Our “Godfather” Government

During the early 1950s, Americans were transfixed by hearings and investigations conducted by U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee.  Senator Kefauver laid bare the power and profits of organized crime in America, which generated massive income for mobsters through gambling, drugs, and pornography/prostitution operations that spanned our nation.  As a result, Americans supported a renewed crackdown on organized crime operations that sent many top mobsters to prison.

The scourge of organized crime still exists today, but what is truly odd is how many of the profit centers for the criminals of the past have been transformed into government-run agencies that generate jobs, grant political power, and allow states and the federal government to skim their cutin the form of taxes.  Even more oddly, more and more law enforcement resources are today devoted to destroying illegaloperations so that government can protect its growing monopoly on the profits to be made from human sin and weakness.  Woe to that misguided fool who tries to deal a little marijuana without first purchasing a state license to do so!

Government has, of course, always enacted sin taxesin order to finance its operations.  Taxes on whiskey helped to fund our new nation.  Revenue from the sale of tobacco and tobacco products have been mainstays of state and federal coffers.  Prior to the creation of the national income tax in 1913, roughly 1/3 of all federal revenues came from taxes on liquor, and when income tax revenues evaporated at the height of The Great Depression in 1933, Prohibition was rapidly repealed so that federal liquor taxes could again slosh into the U.S. Treasury.

This last exampleProhibition being repealed to fund a dead broke governmentis perhaps the most pertinent regarding where we are today.  Bedeviled by crumbling infrastructure, crushed by legacy retirement expenses, and faced with a shrinking population of active workers, government entities at all levels are desperate for whatever tax dollars they can find.  Therefore, virtually any human activity and enterprise now finds itself subject to more taxes, fees, and surcharges meant to fund local, state, and federal budgets that are awash in red ink.

It should, therefore, surprise few that government has increasingly legalized that which was once illegal in order to generate the dollars it needs to stay afloat.  As a result, the numbers racket of the 1950s is now the state lottery agency.  The demon weed dealer of the 1950s is now the licensedand tax payingmarijuana dispensary providing service with a smile.  The shady pornographer snapping photos in the seedier parts of town is now a web conglomerate with an army of attorneys watching out for its best interests.  What all now have in common is that what was once the illicit business of the criminal class has now become the revenue generator of the political classand each day new ideas for better marketing that will help to milk them for more taxes are considered.  I can only imagine the chagrin of a numbers runner of the 1950s if he could only see the ads blaring from televisions today regarding the size of this weeks Powerball prize.  State lottery revenues alone are now over $70 billion nationally each yearnot exactly chump change.

Many wouldand haveargued that is is better for government rather than gangsters to profit from vice.  Those who, for example, tout state lotteries as a way to (sort of) support public education see nothing but advantage from putting the neighborhood numbers runner on the sidelines.  Watching video slot machines sprout like daffodils after an April rain in my ownvery brokestate of Illinois, it is clear that looming bankruptcy is the mother of all moral compromise.  Politicians and civic leaders who are eager to increase funding for government programs and services they deem essential in the face of yawning budget deficits have no compunctions about taking whatever money they can by any means necessary.  A 2009 article entitled Paying With Our Sinsperhaps expressed this notion more unashamedly that most:

Here’s a better ideaand one that will help the federal and state governments fill their coffers: Legalize drugs and then tax sales of them. And while we’re at it, welcome all forms of gambling (rather than just the few currently and arbitrarily allowed) and let prostitution go legit too. All of these vices, involving billions of dollars and consenting adults, already take place. They just take place beyond the taxman’s reach.

This is the basic and succinct argument for turning dysfunctional and damaging behaviors into lovely tax dollars, and assessed upon its ruthlessly practical merits it makes perfect sense.  Is there, however, a hidden cost to all the money that might rain from the sky if we were take the governments propensity for profiting from human weakness, addiction, and desire to its logical and utterly amoral extreme?  Is turning human misery into tax money by legitimizing that from which government wasat one time long agoconstituted to protect us delegitimizing the very purpose of government and exposing millions to untold risk, danger, and death?

