Bill Eiland Honored!

I sit on the Board of our State Museum (GMOA) which is located on the campus of The University of Georgia. 

Many of my memo readers have visited the museum on the various trip tours I have conducted.

I am proud to post this item recognizing our wonderful Director - Bill Eiland and my dear friend for over 20 years.

 Dear Board: We thought you would be interested in the following press release, which went out to national and local media outlets this week. Bill deserves your congratulations on this major national award, which draws attention not only to his decades of service, but also to our museum in general. 

Hillary Brown Director of Communications Georgia Museum of Art For Immediate Release: Georgia Museum of Art director receives national service award.

 William Underwood Eiland, director of the Georgia Museum of Art at the University of Georgia, received the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) Award for Distinguished Service to Museums last week at AAM’s annual conference, in Baltimore. The award was instituted in 1981 and recognizes excellence and contributions to the museum profession for at least 20 years.

It is only given in years when there is a worthy nominee. Previous recipients include Charles F. Hummel, of Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library, and Bonnie Pitman, former director of the Dallas Museum of Art. Evaluations are based on individual contributions to institutions, the museum profession and the local, state, national or international museum community.

Eiland has been the director of the Georgia Museum of Art since 1992, a period of unprecedented growth for the museum. He has given his time for many years to such professional organizations as AAM (for which he serves as an accreditation site visitor), the Southeastern Museums Conference, the Georgia Association of Museums and Galleries (GAMG), the Association of Art Museum Directors, the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Advisory Panel for the National Endowment for the Arts and the International Council of Museums. Eiland is a Woodrow Wilson Fellow and has received several fellowships, including the Danforth Teaching Fellowship at the University of Virginia, a Museum Professionals Grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and a Research Fellowship from the UGA Center for Humanities and Arts.

He has edited and contributed to more than 50 publications. Eiland previously earned a Lifetime Achievement Award from GAMG in 2007 and Museum Professional of the Year from the same organization in 2000. The Southeastern College Art Conference named him Outstanding Museum Professional in 1999.

Eiland was inducted into the Sigma Pi Kappa national honor society in spring 2010 and, in 2000, named a Distinguished Alum of Birmingham Southern College, where he received his bachelor’s degree in 1970. 
---
PJTV.COM: "Trifecta -- Shock Poll for Liberals: People Want Less Government A recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of people think the federal government is too big and too powerful. Only eight percent believe the government needs more power. So why do President Obama and the Democrats keep pushing for more spending and increased government in your life? Stephen Green, Scott Ott and Bill Whittle discuss how conservatives can make the case that less government is better."
---
Obama plunges. Less than half now believe he is trustworthy. Will it remain a permanent view?  (See 1 below.)
---
Does Hillary resent having been Obama's lap dog and was thrown under the bus?  (See 2 below)
---
Israeli intelligence sources deny Russia has shipped the air defense  missiles have arrived.  (See 3 below.)
---
John Fund connects Obama to Chicago.  (See 4 below.)

Little did the  Platters know in 1955 that their song would be so appropriate today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Zy297Xgr8Q

LTE to local paper:

"Obama's presidency  has come full circle -  all the way from empty speechifying and receiving  an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize to allowing thousands to be slaughtered because he dithers when it comes to hard decisions and now base corruption.

Even when it came to protecting the lives of four Americans Obama chose denial while maintaining  his continual campaign mode, attributing everything to a video that inflamed Muslims.  What to do? Send  Amb. Rice out to perpetuate this myth while Hillary threw herself under the Obama bus.

As for the recent IRS scandal and Obama's repeated confidence in the most corrupt Attorney General in years, Obama brings more shame to The Oval Office.

Why did it take years for Obama's incompetence to become blatantly evident? The answer is simple.  The press and media chose him, then  fawned over and  protected him. Meanwhile, those who saw through him were attacked for being racially motivated. Now even his protectors are having to swallow hard defending him.

Obama claims to know nothing about everything.  Even his whereabouts the evening Benghazi broke remain secreted.

