text:
Tonight we're going to return to our study in Jude and look at verses 14 through 16. I'm taking this in small chunks because it really is important material. This particular section of three verses is unique as you will see when we get into a little bit. In another sense, it's familiar territory to us because it talks about judgment. And that, of course, is a very common theme in Scripture.
Let me read verses 14 through 16 and we'll look into them. Jude, verse 14, "And about these also, Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied saying, 'Behold the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts. They speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage."
Now obviously this is a text that talks about the coming of the Lord in judgment on the ungodly. Prominent in the Bible is the theme of judgment. And in particular, the theme of judgment and the theme of eternal punishment is prominent in the teachings of our Lord Jesus. There is the idea today and it is often espoused by apostate false teachers that Jesus loves everyone and Jesus would not harm anyone. Jesus wants to gather everyone into His heaven. The truth of the matter is that our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, had more to say about hell then He did about heaven and He had more to say about hell than any other personality in the Bible. Much of His teaching on hell is found in the Sermon on the Mount. And the Sermon on the Mount traditionally has been thought of by many apostates and many false teachers as sort of an ethical sermon. But the fact of the matter is, the Sermon on the Mount has many references to hell. In that sermon which is recorded in Matthew 5 to 7, Jesus spoke of the danger of the hell of fire. He also spoke about the whole body going into hell, a hell so severe that the loss of a limb or the loss of an eye in exchange for life is nothing compared to that.
I those references in the Sermon on the Mount to hell, Jesus used the word Gehenna. The word Gehenna was a common word, it was used to identify the Jewish dump. In the Valley of Hinnom, just outside Jerusalem, I have been there numbers of times, there was in ancient times the city dump. And it was a never-ending fire, a continuously burning fire burning up the refuse of the city. It is that concept of an endless fire that Jesus used to describe hell.
Later in that same Sermon on the Mount He said, "Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire." He also said of those who did not believe in Him later on in His ministry, "They shall be cast forth into the outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
In seeking on one occasion of giving encouragement to His disciples, Jesus said, "And he be not afraid of them that kill the body, be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. But fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matthew 10:28. And, of course, there again is the word Gehenna.
Jesus spoke again about hell in His parables in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew. In fact, you can look, for example, at just a couple of verses there. Verse 40, "Just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age, the Son of Man will send forth His angels. They will gather out of His Kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness and cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And on the other hand, "The righteous will shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their father." Jesus did not at all hesitate to refer to hell. Hell as endless fire, hell as relentless pain that produces grinding and gnashing of teeth, hell as a kind of extreme outer darkness.
In the gospel of Mark, again we find in chapter 9 Jesus referring to hell in verse 43 as unquenchable fire...unquenchable fire. And He later says in verse 48, "Where the word does not die and the fire is not quenched." It is a fire that does not consume, it only tortures and it goes on endlessly. And there again He uses the word Gehenna, which was the term to describe the burning fire in the Valley of Hinnom where the refuse of the city was thrown.
Later on our Lord speaks of hell again. He speaks of hell as exclusion from God and what is good. He speaks of it as darkness. He speaks of it as remorse. He speaks of it as torment. In Matthew 22:13 He says, "Bind him with hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." In chapter 23 He says, "You serpents, you offspring of poisonous snakes, how shall you escape the judgment of hell?" And again He uses the term Gehenna, this place of endless burning.
In the famous Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24 and 25, where He speaks of His Second Coming in judgment. In the forty-first verse He says, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the...and this is a key phrase...eternal fire, the eternal fire." In verse 46, "These will go away into eternal punishment." There He emphasizes the eternal aspect. In Matthew 26 and verse 24, it says, "Woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Good were it for that man if he had not been born." That is to say regarding Judas, non-existence would be better than what he is going to suffer. It would have been better had he never been born because he's going to suffer a fate far worse than non-existence...which indicates to me that Jesus did not teach annihilation or Judas' fate would have been the same as having not been born. He would simply go out of existence.
Now this is repeated throughout the gospel record, this emphasis by our Lord on the judgments of hell, the horrific judgments of hell. Dramatically, I think, in the sixteenth chapter of Luke, and you might look at it there, and we're not covering all the Scriptures, but this one is an important one where Jesus tells the story about a rich man and a poor man named Lazarus. And in verse 22 it says, "The poor man died, was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom, the place of blessing. The rich man died and was buried and in Hades. He lifted up his eyes being in torment." And here you have a picture of someone in the torment of eternal punishment. "And he cries out for mercy and asks that he receive even a drip of water to cool off his tongue. He says for I am in agony in this flame." And later in verse 28 he says, "I have five brothers, I want someone to go back and warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment." Hell then is presented by Jesus and particularly by Jesus in all of its horror as a place of eternal torment for both soul and body. In John chapter 5 Jesus said there would be a resurrection unto judgment, a resurrection of the ungodly unto eternal damnation. They will suffer in a resurrected body. It is not just the suffering of a soul, it is the suffering of a resurrected body fit for that suffering. Horrible, intense suffering and the sufferings are defined in the most graphic fashion.
Now, the hottest hell, the severest judgment is reserved for those who know the truth and reject it. Hebrews 10:28...Hebrews 10:28, "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.' And again the Lord will judge His people and it's a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God, particularly and much more severely if you've trampled underfoot the gospel, the Son of God, and regarded His blood as something unclean." Will there be degrees of punishment in hell? Yes. And the severest punishments of hell are reserved for apostates who heard the truth, rejected the truth and advocate and propagate error.
Look at 2 Peter chapter 2 for just a moment. In 2 Peter chapter 2 we read about apostate angels in verse 4 who are committed to pits of darkness reserved for judgment. We read about those people who feel the suffering of God under punishment because they conduct themselves like those angels, those who perished in the Flood, those who were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah. And verse 9 says, "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation. He knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment." Now that opens to us a very important thought. You might think that the ungodly when they die don't enter into hell, or don't enter into punishment. That's wrong. Here it says the unrighteous are kept under punishment for the day of judgment. It's very much like a criminal who is incarcerated until his trial without benefit of bail, kept in prison in essentially the same conditions that he'll be kept in in his final sentencing until the final trial. The final trial comes at the return of Christ at the day of judgment. But all those who die in their sins enter into a place of darkness, a place of suffering, a place of pain, a place of torment, a place of horror as illustrated in the account in Luke 16 of the rich man and Lazarus. He wasn't somewhere in limbo, he was in a place of torment and he desperately needed his tongue to be cooled. They enter immediately into torment, although the final sentencing doesn't take place until the day of judgment and at that time is when they receive their glorified bodies, that is the time at the Second Coming of Christ when the bodies of the ungodly are recreated, bodies suited for eternal torment and they enter into the final form of hell which is the eternal Lake of Fire as tormented souls in resurrected bodies. But even now they are outside the presence of God in a place of evil and torment. This is warning upon warning about hell. Judgment will fall on the ungodly. It falls immediately and permanently. The only thing the ungodly wait for is the final form of their punishment in their resurrected body which awaits the return of Christ. He said in John 5 there would be a resurrection unto life, and a resurrection unto judgment. These ungodly are on the mind of Jude as he writes. Let's go back to Jude.
And as Jude writes, he refers repeatedly to their end. They're introduced in verse 4 as the persons who crept in unnoticed, these false teachers, these who deny in reality the only Master and Lord Jesus Christ, they live licentious lives, they tread, as it were, on the grace of our God. And he says in verse 4, "They had been long beforehand marked out for condemnation." Their condemnation has been long planned...long planned. He refers in verse 6 as did Peter to those angels who are kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. And again he repeats that even the angels who are bound in the pit, the angels who are held captive in spirit form now have not yet entered into the final form of their punishment. That awaits the judgment of the great day, the day of the return of Jesus Christ. False teachers will participate in that judgment. They will enter into that same Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Verse 7 says, "They will undergo as did Sodom and Gomorrah the punishment of eternal fire, eternal fire. The false teachers at the end of very verse 13 it says, "Has reserved for them black darkness forever."