Politicians often seem befuddled about the publics low opinion of them.  Why should this not be the case?  Do we admire the player, pusher, or pimp?  Are we supposed to sing the praises of those who instead of wanting a chicken in every pot propose a prostitute on every street cornertax identification numbers ready in hand?  Given that so many of our leaders seem just fine with throwing any shred of morality out the window in pursuit of a tax dollarand the campaign contribution sure to shortly follow hard uponit should be little wonder that a sense of absolute betrayal and disgust aimed at our elected officials seems so baked into the very fabric of our society at the current time.  

Over the course of a single human lifespan, we have descended from aspiring to raise individuals higher so they can escape the clutches of human frailty to pushing them lower so that we can turn a profit for the government from their flaws.  To hear a contemporary American politician speak of honor and integrity when they are complicit in a system as damaging to individuals, families, and communities as ours is today is learn what the meaning of mendacity truly is.  We need changeand soonbefore we finally choke on the bile of so many official lies.

Advertisements

The Consequence Of No Consequences

If there is any connective tissue between the many scandals and strife that fill our world today, it is this: People sure do hate being judged.

This is, of course, a very human reaction. Trying to bluster one’s way out of difficulty by proclaiming your actions were either innocent or misunderstood—which is, of course, sometimes true—has probably been a facet of human behavior from the dawn of civilization. However, what has now become a conspicuous characteristic of our troubled times is that both a belief in our own blamelessness and an embrace of utter shamelessness are now woven into the fabric of our modern culture.

A component of this is certainly based on our ongoing societal and political efforts to relegate shame to the dustbin of human history. Given that we now pretty much determine for ourselves what is right or wrong because the concept of social norms tends to annoy many, the only way you can really find yourself in hot water these days is to be critical of another person’s behavior. To attempt to cause anyone to feel shame is—ironically enough—considered shameful. This circular bit of ethical entrapment disables any possible discussion of right and wrong because, as is now the dominant doctrine in many quarters, right and wrong are nothing but social constructs meant to oppress us. Thankfully, we seem at least able to agree that child abuse is wrong, although even this issue collides on occasion with our desperation to celebrate non-Western or non-traditional child rearing practices.

Think about the news or commentary that we all read on a regular basis. It is incredible how often the stories today are less about actual events and more about criticisms of the reactions (or lack thereof) by others. As a result, we find ourselves trapped in an echo chamber of denunciations, which allows us to avoid any thoughtful discussion of blame, shame, or culpability. If those who disagree with us are themselves bad—because they either criticized us or failed to properly exalt us—we are able to deflect any shame our actions might bring and be held blameless. This is, unfortunately, a perpetual motion machine of insult and outrage that contributes very little to problem-solving but does much—far too much—to degrade and demean our public discourse.

The net outcome of these deflections of blame and shame is that all discussions dissolve into debates about whose interests are being helped or harmed—our lives reduced to nothing but a series of transactions devoid of values—and no effort is expended examining the basic morality of the actions or intentions of the parties involved.

An example of the confines of our cultural and political norms at the present time is the anger that erupted over the passage of a package of federal laws known as FOSTA-SESTA that now holds websites liable for advertising sexual services online. Opponents of these laws lament that sex workers will find themselves at greater personal risk and suffer professional inconvenience because they can no longer advertise their services easily and cheaply through the internet.

Lost in all the discussion of the law’s impact, which has been immediate and substantial, was perhaps a more fundamental issue few wanted to discuss because it would be considered judgmental or—to use a favorite expression of many—“slut shaming” of a subset of women who are, after all, simply trying to make a living: Does our nation have an obligation to facilitate—and therefore tacitly legitimize—the world’s oldest profession, prostitution?

Is it possible in today’s America to simply say that prostitution is immoral and damaging to all involved? Would we ever expect those in charge of our major news and media outlets in New York and California to criticize or condemn prostitutes and prostitution in an effort to improve public and private morals and behavior? Such questions are considered so old fashioned and retrograde to those who sit at the pinnacles of our elite sources of opinion and commentary as to even be unworthy of note. Imagine if the New York City Police Department and FBI were to launch a crackdown on prostitution—which seems extraordinarily unlikely. Would The New York Times, for example, endorse this effort or resort to running sympathetic profiles of all the valiant women who were being persecuted by the police and prosecutors for simply plying their trade?