After five years, Obama has little to show by way of positive accomplishments beyond 'The Affordable Healthcare Act' which is neither affordable nor wanted. America's influence is down around his ankles, the Federal Debt is higher than a kite and Obama continues to employ evasive Chicago tactics as a substitute for leadership.

The stench mounts and he plays golf.  "

---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama Job Approval Tumbles in Wake of White House Scandals
By Melanie Batley

President Barack Obama's job approval rating has taken a huge hit in the wake of the scandals surrounding the White House, a new poll has found.

Fewer than half the registered voters surveyed now believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy," according to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. That figure had stood at 58 percent the last time the question was asked in September 2011. Now it is at 49 percent.

And it is the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service that is hitting Obama hardest, the survey found. The voters, who were surveyed between Wednesday last week and Tuesday of this week, believe that controversy is more worrying than those surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, or the seizure of phone records from journalists.

According to the Connecticut university's survey, more people now view the president negatively than positively. Slightly under half -- 49 percent -- say they have a negative view of Obama, while 45 percent have a positive view.

Just one month ago, before news of the IRS controversy broke, the president's job approval rating was more positive than negative, at 48 to 45 percent.

When it comes to the individual controversies swirling around the Obama administration, 44 percent of voters see the IRS prying into conservative groups as the most important, while 24 percent say they are most concerned about the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and 15 percent say the records seizure at news organizations is most important.

Many voters believe criticism of the administration's handling of the Benghazi attack as "just politics," the survey shows with 43 percent describing it that way

Meanwhile, more than three out of four voters -- 76 percent -- believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS scandal. That figure includes 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of independent voters.

"There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute. 

"Voters apparently don't like the idea of Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the matter himself, perhaps because they don't exactly think highly of him," Brown said. Holder got a negative 39 percent job approval rating, compared to 23 percent who approved of the way he is doing his job.

But the poll also shows that almost three-quarters of voters, or 73 percent, believe that dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues. Only 22 percent disagree.

But those who were surveyed are also optimistic that the economy is finally improving.

"The fact that voters say, 34–25 percent, that the economy is getting better also may be a reason the president's job approval numbers have not dropped further," said Brown.

Other points from the poll include:

• Political parties and groups are generally held in disdain. Voters have an unfavorable view of both the main parties and the tea party. The Republican Party fares worse, with an unfavorable rating of 50 percent, compared to 35 percent who rate it favorably. The same is said of the Democrats by 47 percent who rate their party favorably, and 42 percent unfavorably; and the tea party by 38-28 percent.

• A minuscule 3 percent of voters surveyed says they trust the federal government to do the right thing all the time. Twelve percent says they trust the feds most of the time, 47 percent say some of the time, and 36 percent say hardly ever.

• A congressional election today would be evenly split, with 38 percent saying they would vote for a Republican to sit in the House of Representatives and the same number saying they would vote Democrat.

A total of 1,419 registered voters were polled for the survey, with a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points, Quinnipiac said

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)The Betrayal of Hillary Clinton

By Peter Wilson

Hillary Clinton might have been a little touchy about Benghazi when she testified to Congress in January because Barack Obama had thrown her under the bus, abandoning her philosophy of "normalization" -- the policy of intentionally minimizing security around embassies and other diplomatic facilities.

A report by the historian Arthur Herman on Fox News last October describes the situation before the attack:

Twice the man in charge of security for our diplomats in Libya, Greg Nordstrom, begged the State Department for more security in Benghazi after no less than 48 security "incidents" there, including two bombings.

Washington, however, said no. Hillary Clinton... had her minion Charlene Lamb... tell Nordstrom that State wanted "to normalize operations" in Libya and to "reduce security resources."

Clinton defended normalization in a speech on October 13, 2012, a month after the attack. "We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism, or achieve perfect security," Clinton said. "Our people can't live in bunkers and do their jobs... Diplomacy, by its very nature, is often practiced in dangerous places."

