Justice Gorsuch, The Peace Cross and the “Offended Observers”

As one who has spent most of a (long!) life as an attorney , I am painfully aware that reading most Court opinions is not viewed as the typical “easy reading” we see in novels and The Classics and biographies or other types of reading we do purely for enjoyment. I use the term “painfully aware” as I was required, in the pursuit of our practice, and in the interest of our clients due to my obligation to be as well prepared as possible, to read many opinions and some of them were, quite frankly, sheer, dreadful, boredom. Once in a while, as most notably in the case of the masterful writing of a Justice Scalia, one is treated to a lovely and pleasurable exception The Justice is sorely missed not only for his genius of the law, but for his unusual combination of humor and conviviality of the kind which engendered a close friendship with the Justice he probably most markedly disagreed with, Justice Ginsburg, and their shared love of Opera and great food and wines. Also, as one most interested in the High Court’s erratic treatment of issues relating to the Constitution and federalism, I savor every word of Justice Thomas’ opinions, but readily concede that they might not be everyone’s cup of tea, as they are often heavier in the fields of Constitutional history and jurisprudential development of those issues than most readers would readily be drawn to.

However, I would like to bring to your attention one of those rare opinions which is not only a lawyer’s dream, assuming that lawyer was at least slightly, or more, to the right of center, but should be one to give an unusual level of pure reading enjoyment to anyone with its blend of plain speaking, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek, slicing remarks about some of the abuses many of us believe the Courts have not only allowed, but, in some cases, even encouraged, such as the centerpiece of his concurring opinion in the Peace Cross case, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

It is laced with wittily incisive discussions of where the law has wound up in the area of The Establishment Clause by allowing, it is important to note, in some cases but not in all cases, a person who is offended by seeing something, as in this case, a 94 year old memorial to that area’s dead from World War I, to be permitted to claim “standing” to sue in a Federal Court for relief. Here is the way he opened his treatment of this “doctrine”, leaving little or no doubt of how foolish he thought the whole idea was:

“The American Humanist Association wants a federal
court to order the destruction of a 94 year-old war memorial because its members are offended. Today, the Court
explains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to demand the
destruction of longstanding monuments, and I find much
of its opinion compelling.”
***
“The Association claims that its members “regularly”
come into “unwelcome direct contact” with a World War I
memorial cross in Bladensburg, Maryland “while driving
in the area.” …… And this, the
Association suggests, is enough to allow it to insist on a
federal judicial decree ordering the memorial’s removal.
Maybe, the Association concedes, others who are less
offended lack standing to sue. Maybe others still who are
equally affected but who come into contact with the memorial too infrequently lack standing as well. …But, the Association assures us, its
members are offended enough—and with sufficient frequency—that they may sue.
This “offended observer” theory of standing has no basis
in law”

After a brilliant and sometimes comic “parade of horribles” he paints a vivid picture of the lunacy which has upset and concerned so many who see these decisions as crazy patchwork with little or no uniformity or predictability, he sums up a few of the most illogical results with some of the examples coming from the Court’s own building and those nearby on Capitol Hill:

“Courts ….. have upheld
Ten Commandment displays and demanded their removal;
they have allowed memorial crosses and insisted that they
be razed; they have permitted Christmas displays and
pulled the plug on them; and they have pondered seemingly
endlessly the inclusion of “In God We Trust” on currency
or similar language in our Pledge of Allegiance. No one
can predict the rulings—but one thing is certain: Between
the challenged practices and the judicial decisions, just
about everyone will wind up offended.
Nor have we yet come close to exhausting the potential
sources of offense and federal litigation Lemon invited, for
what about the display of the Ten Commandments on the frieze in our own courtroom or on the doors leading into it?
Or the statues of Moses and the Apostle Paul next door in
the Library of Congress? Or the depictions of the Ten
Commandments found in the Justice Department and the
National Archives? Or the crosses that can be found in
the U. S. Capitol building? And all that just takes us mere
steps from where we sit.”

Many of us have viewed the current phenomenon of the “perpetually aggrieved” , represented most graphically on today’s political scene by The Hon. (?) Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, whose most visible characteristic is an unrelenting, day in and day out, anger at everything about the United States, with a blend of some humor and a lot of concern for where all that vitriol can lead. In his closing lines, Justice Gorsuch gives voice to those concerns, with language which indicates to me that major changes in thinking may be taking place at the High Court, to be made even more permanent if the President gets an opportunity to make just one more nomination to that Bench:

“In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily
found. Really, most every governmental action probably
offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be
sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for
disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.
Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished
ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an “offended viewer” may “avert his
eyes,” …or pursue a political solution. Today’s decision represents
a welcome step toward restoring this Court’s recognition of
these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.”

A welcome step, indeed.

Thank you, Justice Gorsuch.

President Trump has a primary challenger. Wm. Weld. Seriously?

The Curious Candidacy of William Weld is the title of a piece in this morning’s Spectator USA in which the author asks what to me, at least, is most worthy of consideration at this time when the Democrats are filling up their Clown Cars with, well, clowns running for their nomination: “The former Massachusetts governor is entirely a figure of the past. Why is he running?”

I preface the following observations with the painfully obvious reality that if there is one thing we all should have learned in the last decade or two, it is that anything, absolutely anything, could happen and has happened in the recent past. And, I am reliably given to understand that there are actually citizens out there who have, as is their right, sent real, actual American dollars to Mr. Weld’s campaign and quite possibly those of other potential challengers to the President.

That said, I highly recommend to your reading and consideration the delightfully tongue-in-cheek article cited above, which examines Mr. Weld’s, shall we say, interesting history of changing parties and beliefs (I think the most commonly used euphemism is “evolving beliefs” ) as indicated by the temper of the times.

I also recommend a piece in the Washington Examiner, a more straightforward discussion of his history. It can be found here.