Morality is, of course, a tricky business, and over the past several thousand years of civilization we have expended incredible time and energy attempting to distinguish right from wrong. Our ideas of what is moral and what is not have certainly undergone some revisions—but much of the essential framework has remained the same. Ignoring discussions of morality and immorality because they might make some feel uncomfortable or judged for their beliefs or behavior is a foundational problem that afflicts broad swathes of our nation and might explain the persistence and magnitude of at least some of the issues afflicting many communities, families, and individuals.

There are, to be sure, many difficulties we must today address, but most will likely remain unresolved if even the most basic issues of right and wrong are banned from the discussions because they might make some feel excluded—or bad about themselves. Perhaps this needs to change.

What We Can Learn From The Bill Cosby Verdict

One would need to be living in a very deep cave to have not heard: Bill Cosby—once America’s favorite television comedian—is now a convicted sex offender. His conviction for aggravated sexual assault is both an affirmation that no one is immune from the force of the law and a depressing reminder of how those with power and influence typically believe they are far above the petty concerns of human decency and respect for others.

To say that everyone of a certain age is confused about finding out that Bill Cosby, Mr. Jell-O Pudding Pops, was in the habit of drugging and assaulting women—many, many women, apparently—is a stupendous understatement. Although he has been mostly out of the public eye in recent years—in part because of the mounting evidence of his criminal behavior—no one who came of age in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s could escape his mirthful and beneficent presence. He was America’s dad—no doubt about it.

Reading the comments on the media posts concerning Mr. Cosby’s conviction, one senses a collision of vindication and dismay. Bill Cosby was, as much as we might want to now conveniently forget it, a trailblazer who transformed the portrayal of African-Americans on television by presenting smart, compassionate professionals—super spy, teacher, and doctor—on a series of hit shows. It would be difficult to overestimate his influence in changing the perceptions—and correcting the misperceptions—of so many Americans across many decades. To now discover the twisted and cruel soul behind those sterling performances feels like the worst possible betrayal to his many, many former fans.

Nonetheless, knowledge is much healthier than fantasy, and this conviction will likely be a signal moment in the ongoing national debate—and painful reckoning—regarding the sexual harassment and assault of the past and present. To learn what we now know about Bill Cosby’s behavior is part of a necessary maturation of our society’s attitudes regarding the daily interactions of men and women.

Every moment of every day the sexes commune in ways that are typically mundane and sometimes profound or life-changing—and which must always be respectful of necessary and perfectly reasonable boundaries of privacy and personhood. We are still, of course, not where we need to be—yet. Sadly, both women and men still often shout across a divide where the differences between compliments and insults, flirting and harassment, or honesty and deception still sometimes feels like a common language is lacking. Add in our very human and messy sexual desires, and we have fertile ground for the misunderstandings and misgivings that cause many to cut off communication altogether because they fear being misinterpreted—or worse.

Many women still feel that Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump—a man who once gleefully described how she was “schlonged” by Barack Obama during her 2008 presidential run—is emblematic of the deep river of sexism that still runs through our society, and one would need to be very blind or foolish to fail to notice that women are still many times not accorded the respect that is their due. Indeed, however one might feel about Hillary Clinton’s policy positions or public record, it is sad to remember the many humiliations she has had to endure—ranging from America’s weird obsession with her hairstyles while First Lady to a philandering and thoroughly disingenuous husband—during her long and accomplished career. Many women understood and forgave her faults because they had experienced similar pain in their own lives, and they felt like the voters’ dismissal of her in favor of Donald Trump was a confirmation of all their worst fears regarding their own shaky status in American society.

Now that Hugh Hefner has gone to his eternal rest, perhaps we can now likewise bury his adolescent Playboy philosophy that is perhaps understandable in twelve year old boys but is still unseemly, nonetheless. Keeping firmly in mind that our nation’s past has never been as innocent as we might like to believe and idiocy can never be entirely eliminated, perhaps we can at least resolve to speak courteously, behave responsibly, and listen thoughtfully when around the opposite sex.

The divides between men and women are likely not so insurmountable as we might sometimes believe, and if we can all be a little open and honest regarding our own faults and shortcomings—no one is perfect—that might ease some of the anger that men and women sometimes feel toward one another. I know we can all agree that what Bill Cosby has been convicted of doing is wrong—wrong on every level and in every possible way. That might provide a basis for a dialogue regarding how our pervasive hookup culture and media misogyny has degraded and debased both men and women—and how healing and understanding requires a broad-based commitment to rejecting our worst instincts in favor of our highest aspirations. There is a lot of pain, bitterness, and confusion to be found all around us in both men and women; restoring the health of our relationships is a shared responsibility that we can either shun or embrace.

