,hl=en,siteUrl='http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/',authuser=0,security_token="v_SeT2Tv8vVdKRCcG9CCW-ZdIfQ:1429878696275"/> Old Fox KM Journal

Monday, October 05, 2015

personnel is policy


Justice and the Obama Justice Department

by Michael Mukasey
September 2015 | Volume 44, Number 9
Michael B. MukaseyFormer U.S. Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey served as the Attorney General of the United States from 2007-2009, as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York from 1988-2006, and as an assistant U.S. attorney for that same district from 1972-1976. In 1995, he presided over the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and others for a plot to blow up New York area landmarks. He received his B.A. from Columbia University and his LL.B. from Yale Law School.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 19, 2015, aboard the Crystal Serenity, during a Hillsdale College cruise from Lisbon to London.

If you think about it, it makes sense that in America—the only nation in the world to define itself not by blood or land, but by a law, the Constitution—the government agency charged with enforcing that law, and enforcing the laws passed under it, would be called the Department of Justice. As such, the work of the Justice Department is highly important. It plays a fundamental role in our nation’s life, because its work has to do in one way or another with how honest, how fair, and how safe our country is.
That being said, I’m regretful to have to add that in a country where honesty, fairness, and safety are so strongly influenced by one department of government, over the past six years—largely because of that department’s work—our country has grown less honest, less fair, and less safe than it ought to be. Let me give you some examples.
Recently we hear a great deal about the prosecution of “evildoing” corporations, but not so much about the prosecution of individuals who are the alleged evildoers. Why is that? To be specific, a lot of what we hear with respect to corporations is not about prosecutions at all—it’s about “deferred-prosecution agreements” or “non-prosecution agreements,” agreements that extract enormous financial penalties. Indeed, the current Justice Department takes pride in setting record after record in terms of collecting these penalties.
Other attorneys general, myself included, made such agreements. But the penalties that have been extracted over the past six years are unprecedented. They involve numbers in the billions, and are of a scale that makes it appear that the Justice Department is acting as a profit center for the government.
Justice Department investigations begin by looking into claims, for example, of unlawful payments to foreign officials or of unsafe motor vehicles. Corporations often face disastrous collateral consequences simply from having charges brought against them, which is why they are often willing to admit to conduct that the government cannot prove, to pay enormous fines, and to accept the oversight of monitors. In return, the government agrees that no charges will be filed so long as the corporations remain on good behavior for some specified period of time. Charges are rarely brought against individuals, on the other hand, because individuals can be put in jail. When faced with this, people usually fight back—and when they fight back, they frequently win.
This process generates cynicism about the American justice system, as individuals go uncharged, billion-dollar penalties are assessed, and the ones who pay are not wrongdoers, but corporate shareholders and employees.
* * *
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is the one we think of as having the main responsibility for protecting fairness. Yet its recent record has indicated other priorities. Recently its Voting Section went out of its way to review a decision to change the system of municipal elections in Kinston, North Carolina, from partisan to non-partisan. That change had been approved by the voters of Kinston, which is a majority black town. Indeed, it had been approved by an overwhelming two-to-one vote.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department may intervene when voting rules are changed in any state where there’s historically been discrimination. But because black citizens were in the majority in Kinston, there should have been no occasion to intervene. The DOJ justified its intervention by saying that blacks were not always a majority of voters, even though they were a majority of the citizens; it argued further that the removing of party labels might deprive black voters of an identifying label necessary for them to vote for black candidates—i.e., the label “Democrat.” In other words, the Justice Department was arguing that the black voters of Kinston needed the paternalism of the Justice Department to protect them from themselves.
Fairness and safety are sometimes related to one another. During the 2008 election, two members of the New Black Panther Party showed up at a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in black battle fatigues, one of them brandishing a nightstick and the other yelling at white voters that they would soon be ruled by a black man. The scene was described in an affidavit by a poll watcher—a veteran civil rights activist who had often supported Democratic candidates—as something he had never seen or heard of in his 40 years of political involvement.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, the DOJ’s Voting Section filed a lawsuit and won a default judgment. But in the spring of 2009, after the Obama administration took over, those handling the case were directed to drop it. The only penalty left in place was a limited injunction that barred the person with the nightstick from repeating that conduct for a period of time in Philadelphia. And when the Office of Professional Responsibility looked into the matter, their finding criticized the bringing of the case more than the dropping of it.