In my more and more humble opinion, I am at one with the conclusion of the Spectator article:

“This is the bottom-line problem for NeverTrump — whether Trump serves another four years after next November or not, the GOP base is not looking to return to nominees like John McCain and Mitt Romney or either of the two Bushes. The Republican party is the Flight 93 party, as far as its voters are concerned, and the NeverTrump crew are not the men to rush the cockpit.”

In honor of those incredibly brave Americans aboard that doomed flight straight into that Pennsylvania field, I close with their charge: Let’s roll!

Sincerely, Jim

Out-Foxxed in MAGA Country (Making Arrests Go Away)*–Where’s the Justice for “the nobody people”?

By Jim George
April 4, 2019

While it may raise howls of derision from the apparently millions of Americans who think that lawyers are a blight upon the Republic, it is my firm belief that approximately 99% of all lawyers in America strive to conduct their practices in an honest, civil and, most importantly, ethical manner. I cannot speak for every single one of that cohort, but I can definitely speak for two of them, my law and life partner, Judi, and myself when I say that the antics — and there’s no better way to describe her conduct — of State’s Attorney of Crook, er, Cook County in regard to the Jessie Smollett case in Chicago are blatantly and sickeningly unethical. It was disgusting to read the first accounts of her apparently newly created method of “alternative dispositions”, about which more later, as it appeared, in the early stages, she might just get away with her brand of “in-your-face” lawlessness. Almost as gag-inducing was the sanctimonious speech Smollett gave, telling the world he had been “exonerated” and that he “wouldn’t be my Mother’s son if I had done the things reported.” What unmitigated rot! Pure fiction, although there are several much more, shall we say, colorful words I could have — and have– used to describe this entire kabuki dance.

One of the several reasons I decided to research this entire dismal episode what that I saw writings in what was once called the Mainstream Media, at a time when that title was accorded with respect, now composed of thoroughly discredited propaganda organs of the Democrat Party, buying hook, line and sinker Smollett’s Courthouse steps speech proclaiming his complete and total innocence of 16 felony charges handed down by a Grand Jury. One such column, also as cringe-worthy as Smollett’s speech, if not more so, appeared in the New York Times over the weekend. There, in that publication referred to by Klavan as “a former newspaper”, the always reliable propagandist for the far-left and a bona fide Trump hater,Charles Blow, put together a series of statements which were, for the most part, divorced from reality, and from the actual facts which have been in the public domain since about mid_February.

The author referred to the incident as a “trivial crime and entertainment story” and “an “interesting Hollywood drama, but meaningless in the grand scheme of things” and concluded with this lovely piece of — dare I say it?– hateful commentary:

“Folks, what you are seeing is a media being bullied into bending over backward to placate the people who endlessly accuse them of bias. I believe you are also seeing an expression of subconscious race bias in the media itself that truly registers sensation at the thought of this black man’s deception.

“Smollett’s greatest offense in this regard was not lying, if indeed he did, but lying about white people who support a racist in the White House.”

Now that we have, in the interest of balance, heard from “the other side of the moon”, we should consider the real world, many views from Chicago writers and authorities of Bar Associations opining on the ethical issues Ms Foxx has stumbled (?) into.

We start that look at the real world of Chicago politics, which one might hear from time to time is the very pinnacle of corruption in our country. I’m also aware that such a word as pinnacle, denoting lofty altitudes, is the wrong word to describe such a universally known level of corruption. Our look at that real world, one Ms. Foxx occupies and has sullied by her actions, should start with the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association, which issued a statement sharply critical of her actions in this matter. I urge reading it in full for a solid grounding in the serious ethical issues involved in her handling of this case:

“The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

“The public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.

“When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15). Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor. Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

“Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law. This statement is not accurate. To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal. See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2). For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)). The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

“The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing. To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed. The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.”

The Bar Association’s statement also puts the lie to Ms. Foxx’s assurances to the public that this procedure, which she termed a diversionary program “available to all defendants.:

“Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs. The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency. Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility. To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.”

Their reprimand concluded by describing her conduct as the polar opposite of “trivial”, as tut-tutted by the New York Times:

” ‘This irregular arrangement was an affront to prosecutors across the State, the Chicago Police Department, victims of hate crimes, and the people of the City of Chicago and Cook County. We strongly encourage our members and the public to review the National District Attorneys Associations statement on prosecutorial best practices in high profile cases.’ “

Before turning to the opinions and analysis of some of the better writers in that real world–Chicago–it should be noted that the Chicago Tribune has published an excellent comprehensive timeline of all events in this case up to March 29, 2019, and it is a very helpful resource in trying to sort out all the twists and turns in this sad display of pure corruption.

Now to take up events “on the ground”, consider first the columnist I consider to be the “best of the best”, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He has been reporting on Chicago politics for over 30 years, and starts his discussion in his usual pithy and direct manner:

““I think it (the Smollett case) has opened an opportunity for us to have conversations around what does justice look like,” Foxx told WBEZ.

“Oh, really? What justice looks like? In Cook County? Kim Foxx, that’s so precious. Are you serious?

“Since I was born in Chicago, with the smell of the Union Stockyards in my nose, I can’t really tell you what justice looks like with Kim Foxx leading the parade.

“But I can tell you what desperate politics looks like. And I’m going to tell you some of it today, including a story about the desperate emails sent to Foxx’s employees, asking them to come up with examples to support her foolishness with Smollett.

“And about Foxx’s so-called “recusal” from the case, which wasn’t a true recusal. It was a story, the kind Chicago politicians tell to children and journalists.

“Foxx’s troubles began when she inexplicably compromised herself ethically through inappropriate contacts with Obama Celebrity Friends who wanted her help with the Smollett case.

