Email Timeline

“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

—Hillary Clinton, interview on July 31, 2016

Not true.  The FBI director clearly stated there were classified emails in multiple chains which were classified Secret at the time they were sent by Clinton.  There were hundreds more that were classified after the fact.  The statements she made were not true.  Follow the timeline or jump to the last few paragraphs for the details.

January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001: Democrat Bill Clinton begins as the president of the US for eight years and his wife Hillary Clinton is the first lady.

June 9, 2000: Clinton says she doesn’t want to use email. Home video footage from a private fundraiser shows Senator Clinton talking about how she has deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn’t leave a paper trail. “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don’t even want… Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?” By 2006 she will start using a personal and unsecured BlackBerry for email. (ABC News, 3/6/2015)

November 4, 2005: State Department Policy decrees day-to-day operations are to be done on government servers. The State Department decrees that “sensitive but unclassified” information should not be transmitted through personal email accounts. It also states, “It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [government server], which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication, and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.” (US Department of State, 1/12/2016) (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015)

March 2007 – 2008: The Bush Administration gets embroiled in a private email scandal. A Congressional oversight committee investigates allegations that the White House fired US attorneys for political reasons. The committee asks Bush officials to turn over relevant emails, only to find that government work had been conducted on private email addresses. Millions of emails are deleted and permanently lost, preventing the committee from continuing their investigation. Bush officials use email accounts associated with a private gwb43.com server owned and controlled by the Republican National Committee, which is a private political entity not covered by government oversight laws. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2007) (Vox, 3/2/2015)

June 20, 2007: Clinton publicly criticizes the Bush administration’s use of non-governmental email accounts. While campaigning for president, Clinton says, “Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. … It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok.” (ABC News, 3/6/2015) (The Hill, 3/5/2015)

2008: The US government publishes rules for email storage. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues Bulletin 2008-05, which states that every government email system is supposed to “permit easy and timely retrieval,” and all work emails are supposed to be permanently preserved. Additionally, in the case of a cabinet secretary, permanent records are to be sent to the department’s Records Service Center “at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary” for safekeeping. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)

Problem -- Polarization

Nobody believes.  If you tell the truth in a polarized world, only those who agree will believe you.  If they don't agree, they will assume you're lying.  For example:

True:  Hillary Clinton's foundation received millions, perhaps more than $100M from countries to which her State Department granted extraordinary arms deals despite their human rights violations and internal terrorist funding.
True:  Bill Clinton has a long list of accusers for sexual assault and misconduct.  Also true:  Clinton staffers were assigned to discredit the accusers.
True:  Donald Trump has been sued many times, and his university was generally a waste of money for students.
True:  Donald Trump has repeatedly and emphatically contradicted himself.
True:  Hillary Clinton lied to Congress.
True:  Donald Trump has spawned many businesses that ended in bankruptcy.
True:  Bill Clinton did meet inappropriately with the Attorney General just prior to the FBI announcement that they would not pursue criminal charges against Hillary.

Now notice which of the above you agreed were true and relevant.  That's your bias, perhaps, or is it objectivity, or thoughtful discernment?  Do we want to know the truth, or do we want what we prefer to be the truth?  The latter is the process and product of polarization.

In today's polarized culture, Democrats and Republicans no longer have a middle ground for going forward, the media is no longer fair and balanced, and there's not a reporter we trust to stick to 'just the facts'.

• Obama, apparently, is one step below the antichrist, and Hillary hates everything about America.
• Trump is a maniacal narcissist and incapable of honest interchange for mutual progress.
• There has never been a worse president than Obama ... unless Hillary is elected.
• It's the end of generations of progress and a return to the dark ages if Trump is elected.
• It would be better if a life-terminating event like an asteroid strike killed us all.

That's today's public forum.

Polarization in Congress means they accomplish little of consequence.  Perhaps that's just as well.