The language is unmistakable. Apostate false teachers have been ordained long beforehand to condemnation. They are awaiting the final sentencing in the judgment of that great day but they are already undergoing the punishment of eternal fire and they will never escape because that place of fire, and at the same time paradoxically black darkness, lasts forever. You ask the question, "How dangerous is an apostate false teacher?" You only need to answer it by saying, "What will God do to them? How does God feel about them?"
How should you feel about an apostate? How should you feel about a false teacher? How should you feel about someone who denies the truth of the gospel, who denies the deity of Jesus Christ, or twists and perverts the gospel for his own ends? How should you feel about someone who is corrupt? How should you feel about someone who abuses grace to live an immoral life and then says he represents God? How should you feel about someone who has defected from the gospel truth but stayed in Christendom and stayed in the church and his purveying lies?
Well, you only need to know how God feels about them. "He has reserved for them the severest eternal punishment, the severest." In the mind of our Lord, they are so dangerous, they are so destructive that the most vivid, the most pungent, the most powerful and the most condemning language is used to speak of them. They will follow in the path of Israel's apostates. They will follow in the path of heaven's apostates. They will follow in the path of the nation's apostates, as we saw back in verses 5 through 7. They will follow the path of Cain. They will follow the path of Balaam. They will follow in the kind of rebellion of Korah, as we also saw in the prior passage. And they have reserved for them the black darkness of eternal hell.
In fact, in Matthew 8:12 it calls it "outer darkness." And the idea of the phrase "outer darkness" would be the darkness that is farthest removed from any light. They are infinitely removed from the light, isolated in torment, lonely with no hope. Eternal torment is set for all impenitent and unbelieving sinners. But the hottest hell and the severest torment awaits apostate false teachers. And they will be sent to that final place in their glorified bodies, glorified in the sense that they're made supernatural, when the Lord comes back. And when He comes back He comes back in holy judgment. Of course we know there is an element of His return in which He takes His own to be with Himself, in which He opens the doors of the Kingdom and invites His own in. But there is also connected with His return a fierce and terrifying reality of judgment. And Jesus refers to it in that Olivet Discourse repeatedly. He refers to it through the Apostle Paul in one of the most frightening texts in all of Scripture. Look at 2 Thessalonians chapter 1. Second Thessalonians chapter 1, sort of editing some passages out because I don't want to overload you with this, but in 2 Thessalonians chapter 1, Paul in verse 5 refers to God's righteous judgment...God's righteous judgment. And in verse 6 he says this judgment is for repaying...repaying sinners. And he says this righteous judgment takes place, verse 7, middle of the verse, "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of t he Lord and from the glory of His power." Powerful language.
When the Lord Jesus is revealed, He will deal out retribution. He will deal out justice. He will deal out appropriate vengeance to those who do not know Him and do not obey the gospel. And the penalty will be eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power. And, of course, we've already described what that destruction is. It's not death. It's not non-existence. It is an ongoing destruction of torment that never ever ends. Peter in 2 Peter 3:7 talks about the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men. And it's going to happen when the Lord comes. Scoffers say, "Where is the promise of His coming? Nothing changes since the fathers fell asleep, everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." In other words, nothing like that's ever happened, so it never will. Yes it will because the present heaven and the present earth, Peter says in verse 7, are being reserved for fire. They're being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
The book of Revelation, of course, addresses this horrific destruction in many different ways through the book of Revelation, the tortuous seven seals and seven trumpets and seven bowls that pour out devastating judgment and cast the ungodly into the fires of eternal hell. Of course you can read all of those for yourself. Verse 14 of Revelation 14 pictures the coming of Christ as a harvest, where He comes in verse 14, puts in His sickle and reaps the harvest of the earth. It is a horrific harvest of judgment. But most notably, chapter 19, and I invite you to turn to Revelation 19, because here you have the description of this event, the coming of the Lord Jesus in judgment. Verse 11, "I saw heaven opened and behold a white horse and He who sat upon it called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, upon His head are many diadems, or crowns, He has a name written upon Him which one knows except Himself. He's clothed with a robe dipped in blood and His name is called the Word of God." Clearly this is Jesus Christ coming. "And the armies which are in heaven clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses and from His mouth comes a sharp sword so that with it He may smite the nations and He will rule them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the fierce wrath of God the Almighty." It's like stamping out grapes, He crushes the life out of the sinful. "On His robe and on His thigh He has a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The devastation is so great, he says, I saw an angel standing in the sun, he cried out with a loud voice saying to the birds which fly in mid heaven, Come assemble for the great supper of God in order that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses, those who sat on them, the flesh of all men, free men and slaves and small and great. And I saw the Beast who is the Antichrist and the kings of the earth who were a part of his enterprise and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. And the Beast was seized and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire which burns with brimstone and the rest were killed with a sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse and all the birds were filled with their flesh."
Here comes Jesus at His Second Coming and it is a massacre of all the ungodly on the face of the earth. And they are all together at that point judged and executed physically. And then...and we'll say more about this in a little bit. There is a kingdom of a thousand years. At the end of that kingdom is the tribunal to which all those spirits in torment are brought and the judgment is made final and they receiving a body suited for eternal punishment are then cast into their eternal torment. That is a picture of judgment.
Let's go back then to Jude and what turns out to be a rather provocative reference that Jude uses to this judgment. Black darkness, divine judgment awaits these false teachers. In fact, verse 14 begins, "And about these, also Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment.'" About these...these refers back to the hidden reefs of verse 12, the clouds without water, the autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead and uprooted, the wild waves of the sea, the wandering stars, the false teachers, the apostates for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever, about these, Enoch prophesied the Lord would come to execute judgment. This then is the final touch on their portrait. And this really is the most important component because not that we might know the fact of judgment, but that we might understand that the fact of judgment gives us God's view of these false teachers.
How severe are we to deal with them? How severe does God deal with them? You cannot be accommodating. You cannot be tolerant. You cannot be accepting. You cannot be open. You cannot be welcoming. We remember, don't we, from John's epistle that if you bid, "God's speed" to a false teacher, you become a partaker in his evil deed. Any deceiver fits into this category, any false teacher, any apostate. And this is how God Himself feels about them and therefore it's about how we must feel about them, not that we can execute judgment on them, not that we want to burn them at the stake, as has been done in the past, not that we want to string them up or crucify them. Not that we want to take them to the guillotine. Not that we want to take vengeance into our own hands, but we must view false teachers the way our Lord God views them.
Now in this interesting statement in verses 14 and 15, Jude quotes a prophecy from Enoch and in quoting this prophecy, Jude as is he always is, he's almost cryptic. It is as if he doesn't have to say very much because everybody knows. And that's pretty much the case with everything that Jude writes. Do you remember back in verse 5 he said, "Now I desire to remind you though you know all things once for all?" The whole tone of this letter has a certain cryptic kind of style to it, and by that I mean it's very abbreviated statements, very short statements which let us know that Jude was referring to things that were very familiar to people. They didn't need a whole drawn out account of how the Lord destroyed Israel in the wilderness, they knew it. They didn't need a big drawn out account about the angels, they knew about that. They didn't need a big drawn out account about Sodom and Gomorrah, they knew about that. They didn't need big explanations even about Michael the archangel who disputed with the devil about the body of Moses, it's just one brief statement about it. It assumes that they had knowledge about that. They didn't need a big discussion of Cain or Balaam or Korah. Everything in this letter is kind of geared to the assumption that you know all this, I'm just picking on things that you know to illustrate and to make my point. And so, he only briefly mentions these...these persons and these events because they know these stories so well.
We have to conclude then that they knew the prophecy of Enoch. They knew it. They were familiar with it even if we are not. And if you're wondering where in the Old Testament that prophecy is, it's nowhere...it's not in the Old Testament. Not there, not recorded there. But this says in verse 14, "About these...these apostates, these false teachers, these rejecters of the true God...Enoch the seventh from Adam," it literally says in the Greek, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied saying..." Now let me tell you something. If Jude under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that Enoch said that, then guess what? Enoch said that. He said it. Even though it's not recorded in the Old Testament, he said it. And the Holy Spirit inspires Jude to say he said it because he said it...Enoch prophesied. Enoch is identified as the seventh from Adam. Now there is another Enoch who was son of Cain mentioned in Genesis 4:17 and 18, that's a different one. This is the seventh from Adam...Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, and if you go to Genesis chapter 4...or chapter 5, I mean, you don't have to but were you to look at Genesis 5 you would see those seven. And it says about Enoch in verse 24, "Enoch walked with God and he was not for God took him." He didn't die. He took a walk with God one day and walked right into eternity...walked right into God's presence. This is the Enoch, the seventh one in the Genesis 5 genealogy.