Contrast that response with the DOJ’s treatment of a 79-year-old protestor outside an abortion clinic who was sued by the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section for praying outside the clinic and urging entrants to reconsider abortion. When that protestor was pepper sprayed by an abortion supporter for exercising his First Amendment rights, the Criminal Section did nothing.
Consider as well the 2012 case of Trayvon Martin, a young man who was shot in an encounter with a neighborhood watch member. Notwithstanding that the shooter was not a member of any police department, and that he was acquitted of criminal responsibility in the incident—nevertheless, in the wake of the case the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division zeroed in on the police department of Sanford, Florida, where the incident occurred, suggesting discriminatory policing. A similar pattern—whereby a confrontation between a police officer and an African-American is followed by a Justice Department proceeding against the jurisdiction, regardless of the legal outcome or the equities of the incident—has been followed in cities such as Baltimore, New York, and Ferguson, Missouri.
State and local jurisdictions do not have the resources or the political will to fight the federal government. As a result, more than 20 cities are now operating under consent decrees secured by the Justice Department, with court-appointed monitors imposing restrictive standards on police officers who now think twice before they stop suspects or make arrests. The results are predictable. Shootings are on the rise in New York, as are quality-of-life crimes that create a sense of public disorder and social deterioration. Seattle is also a good example: a federal lawsuit and a court-appointed monitor followed on the heels of a publicized incident, and now homicides are up 25 percent, car theft is up 44 percent, and aggravated assault is up 14 percent.
One lesson to draw from all this is that personnel is policy. If you examine the resum├ęs of people hired into the DOJ beginning in 2009, you will find that the governing credential of new hires was a history of support for left-leaning causes or membership in leftist organizations. By the time of the 2012 election, it was considered unremarkable for DOJ lawyers to display political posters on their office walls, and even outside their offices—something inimical to the spirit and mission of the Department of Justice.
* * *
When it comes to defending against terrorism, one would think that the role of the Justice Department would be relatively limited compared to that of the military and of our intelligence gathering agencies. But for six years the DOJ has played an outsized and unhelpful role. This results, in part, from a policy set by the current administration of viewing terrorism as it was viewed before 9/11—as a crime to be prosecuted rather than an act of war to be combatted.
This administration is also unwilling to draw any connection between radical Islam and terrorism. Just in the last few days, it has been reported that officials are trying to determine a motive for the conduct of Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, who is accused of killing five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga. He had travelled to Jordan and posted admiring statements about ISIS on his web page, and yet officials are puzzling over why he acted as he did. The DOJ refuses to use the word terrorism in relation to this investigation.
A man named Ali Muhammad Brown is charged with three counts of murder in Seattle, allegedly motivated by his desire to avenge attacks on Muslims by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also been prosecuted in the state courts of New Jersey on state terrorism charges—the first time such charges have ever been filed in New Jersey’s history. The charges there are based on a fourth murder that he committed—the murder of a teenager named Brendan Tevlin that had the same motivation as the Seattle murders. The maximum for this crime under the New Jersey statute is life imprisonment, whereas the federal statute carries the death penalty. But the Justice Department has declined to bring this prosecution. It’s utterly beyond understanding why the DOJ would yield to a state charge with a lesser penalty—unless, of course, one realizes that it would simply prefer not to discuss the matter.
This aversion goes further, and it has further effect. In 2009, Khalid Sheik Muhammad and others were to be tried before a military commission at Guantanamo for their roles in the 9/11 attacks. The defendants had announced their intention to plead guilty and proceed to martyrdom. Notwithstanding that these detainees were in the custody of the military and the Department of Defense, the Attorney General, with the President’s cooperation, suspended the trials and announced in 2010 that he would bring those defendants to Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center attack had occurred, to stand trial in a civilian court.
