The Fox And The Cat

One day a fox and a cat were discussing the methods they used to avoid their enemies. "I have many clever ways to escape," bragged the fox. "I only have one," replied the cat.

Just then they heard a pack of hounds headed their way. The cat immediately took to his best known, life saving, evasive action & scampered up a nearby tree. But the fox was frozen, lost deep in his thoughts. He considered digging a hole. He surmised that he could jump into the pond and swiftly swim to safety. He figured he was so quick & smart on his feet, he could easily create a very confusing trail for the hounds to follow. As the fox continued his internal debate, he remained immobilized. And so, due to his lack of action, the hounds easily caught him.

The Moral of the story: Better to have one safe way & use it, than a hundred unproven ones.

How many times in the past did you strive to convince yourself that you did not have a problem ? Or, having admitted a problem, thought : it's a problem I can handle ...... myself. And yet no amount of thought or rationalization saved you from your problem ....... or it's consequences. Most problems requires some type of action in order to reach a solution. And this program is your only safe way to escape the ravages caused by addiction.

Today I will be like the cat, which used one sure way to ensure it's life.

Thank you so much. SWMBO and I try hard to help but sometimes we make mistakes, and often I loose my temper at some of the foolish things that people say .

If you get a chance to visit someone with goats, do so. They are wonderful creatures. Pete has trained his to dance. He and his girlfriend have worked up a dance routine with the goats that is a riot and they have won a number of competitions with the goats. What it has done to help Pete's self esteem is amazing, which is why we use animals in our program.
God Bless and keep you this beautiful Sunday, and always.

Spring brings with it the promise of new life. The Daffodils are blooming as are the dandelions. Rabbits love dandelions and feast on them so they can nurse their offspring. The first hummingbirds arrived this morning, food was already out for them, we actually remembered this year. Gods promise to the world is reflected in new life all around us. And the neighbor's kids have begun arriving. So far there are nine arrivals, but the season has just started.

Yes, kids, as in baby goats. Twenty one of their does are expecting or have kidded, out of 35 does in their herd. SWMBO and I have spent a lot of time over there helping out. Fortunately SWMBO can stitch up navels if needed, or give oral glucose if the kid is slow starting. None of the does kidded in the middle of winter, so we did not have kids raised in our bathroom, thank goodness. While Pete loves those two goats we raised in our bathroom, that was way more work than we want to do again. Nine kids from four does is a great start, and they have many people waiting to purchase a few from this year's crop. Nigerian Dwarf goats come in all colors and one is tortisehell, like a cat, and one has a black face four black legs, and the rest white. That one will be really easy to sell. Right now we are taking a break to sit back and thank the Good Lord for all his gifts, including the joy of watching His creatures grow up. Extra dividend, lots of manure for our garden, more fresh tomatoes and corn to share. Life is good with what we have been given. I KID YOU NOT
God Bless You all.

FBI investigation of Clinton’s e-mail scandal comes to a critical turning point.

Hillary Clinton was fond of saying during her presidential campaign, “No individual too big to jail.” That is, until she realized her catchy phrase could be applied to her own travails with the FBI. Hillary then substituted the word “executive” for “individual,” seemingly ruling out in her mind jail time for such lofty public figures as herself.

We shall soon see whether Hillary is too big to be brought to account for her reckless handling of classified information on her private e-mail system. “Lesser” mortals such as Gen. David Petraeus have been criminally prosecuted for offenses far less serious than Hillary’s continuing abuse of her position during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The FBI is reportedly nearing the final stages of its investigation, after having finished their examination of Hillary’s private e-mail server. IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail system, was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in return for his cooperation. He has reportedly provided valuable information on the details of the system. "Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton's] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized," an intelligence source close to the case told Fox News.

Armed with this information, the FBI and Department of Justice prosecutors are said to be preparing to set up interviews with Hillary Clinton’s top aides and Hillary herself in the near future.

Clinton rejects out of hand the possibility that she could be indicted. "Oh for goodness—that is not going to happen,'' Clinton responded to a question posed by a correspondent from Univision during her March 9th debate with Senator Bernie Sanders.

"I'm not even answering that question,'' she added to applause from the partisan audience. Hillary may have to answer to federal prosecutors, however, if the FBI recommends a criminal referral, unless of course the Obama administration runs interference for her.

Hillary has been relying on essentially four rather shaky defenses to wiggle out of trouble.

First, while admitting what she did was a mistake, she contends that she broke no rules. This contention is false. Hillary evaded rules governing federal records management by using her private e-mail server system exclusively, according to Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy. "Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

Second, Hillary has frequently used the defense that everybody did what she did. "My predecessors did the same thing,'' she said during the March 9th debate. This contention is at best misleading. Former Secretaries of State such as Colin Powell did use their personal e-mail accounts for government-related business from time to time. However, they did not do so exclusively, and they did not use their own home server to receive and store the e-mails.

Third, Hillary argues that she never sent or received e-mails that were marked “classified” at the time they were sent or received. She has accused the federal agencies that make the classification determinations of going overboard in retroactively changing the classification of many documents to “classified.” With her training and federal government experience, however, Hillary surely knew that some e-mails or other documents are “born” classified because of the inherently sensitive nature of their contents. It turns out that a number of e-mails were found to contain “top secret” information, which a senior government official in her position should have known was the case when she received them. Moreover, whether or not a document was marked originally as classified or not is beside the point. Hillary was on direct notice of this fact when she signed the State Department’s Classified Information Disclosure Agreement in 2009, which read in part: “As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications…”

Fourth, Hillary and her team argue that she did not knowingly mishandle any classified information in breach of any relevant national security laws. In other words, even if she were sloppy, such carelessness does not rise to the level of wrongful intent that is required to establish criminal liability. This defense is related to the contention that there were no classified markings on the e-mails when they were sent or received.