Now, anybody with an Old Testament knows that from Adam, including both the first and the last, it's seven, they know of Enoch. Enoch also was a fascinating character to the Jewish people because only he and Elijah went to heaven without dying. You remember, God took Elijah to heaven in a chariot, 2 Kings chapter 2. Though Enoch's prophecy is not in the Old Testament, he did give this prophecy. It is here affirmed that he gave it. And that makes Enoch's prophecy, listen, the first prophecy recorded in Scripture, though it's not recorded until here, nearly at the end of the New Testament, Enoch's is the first prophecy recorded anywhere in Scripture given by a man. There's another prophecy in Genesis chapter 3, but that prophecy was the prophecy about the seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent's head. That wasn't given by a man, who gave that prophecy? God. So this is the first prophecy given through a man. And it concerns the Lord coming in judgment. Isn't that interesting that it's a Second Coming prophecy? And by the way, the last prophecy recorded in Scripture given by the writer John is this, "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen, Come, Lord Jesus.'" The first prophecy given by a man in the Bible is to the coming of Christ in judgment and the last prophecy given through a man is Christ coming in judgment. From beginning to end and all through Scripture are prophecies about God coming in judgment. In the Old Testament, of course, it's God coming in judgment, and that becomes clearly a reference to the Lord who is given judgment by the Father and so here it is the Lord, the Lord Jesus who comes in judgment.
Fear of eternal judgment, friends, is a very essential component in heart preparation for salvation. I hinted at this, I think it was last Sunday, I speak so many times I don't know whether I'm coming or going, truthfully, but I think in one of the services I commented on this, and just for your own edification I'll mention it to you. We have today an absence of the fear factor in evangelism. I say that and I think of that stupid TV program where they create artificial fears. I don't need any artificial fears. Instead of people dealing with artificial fears, traumatizing themselves through contrived means, they really ought to find out what true fear is and that is to understand the judgment of God. Let me tell you something about what I would say is the essential...essential element of salvation. Really there are four things that are necessary for a person to be saved. You could call this the science of salvation. One, fear...you have to be saved from something, from hell. I don't think people would want to be saved from their sin if they could have their sin and have heaven too, agreed? Does that sound reasonable? If I could have my sin and go to heaven, that sounds like a deal. But hell, that's another matter. And I don't think evangelism is done properly and I don't think a heart is prepared properly if there isn't a component of fear of eternal judgment, eternal hell. And in our evangelism we have to do that, even with our children we have to do that. Second component, the second element is humility, humility. Not only do you have to be afraid of eternal hell, but you have to also understand that you can do nothing to rescue yourself. You have to humble yourself and deny yourself and see your utter unworthiness and your utter nothingness and your utter bankruptcy. This is heart work, folks, in the matter of evangelism. This is the plowing of the soil. And the third element is repentance. You have to come to the place where standing, as it were, looking into the yawning mouth of hell, fearing that you will spend forever there, understanding that you can do nothing to change that, understanding your utter wretchedness and sinfulness and unworthiness, and then coming to the point where you say, "I want to be delivered from this, I want to be rescued from this. I want You to forgive my sins. I acknowledge my sins." That's all the heart work and only then do you come to the fourth element which is to believe the gospel. Most evangelism today is "Jesus died for your sins, believe that, pray this prayer, and you're in." What about the first three? What about the heart preparation? You may have to put the fear factor back in the gospel. It's all through Scripture.
Well let's go back to this. "Enoch, the seventh from Adam in the genealogy of Genesis 5, prophesied." Now I have to talk a little bit technically about this. How does Jude know about this prophecy? Fair question? How does Jude know about it?
Well, one answer would be the Lord revealed it to him, and that's a good answer. It came from inspiration. It came because the Holy Spirit gave it to him. Well why in the world would all of the things that could be said about judgment would the Holy Spirit give him an obscure, unknown quote from Enoch? Why pull that out?
Well there's something more you need to know. At the time Jude wrote, at the time of the New Testament, there exited a book and that book was known to the Jews and it was known to the Christians as...are you ready for this?...1 Enoch. There was even 2 Enoch. There were two books that bore the name of this man. They were pseudapigrapha(?), that is they were not written by Enoch, either of them. But often the Jews and often others would title a historical book or a commentary with the name of the hero to give it some authenticity or to show respect to that individual and Enoch was a very fascinating personality in Jewish thought because, like Elijah, as I said, he didn't die and as an apocalyptic figure in particular he fascinated the Jews. And so, as these various literary units during the intertestamental period of time between the Old and the New, that 400-year period there, as the intertestamental period of time existed, there were collections of these literary units that came together and they were pulled together under the title of 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch. They were part history and oral tradition and some written tradition and commentary. And in 1 Enoch this prophecy is found. And we have it even today. We have one third of 1 Enoch existing today in the Greek language. It also exists in an Ethiopic form. It also exists in a Latin form. And it also exists in an Aramaic form. So they were translating this book because it had Jewish history and Jewish tradition and Jewish commentary. And obviously the people knew it. It was familiar to them. And amazingly, the prophecy of Enoch made before the Flood...okay?...made before the Flood survived the Flood, got into their oral or written tradition and wound up in this book of 1 Enoch. And because there was so much evidence, perhaps, this is all in some sense a best guess, but perhaps there was such strong tradition as to its legitimacy, they actually named the book after it in honor of Enoch. Noah's family must have known this quote either orally, or they had this quote, because it survived the Flood and these very words appear in the book called 1 Enoch.
In fact, I can read you the English translation of the Ethiopic version, it goes like this, "Behold, He will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment on all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against Him." That's one version out of 1 Enoch 1 verse 9. And as I said, we still today have fragments of this.
So somehow this traditional statement from Enoch, this thing that he actually said and actually was given from God to say apparently because it was a prophecy of prediction, survived and it wound up being preserved through oral or written tradition and being included in the book of Enoch. As I said, the book of Enoch was a pseudapigrapha, that is it wasn't written by Enoch, it was a collection of literary units brought together. It is also what we call apocryphal. That is there are some things in it that are accurate and there are lots of things that are not. It is not an inspired book, it was not an Old Testament book. The Jews never accepted it as inspired. They never had it in the Canon. The Christians never accepted it as inspired. The Roman Catholic didn't even include 1 Enoch or 2 Enoch in the Apocrypha which is in the middle, you know, of Roman Catholic Bibles. It was never viewed as Scripture, that is the book of 1 Enoch. And, in fact, by the time Jude wrote, the Canon of the Old Testament had long been closed. The Canon really of the Old Testament, you could say, was closed 400 years before this. That is why in 2 Peter chapter 3 and verse 16 Peter writes about Paul, Paul in all his letters, etc., and the rest of the Scriptures. Peter then refers to the Scriptures and his very statement that Paul in his writing goes along with the Scriptures indicates that Peter had a sense of the canonicity of the Old Testament. It was a body of revealed truth called the Scriptures, the Canon being closed. It was not an inspired book, 1 Enoch, but in this case we conclude from what is said here that the accurate prophecy that Enoch gave was preserved through the oral tradition, the written tradition and it comes down and Jude writes it. The people knew it. Again, as I said, he doesn't have to give them an explanation, it was familiar. The book of Enoch was well known in that day.
By the way, Jude does not call it Scripture, graphe,nor does he introduce the quote with, "It is written," which is a pretty typical way to introduce Scripture. Jude is just referring to a popular source that everybody knew as generally important. They looked at these writings that were collected in 1 Enoch and they gave them some weight as to their history and their contribution and their commentary. And so he simply quotes this as a known source. It's not common, but it's not rare either. Acts 17, I think this is interesting enough just to drag you through a few more minutes of it. Acts 17 verse 28, Paul says speaking to the philosophers on Mars Hill, "In Him...that is God...we live and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, for we also are His offspring." He says, "On that your poets are right," and there he quotes essentially a pagan philosopher by the name of Aratus who wrote this in his work called Phenomena. He quotes a pagan philosopher. In Titus Paul again speaking to people and acknowledging the world in which they live says, "One of themselves, one of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said...quote...Cretans are always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons." And he quotes a secular source, a Cretan poet.