“And then she dropped charges against Smollett — charges approved by a Cook County grand jury — alleging that the Hollywood star of the TV show “Empire” faked his own hate crime and blamed it on supporters of President Donald Trump.”

He then got to the meat of the whole ethics imbroglio in which Foxx’s office sent out a request to other prosecutors to help her out of the ethical dilemma she had gotten herself into”

“And then came that panicky email Foxx’s office sent out, asking prosecutors for “examples of cases, felony preferable, where we, in exercising our discretion, have entered into verbal agreements with defense attorneys to dismiss charges against an offender if certain conditions were met, such as the payment of restitution, completion of community service, etc. but the defendant was not placed in a formal diversion program.”

“In other words: Please help me. I’ve screwed up, and I need examples to show people that what I did is really not all that unusual.

“I asked a Cook County judge about this.

““How stupid is it to put in writing that you’re advertising for excuses after the fact?” said the judge.

” “No further questions, Your Honor.” “

Another writer with the Tribune, Eric Zorn, noted a few other “tone-deaf” statements by Foxx in trying to extricate hersself from the pit she had dug for herself, entitled “Kim Foxx will and should lose her job over the Jussie Smollett case”:

“Her tone-deaf statements included equating Smollett to the raft of no-name, low-level, nonviolent offenders who have received the “go and sin no more” treatment, and patronizing those who are outraged by the outcome as “people who don’t understand the intricacies of the justice system.”

“Here’s what we understand: High-profile criminal cases are the lens through which the public sees and evaluates the administration of justice as a whole.”

***

“It was a fairly basic task. They failed spectacularly.

“The process that brought a surprise end to the case was anything but transparent. Prosecutors didn’t even alert reporters to the “emergency” hearing where they dropped, without explanation, all 16 felony disorderly conduct charges, and where they didn’t object to the sealing of the court file.

“And although prosecutors got Smollett to forfeit his bond of $10,000 — not much of a dent in the budget of an actor who reportedly makes more than 10 times that amount per episode of “Empire” — they did not even ask for a confession or apology.

“That allowed Smollett to repair immediately to the courthouse lobby and preen for the cameras about his innocence.

“His lawyers have since repeatedly echoed this claim, for example responding Thursday to the city’s demand that Smollett pay the cost of the investigation, later estimated at $130,000, with a statement saying, “It is the mayor and the police chief who owe Jussie — owe him an apology — for dragging an innocent man’s character through the mud. Jussie has paid enough.”

“Such galling pieties have infuriated all of us who wanted to see the accused selfish charlatan humbled and fined for allegedly perpetrating such an ugly hoax.”

Other good discussions can be found here, here, here and here.

Interestingly, the last piece looks into whether Smollett got a sweetheart deal by “ratting out” his celebrity lawyer, Mark Geragos, who was implicated in the embezzlement charges against “Porn Lawyer” Avenatti, those charges being filed one day before Smollett got “the deal of a lifetime”:

“Smollett’s celebrity attorney Geragos is officially the co-conspirator in Avenatti’s criminal case in two different states for trying to extort $25 million from Nike. Avenatti claims he has proof that Nike was paying college and high school basketball players and that the sportswear company’s practices were illegal. He is also facing charges of defrauding a bank for a loan for over $4 million as well as lying to clients about their settlements in order to use their monies to fund his own enterprises, including a chain of coffee houses.”

To be “fair and balanced”, a ;phrase which seems to drive some of he far-left batty (perhaps better said: more batty), I should note that Foxx wrote an Op-Ed in the Chicago Tribune defending her actions, replete with many of the buzzwords our progressive colleagues like to bandy about such as “have a conversation”, “transparency”, “smart justice”, “rethink the justice system”, etc., etc. It was also replete with what the reprimand of the Bar Association, quoted above, called “repeated deceptive and misleading statements”:

“So, why isn’t Smollett in prison or at least on trial? There are two different answers to this, both equally important.

“First, the law. There were specific aspects of the evidence and testimony presented to the office that would have made securing a conviction against Smollett uncertain. In determining whether or not to pursue charges, prosecutors are required to balance the severity of the crime against the likelihood of securing a conviction. For a variety of reasons, including public statements made about the evidence in this case, my office believed the likelihood of securing a conviction was not certain.

“In the interest of full transparency, I would prefer these records be made public. However, in this case, Illinois law allows defendants in certain circumstances to request that public records remain sealed. Smollett chose to pursue that avenue, and so my office is barred from releasing those records without his approval.”

***

“I was elected on a promise to rethink the justice system, to keep people out of prison who do not pose a danger to the community. I promised to spend my office’s finite resources on the most serious crimes in order to create communities that are both safer and fairer.

“Our community is safer in every sense of the word when murderers and rapists are locked away. But we can’t allow fearmongers to devalue the tremendous progress we’ve made in the last year. Since taking office, I’ve sought to employ alternative prosecutions, diversions, alternate outcomes and other forms of smart justice, and it has been working — violent crime in Chicago is down overall.”

Notwithstanding her defenses, in the real world:

“Foxx could be in trouble. According to FOIA documents released several weeks ago, she communicated with both a former aide to President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, and a member of the Smollett family, believed to be Smollett’s sister. Because of those communications, Foxx supposedly “recused” herself from the Smollett case, but last week her office revealed that Foxx had used the term only “colloquially” and had never officially stepped away from the case.”

Finally, I used the phrase “nobody people” in my title. It caught my eye as a fitting description of those who really do suffer from this unequal justice under law, and it appeared in one of several analyses in the past few days about people who are not named Smollett or Clinton, but who have names like Watts and Bohanon-Silmon. This article related the tragic account of Ms Silmon’s 21 year old son, Andre D. Bohanon, who was robbed and killed in 2005. His murder is still unsolved. She expressed her frustration in these words:

” “I’m insulted and quite frankly heartbroken that all of this time, attention, detective work, manpower and hours upon hours were spent on this Jessie [sic] Smollett case, yet hundreds of murders go unsolved every year!” Deneen Bohanon-Silmon complained in an email.”