Breaking down those walls and dialing down the defensiveness will not be easy for many because of past experiences that have made it difficult to trust one another again, but the alternative is loneliness and an empty existence. Therefore, just how hard of a choice is this to make—really?

Can We Do Anything To Reduce Gun Deaths?

Back on December 30th of 2012, after the Newtown school shooting, I published a commentary in my local newspaper, The News-Gazette, regarding gun violence, and you can find the full text in my blog archive on this website. I have excerpted a portion of my thoughts at that time below:

Inevitably, each time another group of innocents are massacred, we talk about gun control—and we have yet another opportunity to shout at one another across the political, social, and regional divides that have riven our nation for too long. 
On one side, we hear the perfectly reasonable argument that erecting barriers to gun and ammunition purchases will make it more difficult for anyone to walk into schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, and houses of worship to slaughter and maim those whose only crime is to present a target of opportunity. On the other side we have the equally reasonable argument that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who cannot understand why restrictions should be placed upon them because of the actions of the very few; many times these solid citizens land in the extremist arms of the NRA, regardless of the nuances of their beliefs about gun ownership, simply because they have no one else defending their interests.
The end result is predictable. After much hooting and hollering, our various levels of government will pass laws that make few happy and protect virtually no one.

If we put more restrictions on legal gun ownership and ammunition sales, we will create yet more expensive bureaucracies that will devote scarce resources to the task of closely monitoring the activities of those who are least likely to commit a crime with a gun. If we increase the penalties for gun-related crime, we will add more time in jail onto the sentences of those who are least likely to be deterred by the presence of a new law and give them a little more time behind bars to lift weights and become further estranged from mainstream society. If we restrict the domestic manufacture of guns and ammunition, many jobs will move to other countries, and those who are willing to import weapons into the United States—by means both legal and illegal—will become stupendously wealthy thanks to dirt cheap overseas labor and high domestic demand
.
And if government officials should seek to confiscate the hundreds of millions of weapons now in the hands of our citizens, I have only one comment to make: good luck with that.

I continued that particular commentary by discussing the need for better access to mental health care because those who commit these heinous mass shootings are simply stark raving mad—and should have long ago been confined to a secure residential treatment unit.

Now, in light of the terrible mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida by a former student, I would like to revisit this topic and, given that I am no longer restricted by a newspaper’s word limit, expand a bit regarding how our nation should respond to this problem.

Although mass shootings are certainly horrible and terrifying, they account for roughly 2% of gun deaths each year; in comparison, suicides account for about 60% of the approximately 33,000 gun deaths in the United States each year. Neither mass shootings nor suicides are, of course, acceptable or normal events, but it is easy to see how the intense media attention to a much smaller number of deaths resulting from mass shootings has skewed our perceptions and public policy discussions. Far more lives would be saved if, for example, we developed comprehensive national programs to identify and assist those at risk of committing suicide.

Nonetheless, mass shootings create far more fear and concern, particularly when children or adolescents are targeted in schools and public places. A crazed person with a gun is every parent’s worst nightmare, and we quite naturally expect solutions that will protect all from harm.

Demanding that certain types of firearms be prohibited is a common reflex. The never ending clamor to ban assault weapons, which are actually only semi-automatic rifles that sport certain cosmetic features that endow a more military appearance, is a popular but ultimately misguided response. A pump action shotgun can do far more damage in many cases, and certain types of ammunition can render a semi-automatic handgun equally as deadly as either a rifle or a shotgun.

A recent article in The New York Times confirmed that roughly 173 people have been killed in mass shootings committed with the much maligned AR-15 since 2007, which works out to roughly 10 deaths per year. This is very sad, but far more people die each year by slipping in their bathtubs. Will banning this particular weapon actually save that many lives, or has media-driven panic displaced logical thought regarding the reality of this issue?

By the same token, a more comprehensive and reliable national system of background checks may stop some who plan to use firearms to attack others, but this solution is limited by the plain fact that black markets will always spring up to supply that which government seeks to prohibit—and anyone who is criminal or crazy enough to want a gun with which to kill can simply resort to theft or subterfuge to obtain what they want. Sane and law-abiding people follow the rules; crooks and cuckoos do not.