This plan caused a bipartisan furor. Congress went so far as to pass a statute barring the use of any federal funds to bring detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. As a result, the plan was cancelled in 2011. But by that time the military commission had been aborted and the prosecution had to be recommenced from scratch. In addition, Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his friends got the message that the new administration’s heart wasn’t in it. They took to resisting every step in the process, which is still in the pre-trial stage.
Also in 2009, the Attorney General, following up on his stated belief that the CIA had violated the torture statute in the interrogation of captured terrorists, publicly disclosed what had been classified memos describing the CIA’s interrogation program—a program that had not been in use since 2003. He presumably released those memos in the belief that disclosure would bring on a firestorm of criticism. The effect was to disclose to potential terrorists what was in the program so they could train to resist it, just as they train using the publicly available Army Field Manual in order to resist interrogations described in it. When the hoped-for firestorm failed to develop, the Attorney General announced that even though prior investigations of CIA conduct by career DOJ prosecutors had concluded that there was not enough evidence to justify criminal prosecution, he was going to re-open those cases. He did so without bothering to read the detailed memos by those previous prosecutors explaining why no criminal charges were warranted. You can imagine the effect on the morale of the CIA.
The re-opened investigations yielded no criminal charges, and the result was announced two years later as part of a news dump on a Friday afternoon. We currently have no interrogation program in place beyond the Army Field Manual, and in any case current policy seems to favor prosecution over capturing terrorists abroad for interrogation. This is due in part to the efforts of the DOJ, and our ability to gather intelligence is correspondingly limited.
Defenders of current policy trumpet electronic intelligence. But electronic intelligence comes in bits and pieces, and it’s very difficult to know which bits and pieces are relevant and which are simply noise. As former CIA Director Michael Hayden once put it, it’s kind of like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you have thousands of pieces, you don’t know which ones are part of the puzzle, and you haven’t been able to look at the picture on the box. Human intelligence, by contrast, comes in narrative form—which is to say you get to look at the picture.
The Obama administration also supported the recent restriction that was put on bulk intelligence gathering by the CIA, in the mistaken belief that such a policy compromised Americans’ privacy. In point of fact, the only information gathered was the calling number, the called number, the length of the call, and its date. That information was saved, and when we got a suspicious telephone number—for example, the number of the Chattanooga terrorist—we could take it and figure out which numbers had called that number and which numbers had been called by it. As a result of the recent restriction, we are not going to have that information anymore. It is going to be kept by the carriers, if they agree to keep it.
Are there any bright spots in the Justice Department? The National Security Division, which handles oversight of electronic intelligence on applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is the newest division in the department. Formed in 2006, it is staffed by people who are dedicated to protecting the country, and it continues to function very well insofar as the legislation that is now in place allows it to function. Otherwise, there is very little good to report.
* * *
How did we get to where we are today? Even before the 2008 election, the warning signs were there. The man who was to become U.S. Attorney General told an audience during the election campaign that the Bush administration had permitted abuses in fighting terrorism. He said there would have to be “a reckoning.” During his subsequent tenure, in a moment of unguarded candor, he described himself as the President’s “wingman.” From the standpoint of the Justice Department, I can’t overstate the demoralizing significance of an attorney general saying something like that. If I had ever described myself, during my tenure, as President Bush’s wingman, I would have expected to come back to find the Justice Department building empty and a pile of resignations on my desk. Even Attorney General Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy’s brother, to my knowledge never described himself in such terms. Yes, the attorney general is a member of the administration—but his principal responsibility is to provide neutral advice on what the law requires, not to fly in political formation.
The problems in the DOJ won’t be solved simply by electing a less ideological president in 2016. Many of the political appointees of the past seven years will resign and take up career positions within the department, and once such people receive civil service status, it is virtually impossible to fire them. In other words, the next attorney general will be confronted with a department that’s prepared to resist policy changes. This will require great patience and dedication by the new political appointees in their efforts to return the department to its true mandate—not doing justice according to your own lights, or even according to the lights of the president who appoints you, but defending law and having enough faith in law to believe that the result, more often than not, will be justice.