This defense should not work for Hillary either. As previously discussed, whether or not the e-mails were originally marked classified is irrelevant, at least with respect to the top secret information that is “born” classified whether marked or not. Moreover, Hillary’s knowledge that what she was doing would end run security requirements in potential violation of certain national security laws can be inferred from her actions. For example, she directed an aide to remove markings from a talking points document, which the aide had informed her was supposed to be sent via a secure fax, and to send the document instead “nonsecure.” Also, Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of the risks involved to national security from use of personal e-mail accounts to conduct government business can be inferred from an internal cable her office sent bearing her electronic signature to State Department employees. She is presumed responsible for the contents of a cable that is over her signature. The cable advised the employees not to use their personal accounts for government business for security reasons, focusing on “sensitive but unclassified” information. Hillary knowingly did not practice what she preached, regardless even of whether sensitive classified information would pass through her private system or not.

Hillary’s wrongful intent defense has an even more fundamental problem. One statute, Section 793(f) of Title 18 USC, requires only a finding of gross negligence:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The facts made public so far point at minimum to Hillary Clinton’s recklessness in setting up and continuing to use a private server to handle e-mails relating to government business while she was Secretary of State. She caused the e-mails to be removed from their proper place of custody within secure government facilities and caused copies to be delivered to her personal attorney who did not apparently have the requisite security clearances. In addition to facing potential charges under the gross negligence statute, Hillary could face obstruction of justice charges if she lies to the FBI when she is interviewed or if she caused e-mails on her private server relating to government business to be destroyed.

Will the Obama administration provide Hillary protection from prosecution, or will she be treated equally under the law like us lesser mortals? It will more likely be the former, but we should soon find out.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262372/will-obama-protect-hillary-prosecution-joseph-klein

Ok, we can all agree that "we can agree do disagree" can we not?
I think that is a fundamental to freedom of speech. And, freedom of thought is also a fundamental right. That is, you cannot control what I think. I can say I agree with you, all the while, I don't.
You can espouse your philosophy, your religion, your gender, or what you think is your gender identification, and I can disagree. You have to tolerate me, right?
But, liberals don't seem to "tolerate" much beyond their own thinking.
How liberals, and especially Black lives Matter groups "tolerate" the crimes and murders committed by Blacks on Blacks is a mystery to me.
Our own government has little to say about this, and you certainly don't hear it from the liberals. Has Bernie or Hillary said a word?
To be fair, they don't say much about anything except free stuff.
In the interviews I have seen, the "average" supporter cannot pinpoint why they are voting for either candidate. No, it's just bromides..."Hillary is woman, and, there is not other candidate that could know women's issues...."...." Bernie's my MAN!"..
"Trump?..I just hate everything he stands for...".....
Oh, the mainstream media focuses on "Violence" at Trump rallies, yet, the protests have an origin...They are organized and paid. Trying to shut down freedom of speech, they do the base crap that agitators do.
They may disagree, but, are they tolerant?
A cursory look around college campuses shows a LACK of tolerance to any views which may offend some students and faculty. Safe zones?
Safe zones for people that can't possibly fathom that there is an opposing view from their own? Disagreement?
And yet, the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton, has a history of conflicting agendas and is under an FBI investigation for CRIMES ?
In another era, we would not tolerate a candidate such as this. It goes beyond disagreement.
America has tolerated a lot. But, there is an end to tolerance lest it go into absurdity.
The republicans have their problems, for sure. However, do not let this distract you from the real problem from the left.
There is nothing to be gained by having Hillary Clinton as a president.
You must realize that her entire program of winning the Democrat nomination was a foregone conclusion..A deal.
Bereft of any qualifications, unless you include lying and failure, she was predetermined by the party to be the nominee. How can you tolerate that? You leftists should know better.
Americans will disagree, that is our right. But, we will reach an end to tolerating the leftist crap and the destruction of our country.
Myself? As an open minded person, I will vote for who I think is the best for the nation at this time. I won't get the best of all time, No...I don't have this lofty thinking...
But, I will NEVER vote for a lying Democrat. Never. And you shouldn't either.

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBI’s decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner.
As my colleague Del Quentin Wilber reported this week, federal prosecutors have begun setting up formal interviews with Clinton’s advisors. After those sessions, they’re expected to seek an interview with the candidate herself. Clinton has long said she will cooperate.
Signs are that FBI Director James Comey, who has personally overseen the inquiry, wants to get the probe done before the Democratic Convention in July. Comey understandably wants to avoid any appearance of sitting on information that could influence a presidential election.
But it’s also in Clinton’s interest to get the case over with as soon as possible, because, in the end, she’s unlikely to face prosecution. The cloud of suspicion is worse than the likely outcome.
Let’s not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Department’s email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
Clinton said she decided to use a private server as a matter of “convenience.” To many of us, it looked more like a Clintonian urge to keep control over information. Either way, it wasn’t her decision to make. After months of public criticism, Clinton eventually acknowledged that she’d erred.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton’s gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn’t an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn’t authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn’t. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.
Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren’t classified when she sent or received them.
Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn’t, and there’s no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”?
“If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don’t think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.
The FBI won’t make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.
In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.
Here’s a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton’s case doesn’t clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isn’t to excuse her conduct; it’s just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
In political terms, a bigger danger to Clinton may be the counterintelligence question: Did spies from China, Russia or some other country penetrate her server? If so, some voters might conclude that poor judgment should disqualify Clinton for the presidency. Clinton may want that part of the investigation to take as long as possible.
But my bet is that, unless new facts emerge, the potentially criminal part of her case will end this summer with the Justice Department declining prosecution. At that point, it will be up to the government to lay out the facts, and let the voters decide what they think. doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com   Twitter: @DoyleMcManus