In 2 Timothy there is an interesting statement in chapter 3 verse 8. It says in that passage, "Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses." Now you can read Exodus till your blue in the face and you're not going to find Jannes and Jambres. You're not going to find them. But references to Jannes and Jambres as two of the Egyptian magicians are scattered throughout all kinds of Jewish literature. We don't know how they knew those names, but perhaps they got passed down from the Jews who were there to the next generation who went into the land and it became part of their tradition. And so, Jannes and Jambres don't need an explanation by Paul because Jannes and Jambres are well-known names that appear in numbers of places in Jewish literature.
Another one. In 1 Corinthians 15:33, a very interesting statement is made. You remember this, "Bad company corrupts good morals." If you look in your Bible you'll find that in quotes because that is a line known to have come from a Greek poet by the name of Menander, --e-n-a-n-d-e-r. So Paul quotes Aratus. Paul quotes a Cretan poet. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres not mentioned in the Old Testament but mentioned in other Jewish sources. Paul quotes a Greek poet by the name of Menander. And back in verse 9, about Michael the archangel disputing with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses. Remember we went through that and I told you that's not anywhere in the Old Testament. But it is in another intertestamental apocryphal book called The Assumption of Moses...The Assumption of Moses.So the fact that that happened got somehow into the tradition of the Jews and ended up in a work called The Assumption of Mosesand it was accurate and that's why Jude quotes it as accurate. So the quote from Enoch is used because the people are familiar with it, because it fits, and because it completes his portrait of apostate false teachers who face divine judgment at the coming of the Lord.
Wow! Look how long that took. That is amazing. Actually, it's probably good because next week I'll get to the message, that was the introduction. But, you know, when you see something like that, you need to understand why it is the way it is. Now next Sunday night we'll go into the actual statement itself and sort out five factors in the coming of the Lord. That will be a great time next Sunday night. I can't believe that. Let's pray.
Lord, Your Word is so fascinating, so captivating and yet it is certainly more than that, it is reality and the fear factor is there and it must be there. And, Lord, there is a judgment, there is a day of judgment when You return. There is a horrible and eternal hell and those who do not know You and do not obey the gospel will spend forever there and the hottest hell and the severest torment awaits the apostate false teachers who stay embedded, hidden in Christendom who are like hidden reefs in our love feasts who tempt to do the devil's work from inside the church, who name the name of the Christ they do not know. And our attitude toward them must take into account Your attitude toward them and Your severe judgment conveys that attitude. We cannot give any place to them in the church, we must earnestly contend for the faith. We must battle for the truth against them, give them no ground, give them no opportunity, give them no acceptance, no tolerance, no success, no comfort, no ease and no opportunity, not even to wish them God's speed or we become partakers of their evil deed, as John said. Help us having understood this culminating reality after all that has been said and done about them, the most defining thing about them is how you feel about them as manifest in this judgment. And this tells us, Lord, how we need to be protected from them. Help us to be faithful to the truth and faithful to those who proclaim it. We pray in Christ's name. Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
Moderators: MetroSonus, Plink Floyd
AHAHAA! Lenny Bruce ftw! I can't believe someone else has seen that! A friend of mine collects RCA Video Disks and players, and that bit was an easter egg on a disk of Bruce's standup stuff.ClavAnother wrote:you guys ever watch this shit when you were kids? Well... when Retro and me were kids and you you lot were younger-than-you-are-now™?
The one with Forrest Tucker & Larry Storch? That was dismal.Purity_Control wrote:ghostbusters thing with the ape
ClavAnother wrote:you guys ever watch this shit when you were kids? Well... when Retro and me were kids and you lot were younger-than-you-are-now™?
ClavAnother wrote:"Heavy Mental"
I know exactly what you mean. In the 90s, I was so excited to find "Lost in Space" on VHS. I planned to watch them with my kids, thinking "wow, I get to vicariously re-live the magic all over again"! Boy, was that a bust.Purity_Control wrote:Starman Jones and Glory Road were my favourite Heinlein books when I was growing up.
Not sure I ever read either as an adult, loved Asimov and Harry Harrison as a kid too, and after how awful I found them after I grew up... dunno if I want to find out Heinlein went the same way.
Plink Floyd wrote:Yah, Hugo didn't attract me.
I haven't seen Rango, but my fam disliked it. We have it. My daughter saw it once. She will watch a favored movie every day for a week, but will not watch it again with me. I'm curious about it. Given what you know about me, would I like it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Faith and Reason
It has been said that he who defines the terms, wins the debate. Skeptics know this and take advantage of it. Witness some of the famous definitions of "faith" provided by unbelievers. Mark Twain, for example, quipped, "Faith is believing …Read More
By Faith, Not Fear
"Lions and tigers and bears, O my!" That's not only one of the more memorable lines from cinematic history, it's one of the more recognizable themes in contemporary discipleship. Sometimes fear of the enemies to our faith seems …Read More
Holy Orders
In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul admonishes Timothy with these words: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." This is …Read More
God in the Dock: The Apologetics of C. S. Lewis
In modern English the words apology and apologize indicate regret because some statement or action was offensive and wrong. This is not the case for "apologetics" in theology, for that discipline is intended to manifest "a point of view is …Read More
Weighing the Evidence
When in dialogue with a Muslim, how often do we find ourselves put on the defensive, fending off the same five or six standard questions which seem to repeat themselves time and again? The objection to the Trinity leads the …Read More


text:
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A woman caught spraying graffiti on the new Duval County Courthouse downtown was arrested late Thursday night, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Police said an officer on patrol spotted 35-year-old Audrey Dostie spray painting the walkway that leads to the courthouse.
Dostie was charged with criminal mischief of more than $1,000 and interruption of business or utilities.
Those arriving at the courthouse earlier Friday saw broken hearts spray painted on the new $350 million courthouse's columns, along with AA and an angry statement to a judge on the sidewalk.
Workers pressure washed and scrubbed the paint off Friday morning.
"It's just bad that someone would come and paint a building or any building, to be honest with you, much less my building," said Mike Tatum, of the city's Public Buildings Division. "It was terrible where they spray painted purple stuff all over the building."
Police said Dostie's rampage didn't stop at the courthouse. They said she also hit the corporate headquarters of Dostie homes, a family business of her husband. Police said she spray painted similar graffiti and messages to her husband and son.
The family and those in the office did not want to comment.
Copyright 2012 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
50 Best-Dressed Men in Britain 2013
The 19th-century American firebrand preacher Henry Ward Beecher
once said, "Clothes and manners do not make the man; but when he is
made, they greatly improve his appearance." And that is exactly
what we celebrate in the annual GQ best-dressed list, in
association with Mercedes-Benz, where we name the British men we
think really make it big in the sartorial stakes.And we celebrate the whole spectrum of style. We have always
loved the old-school gents-about-town who epitomise the cream of
British tailoring, know everything from their cavalry twill to
their cutaway collars, and are always perfectly suited and booted.
In this category, dare we say that the heir to the throne is the
best ambassador Savile Row could have hoped for, even though Prince
William seems bemused to find himself a fashion icon. But we also
doff our James Lock caps at the young bucks. There are fresh-faced
British actors, such as Andrew Garfield, who have taken Hollywood
and the red carpet by storm and are - unsurprisingly - loved every
bit as much by Giorgio Armani and Dolce & Gabbana as they are
by the camera.After a year of breathtaking sporting achievement it is only
fair that some of our greatest athletes are picked out for special
praise, having gone for gold in the wardrobe stakes.
Congratulations go to effortlessly stylish Tour de France champion
Bradley Wiggins and the Paralympic gold medallist Jonnie
Peacock.To take a leaf from Beecher's book, we know that their dress
sense doesn't make them better athletes, but we like to think it
helps make them cooler winners.Originally
published in the February 2013 issue of British


text:
- This event has passed.