It used to be that there were just a few tv channels, just a few news organizations, and a reasonable amount of information we had to assimilate and process. Technology has given us hundreds of channels and news sources, and all of them are competing for a share of the marketplace. The result, they play to their audience, and we wind up with extraordinary polarization. That particular marketplace competition has made us idiots or uninformed or both.

What Roe v. Wade didn't say ...

The Supreme Court did not say abortion was a constitutional right.  Or that it was moral or just. 

In its perhaps most controversial ruling, the court did allow for a "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" or "penumbrae" of our constitution.  The consequences have been culturally divisive and deadly.

The court did not declare that abortion itself was a constitutional right, morally acceptable, or ethically appropriate. Instead, the Supreme Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins ... the judiciary at this point ... is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

They went further with a key admission:  "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

If somewhere along the timeline from conception to delivery, 'personhood' begins, then perhaps some abortions have in fact been homicidal.  No surprise.  Life does begin before birth of course, and we do have a problem.

Culturally, we've become accustomed to discarding unwanted babies.  Doing what's right is perhaps going to be a difficult battle. After we've lived with easy answers, it's hard to pry our minds loose from that easier path and move back (or forward) to a more rigid rule. True?  A moral lifestyle isn't necessarily on the bucket list for everyone.

Currently, viability is the threshold for human life according to several court rulings.  So what happens when the fetus becomes viable ex-utero?  Medical science is close to requiring a legal answer to that particular question.

For those who have personal convictions on the issue, you'll be interested to know that the 'Life at Conception Act' is in the queue for Congress.  There are controversial outcomes expected from the fight.  It's a good time for raising the issue with elections pending.

You can join the public discussion and petition Congress at the National Pro-Life Alliance website.  Be careful; there are no simple answers when it comes to law.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports late term abortion up to and including on the baby's due date.  On “The View”, she was asked: “At what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery, still has no constitutional rights?”

Hillary responded “Under our law that is the case… I support Roe v. Wade…”  Note: the court did not say the unborn child does not have constitutional rights, only that the court could not (yet) make a determination on when the child's life begins.  Once that determination is made, the child has full status as an individual and protection under the Constitution.

_________________________________________________
Baby Chava was born alive by abortion at around 21 weeks gestation. The child struggled to breathe for ten minutes before clinic staff noticed.  They eventually called 911 for emergency assistance, and baby Chava was transported to a hospital.  The child was pronounced dead upon arrival.

This abortion clinic is the same one exposed in a undercover investigation in 2013. The released video shows the Phoenix, Arizona-based late-term abortion doctor Laura Mercer and an abortion center counselor saying they would leave a newborn, struggling for life after a failed abortion, to die. The abortion industry continues to fight against a federal bill, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, that would ensure babies who survive abortions receive equal protection under the law.

It has been forty years since Roe v. Wade, and the public conflict continues.  Resolving this issue will not be easy.

3D ultrasound image  

 Ultrasound technology has advanced in recent years to 3D/4D imagery.  Interestingly, about 75% of women who are shown a modern ultrasound of their unborn child will subsequently decline their intended abortion. Dr. Bernard Nathanson quit aborting babies after he had done one while using ultrasound imaging.

Bernard N. Nathanson (July 31, 1926 – February 21, 2011) was an American medical doctor from New York, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARA. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, but later became a pro-life activist. He was the narrator for the controversial 1984 anti-abortion film The Silent Scream.

What we teach in school

Our original intent for schools was simpler than today.  For a young America, literacy was first and foremost; we needed an informed citizenry.  We needed to band together as participants in democracy for the principles that mattered.  Today, information overload hinders our maintaining that result.

Today, our children are bombarded with more information in a

year than early Americans would see in a lifetime.

Or ten. It's a flood, an overload, and more than

can be processed.