Adowa Watts’ daughter was fatally shot in 2016 while riding in a vehicle with an ex-boyfriend, Darrell Junious. The evidence was strong that he had shot her, according to this account:

“He admitted firing shots, but allegedly told police he threw the gun away, according to Watts.

” “She had a gunshot wound on the left side of her head that blew off the back part of her head,” the mother told me.

“Watts said Junious “drove around for a few hours, passing up hospitals” before taking Ali to West Suburban Hospital where she was DOA.

” “When I got to the hospital, he did not have any blood on him nowhere which means he changed his clothes, because there was a splatter of blood all over his [car] seat,” she told me.

“Watts is outraged that Junious was charged only with unlawful use of a weapon.

” “Police came right out and said he was guilty of murder but they couldn’t prove it,” she said.”

She said that she and a group of Mothers who have lost chidren to gun violence met with prosecutors for an outreach and counselling session attended by Foxx:

” “We never got an answer to our questions about why the shooters weren’t charged. She kept saying that we are backed up and it’s not that they are not trying to get to the case,” Watts recalled.

” “If this had happened politicians and police officers or doctors or someone like that, they would have done something already. We are nobody people.” “

Those words embody the potential dangers which many see as troublesome fault lines in our society caused by well-founded concerns that certain classes “get away with murder” and “skate” because of their celebrity, money, political clout or all of the above.

I am definitely of that view and, for that reason, among others, this article is most respectfully dedicated to “the nobody people” everywhere.

*I am grateful to the incisive wit of John Kass for the new words for MAGA.

Lawsuits are terrible for the country–except when they’re not

Jim George By Jim George
March 2, 2019

Too little, too late, proclaims a title of a piece this morning about the pathetic attempt by the Washington Post to ameliorate its enormous exposure to potentially crippling damages stemming from the –gasp! — lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann and his family over its disgraceful, dishonest, despicable fabrication of an article about the so-called “Lincoln Memorial confrontation” between Nick and his friends with the poor, beleaguered “Indian chief” and “Vietnam War veteran” who turned out to be as fraudulent as the Post.

Here is the Post’s “apology” in full:

“Editor’s note related to Lincoln Memorial incident
By Washington Post Staff March 1 at 5:17 PM
A Washington Post article first posted online on Jan. 19 reported on a Jan. 18 incident at the Lincoln Memorial. Subsequent reporting, a student’s statement and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story — including that Native American activist Nathan Phillips was prevented by one student from moving on, that his group had been taunted by the students in the lead-up to the encounter, and that the students were trying to instigate a conflict. The high school student facing Phillips issued a statement contradicting his account; the bishop in Covington, Ky., apologized for the statement condemning the students; and an investigation conducted for the Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School found the students’ accounts consistent with videos. Subsequent Post coverage, including video, reported these developments: “Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed”; “Kentucky bishop apologizes to Covington Catholic students, says he expects their exoneration”; “Investigation finds no evidence of ‘racist or offensive statements’ in Mall incident.”

A Jan. 22 correction to the original story reads: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips said he served in the U.S. Marines but was never deployed to Vietnam.”

See any actual apology? Neither do I.

Here’s a common sense report on the “apology” from the piece in the Washington Examiner, linked above:

“The teens abused no one. They mistreated no one. Yet, they were treated like monsters all the same, and all because newsrooms couldn’t be bothered to double-check whether there was a longer, uncut version of the viral footage that had sparked this especially grotesque news cycle. The Covington boys were pilloried, publicly condemned by even their own bishop, and threatened with violence. One student in particular, Nick Sandmann, received the brunt of the hate because he is the most visible of the students captured in footage of the incident.

Unedited tapes of the confrontation between Phillips and the Covington students show the teens were accosted first by Black Hebrew Israelites, a loathsome fringe hate group. The footage also show that it was Phillips who approached the students, not the other way around.

Sandmann filed a defamation lawsuit against the Post in early February, seeking $250 million in damages — the same amount the Post’s owner, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, paid for the newspaper in 2013.”

The journalism “profession” has beclowned itself (admittedly a poor choice of words as there is nothing funny about setting out to deliberately ruin young men’s lives) so thoroughly it is difficult, for me at least, to see a return to the august position it once held as a beacon of truth, integrity and honest reporting any time in the foreseeable future.

The title I chose for this post was prompted by a lifetime of filing and pursuing lawsuits on behalf of (mostly!) deserving clients in various courts, State and Federal, and hearing, time after time, lawsuits being called various forms of the scourge of the Earth.
Note to anyone who believes the Washington Compost would have ever published even that sad imitation of an apology without that lawsuit: I’ve got some beachfront property in Montana I’ll let you have cheap.

Sincerely, Jim

Eight Days In May–Rosenstein Did Wear A Wire and Discuss Using the 25th Amendment to remove the President of the United States

Edit

 By Jim George

 February 14, 2019

I had written a slightly sarcastic post about how it was our civic duty as American citizens to rush out and read the latest book by a member of the Swamp, and how their families could probably use the money in the future when all appeal delays have expired after criminal proceedings have been wrapped up, and then I read Byron York’s piece of this morning, and Powerline’s comment on the same, and saw the book in a whole new light.

I strenuously urge a reading of York’s discussion of the number of suspicions and speculations some of McCabe’s book confirms, such as:

“If it’s all true, that is, if revelations in an upcoming book by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are accurate. The bottom line on that is that, at least from what we know now, McCabe’s story seems consistent with information congressional investigators have been able to glean elsewhere.”

“It’s just like we thought all along,” said one House Republican upon hearing the news. “If McCabe’s account is true, it confirms what we thought, that Rod Rosenstein was serious when he talked about wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said.””