Corona Heights Habitat Restoration Volunteer Project
August 25, 2018 @ 10:00 am - 12:00 pm| Free
Event Navigation
Come explore this neighborhood park and its beautiful views of the San Francisco skyline. Join the Natural Resource Division and the Gay and Lesbian Sierran volunteers on the last Saturday of the month. Volunteer activities include weeding, planting, and trail maintenance. Please wear closed-toed shoes, long pants, and layers. The event will occur rain or shine.
The group meets behind the Randall Museum.
August's Corona Heights ongoing project will be moved to GGP Nursery for August only. Meet at 100 Martin Luther King, cross street is Bowling Green Drive at 10am.
September returns to business as usual.
November date change. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, the Volunteer event will occur on the third Saturday of the month annually every November instead of the last Saturday of the month.
December returns to business as usual.
To RSVP, please email firstname.lastname@example.com or call 415-831-6330.


text:
Aurora Theatre to Continue 21st Season with New Translation of THE ARSONISTS, 4/5-5/12
What is the great evil we are failing to face up to today? Award-winning Bay Area auteur Mark Jackson (Salomania, Metamorphosis, Salome, Miss Julie) returns to Aurora Theatre Company to direct British playwright Alistair Beaton's elegant new translation of THE ARSONISTS, Max Frisch's classic comic parable about appeasement (sometimes known as Beidermann and the Firebugs or Fire Raisers), featuring Dan Hiatt, Tim Kniffin, and Michael Ray Wisely, along with Kevin Clarke, Tristan Cunningham, Gwen Loeb, Dina Percia, and Michael Uy Kelly.
Fires are becoming something of a problem, popping up all over town. But Mr. Biedermann has it all under control. In his business life and in the domestic arena, he tries to live a life of blameless middle-class decency. He's a respected member of the community with a loving wife and a booming business, so surely nothing can get to him. It is this sense of bourgeois propriety that renders Biedermann defenseless when two arsonists turn up at his house. Far from kicking them out, he helps them light the fuse in the hopes that appeasement will prevent catastrophe.
Inspired by the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1948, this absurdist allegory, about which the The Guardian (UK) said "The Arsonists still burns brightly," and the Los Angeles Times said "Alistair Beaton's rousing new interpretation of Max Frisch's 1958 classic ...stresses the comically deadly plight of a mild-mannered man whose failure to acknowledge the presence of evil is, in itself, the ultimate evil," satirizes the way that people can be manipulated into accommodating the very thing that will destroy them.
The production will run in previews: April 5, 6, 10 at 8pm; April 7 at 2pm; April 9 at 7pm. Opening night is set for April 11, 2013, and the show plays through May 12, 2013. OTHER DATES: Friday Forum: Friday, April 26 - Accommodation Techniques. Script Club: Monday, May 6, 7:30pm - A Raisin in the Sun. Wicked Wisdom: Friday, May 10 - Burning Up.
Performance schedule: Tuesday at 7pm; Wednesday through Saturday at 8pm; Sunday at 2pm and 7pm. All performances take place at the Aurora Theatre, 2081 Addison Street, Berkeley, Calif.
For tickets (Previews $35; Regular Performances $32-50; Limited Opening Night Seating $60) the public can call (510) 843-4822 or visit auroratheatre.org. Half-off tickets for Under 30, student, and group discounts available.


text:
Legal experts debunk Hannity's Sestak "crime" claims point-by-point
Research ››› ››› MATT GERTZ
Over the past week, Sean Hannity and his guests have cited six different statutes that they claim were violated when the White House offered a position on a panel to Rep. Joe Sestak. Legal experts have repudiated the claim that any of those statutes apply to the offer.
18 U.S.C. § 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
The claim. Hannity has repeatedly claimed the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600. For example (accessed from Nexis):
- On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "We have 18 U.S. Code 600 says that the -- a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
- On the May 26 edition of Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "All right, 18 U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
- On the May 27 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said, "Eighteen U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act," and concluded, "Seems to me that Joe Sestak is claiming a felony was committed."
- On the May 28 edition of Fox News program, Hannity said that 18 U.C.S. § 600 was "almost written" to ban acts like the Sestak offer. He later said that the offer was "by my interpretation of the law, still be a thing of value for a political act... Which is against the law. U.S. Code 18, U.S. Code 600, 18 U.S. Code 210, 211."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 600 reads:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The rebuttals. Legal experts have rebutted the claim that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600, including:
- Bush ethics lawyer Painter: "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied" to this case. In a May 28 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported of his interview that day with former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter:
Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."
But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.
For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.
"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."
- Law professor Hasen: "I can't find a case" where statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated:
HASEN: I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent.
- Bush AG Mukasey: Based on White House and Sestak statements, offer "doesn't violate the statute." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute."
- CREW's Sloan: criminal allegations based on this interpretation of law are "ludicrous." In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported:
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said. "It's really not a very well-written statute."
18 U.S.C. § 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses
The claim. Hannity has repeatedly claimed the White House attempted to "bribe" Sestak. On the May 26 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said, "news of the White House's alleged attempt to bribe Congressman Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has lingered in the public for four months now and the longer it does so the more bizarre it becomes." Later on the same program, Hannity stated of the offer, "I believe this is a bribe."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 201 reads in part:
(b) Whoever --
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent --
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
The rebuttals. Legal experts have denied that the Sestak offer violated the federal bribery statute, including:
- Painter: Job offer "is hardly a 'bribe.'" In a May 24 blog post, Painter wrote:
The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.
The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no". The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.
- Sloan: "There's no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that Sloan had said of the Sestak offer, "There is no bribery case here... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Likewise, in a May 28 MSNBC appearance, Sloan stated that "bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here." She added: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value."
18 U.S.C. § 210, 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive office, offer to procure appointive public office
The claim. Hannity has repeatedly stated that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 210 and 211. For example (accessed from the Nexis database):
- One the May 26 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said that President Obama's "lawyers know that he's got -- he's got a legal issue before him. There's somebody in the White House that made this offer. They know the U.S. code, which I've been citing all night that Juan [Williams] doesn't want to take as gospel." Hannity then cited "U.S. Code 210, 211."
- On the May 27 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity stated, "If we go to Section 18, USC, U.S. Code 210, 211, you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring." He concluded, "that's a felony." Later on the same program, Hannity said, 'U.S. Code Section 18 210, 211 says you can't accept anything of value in turn for hiring. Seems to me that Joe Sestak is claiming a felony was committed."
- On the May 28 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said that the Sestak offer was "against the law," citing "U.S. Code 210, 211."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 210 reads:
Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 211 reads:
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.
The rebuttal. Legal experts who have rebutted the contention that the Sestak offer violated these statutes include:
- Ethics attorney Stan Brand: Job offer does not constitute "something of value." May 27 Mother Jones article discussed Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) allegation the Sestak offer had violated three statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 211 a crime has been committed and quoted Stan Brand, a Washington, D.C., ethics attorney, responding that the claim was "far-fetched." Mother Jones further reported:
Those laws, Brand explains, were designed to deal with coercion, fraud, and vote-buying, not "the rough and tumble of political horse-trading." Promising someone a job, he adds, is not the same as exchanging "money or something of value." Moreover, he notes, there have never been any prosecutions of the sort Issa contemplates in this instance.
"This is a nice political ploy," Brand says. "But it has no legal substance. The president can promise Sestak the moon for a political reason. That's the system."
- Sloan: Sestak didn't "have any kind of official act to trade." On MSNBC, Sloan stated: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value." Likewise, in an interview with CNS News, Sloan reportedly stated, "A quid pro quo has to offer something of value in exchange for something... If you agree not to run for the Senate and we'll make you secretary of the Navy -- that offers no monetary value. It's just the unseemly side of politics."
18 U.S.C. § 595: Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
The claim. On the May 28 edition of Hannity, guest Jay Sekulow claimed that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 595. On the June 1 edition, Sekulow said that the statute "reads almost verbatim as to what happened here. And what you've got is a situation. It's very clear. The White House interfering with these campaigns, trying to get individuals not to run basically, you know, with these positions."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 595 reads in part:
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The rebuttal. On the May 28 America Live, Mukasey said it "really is a stretch" to claim the offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 595, adding, "I think that it would have to be something much more direct than what we have here in order for it to violate the statute. I mean, understand that politics is practiced in a variety of ways, including by suggesting to people that there are things that they might better do with their careers than what they intend to do."