Sunday, October 04, 2015

God Created Puppies

7 Months of Tears for My Pierre

Found a puppy under the house
So tiny looked like a wild field mouse
Hair tangled in dreadlock knots
Eyes so wide like large black spots
Tongue hanging down to the ground
Continual panting the only sound
Trembled as he watched to see
Looking deep judging could he trust me

Son-in-law said his name was Pierre
Fleas and ticks everywhere
Smelled to high heaven breath included
Alone from the rest he was excluded
Possessing only one testicle 
In his tiny way such a spectacle 
Picked him up from that place
Felt a tiny-tongue-kiss on my face

Waited at the vets until morning
As they opened came in storming
3 days later got the call
Picked him up clean, shots, and all
Received his first bone doggie tag
Showed him off did nothing but brag
My heart always burst with pride
As he never left staying at my side

He was the first incentive you see
To get off drugs and be the real me
In him I found unconditional love
Something only felt with God above
Never before has anyone stuck like glue
Events that life put you through
Even through the murder of my family
Pierre gave only love and sympathy

Worked so hard came home pale
Pierre waiting wagging his tail
During Saturdays we played games
Kisses afterwards always the same
At night cuddled to watch TV
Sat on my lap such a comfort to me
We slept together in the same bed
On his own pillow after prayers were said

One day mom called to tell
Pierre was sick would not get well
Flew home as fast as I could arrive
Pierre was gone no longer alive
Sank down to the floor into a tiny ball
7 months of tears that would continually fall
Day after day eyes blood red
Day after day more tears shed

Took his dog tags of all those years
Carried them close my biggest fear
Lose the only thing left of him I had
My aching heart is still very sad
Hallucinations of his stark
I can hear him growl with a bark
Strongest friendship I have ever known
Evidence of him in my heart still shown

My best friend he became
Forever in my spirit he will remain
No matter when I stop to remember
My darkest day in every year's November
When my loving soul and best friend
Took my heart along with him
With all my love and joy within
I pray he is happy in doggie heaven

©LadyAnn Graham-Gilreath
October 3, 2015

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Clash of Civilizations




Germany & Austria







Sweden better than Denmark


Jews attacked https://youtu.be/a6JHJxnQhpI

Berlin police overwelmed









Tuesday, September 29, 2015

whoever saves a single life

"In one famous instance, the legal code turned almost poetiic, as Rabbi Judah [the Prince] cited the lengthly warning in the rabbinic judges delivered to witnesses testifying in capital cases:

'How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?' the Mishna begins. 'They are brought in and admonished as follows:  In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases.  In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his (potential) descendants are on the witness's head until the end of time.  For thus we find in the case Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written:  "The bloods of your brother cry unto Me "(Gen. 4:10)--that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants....  Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single like, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world.  And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world.....'

Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, New York, 1991, pp. 151-52. 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015