Reading, writing, and arithmetic - the early curriculum ... today, our children are bombarded with more information in a year than early Americans would see in a lifetime. Or ten.  It's a flood, an overload, too large to consume and process.  There's personal and cultural impact that happens without our consent. Flooding our children's minds, there's a casual worldview that is not constrained by what might be helpful in their personal development.  At an early age, they're fed materialism, consumerism, class & wealth, competition & superiority, violence & discrimination, judgmentalism, and secularism. Is that a problem?

We remember how children behind the iron curtain were educated, the specific worldview they were given. They were told that countries in the free world were wicked and corrupt and immoral. Children in Germany were educated about how immoral and inferior the Jews among them were. Hitler Youth, they were called; sweet kids being warped and misled by an inhuman ideology. Government controlled education has often been bent for political goals.  Today, with the help of a polarized media, is like that but in a hugely chaotic form.

In a child's learning process, they'll note what they see.  You and your kid can sit and discuss some persuasive advertisement or Kardashianesque scene they just saw.  It can be broken down and evaluated, and a child can learn to discern good from trivial, information from persuasion, and values.  

A dozen such exposures in quick succession without thoughtful review, however, can shape a child's thinking about 'normal' before the content is even processed.  Fashion and style can become preeminent personal values, sexual innuendo can become the norm in conversation, possessions and consumerism can become a lifestyle, all before the issues are thoughtfully evaluated.  It's the flood of exposure from media, from friends at school and in the neighborhood.  Much is advertising mixed in their entertainment content.

Traditional schooling, much like traditional church, is having a hard time keeping up.  Today, pretty much everyone has access to pretty much everyone.  We're interconnected in an uncontrolled public plaza.  Haters are still campaigning among us as are anarchists and other oddities. Anti-religionists, religious fundamentalists, and violent extremists spew their polarizing versions of reality as do similarly extreme liberals and conservatives.  And political bullies and biased media.  It's difficult enough as an adult to remain objective and adequately informed in the aggressive flood of information.  It is incomprehensibly difficult for a child; their chance of reaching the ethical and moral clarity of an early American child is small.

Cultural change has removed many of the needed safeguards.  Employed parents working outside the home may reduce the common interchange and safe processing of ideas.  Issues of character are frequently untaught and undemonstrated.  Schools have been tasked with progressively greater responsibility for character formation.  Most things that mom and dad taught their children in early days are now part of the mass production process of public education.

Absent parent situations have changed the message a child receives. Marriage and family have lost the endorsement of the national forum and have been redefined.  Issues of morality and personal integrity have been eroded into obscurity.  Church communities are having a difficult time being relevant.

How then might we make a way for our children that lets them climb up above the easy acquiescence of today's youth?

Opportunities for us and our children:

• Early introduction to difficult decisions and important values - equality, discrimination, generosity, compassion, honesty - with deliberate discussion and practical walk-throughs
• Homeschooling - today, support and inexpensive resources are available everywhere
• Apprenticeship/Internship - one-on-one education (as opposed to classroom)
• Cross-cultural engagement - pursuit of a worldview that reflects real life for all rather than just the wealthy, perhaps including international travel (engagement rather than vacation)
• Practical introduction to faith issues - how to know what's right and good (as opposed to having just an opinion) - life values are honestly built over time, not proffered by others.
• Broad and aggressive academic exposure (by professorial provocateurs rather than hubristic lecturers) that requires thoughtful development of convictions and values; perhaps both inside and outside the traditional educational institutions
• Talk about everything -- do your best to provoke visionary ambition and continual inquiry.

The key -- deliberate action, frequent review, and prioritization.

And where might we go if we want to pursue such a course? From an interview with MIT professor emeritus, Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, logician, social critic, and political activist:

Q:  Have you considered leaving the United States permanently?

A:  No. This is the best country in the world.

The Alternate Target

Qayin, so the historical account tells us, killed Havel, his brother.

There's no record of the weapon he used or of any interest in what it might have been.  At issue is not the weapon but the killing.  It was perhaps because of jealousy, but we don't really know.  After Qayin (Cain) killed his brother Havel (Abel), no one asked about the weapon.