Hatch Act
The claims. Hannity and his guests have claimed that the Sestak offer violated the Hatch Act. For example (accessed from the Nexis database):
- On the May 26 edition of Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said that "the Hatch Act prohibits employees of the executive branch from using, quote, 'his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.'"
- On the May 26 edition of Hannity, guest Scott Coffina claimed that the offer was a "clear violation of the Hatch Act."
- On the June 1 edition of Hannity, Sekulow stated that the Hatch Act "reads almost verbatim as to what happened here."
The statute. According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: "The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants."
The rebuttal. Asked whether the Hatch Act is relevant to this instance, Hasen stated:
HASEN: Well, you know, I haven't heard -- if you look at letter the Republican senators from the Judiciary Committee sent to Attorney General Holder asking for an investigation, they didn't cite the Hatch Act generally, it cited the Section 600, and I think there's a good reason for that. When you have the president of a particular party, the president is really the head of that party, and the president and the administration, they really wear two hats. This is true whether you're talking about Republican or Democratic administrations. That is, they have the political side, and they have their job as executive. And so long as they take steps to make sure that the two are not mixed -- for example, using government offices or using government resources to further political goals -- that's really been an accepted part of politics for a long time.
Experts also broadly dismiss the idea that a crime was committed
Former Justice Department senior attorney Cooper: Allegations don't "sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal." A May 28 Huffington Post article reported that James Cooper --formerly a "senior Justice Department attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he was the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division" -- stated of the allegations:
"I have seen the White House description of what occurred. ... Certainly, as described, it does not sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal. It seems to me that this is the political process at work... I don't understand as a legal matter how a prosecutor could sustain a case charging either party in this matter. I don't know of any precedent off the top of my head for anybody being prosecuted in this context."
Former public corruption prosecutor Bunnell: "I don't see anything criminal about what happened." Huffington Post further reported:
"I looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."
Formerly the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bunnell has no shortage of exposure with public corruption cases. The Sestak scandal not only passes the smell test, it doesn't really smell, he said. Bunnell isn't alone in his reading of the issue's legal underpinnings.
Bunnell, for one, noted the firing of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush years, in which officials were dismissed ostensibly for the purpose of benefiting Republican congressional candidates. Compared to that, he added, the Sestak saga "looks silly."
"It may be bad government in some context," he said, "but other then entering an election season, I don't understand what the big deal is."
Law professor Lowenstein: Situation is "viewed as politics as usual," not something subject to criminal prosecution. Murray further reported: " 'As a general matter, this kind of situation is viewed as politics as usual,' added Professor Daniel Lowenstein of UCLA Law School. 'It's just not the kind of the thing that is usually dealt with in a criminal prosecution.' "
Justice Department Public Integrity lawyer Zeidenberg: "Horrible precedent" to treat "horsetrading" "in the criminal context." Roth quoted Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, saying "Talk about criminalizing the political process!... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"
Bush political director Kaufman: "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington." The New York Times reported that Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, "said it would not be surprising for a White House to use political appointments to accomplish a political goal. 'Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington,' Mr. Kaufman said."
Political strategist Schoen: Conversation "didn't necessarily involve a thing of value." Fox News contributor Doug Schoen referenced Mukasey's comments during his May 28 appearance on Hannity. Schoen also said that "as I look at it, the conversation with President Clinton didn't necessarily involve a thing of value. Clinton immediately withdrew himself and said 'I thought you'd say that' when Sestak said 'I'm not really interested.' ... There was nothing really even approaching offer and acceptance. It was a subjective hypothetical conversation."
Political expert Sabato: Sestak allegations "trivial," "garden-variety politics." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' Your World, University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato called the allegations "garden-variety politics" and "absolutely trivial." He added, "Let's stop criminalizing garden-variety politics, which is what this is." Asked whether the offer gives him the "heebie-jeebies," Cavuto replied, "No," adding, "this is the way politics operates," and, "it seems to me that they're guilty of practicing politics, period, full stop."
Historian Russell Riley: "It is completely unexceptional." On May 27, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported, "As the Republican Party works itself into a lather over the Obama administration's offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) in exchange for him not entering the Pennsylvania Senate primary, seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding with veritable yawns."
Historian George Edwards: "All this is old news historically." Stein further reported, "George Edwards, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University, says: 'There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically.' "
- Posted In
- Elections, Election Law, Government, The Senate
- Network/Outlet
- Fox News Channel
- Person
- Sean Hannity
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
Cutting Back on Sodium
It's no secret that most Americans are consuming too much sodium. The average American takes in about 3,400 mg of sodium per day.
Decreasing the amount of sodium in the diet can help many people lower their blood pressure. Lowering blood pressure also means you are decreasing your risk for heart attack or stroke, both of which are common diabetes complications. The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with diabetes aim to have 2300 mg or less per day. If you have high blood pressure, your health care provider may recommend even less.
It is estimated that about 75% or more of the sodium Americans eat is from processed, packaged foods. Many companies are slowly trying to lower the amount of sodium in their products, but there is still much work to be done.
In general, fresh, unprocessed foods are the lowest sodium foods out there. So, an easy strategy to cut back on sodium is to eat more of these foods and less highly-processed foods. Fresh, unprocessed foods include:
- fresh fruits
- fresh vegetables (both starchy and non-starchy)
- dried beans, peas, and legumes (buying dried beans, peas, and legumes is best since canning adds a significant amount of sodium)
- whole grain foods prepared without salt like brown rice, wild rice, oats, quinoa, popcorn, and whole grain barley
- unsalted nuts and seeds
- most fresh or frozen (not processed) cuts of meat, poultry and fish without added salt water or saline
Low-Sodium Alternatives
Below we've provided a list of foods that are usually high in sodium, along with some related tips to follow when you decide to include them in your meal plan.
- Frozen meals — Choose frozen meals with 600 mg of sodium per serving or less. (Be sure to check the serving size, as well.)
- Cheese — Use less cheese in your recipes and meals. When choosing which to buy, use the nutrition label to compare different cheeses, and opt for those that are lower in sodium. Fresh mozzarella packed in water and Swiss cheese are usually on the low end.
- Canned vegetables and canned beans — Buying these items fresh or frozen without added salt is a great option. If you want to stick to cans, look for "no salt added" or reduced-sodium varieties.
Before using canned vegetables or beans, drain and rinse them thoroughly with cold water.
- Processed or cured meats — Limit these types of meat. This includes hot dogs, bologna, salami, bacon, and sausage products. Instead, choose fresh or frozen meats and poultry, fresh fish, and plant-based protein sources like tofu or dried beans.
- Other deli meats (chicken, ham, roast beef, turkey) — Choose reduced-sodium varieties and be careful of portion size. When you make sandwiches, use 2-3 slices and then add other healthy, lower-sodium ingredients like: avocado, lettuce, tomato, cucumber, and/or hummus. When you can, prepare fresh meats or poultry on the weekend and use it for sandwiches throughout the week.
- Many condiments (especially soy sauce, dressings/marinades, tomato or spaghetti sauce, and teriyaki sauce —There are also other condiments that can be a significant source of sodium if you have too much. This includes: salsa, catsup, taco sauce and seasoning, garlic salt, onion salt, hot sauce, and barbeque sauce. Always check labels and choose lower-sodium varieties. Look for salt-free seasonings and use them to enhance the flavor of your dishes. Be cautious about the amount of condiment you use, and measure if you have to – you may be surprised how a little bit can still add a lot of flavor to your meal. Even reduced sodium versions of some condiments like soy sauce contain over 700 mg per tablespoon, so read labels carefully. Try making your own salad dressing or salsa at home for a lower-sodium version.
- Soups and broths —Make your own broths and soup at home. It's easy to boil a chicken with some vegetables and use the broth to make a soup without adding any salt. If you want to buy soup or broth from the store, look for reduced-sodium varieties.
- Prepared mixes for pasta, rice, etc. —These highly processed foods can easily be replaced with healthy, homemade recipes that use fresh, natural ingredients. If you are looking for a variety of healthy recipes, you may want to check out our FREE nutrition resource, Recipes for Healthy Living.