There is a lot more in York’s piece, especially about Rosenstein who is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous people in government today.

As John Hinderaker concluded on Powerline, “Someone should be doing hard time.”

Indeed.

Sincerely, Jim

“Something Wicked This Way Comes”: Barbaric, Depraved Paganism

After the President’s soaringly optimistic paean to all that’s best about an America he obviously loves deeply, as do so many of us who voted him into office, it is jarring, to put it mildly, to return to the darkness which is steadily creeping over our Beloved Nation. But as we have learned time after time, year after year, the magic potion of trying to wish problems away has never worked and will never work, and some of our black holes carry such grave potential as to represent truly dangerous chasms which bode ill for our very existence as a Nation.

Some of them are serious, on varying levels of gravity, and need attention right away.

One of them, represented by the New York law on late term abortion and the attempt at an even more radical law in Virginia, is truly wicked–are evil, barbaric, paganistic, depraved and murderous. These laws, and and the bland, ho-hum attitude some have expressed toward them, cause one to question the basic humanity of some of our fellow citizens. The standing ovation given the “Catholic” Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, was surely one of the most sickening displays of ghoulish cruelty seen since the days of butchers like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. One must ask: how is this different, in principle, from Auschwitz and Berkenau?

I was driven to write this by an ever-strengthening feeling that I needed, on a personal level, to try to get some even partial understanding of how humans can be so driven by — ideology? cruelty? self-absorption? — as to not only approve infanticide, as the act described by Dr. Northam of Virginia can only be called, but to give it a standing ovation, as in the New York legislature. I, quite simply, could not understand this kind of inhumanity and, now, after delving into it much more deeply, more than ever am convinced that there is a kind of rot and sickness growing inside our body politic which clearly has the power to destroy us if not checked, and soon.

It has been said that only  13% of those polled actually favor partial birth abortion, euphemistically all gussied up with the term “late term abortion”, a figure often used to illustrate how unmoored from real Americans many politicians are who pass these laws. My question is: who are these people, apparently fellow Americans, who believe it is just fine to kill a living, breathing, fellow citizen? I’m not good at math, but can there really be 40 Million Americans who are that inhumanly cruel and callous? It seems there must be and, at the risk of not being at all nuanced about it, they are the core of the rapidly spreading growth threatening our country.

It will be, I hope, helpful to take a tour of the writings of some of our most thoughtful essayists on these developments, not all, by the way, of the right or center right.

For example, the “conservative” columnist for the Washington Post– “conservative” in the same sense as the New York Times’ David Brooks— referred recently to “The Banality of Evil, 2019 Version”. She wisely turned to C.S. Lewis for guidance in commenting on the “weird, wicked world we live in”:

“C.S. Lewis was only partly right when he wrote: The greatest evil … is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

Lewis, perhaps, couldn’t have envisioned the day when a law allowing abortion up to the moment of birth would receive a standing ovation, as occurred last month with New York’s passage of the “Reproductive Health Act.”

Upon signing the bill, which also permits some health care professionals who are not doctors to perform the abortions, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered that One World Trade Center be illuminated in pink, hijacking the color associated with saving breast-cancer victims — and the birth of a baby girl.

What a weird, wicked world we live in.”

She went on to discuss the –thankfully!–defeated bill in Virginia, about which more later, and similar bills being considered in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and other states and she made this cogent observation, which perfectly sums up my revulsion at the strangely uncaring attitudes we see all around us:

“More concerning than a possible increase in late-term abortions (now at fewer than 2 percent of all pregnancy terminations) is the clinical way we view and discuss human life. When we use language to disguise reality, we move ever-closer to the dehumanization of us all.”

Several excellent pieces have highlighted the similarity of much of this thinking to that of the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who, it may be appropriate to note, was one of Hillary Clinton’s icons, who formed two organizations that later merged to become Planned Parenthood. One of the best was an analysis by Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, with a title carrying more than a kernel of truth: “The Thing We Don’t Talk About.” Quoting Gov. Northam’s remarks–sickening to read, even worse to hear the words being uttered by an M.D. (who specializes in Pediatric Neurology!) he showed how this attitude is indistinguishable from that of eugenicism:

“Northam said: “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

The full Northam interview is here, and fuller context do not make his comments any less disgusting – in fact, they make them even more eugenicist. This is not deceptive editing: it is literally a governor of a major state across the river from our capital endorsing infanticide. Northam has dismissed the situation as a frame job, but the video and text speaks for itself. His state isn’t so blue that he can do what Andrew Cuomo did, and brush off all criticism of his abortion regime as mere religious nagging.”

He then illustrated how Margaret Sanger would be proud of her followers:

“But should we be surprised? Are we so sure that the modern left is actually against infanticide? In looking back at the entirety of human history, the vast majority of it has been filled with blood, slavery, and child sacrifice, and the subjugation or disposal of the weaker members of the human race. It is only in the past few centuries, the blink of an eye historically, that we have become more civilized. The forces of eugenics have had to cloak their aims in a scientific-sounding melange, even as they seek what Margaret Sanger colorfully referred to in The New York Times as “the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

The idea that for the sake of the fittest, the weakest among us must be destroyed is not a new idea. It is old as humanity, and it is the law of the jungle. The idea that Northam endorsed – a crying baby, “kept comfortable” as doctors consult with the mother about whether it ought to be revived, is as disgusting a concept as can be vocalized. But it is the reality of the regime we live under, and the regime the left wants us to live under. They will not limit their extremism to New York. They will deliberately spread it across the country, fueled by the elites who still hold Sanger’s views, the murderers who profit from it, and the media who cringes in disgust and turns away from local crime stories.”