Guest Writer Dr. Jim Garrow: The Inevitable War

jim-garrow-litmus-test-cia-covert-operative-obama-valerie-jarretIt didn’t take long to establish the fact that the relationship that I had walked into with the school in Chongqing that was bringing us in to set up an elite “International” department was rather unique and special, to say the least. Apart from the ceremonies that had the usual speeches and toasts and the usual expected words like “cooperation”, “long term relationships”, “honor”, I did not fully understand the location itself nor the historic place that it was. My assistant brought me up to speed very quickly when an official asked for a meeting.
The school that had welcomed me was actually situated on the grounds (or vis versa) of the tiny museum that formed the street front facade stretching in each direction going up a hill and down a hill. The other side of the road seemed to be a park with fencing running all the way up and down the hill. Walking up the hill 100 yards brought me across the street from guards in gatehouses and a brick drive that wound up a bit of a wooded hill and disappeared in behind the hill as it wound around the hill. This was the Communist Party headquarters for Chongqing and the second most powerful seat of the Communist Party outside of the Central Committee Headquarters in Beijing. The elite of the Communist Chinese world met behind these fences in some immense and beautifully crafted buildings reminiscent of the Forbidden City of historic renown. Convenient for the children of this elite was the location of our school just across and down from their parents seat of power.
But back to my assistants eye opening description of the grounds, the school, the museum, the old building just to the side of the entrance from the street and past the tank traps and guarded gates of our school. That old building still houses the printing press used by Chou Enlai (Zhou Enlai) when he produced the newspaper of the revolution of the 1930’s. This was the center of the retreat at the western end of the Japanese invasion. It was here that many hid. My office was dug out of the cliffs overhanging the Jialing River as it coursed down to Jai Fang Bei in central Chongqing where it met the Yangtze. This confluence was where the Japanese slaughtered over 600,000 Chinese. And it was here that I sat behind a desk in a cave previously occupied by Chou Enlai (Zhou Enlai himself. Yikes, I was at the center of a major part of the history and development of what is today the Peoples Republic of China.
What has just been described is a history lovers paradise and for me this was kid in the candy store, exciting and cool. I wandered everywhere that I could and often without my driver, translator or assistant. That would drive them nuts but I loved being able to do it. The side alleyways that led to houses where the common folks lived was a trip into many years ago and many centuries past. I enjoyed the surprise of the old folks who rarely ever saw a white person and most assuredly never walking unaccompanied down the dusty streets into “no foreigner land”. A regular routine was going to a noodle restaurant which had tables right on the street and which was very popular at lunch time with nearly every table occupied by loud groups of older folks who always seemed to settle down when I came and tried to get a place to sit. I would just point at what someone else was eating and didn’t converse with anyone, just watched as they watched me. After a few weeks the novelty seemed to wear off and nobody paid much attention to me. By this time I was ordering in Mandarin and saying a few words that always brought a smile. Yes, I was butchering the language so badly that they held back the laughter. Its called manners.
A defining moment came not from these encounters but in the form of a phone call from the English Principal of one of our schools in another part of China and a request that I come quickly; there was a serious issue that only I could address. I flew out that evening and came face to face with a cutural no no created by a well meaning newbie to China. He had asked that his students bring items associated with the Japanese occupation which they were studying as part of a unit of world history. No students showed up for school the next day. Now that is really significant in a school with 2800 students. A Ghost town is what I would compare my former booming school to that next morning when I pulled up with my Principal and our resident translator. It would appear that this was the second day of a boycott of the school over an “inappropriate and insensitive” request by the foreigner. I was looking forward to meeting an ancient fellow who always stood inside the gate of the school and welcomed the student with a smile which was always greeted by the students with a hurried little bow or wave or a word. Seemed to be your typical Grandfather. Boy was I wrong. Ben, the name that I had given him over the few years that we had been a factor in that school, was apparently an honored survivor of those days and had meet with Mao way back. He was in his 90’s but was energetic and spry with an infectious grin. He also ran the place. He wasn’t just the greeter of children, he was a hero to this city, province, nation. In the past he would always smile at me and give me the little hands together nod. I always gave him a small bow in reciprocity as an honor to a senior. We liked each other. I was summoned to a meeting with school officials to put things right. Sitting at the side of the room was Ben away from the action. The Minister of Education for the Province was sitting at the table, the Mayor was there (this City had 8 million people in it – we were the elite school) my translator was there and my seat was across the table from the Minister (a lady). We had green tea, which I thought was a good sign. I gave the expected welcome and shut up and listened. In the minds of the folks at the table a great injury had been done and had to be rectified appropriately. This wasn’t a mere tongue lashing in a mannerly Chinese way it was an indicator of a severe cultural betrayal and hurt to the Chinese people. We were in deep doo doo. I asked my translator not to say a word until the Minister had finished what she had to say and asked for a quick two sentence summary. All the while keeping my eyes in a respectful manner on the Minister of Education who I knew from ceremonies and a dinner or two that we had shared.
I gave much thought to crafting an answer that would be appropriate penance for this hurt and did what I thought best. The teacher was to be replaced and there was going to be a real scramble to make that happen and to put someone from another school into the position. I had the perfect guy in mind. When I had finished my supplications and the translation was given there was dead silence for minutes and I wondered how badly I had blown it. The surprising response came not from the Minister but from Ben, my friend, who summarized what had gone on, what was expected and the fact that he considered me to be an honorable man and one who cared deeply for the children. He stated that he had been a careful observer of the respect that I had shown during the raising of the flag, the playing of the Chinese national anthem and all ceremonies that he had seen me in attendance . The fact that I had flown many hours to get there and handle the situation myself spoke to my willingness to do what was right. He appreciated all that and as he rose he gave instruction to all in the room as to what would be acceptable and urged us all to do the best that we could in training those in our charge. When he turned to leave, all in the room rose and stood in respect. We handled it and moved on.
It was Ben who answered my questions about the relationship between China and Japan. He summarized it for me in two words, “One day…”.
War is inevitable and is culturally defined as being a necessary answer to the rape of Nanjing, Chongqing and the defilement of the nation and its pride from many years ago. I would suggest that America get out of the way or China will be merciless. Our ally must eventually face the music that it created alone.
About the Author
Dr. Jim Garrow is the Director of the Bethune Institute and its Pink Pagoda Girls Program, Former Principal, President, Teachers College Principal, Registered Psychologist and Family and Marriage Therapist, Author of the Pink Pagoda: One Man's Quest To End Genocide In China, Husband of 1, Father of 4, Grandfather of 3, Popular host/co-host/guest on Radio and Television Programs Across America, Canada, Britain and Australia.