- Pickled foods like pickles, relish, and sauerkraut —These foods are usually very high in sodium. One pickle wedge can have 500 mg of sodium! Limit these foods as much as possible.
- Many restaurant foods —Many restaurant meals (both fast-food and sit-down) have enough sodium in them for the entire day. Large portions are part of the problem. Save half of your meal for the next day – this will help you cut sodium in half too. You can also ask your server to have your food prepared without salt. Take a look at the nutrition information online ahead of time. Don't forget to consider sodium when looking at your options. Finding lower sodium options can be tough. It may be easier to cook from scratch as often as you can so you know exactly what is going into your food.
To learn more about how these foods fit into a diabetes meal plan, check out our Create Your Plate and Carbohydrate Counting pages.
More Sodium-Savvy Tips
Here are some additional tips that can help you cut back on sodium throughout your day:
Check Labels
Take the time to check labels at the grocery store. Check the amount of sodium in a serving and compare it to other similar items. This may sound time-consuming, but next time you shop for groceries, you'll know what best options are and exactly where to find them.
Be aware that sometimes fat-free and reduced fat items have more sodium in them. It is usually added to give these products more flavor. Check the nutrition labels on these items so you know what you are getting.
Cook Carefully
Limit the amount of salt that you add when cooking. Instead, stock your spice cabinet with salt-free seasonings and spices. Look for recipes that don't call for added salt. Fresh herbs, citrus juices, vinegars, and garlic are all low-sodium ways to add flavor to your food. Here are some examples:
- Squeeze fresh lemon juice on steamed vegetables, broiled fish, rice, or pasta. You may want to try squeezing fresh lime juice on Spanish dishes.
- Try salt- or sodium-free lemon pepper or mesquite seasoning on chicken.
- Add cooked onion and garlic to liven up meats and vegetables.
- Add fresh herbs to salads, pasta, or rice dishes to enhance flavor instead of adding salt or high-sodium condiments.
- Marinate vegetables or cook them with balsamic vinegar.
Put the Salt Shaker Away
Refrain from using the salt shaker at the table. Try your food without salting it first – it may be better than you think! You'll get a true taste of the natural flavors in the food you cook. If you need to, remove the salt shaker from the table all together. Keep the pepper out if you want to add a kick to your meal.
Make Some Simple Swaps
Here are just a few more handy tips to slim down the sodium in your diet:
- Buy unsalted natural peanut butter and almond butter.
- Choose unsalted nuts and seeds that are raw or dry roasted.
- Swap out a snack of chips or pretzels for a piece of fresh fruit with unsalted peanut butter or trail mix.
- Buy fresh meat or poultry on the weekend and cook it up using fresh herbs and spices. Store and portion it out for lunch sandwiches the following week.
- Buy spaghetti and marinara sauce labeled as "no salt added".
- If a recipe calls for salt, cut the amount in half.
- Choose recipes that call for fresh ingredients that have been minimally processed.
- Milk and whole wheat bread are healthy carbohydrate choices. However, they have enough sodium in them that it can add up if you have too much. If you have diabetes, you probably already watch your intake of these foods. You can still have them, but be aware that 1 cup of milk has about 130 mg and 1 slice of whole wheat bread could have 130 mg or more.
Note: Some people try to use salt substitutes instead in place of table salt. These substitutes are high in potassium, which could be harmful to some people. Check with your physician before using salt substitutes and make sure they won't interfere with another medical condition or your medications if you take them.


text:
Willis and Towers Watson have merged. Visit willistowerswatson.com
View our solutions by
We provide the ability to request certificates of insurance online and for registered clients, the ability to retrieve your certificates online.
IntelliCerts is a service of Willis North America, Inc. and is currently limited to our North American clients.
For more information, please contact your usual business contact(s) at Willis.
All Certificates Contacts


text:
PER Transition Request
This is a transition request, and also serves as an agenda for the upcoming Transition Meeting with the Director. The official version is in email: sent 20 November 2012.
1 Titles
We propose to publish the following documents as Proposed Edited Recommendation:
|Wiki Draft
|RIF Core Dialect
|RIF Basic Logic Dialect
|RIF Production Rule Dialect
|RIF Datatypes and Builtins 1.0
|RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility
|RIF Framework for Logic Dialects
The anticipated publication date is 4 December.
Note that these documents are associated with several Working Group Notes which will be re-published at the same time.
2 Abstracts and Status Sections
The abstract of each document is below, unchanged from the Recommendation:
|This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies RIF-Core, a common subset of RIF-BLD and RIF-PRD based on RIF-DTB 1.0. The RIF-Core presentation syntax and semantics are specified by restriction in two different ways. First, RIF-Core is specified by restricting the syntax and semantics of RIF-BLD, and second, by restricting RIF-PRD. The XML serialization syntax of RIF-Core is specified by a mapping from the presentation syntax. A normative XML schema is also provided.
|This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the Basic Logic Dialect, RIF-BLD, a format that allows logic rules to be exchanged between rule systems. The RIF-BLD presentation syntax and semantics are specified both directly and as specializations of the RIF Framework for Logic Dialects, or RIF-FLD. The XML serialization syntax of RIF-BLD is specified via a mapping from the presentation syntax. A normative XML schema is also provided.
|This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the production rule dialect of the W3C rule interchange format (RIF-PRD), a standard XML serialization format for production rule languages.
|This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies a list of datatypes, built-in functions and built-in predicates expected to be supported by RIF dialects such as the RIF Core Dialect, the RIF Basic Logic Dialect, and the RIF Production Rules Dialect. Each dialect supporting a superset or subset of the datatypes, built-in functions and built-in predicates defined here shall specify these additions or restrictions. Some of the datatypes are adapted from [XML-SCHEMA2]. A large part of the definitions of the listed functions and operators are adapted from [XPath-Functions]. The rdf:PlainLiteral datatype as well as functions and operators associated with that datatype are adopted from [RDF-PLAINLITERAL].
|Rules interchanged using the Rule Interchange Format RIF may depend on or be used in combination with RDF data and RDF Schema or OWL ontologies. This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the interoperation between RIF and the data and ontology languages RDF, RDF Schema, and OWL.
|This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, defines a general RIF Framework for Logic Dialects (RIF-FLD). The framework describes mechanisms for specifying the syntax and semantics of logic RIF dialects through a number of generic concepts such as signatures, symbol spaces, semantic structures, and so on. The actual dialects should specialize this framework to produce their syntaxes and semantics.
The Status sections are assembled automatically from maturity-specific and working-group specific boilerplate, indicating the document is part of the set of six RIF specifications, with pointers to each, along with changes since the last publication.
3 Decision to Request PER
Made via WBS, because the group is no longer having regular meetings. See announcement to group, reminder (access controlled) and results (access controlled due to WBS).
Twenty five votes were received from Working Group participants: 19 approve, 6 abstain, no objections.
Votes were:
- Dave Reynolds Approve
- Markus Krötzsch Abstain
- Christopher Welty Approve
- Hassan Ait-Kaci Abstain
- Sandro Hawke Approve
- Minsu Jang Approve
- Stuart Taylor Abstain
- Evan Wallace Approve
- Donald Chapin Approve
- Paul Vincent Abstain
- Enrico Franconi Approve
- Stasinos Konstantopoulos Approve
- Bruce Spencer Abstain
- Michael Kifer Approve
- Luis Polo Approve
- Christian de Sainte Marie Approve
- Leora Morgenstern Approve
- Gary Hallmark Approve
- Said Tabet Approve
- Yuting Zhao Approve
- Jeff Pan Approve
- Mark Proctor Approve
- John Hall Approve
- Harold Boley Approve
- Stefan Decker Abstain
4 Changes since Recommendation
All changes have been minor, editorial in nature, and would not invalidate earlier reviews.
The preview drafts, linked above, have color-coded diffs from the RECs.
A few additional changes are being made after the snapshot circulated to the WG on 28 October, due to issues noticed during this review cycle. These changes are visible in the wiki by looking for changes since that date, as in recent changes and will be confirmed with the WG via email before publication.