Human weeds! This is the modern (?) Democrat Party speaking through the voice, among others, of Sanger, who another article termed:

” … The radical eugenicist — a scientific term for codified racism — founded the organization precisely to provide as many abortions as possible and to push for anti-family policies. She wanted to use abortion to “exterminate” black Americans. That is the term she actually used: Exterminate.

Another word for that is “genocide.” “

Charles Hurt, in one of his typically incisive slices right to the core of the issue, observed, in a piece appropriately entitled “Outrage over blackface, silence over killing babies” :

“For years, we have been chided for talking openly about fearing the Obamacare “Death Panels” that would reign after the government takes over every last corner of our health care system.

Turns out that not only are the Death Panels real, they’re not just for old people and expensive sick people. Democrat politicians want them for newborns, too.

“The infant would be kept comfortable,” the Grand Wizard of Death Squads, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, tells us in chillingly antiseptic tones.”

“Listening to Dr. Death Northam discuss the final solution for troublesome, colicky or, perhaps, wrong-gendered babies is a little like listening to Hannibal Lecter make tender pillow talk before he rapes a woman, skins her and eats her medulla oblongata.

Or Buffalo Bill give skin moisturizer tips.

“It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!”

Perhaps Dr. Death should get himself one of those hoods that executioners have always been so fond of throughout the darkest of ages. It could even be pointy. I bet it comes in white, with convenient, yet fashionable, little eye holes.

Virginia House Del. Kathy Tran introduced the legislation that, she admitted, would legalize “abortion” during actual labor. Among the rest of civilization, this is called “infanticide.” Or, more plainly, “murder.”

But, hey, according to Death Squad Grand Wizard Ralph Northam, the baby will be kept “comfortable” while waiting for his or her death row conviction. You know, toss “it” onto a table underneath one of those french fry lamps.

If that is not Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, then what is?”

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune hit the target in explaining the real reason for why the Democrats have been feverishly fanning the flames of the dumpster fire over the –gasp!–fact that their Governor and Attorney General dabbed a bit of shoe polish on their faces thirty plus years ago:

“The talk of Democrats wearing blackface has all but covered up something else that Northam, a pediatrician, said about aborting a child who had been delivered.

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of — obviously — the mother, with the consent of the physicians — more than one physician, by the way. … If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered.

“The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”

A discussion. You mean the discussion that America isn’t having about the value of human life.”

Several recent events have pointed ujp the sheer madness sof where the far-left has gone on this topic. For example, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-NB, announced he will ask the Senate to consider his legislation, the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act and attempted to use the Rule 14 process to expedite consideration of the bill. That rule requires unanimous consent. It was blocked by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Left Coast).

Also pointing up the bizarre consequences of this left drift into depravity is this story out of New York. A woman, apparently very accomplished and the mother of a 12-year old boy, was stabbed to death by her boyfriend. He was charged with her murder, but could not be charged with “homicide” of the baby in view of new York’s new abortion law, because:

“Even though Irigoyen wanted her baby, it was not considered a life under the new law. A spokesperson for the District Attorney told the Post the abortion charge “was repealed by the Legislature, and this is the law as it exists today.”

As The Daily Wire’s Amanda Prestigiacomo previously reported, the law, called the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), repealed abortion from the state’s criminal code and removed the law limiting abortions beyond 24 weeks. The abortion can be performed by a licensed practitioner in “good faith” up to the minute a baby is born “to protect the patient’s life or health,” yet “health” is not defined in the legislation.

“Ostensibly billed as a “women’s healthcare” law, the RHA states that “”every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.” Irigoyen didn’t get to make those choices, yet the man who did won’t be charged for ending a pregnancy she wanted.”

There are a number of very good discussions of this moral conundrum and, for convenience of those who may wish to consult the ones I considered the best, they can be found here, here, here and here.

However, one study stands out for me and I strongly recommend that it be read in its entirety as it represents the deepest dive I have seen of the history of infanticide, and, most troubling for our purposes, where it can lead. The author is Georgi Boorman and she entitled her essay “Infanticide is the Historical Hallmark of a Pagan Culture.” To use one of our times’ most hackneyed phrases, “trigger warning”: it is a history which is at times gruesome and painfully explicit. No brief listing of quotes would suffice to convey the chilling, to put it euphemistically, history she outlines–only a full reading will accomplish that. Perhaps her concluding paragraphs will offer a small glimpse of the horror which went before:

“What we are seeing now is a return to a world that does not know God and does not want to know God. This is the consequence of our detachment from Christianity and its moral system. The truth is that you do not attain a culture where human life (albeit born life) is almost universally cherished without the knowledge of the one true God.”

“As the Apostle Paul reiterated from Old Testament writers: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God…Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

“The fact that we are surrounded by a wealth of resources and still 13 percent of all pregnancies in America and 28 percent in the state of New York end in murder should tell you something. This is not a matter of inequality of rights between the sexes or inequality of resources. It is a matter of the heart, and a heart without God is “desperately wicked.” The god of Progress has led its worshipers to embrace death as easily as the Canaanite gods that surrounded the people of Israel.”

I conclude by stating just one of the many seemingly unanswerable questions I have been asking in the days these scenes from Hell have been unfolding: How can we possibly square what is being done to the most helpless among us–our babies — with the fact that our Founding Fathers set out to assure they would have the inalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”? How do we explain to those coming after us, our children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, that a large number of their fellow citizens are setting out to “alienate”, in the most horrible and terrifying way, all of those precious rights? I do not pretend to have an answer. Do you?