Proposals to ban the sale and manufacture of high-capacity ammunition clips and bump stocks, which can turn some semi-automatic weapons into ones capable of continuous fire—until their ammunition clips are exhausted after a few seconds—also crash into the issue of encouraging black market sales that will be impossible to either regulate or halt entirely.

Moreover, none of the gun control ideas that resurface every time a mass shooting happens adequately address the plain fact that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable individuals who take the responsibilities inherent in possessing a firearm quite seriously and derive great personal satisfaction and security from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

So what are we to do?

I suggest that we stop chasing the chimera of gun control as a solution. I believe we should instead re-examine our understandable emotional responses and investigate targeted interventions designed to address different facets of the problem of firearm-related deaths and injuries.

More and better-funded crisis hotlines could be a good start to reducing the startling number of gun suicides. In addition, we need more programs in schools, workplaces, and places of worship to help identify and help those who are considering self-harm. We also need to develop resources to address the epidemic of crushing loneliness that afflicts our society. If we can help rebuild the frayed social connections that leave so many without someone to turn to for support and basic human interaction, we can perhaps begin to make a dent in the misery that makes so many believe that the only way to relieve their pain is to put a gun to their heads.

In addition, we need to reconsider a half century of progressive dogma that has expanded the “rights” of the mentally ill. Making it infinitely more difficult to commit those who pose a danger to themselves or others to mental hospitals, allowing those who could be helped by medication to refuse to take it, and leaving law enforcement virtually powerless to deal with threatening behaviors until those threats become actual harm to others that results in arrest is beyond foolish—these are criminally negligent abdications of our duty to protect our neighbors and communities. We must have both the tools and the power to save our citizens from the violently (or potentially violent) mentally ill—unless we want to keep reading the same horrible headlines again and again and again.

Finally, we need to reconsider to the level of violence in so much of our mass entertainment today. Exposure to the cruelty and outright sadism baked into so many television shows and movies is not healthy for anyone—but these constant violent images and ideas only serve to stoke the twisted fantasies of those who are emotionally unstable.

If you have any doubt that our standards have changed dramatically over the past fifty years or so, I encourage you to visit YouTube and watch a few episodes of the television series, Wild Wild West. This program was cancelled despite high audience ratings in 1969 because it was considered far too violent for a broadcast audience. Those who watch it now and compare it to our daily entertainment diet of death and dysfunction will find it as quaint as a doily in grandma’s front parlor. Our societal standards have dropped rather dramatically—and we are surprisingly blind to the corrosive effects that are evident wherever we look. It is unintentionally hilarious to remember that back in the 1950’s the U.S. Congress was busy crusading against the corrupting influence of comic books upon our children. What would those elected officials from our nation’s past think of our nation’s “entertainment” today?

I would be remiss regarding this issue were I not to address President Trump’s idea of arming trained and carefully selected teachers, administrators, and staff, who will respond immediately to active shooters inside of a school building. Although some rural schools have already taken this step because of the prohibitively long time it would take law enforcement to respond in an emergency, my belief is that this is not a policy we should implement on a national basis at this time.

I can easily imagine that students would be overly distracted by the knowledge that some in the building are armed. The inevitable guessing games regarding who it might be carrying a gun—for the identities of those who are armed would obviously need to be kept secret to protect them from becoming the first victims of an actual school shooter—could be more than distracting. Moreover, it is not too difficult to conjure up scenarios where accidents, neglect, or poor judgements could result in tragedy. Although—as we have recently learned from the tragic inaction of law enforcement in Parkland, FL—the professionals sometimes behave unprofessionally, we are still likely better off allowing local police and deputies to respond to a shooting at a school.

We have many challenges ahead of us regarding the plague of gun violence that afflicts our nation, and I hope we can work through them—reasonably, thoughtfully, and with a minimum of rancor. I would prefer that, rather than policymaking by sound bite, we convene a bi-partisan task force to evaluate all the potential solutions and make thoughtful recommendations. That which is done in haste and confusion can waste valuable time, finite resources, and have a great many unintended consequences. We owe it to ourselves and our country’s future to get it right this time.

A World Turned Upside Down?