I disagree with this assertion; a desk officer doing the job of issuing visas deserves a safe workplace. The diplomatic security debate however reflects a larger conflict between the Department of State and our military and intelligence communities. By placing their faith in diplomacy, Obama and Clinton elevate the job of the diplomat to include gathering intelligence and winning hearts and minds, tasks that are better suited to the CIA and the military.

In the days after Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens was characterized as a romantic who spoke Arabic and liked to mingle with the people without the insulation of security -- a kind of modern-day Lawrence of Arabia. Later, this narrative was challenged, notably by John McCain, who claimed that Stevens requested increased security.

Sentiments similar to Hillary's were expressed in a November 14, 2012 New York Times article titled, "Can American Diplomacy Ever Come Out of Its Bunker?" Foreign Correspondent Robert F. Worth presents a history of security measures at American embassies, which began a transformation under President Reagan after the April 1983 bombing of the Beirut embassy left 63 people dead. A few excerpts:

The death of an ambassador [in Libya] would not be seen as the occasional price of a noble but risky profession; someone had to be blamed...

Lost in all this partisan wrangling was the fact that American diplomacy has already undergone vast changes in the past few decades and is now so heavily encumbered by fortresslike embassies, body armor and motorcades that it is almost unrecognizable...

The mantra of "security" will only grow louder. As a result, some of the country's most distinguished former ambassadors are now asking anew what diplomacy can achieve at such a remove.

Guess who is now chanting "the mantra of 'security'"?

In the second presidential debate, Obama claimed, "nobody's more concerned about safety and security [of American diplomats] than I am."

In the October 2012 vice presidential debate, Joe Biden was sent out to tell a bald-faced lie: "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there." The assumption is that, had they known, of course they would have increased security.

Biden attacked Paul Ryan with his overbearing style:

Number one, the --- this lecture on embassy security -- the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.

Barbara Boxer and others in Congress continued to blame Benghazi on Republican budget cutting: "I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut."

At his press conference on May 16, 2013, Obama brought up the funding issue; he "called on Congress... to take action to bolster security at American Embassies... I'm calling on Congress to work with us and support and fully fund our budget request."

The Washington Post comments cluelessly: "we don't understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms." According to the Post, "while Boxer claims that Republicans 'cut' the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years."

The larger point is that in none of these examples does any Democrat bring up the philosophy of normalization. They've all become security hawks, which given that it involves spending money was not so painful.

Hillary Clinton's idealism before Benghazi has vanished, even though it is ideologically consistent with President Obama's foreign policy philosophy, set out in his 2009 speech at Cairo University:

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect...

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan... I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Obama rejects the hard power of military force, but his "new beginning" is not a classic soft power approach -- more like a "no power" approach. The goal of both soft power and hard power is to advance American interests abroad, and Obama's highest goal is "leading from behind" -- "diplomacy" and "international consensus" where the United States takes its place in the world among the nations, as an equal, or perhaps, given the sins of our fathers, as an inferior penitent. Speak softly, but don't carry any kind of stick, because only hoodlums carry sticks.

In the world, it means cutting our military budget and unilaterally dismantling our nuclear arsenal so that other nations will trust us and won't react aggressively in response to our aggressive stance. In Benghazi, it means, or used to mean, normalization.

A North Korean missile obliterating San Diego? Tragic, but that's the price for transforming the global power structure. Four deaths at the hands of "some guys out for a walk one night"? As Rep. Elijah Cummings succinctly put it in the recent Benghazi hearings, "death is part of life." In the words of the New York Times reporter cited above, "The occasional price of a noble but risky profession." Deplorable, but it's the cost of achieving the higher goal of friendly relations with the Muslim world.

We can denounce this philosophy as dangerously naïve, but naïveté is not an impeachable offense. Obama might have fared better had he stuck to his guns and defended Clinton's normalization policy. We know though, this isn't who he is. When Obama is threatened politically, betrayal and lies come naturally.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Israeli intelligence denies first Russian S-300s arrive in Syria - contrary to Assad’s claim

Senior Israeli intelligence sources emphasized Thursday May 30 that Syria had still not received the first consignment of Russian S-300 anti-missile batteries – contrary to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s claim.