Sen. Whitehouse: “Indictment and Charges of the President” Coming

The Senator of Rhode Island, more recently seen beclowning himself by asking oh-so-serious and deeply grave questions of now-Justice Kavanaugh about some of the fart jokes teen-aged boys were sharing, has told Chris Cuomo (of course) that “if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted.” Here is a partial transcript of his remarks, followed by a little thought experiment using the Senator’s own language to illustrate the blatant, in-your-face hypocrisy of what has become the far left Democrat Party:

“A partial transcript is as follows:
“SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: I think that if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted. I do not at all subscribe to the OLC theory that a president can’t be indicted. I think that the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice bends over backward to take the most executive branch-friendly position that it possibly can. I think a court taking a look at this would say “no, no, no, no, no,” and if you look at the Nixon precedents and others, they don’t align with a president not being answerable to the public in this way. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a president, who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may very well be involved in criminal activity, and you don’t get a resolution of that question? You don’t get pressure on him to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.

“CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: Based on what you know right now, do you think you could bring a case against the president?

“SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would want to know a lot more. I’m at the stage, based on what I know, that I would be sitting down with the agents and say “okay, we need to run down this, we need to run down that, we need to pin down some things before we go.” We are certainly in a mode, I believe, of moving toward an indictment and charges of the president, but I do not believe, based on what I know — Mueller may know more — that we’re at the stage of actually being able to make the charge.”

Fully acknowledging that I am engaging in full-blown “what about ism”, it is most interesting to adapt the good Seantor’s own language to the matter of another well-known public official about whom there is little or no question about being involved in criminal activity, with the hope, however illusory, that some day, somehow, we might see this kind of fairness in all of our “representatives” to the National Legislature:

”I think that if there are crimes that she (Former First “Lady” (?), former US Senator, Former Secretary of State, former Presidential candidate) has committed, she should be indicted. …. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a (see above list for all the things she has been, in addition to presently being a “has been”) , who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may well be involved in criminal activity (about 30,000 counts of Federal felony counts, at last count, at that’s only the e-mail criminality) and you don’t get a resolution of that (those) questions? You don’t get pressure on her to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.”

Just as I got to that point, I woke up, put on the coffee, and returned to the real world where members of that August Club known as the United States Senate, spend their time, on our dime, asking questions of candidates for the highest Court in the land questions about teen aged boys’ bad behavior as if they had any actual substance.

Sincerely, Jim

The President’s Press Conference this morning

By Jim George
| November 7, 2018
5 COMMENTS 9UNFOLLOW

This will be a very personal post as it will reflect my very personal impressions after watching every single minute of the President’s press conference after the Mid Term Elections and I was so struck by several impressions, feelings, revulsion, off-putting feelings that I thought I would share them with you, this incredibly well-informed group which I have been so honored to be a part of (no, I’m not running for Mayor of Ricochet-ville, but if I were I know there would be some votes I could definitely not count on, and a handful that maybe I could count on.) and ask if you were moved as I was and, if not, why not?

But, first of all, I would, with the utmost of respect, ask that you watch every single minute of the press conference, as there is really no way to deal with these questions if you have not seen it all. I, like so many of us in this short attention span society of ours, am so accustomed to reading a short blurb somewhere about some subject which interests us, and forming immediate impressions based on those fleeting, momentary, “bites” ( bytes?) of information. I have long been troubled by this shortcoming of mine and have tried to dig more deeply, into “the weeds”, as the phrase is used these days, to understand more fully, whatever issue I am considering at the time.

Have you ever watched one of the President’s Press Conferences? I don’t mean the “chyrons” running across the bottom of your screen telling you what some first year intern has written and is to be taken as an actual substantive summary of what was actually said? I do not ask that question in anything approaching a pejorative manner, as I personally must answer my own question in the affirmative.

But, tonight, I decided, once and for all, I had the duty, before I formed any impressions, opinions, attitudes, conclusions, about all the things I had heard about some of the incivilities I had heard went on at this press conference, to watch every single minute, beginning to end, of this, quite frankly, amazing performance by the President and the disgraceful demonstration of disrespect and lack of civility by members of the media for myself.

I strongly recommend, for those of us who really want to be informed, that you spend the one and a half hours necessary, and then consider the following questions:

With all the media talk (narrative) about the President’s “rudeness” and ill mannered behavior, tell me who was more rude or uncivil, this President or the members of the “esteemed” (by themselves) Capitol Press Corps?

Can you imagine a person, with the weight of the Presidency of the United States of America, being any more patient, nice, forbearing, polite, etc. than this President was, under those circumstances?

Do you understand better, after watching this display of rudeness, childish behavior, disrespect, lack of civility, how this president may be entirely within all our understanding when he calls these people (formerly known as “the Profession of Journalism”) the enemy of the people?

Can you imagine yourself, or anyone you know, who would have been more patient, considerate, nice, courteous, etc. under those circumstances?

What we have is an amazing political genius as President, who has pulled off an astonishing success for the mid terms.

Watch this press conference, and then tell me whether you agree. If not, I’d love to hear your reasons, as I, like the President Trump you will actually hear on this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXcJYf2SkI8) would rather be bipartisan than fighting all the time about everything.

Adam Schiff, call your office; there’s a new dawning coming, and it’s not interested in one hundred new senseless investigations of something which never happened.

Your views?

Sincerely, Jim

I Spent the Day in America Today

I spent the day in America today.

The real America, a place where Americans live — where it is well nigh impossible to find a single person who hates America, who hates the Founding Fathers and who still call them Fathers, as they all in fact were, a place where there are American flags and references of one kind or another to guns and religion.

A place, in other words, which is definitely nowhere near the so-called “Clinton Archipelago” and is certainly not named New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Harvard, Yale, or Palo Alto.

A place, it might be noted, which was recently on the edge of the recent hurricane which, while not at the epicenter still received much noticeable damage. But, in this small town in actual America, in the restaurant where we had real, honest-to-God (and they — gasp — actually used that very phrase) American, of course, home cooking, neighbors were “visiting” with each other, as it is called in America, not networking, about damage to their homes and reassuring each other that all would be well. And, it will be — in America.