There is a possibly apocryphal story that, upon surrendering to the American revolutionaries at the Battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis instructed the British Army band to play “The World Turned Upside Down”. The situation must certainly have seemed so to the British, smugly certain of victory against the colonists, whom they deemed to be mere rabble—the “Deplorables” of their day. These farmers, laborers, and small business owners certainly must have seemed to be no match for the power and glory of the Empire at the very peak of its influence.

The world has now turned upside for a great many people who were convinced the sun would never set on the D.C. empire of ever-expanding government and regulation fueled by ever-increasing tax hikes and federal bureaucracy. Watching the sea of exceedingly sour Democratic faces during President Trump’s State of the Union address last week, it was hard not to feel a twinge of sympathy for those who still cannot seem to reconcile themselves to the new reality. This perhaps helps to explain the policies and positions now shrilly advocated by the Democratic minority that seem so at odds with both their party’s historical norms and current rhetoric.

I grew up with a Democratic Party aligned to the interests of blue collar workers. This stance obviously translated into policies that put cash into the pockets of the hard-working middle class that created so much of our nation’s prosperity through both their labor and personal spending. Although I realize the Democrats many years ago morphed into the party of Silicon Valley and Wall Street—it is no mere coincidence that Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco and Charles Schumer is from New York—I believe their implacable opposition to the business and personal tax cuts recently enacted by the Republican Congress is spectacularly suicidal. Staking out an unyielding position against a bill that is already driving capital investments by businesses, prompting many corporations to hand out immediate cash bonuses to their employees, and reducing the federal tax bite for the vast majority of workers seems difficult to understand except as a short-sighted defense of overpaid D.C. bureaucrats instead of our tax-weary citizenry. For someone old enough to remember the Democratic Party as it used to be, this seems an upside down reality.

By the same token, it is probable that several shelves of books will someday be written to explain the Democratic somersault on the subject of illegal immigration. Democrats have somehow quickly moved from President Obama’s early vows to crack down on illegals to a current advocacy—if not outright endorsement—of sneaking into the United States and staying here. This stunning change in perspective among Democratic lawmakers is, in addition, today conjoined with a reflexive support for unabated migration from nations known to support terrorism. One has to wonder how Democrats plan to win back voters who don’t live in. . . San Francisco or New York. Watching so much of the nation’s electoral map turn Republican red two Novembers ago should have been sufficient to convince all but the most ideologically blinded to reconsider extremist immigration policies that helped put their party out of power—but it seems that upside down is the position still preferred by many Democratic loyalists.

By the same token the Democratic Party’s loud defenses of both the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, both of whom recently seem to be executing their investigative duties in manners that should raise the eyebrows of all but the most extreme partisans, also appear quite odd when put in historical context. I am old enough to remember when liberal Democrats (Is there any other kind today?) deeply distrusted the FBI and its motivations. Moreover, one need only glance back at the Clinton presidency to discern a very different attitude toward special investigations with elastic and expansive mandates.

The dead end search for Russian collusion in the 2016 election now seems to have mutated into an endless fishing expedition—accompanied by far too many self-serving and inflammatory leaks to the press—that serves to provide the unending appearance of wrongdoing in the absence of actual evidence. One need only to flashback to Kenneth Starr and his dim-witted defense of democracy, which eventually took the form of prosecuting the President of the United States for Oval Office nookie, to wonder what has snapped inside Mr. Mueller’s Democratic cheerleaders, who seem to have completely forgotten the damage done by odd investigative zealotry just a couple of decades in the past. Reality again lands bottom side up.

There is, however, one ongoing investigation in Washington that has real potential to be a political—and perhaps Constitutional—bombshell. Someday soon the Inspector General for the Department of Justice will be releasing a report regarding the FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal—and the inexplicable assertion by former FBI Director James Comey that no federal laws were violated by either Secretary Clinton or her associates. If the Inspector General’s report were to show that the highest law enforcement officials in our nation were in fact tailoring their investigations and prosecutorial recommendations to help throw a U.S. Presidential election to one candidate over another, that would be a crisis of monumental proportions that would compel swift action to restore the integrity of our federal government.

Failing this were it to be necessary, our faith and trust in the guarantees embodied in the Constitution would be turned upside down, inside out, and shaken to the core. We cannot allow this to occur.