramento, CA a Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.
A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended. An FBI search of Nishimura’s home turned up classified materials but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.
He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.
According to Director James Comey (disclosure [from National Review author]: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
How do we reconcile these two cases? In the first case it was determined that there was no intent to distribute classified materials, nor was it likely that the information was read or stolen by unauthorized personnel, but Bryan Nishimura was found guilty. In the second case it was stated that Mrs. Clinton was careless and reckless and Mr. Comey’s statement verifies violation of federal laws, but he did not recommend prosecution. Perhaps, Lady Justice had a corner of her blindfold lifted and her thumb on the scale. I read a comment that said Comey should have stated that no prosecutor would bring charges against any high-level official. Comey also stated, “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.”
Director Comey has rewritten a clearly worded federal criminal statute. In so doing, he has come dangerously close to saying that grossly negligent handling of classified information should not result in serious consequences for high-level officials. In a nation where the rule of law is supposed to matter, this is troubling. -Ted Cruz
SCOTUS refused to take a case that infringes on gun owners, and another that forces a pharmacy to sell contraceptives against their religious beliefs. We have to allow transgenders or perverts (you can’t tell which until it is too late) in bathrooms with our wives and daughters. The military must now accommodate transgenders in their ranks. Before we know it, we will be forced to buy health insurance whether we want it or not….
The IRS denies due process to conservative groups that disagree with the government, yet Lois Lerner was not indicted for these acts, and has since retired without consequence. The EPA fines a rancher who builds a permitted pond on his property. The same EPA dumps millions of gallons of toxic wastewater in a river and nothing happens. The Bureau of Land Management takes rancher’s lands that have been in the family for generations. The list goes on…
It seems there is no end to the corruption, the waste, and the tyranny.
I remember saying to friends after Obama’s reelection, “Wait for the last 2 years when there are no more elections to worry about. You haven’t seen anything yet.” I wish I had been wrong.
We just celebrated “Independence Day.” We may have gained independence from Great Britain, but we are not independent of Washington DC. What can we do? The states gave birth to the federal government to offer protection from external and internal forces, to protect the natural rights of the people. But as Dr. Frankenstein gave birth to a monster that went out of control and terrorized the community, the states have created a monster that terrorizes the people and the states. The states have no option but to capture and control the monster, but how? In 1860 and 1861 several states simply said they’d had enough and attempted to withdraw from a union that no longer served them. We know how that worked out.
In reality, our options are few.
We could as individuals pack up and leave the country, there are a few havens around the world that are destinations for those of sufficient financial means. This option, of course, is available to the “One Percent”, while the average person could never consider this choice.
We could gather pitch forks and torches in Washington and demand the resignation of all elected officials and bureaucrats. Of course, most of us have jobs and families and, if you know the history of the “Bonus Army,” that does not have a happy ending either.
I’ve discussed nullification before, the idea that individuals and states can simply refuse to comply with federal laws, regulations, and directives. This has very limited potential, especially when the federal government shuts off the money spigot to the programs on which so many people depend. Just imagine SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cards, not being filled one time. I believe there are instances where nullification can have an effect, but it is not the main “tool in the toolbox.”
Secession, moving, marching and nullifying, in the end, are not going to change what is happening, and what will probably happen down the road. I believe there are three options, only one of which is desirable at all; a complete collapse, a revolution, or an Article V Convention of States.
A collapse due to the weight of debt added to domestic and international affairs could and will occur in the future. Imagine the Depression of 1929 when there were only 120 million people and none of them dependent on government programs — because there were none — happening with a population of 320 million, when over 52 million participated in major, means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012, according to a US Census Bureau report released May 28, 2015.
A revolution is unthinkable and the death toll would be astronomical, plus the outcome would be dependent entirely on the winner. It would be the combination of a collapse plus the fighting.
We are left as a nation with one alternative to the status quo, actually using the Constitution to correct the path we are on.
Article V – The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Congress refuses to fix the abuse…our representatives are part of the problem. It is up to us and the states. This is not a Constitutional Convention, it only proposes amendments which then have to be ratified by ¾ of the states.
Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention, to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.” “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America.”
Senator Ted Cruz, in a article he wrote a year ago after the gay marriage decision by the Supreme Court, stated, “And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.”
Mark Levin, author of The Liberty Amendments, states:
The purpose of Article V is to restore constitutional government, should that still be possible. And that was and is its purpose.
This is quintessential federalism. It’s authorized by Article V. George Mason originally proposed this remedy. George Washington and the other delegates at the Constitutional Convention, including James Madison, voted for it, as did the state ratification conventions. Such modern notables as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, among others, supported it. An aging Madison would later refer to Article V as a way to avoid the growing hostilities between the states. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing, but it was too late to avoid the Civil War. And the reform amendments I propose in my book, among other things, empower the legislatures to override or bypass the federal government in matters where the framers intended the states to hold sway. Thus, the issue is not whether the federal government nullifies the amendments. The amendments empower the states to act.