Heart issues remain the primary question, but they're hard to face and even harder to address. It's perhaps understandable that we might move on to less relevant targets and focus our efforts there.

Falling back on gun control as an easier target ignores the obvious, that murderous behavior is not brought about by the available weapon.

Is hitting that secondary target a solution to the primary problem?

The Arab Spring, Tahrir Square, Egypt - Christians
guarded Muslims during the violent times.

Not wise, but certainly understandable. Tackling the actual cause would require of us a measure of greatness, of courage, of nobility, would it not?

So how might we begin to address the primary problem?
What course of action might change the heart of mankind for the better?

First published 02/2013, but the issue remains off target.

Observations by a white mother of black children

A disturbing story in the Atlantic from July this year
explores a bit about how such thinking and
behavior persists in American culture.
The fact that it does, is troubling.





It's today, not ancient history.

Kate Riffle Roper
(from her facebook post) July 19, 2016 at 7:20pm · As a white mother of two black children, three white children, who all have a white father, I have something to say.

Racism exists. It is real and tangible. And it is everywhere, all the time.When I brought my boys home they were the cutest, sweetest babies ever. Wherever we went, people greeted us with charm and enthusiasm. Well, not all people and not everywhere. But, to me, they were the “wacko” exceptions. I thought to myself, “Get over it.”

Now my boys look like teenagers. Black teenagers. They are 13. Let me ask you these questions. Do store personnel follow your children when they are picking out their Gatorade flavors? They didn’t follow my white kids. Do coffee shop employees interrogate your children about the credit card they are using to pay while you are in the bathroom? They didn’t interrogate my white kids. When your kids trick-or-treat in, dressed as a Ninja and a Clown, do they get asked who they are with and where they live, door after door? My white kids didn’t get asked. Do your kids get pulled out of the TSA line time and again for additional screening? My white kids didn’t. Do your kids get treated one way when they are standing alone but get treated a completely different way when you walk up? I mean a completely different way. My white kids didn’t. Do shoe sales people ask if your kids’ feet are clean before sizing them for shoes? No one asked me that with my white kids. Do complete strangers ask to touch your child’s hair? Or ask about their penis size? Or ask if they are “from druggies”? No one did this with my white kids.

Did you tell your kids not to fight back because they will seen as aggressive if they stand up for themselves? Have you had to honestly discuss with your husband whether you should take your children to the police station to introduce them to the officers so they would know your children are legitimate members of your community? Have you had to talk to your children about EXACTLY what to say and not to say to an officer? Have you had to tell your children that the objective of any encounter with police, or security in any form, is to stay alive? It never occurred to me to have these conversations with my white children. In fact, it never occurred to me for myself either.

There is no question that my boys have been cloaked in my protection when they were small. What I did not realize until now is that the cloak I was offering them was identification with my whiteness. As they grow independent, they step out from my cloak and lose that protection. The world sees “them” differently. It is sweet when they are adopted little black boys so graciously taken in by this nice white family. But when they are real people? Well, it is not the same. And they still look like little boys. What happens to them when they look like the strong, proud black men I am raising?

The reason why the phrase All Lives Matter is offensive to black people is because it isn’t true. Right now, in America, my black children are treated differently than my white children. So when you say All Lives Matter as a response to the phrase Black Lives Matter you are completely dismissing the near daily experience of racism for those with pigment in their skin, curl in their hair and broadness of their nose.

I am posting this so you can see the reality I have witnessed and experienced, because, frankly, I didn’t believe it was true until I saw it up close, directed at two souls I love, over and over again. So, please, use this post as a pair of glasses to see the racism that surrounds you. Then we can actually make progress toward all lives being valued and cherished.

_______________________________

If every day, I had to work my way uphill against prejudice, I don't know that I could be gracious through it. If the world had a way forward for most but not for my kids, I wouldn't take it quietly. None of us should have to.

... we strive for better in ourselves and in our circle of influence; there's much yet to be changed.