Read more at http://politichicks.com/2014/01/guest-writer-dr-jim-garrow-inevitable-war

Conjecture or Reality - Obama's Muslim Heritage:
I'm going to make this short to cut down on the laughter being heard around the world. In the years preceding Obama's ascension to the throne of America, it was clearly understood by various intelligence agencies around the world that Barry was such a compromised and comprisable "asset" of someone that he would be easily exposed or used. The great surprise was that the media in America was so in bed with Bathhouse Barry that no real reporting was done on his history and past. Today of course the scurrying around to cover what was known then and ignored and the total misdirection of attention away from what was important to that which was superfluous and emotion driven claptrap won the day.
So what is it that the intelligence agencies of the world have known since the early days of Obama's days in Chicago? 1/ That he was bisexual and a male prostitute 2/ That he was a Saudi plant and a devout muslim from his days as a youth at a madrassas school for budding imams.
These two collective facts have been vetted by the best in the world and the only laughter being heard today is that of those who are benefiting from having a man whose loyalties are well known and not underpinned by any loyalty to America.
- Dr. Jim Garrow -

Tuesday, September 15, 2015




indigo skycode

















Jonah Gldberg had this to say about the rather revealing sentiments expressed by Melissa Harris-Perry in an MSNBC “Lean Forward” clip:
Before we get to all that, a word about the ad campaign itself. In one sense these ads are like the question, “You want extra?” from the masseuse at a shady Vietnamese massage parlor — proof that all pretense at propriety is exactly that, pretense. This is supposed to be a news network. Moreover, it is supposed to be a news network that constantly boasts of its professional and philosophical superiority to Fox News (and it’s true; except for ratings, influence, quality, and profit MSNBC kicks Fox’s butt). And yet, they run testimonials to state power with a frequency that rivals North Korean TV.
But in another sense these ads are the “extra” itself — a rather sad and perfunctory attempt to satisfy urges that barely rise above the masturbatory. The self-love oozes from the screen as the hosts’ inner-15-year-olds realize this is their chance to prove they’re as great as their favorite social-studies teacher told them they were!
Thanks to the magic of Hollywood, they preen for the cameras with an almost post-coital glow as they deliver their little sermonettes that amount to pointless verbal onanism. Hey, look. There’s no-necked Ed Schultz at a diner, looking like he’s having one last cup of coffee before he has to work up a sweat burying the corpse of a dissident union official still moldering in the trunk of his ten-year-old Coupe de Ville. And there’s Rachel Maddow (looking a bit like that aforementioned dead union official) trying to give her Stakhanovite commitment to infrastructure projects a romantic hue.
All Your Children Belong to Us
And now there’s Melissa Harris-Perry. By now you’ve heard of or seen the ad, but just in case here it is. In short, she thinks the idea that your kids are, well, yours is outdated and counterproductive.
Rich Lowry, praise be upon him, offers a fine summary of what Harris-Perry is getting at here. Actually, no disrespect to the guy who signs my paycheck (who is not only a powerful man, but a handsome one) but Harris-Perry herself was more than clear enough about what she’s after. The thing is only 30 seconds long, very highly produced, and straight to the point.
This is important because Harris-Perry is now simultaneously insisting she won’t apologize and insisting that she didn’t say what she so obviously said. In the ad she’s talking about the role of government, government investments, and ridiculing the idea of “private” ownership of kids. “We have to break through,” she urged, “our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.” Now she claims she was talking about civil society and voluntarism?
As the guy who took Obama to his first stable said when the president was about to step in some equine feces, “Oh, that’s horses***.”

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Jonathan Cahn 2015 Prophecy - Jonathan Cahn


One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.
Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.


One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."