5 Satisfies Group's Requirements
The requirements have not changed. None of the reviews have raised any concern about the documents failing to satisfy the group's requirements.
6 Dependencies
The main purpose of this revision was to change the dependency on XSD 1.1 Part 2, which was only at Last Call when these documents went to REC, so the dependency could not be normative. Now there are no normative references to documents not at REC.
7 Received Wide Review
Within the group: see vote results.
Public review is not done prior to publishing Proposed Edited Recommendations.
8 Issues Formally Addressed
The reported errata have been addressed.
9 Objections
To date, there have been no formal objections.
10 Implementations
The group has not been tracking implementations since REC. At the time, it produced a table of implementations.
11 Patent Disclosures


text:
The other day I was in the car listening to the radio, when the popular Christmas song Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer came on . I began singing along with it and for the first time realized how the words to this catchy tune tell a very sad story.
t starts off fine describing a reindeer with his red nose as the lyrics are:
Rudolph the red nosed reindeer
Had a very shiny nose
And if you ever saw it,
You would even say it glows
Then it goes on to describe how the reindeer was bullied and ostracized, simply because he looked different. This verse actually saddened me as I listened to the following verse:
All of the other reindeer
Used to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Rudolph
Play in any reindeer games.
Luckily for Rudolph, Santa became Rudolph's savior as Santa came to his rescue by acknowledging Rudolph's difference and turning his physical difference and uniqueness into an advantage and an asset. It was because of Rudolph's unique difference which allowed Santa to navigate his sleigh through the foggy night.The lyrics are as follows:
Then one foggy Christmas night
Santa came to say
"Rudoph with your nose so bright
Won't you guide my sleigh night?
Now here is the part that disturbs me. Only because Rudolph was useful and did something heroic based on his physical difference did the other reindeer finally accept him. Otherwise , they would never have accepted him into their group and allow him to play reindeer games with them. Below are the lyrics which disturbed me.
Then all the reindeer loved him
As they shouted out with glee
Rudolph the red nosed reindeer
You'll go down in history.
These superficial reindeer needed to accept Rudolph red nose and all from the beginning, not because he did something which helped Santa. Obviously these TOXIC reindeer only liked him because he now had Santa's blessing who accepted Rudolph's uniqueness which allowed him to become a hero.
I don't think the song should end there. To me, it is not is finished. It's missing several verses in my view so I took my songwriting and skills to task and took the liberty to write some very much needed verses that apply in this his day and age of zero tolerance for bullying. So here are the additional lyrics I wrote to the tune of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
Then Rudolph told all the reindeer
You hurt my feelings when teasing me
Just cuz someone looks different
You don't have to be a bully
We come in all shapes and sizes
And just to be direct
We all want love and kindness
And to be treated with respect.
I hope you learned your lesson
That teasing makes others blue
Everyone has feelings
Just like me and you .
So in the Spirit of Christmas
Where forgiveness is number one
Never tease others
Cuz you can really hurt someone.
While the song written back in 1939 by Robert L. May and published by Montgomery Ward and adapted into songs, television specials feature films and has become a figure of Christmas folklore, I believe that these additional meaningful verses are now needed to teach children about the consequences of bullying and hurt feelings in this age of Zero Tolerance for Bullying.


text:
Jake Davidson's prom was definitely a night to remember!
While the Los Angeles high school student didn't end up bringing Kate Upton as his date ― although he certainly got her attention with his headline-making YouTube appeal ― he had another certified beauty on his arm for the rite of passage: Upton's fellow model Nina Agdal.
The big night was Thursday in Santa Monica and it included the requisite prom photo shoot beforehand. Davidson, dressed in a gray tux with a black bow tie, happily posed next to the 21-year-old Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue model, who wore a sage green halter dress that showed off her back.
"Had such a great prom night," tweeted the Danish beauty, who recently appeared in an ad for Carl's Jr. that ran during the Super Bowl. "Thank you jakedavidson23 for being an awesome date!"
[Related: Celebrity Prom Photos]
"You are the best!" the 17-year-old replied. "Thanks so much for everything."
Davidson has since shared some of the details from his big night.
"She came over to my house to meet my family and then we headed over to pre-prom, which is where everyone from school takes pictures," he told Sports Illustrated's Swim Daily blog on Friday. "Then we headed to prom for a little bit, the usual schedule, but with a very unique date."
Davidson noted that Agdal "got along very well" with his classmates, describing her as "incredibly friendly." He added, "All of my guy friends loved the choice and certainly approved, and a lot of the girls wanted to get into photos with us as well. I would venture to say that a few heads turned when I walked in with Nina on my arm."
As for whether anyone tried to steal her away from him, he said, "Not at all."
Davidson made national headlines earlier this year when he created a YouTube plea to Sports Illustrated Swimsuit cover model Kate Upton asking her to be his prom date. The video went viral ― it has over 2.6 million streams ― and one of the people who saw it was Upton, who tweeted Davidson and said she'd attend if she was free. However, her schedule ended up being booked so Agdal happily stepped in.
Not a bad trade-off by any means, which Davidson also acknowledged, noting, "Nina Agdal is the perfect date!"
More Celebrity Features On Yahoo!:


text:
Why do the Police always spy on unions and not the bankers?
Far be it for me to be critical of the NZ Police force, but shouldn't we all be a wee bit more concerned with the vast abuses of power the Police seem to be getting caught out committing on an almost monthly basis now?
It's bad enough that NZ gave the NZ Police vast new search and surveillance powers where they will be able to break into our homes and spy on us with the barest of judicial oversights.
It's bad enough the Police have given themselves a military drone with zero debate.
It's bad enough that the Police collude with the Banks to molest your credit rating.
It's bad enough the Police tried to subvert the power of the Court by including them in a legal masquerade to create a false back story for an undercover cop in the Red Devils case.
It's bad enough that the Police blew $14million on the Urewera fiasco and had retrospective legislation rammed through Parliament to make their illegal spying legal.
It's bad enough that the NZ Police have become the puppets of Corporate Hollywood and the FBI in the Kim Dotcom meltdown.
And let's not forget the allegation that Rob Gilchrist sent the Police naked photos of young activists with absolutely no word from them that they destroyed those images or thought it was acceptable for a Police payed spy to be sending naked photos of teen activists.
That's all pretty bad, but consider the revelations this weekend...
Police software mines social media
Police have developed a specialist software tool which mines social media for information.
Police paid witnesses in murder case shock
Experts on criminology convinced an innocent man has been serving a life sentence for 20 years for his alleged role in notorious rape and killing in 1992. Police paid witnesses who gave critical evidence in a rape and murder case for which an apparently innocent man has been in jail for 20 years.
Spy's claim: A decade of deception
The details of Rob Gilchrist's double life infiltrating protest groups and leading trade unions are contained in a draft claim for more than $500,000 from police for lost income, for humiliation, distress, and loss of reputation.
...so in a weekend we find out the Police are now spying on social media, used paid informants to frame an innocent man and they spied on Unions.
I hate to point this out to a cop worshiping culture like NZ, but the NZ Police are out of control and the checks and balances meant to keep the buggers in line don't exist.
The only ray of light is the IPCAs desire to launch their own investigations against the Police.
I am involved in the current complaint against the NZ Police in their bullying and intimidation of Steven McIntyre that led to his suicide last year. One of the interesting developments in that process is that the NZ Police launch their own investigation the moment IPCA are involved. This investigation by the Police has nothing to do with looking into the wrongs committed by the Police, the investigation is to generate evidence to hide police abuse. Their investigation runs parallel with IPCAs and the threat that was used in the McIntyre case to gain access to witnesses was that there would be no investigation by IPCA if everyone didn't agree to participate in the Police investigation.
This was a falsehood I quickly pointed out and the Police back tracked. If a person is not confident and knows their rights, the current process to investigate the Police can be manipulated despite the best attempts by IPCA.
If IPCA were able to launch their own investigations into the Police, it would mean the Police didn't have the opportunity to white wash or interfere in it.
Many Police are good cops who do a thankless job well, but there are also corrupt buggers in the Police force and the massive amounts of power they have amassed without any checks or balances is not healthy for a democracy.
Criticism of the Police is not anti-authority whinging, it is the responsibility of every citizen in a free country.