Not once did I hear a single one of these fine citizens grumble about the fact that “man-made warming” caused their losses and one got the distinct impression that if someone did, he would get very lonesome, very fast.

They simply don’t think in those terms — in America.

In the friendly, warm, welcoming restaurant where we had what must be the very personification of the phrase “down-home-country-cooking,” it would have been unthinkable for some “outsider” to come in and demand that someone leave because they were wearing clothes carrying the wrong message — like “God Bless America” or “America — Love it or Leave It”, or a message as outrageous as “Make America Great Again!” As a matter of fact, based on the size and build of some of the younger citizens I saw in that wonderful place, that kind of insulting, rude, and, dare I say it, uncivil behavior might happen once in that restaurant — but only once. And the types who tried to claw — literally — their way through the doors of the highest Court in our land would never, ever, ever come back for a second helping, of that I am sure.

And, along those lines, this was not a place for a certain former person in the higher atmospheres of the “leadership” of the FBI, as if Peter Strzok thought he could “just smell the Trump support” in that Virginia Wal-Mart, had he even been fortunate enough to get through the door of that restaurant, he might well have been knocked down by the support of, again, dare I say it, the purest perfume of Americanism either he or his fellow (?) FBI colleague, Ms. Page, have ever drawn through their olfactory senses. The citizens I saw today would teach Strzok and Page a whole new meaning of the phrase he used about the election of the President of the United States — “we’ll stop it” — one which might well have borne unpleasant memories for both of those swine.

In the America I visited today, the parking lots of the churches were full to overflowing and the towns were, for the most part, save the obvious scars left by the nightmare named Michael, lovely, well-tended, and quiet on a pretty Sunday afternoon.

This is the America in which My Lady and I were both raised and while I have read much lately about how America is finished — and even I have had those thoughts myself — what I saw today in the America I visited convinces me that the foundations our Forefathers built this great Nation on are simply driven too deep to be “fundamentally transformed” by Alinsky-ite Marxists wearing stupid hats and wailing at the sky like wounded animals.

So, if you’re getting a little, or a lot, down by the steady drumbeat of the San Francisco Democrats (look what they did to one of the most beautiful cities on the face of the earth) wearing their symbols of nuttiness like pussy hats, I have a little elixir which I hope will lift your spirits as they did mine this very day.

Spend a day in America! It’s a wonderful place!

A Little Boy and an Anonymous Gift

It is one of those days which is so beautiful, clear as crystal, crisply cool, here in the far West of the Panhandle, the part which the Good Lord willed to be spared the ravages of the nightmare named Michael, that I thought I might note how grateful I am to Him for this gift he has granted us.
I was moved to note these feelings of the deepest kind of gratitude, the kind which is simply not capable of being captured by mere words, by reading a truly poignant column in my daily scan of news items, an undertaking which is almost always, shall we say, not exactly uplifting but overflowing with news which is the polar opposite of inspirational. This piece, by Salena Zito, is entitled “A 90-minute flight, 45 presidents, and an 8-year-old American boy” and, especially if you’re not having the kind of lovely afternoon with which we have been graced, please go read this wonderful and inspirational piece. Ms. Zito tells of meeting two uniquely, and true, Americans — one, the little boy of the title and another who does, indeed, qualify as one of the heroes of the story.
She sets the stage thus:
“Sometimes, you meet special people, people who have an impact not just on your day, but on your outlook in life. People who provide you a priceless gift by letting you see the world through their eyes, and thus showing you that everything is a little better than you thought it was before you met them.
Sometimes, those people are only eight years old.
The first thing you will learn about Jared Gyure when you meet him is that he likes U.S. presidents.
He has no problem sharing that affinity, which he did the moment he plopped himself down in seat 17E on an American Airlines flight from Charlotte to Pittsburgh, sitting next to his mom, with his dad and his 3-year-old brother, Jackson, in front of him. Two older brothers sit way up in the front of the plane.
They are all heading to Uniontown, Penn., for the funeral of the boys’ great-grandmother.”

Our young student of this particular aspect of American history then proceeds to demonstrate his remarkable knowledge of all, not just a few, of our Presidents, and is awestruck when Ms. Zito tells him she has actually interviewed several Presidents, including the present occupant of that office.
Which brings us to the second hero of this flight to Uniontown, PA:

“For someone who rarely flies, I find myself for once enjoying the opportunity to meet someone so inspiring and inquisitive on a plane all packaged into one small compact boy.
Jared receives a lot of smiles as the passengers exit the plane. Our boisterous conversation has touched more than one person traveling from North Carolina to Pennsylvania, including an African-American young man dressed in a deep-blue dress sweatshirt and pants with the traditional gold Navy emblem across the front.
He pulls out his white navy sailor’s cap and asks Jared’s mom, Adrienne, if he could give it to the precocious boy, who probably taught everyone on the plane a few things about U.S. presidents — most importantly, a deep respect for the office outside of politics.
Jared is stunned as the sailor hands him the hat. He pauses to take a photo with him, then walks away with a broad smile, without giving his name.
It’s a reminder that sometimes lightning strikes twice in one day, when you meet two special people who make an impact not just on your day, but on your outlook in life.
Jared likely made such an impact in so many ways Wednesday evening on a plane over the middle of the country to a lot more people than he’ll ever know.”

That lovely vignette just filled my heart with gladness and as I sat outside in this glorious weather, and thought about Jared and his brand new friend, one of those brave defenders of all we hold dear in this, the greatest Nation ever created by Man in history, I reflected on how immersed we all are in the “unlovely” news of the day. I probably should amend that statement as even I am not presumptuous enough to speak for “all”, but I know that I must plead guilty to spending far too much of my time on the “unlovely” and not near enough time learning about the Jareds of the world, and of the kinds of men like the “other hero” in the story, a proud member of the United States Navy, who gave a little boy the gift of a lifetime!