Directly taunting Israel, Syrian president Bashar Assad said in an interview prerecorded for broadcast Thursday night, May 30, that the first batch of Russian S-300 anti-air missiles has arrived in Syria and a second consignment was on the way. The broadcast was scheduled to air simultaneously over Hizballah’s Al Manar and Syrian state television channels.

The Syrian ruler was responding to the quote from Israel’s National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror that the S-300 batteries have not been delivered yet and when they are, Israel will destroy them before they are operational.

Continuing in the same vein, Assad said that not only would the Syrian army react to any further Israeli attacks, he “would not stand in the way of Syrian groups that want to fight for the liberation of the Golan.”

Fresh Hizballah forces entered Syria early Thursday, May 30, hours after the United States called the presence of the Hizballah fighters from Lebanon in Syria “unacceptable” and “dangerous” and demanded their immediate withdrawal. Already fighting on three fronts – Damascus, Homs and al Qusayr - Military sources report that the new increment is assigned a fourth. Iran’s Lebanese proxies will be heading south to take on the rebel stronghold of Deraa, capital of the Huran, where thet will be fighting within 30 kilometers of Israel’s Golan border.

Lookout posts report the incoming Hizballah units organizing their equipment and getting set to move.

The threats traded by Russia, Syria, Hizballah with Israel have reached a new pitch of stridency.
Israel’s National Secuirty Adviser Yakov Amidror was quoted Wednesday night as warning that if the Russian S-300 anti-air missiles are delivered to Syria, Israel will strike them and prevent their deployment for operational use.

Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens voiced his certainty that the Russians are aware Israel is capable of destroying the batteries.

Military sources add: Moscow has made a point of stressing that the S-300s for Syria will arrive accompanied by Russian officers and advisers, in the belief that Israel will think twice before tangling with Moscow by attacking the missiles still in their crates and risking harm to Russian personnel. This eventuality came up in the tough conversation Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi on May 14.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem has meanwhile pitched in to warn that another Israeli strike against Syria would elicit an immediate Syrian response. He spoke to the Hizballah TV station Al Mayadin Wednesday night. In answer to a question, he said the Syrian response would be proportional to the Israeli attack.
In Helsinki, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reacted harshly to the European Union’s decision – spearheaded by Britain and France – to lift its arms embargo on the Syrian rebels: He made it clear that this decision had untied Moscow’s hands for supplying Bashar Assad with weapons banned by international treaties.

“Every decision has two sides. If one side lifts its restrictions, then the other side may no longer feel compelled to keep its previously adopted obligations,” Shoigu said Wednesday. 

A special interview with President Assad is scheduled for simultaneous broadcast Thursday night by Hizballah’s Al-Manar and Syrian state television channels.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)Obama’s ‘Chicago Way’ 

The administration’s political tactics are straight out of the Daley playbook. 

By John Fund

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how “hope and change” seem to have been supplanted by “arrogance and fear.” Perhaps it’s time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn’t influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama “somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it.” It’s true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor’s former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: “While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally.” The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine’s core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on “the Chicago Way,” is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing “the Chicago way” to Washington, sums up his city like this: “Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut.”

“We have a sick political culture, and that’s the environment Barack Obama came from,” Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state.”

Joel Kotkin, an urban expert who still considers himself a “Kennedy Democrat –– John F. Kennedy,” wrote at Forbes: “Most of us would put up with a bit of corruption and special dealing if the results were strong economic and employment growth. But the bare demographic and economic facts for both Chicago and Illinois reveal a stunning legacy of failure.” Since 2007, the Chicago region has lost more jobs than Detroit has, and more than twice as many as New York. The city’s murder rate is a national disgrace, and its teachers’ union is so powerful that a strike it called last year forced new mayor Rahm Emanuel to back down from his attempt to curb union power.

The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch tags Chicago as the fifth most heavily taxed city in the country: Its sky-high effective sales tax of 9.75 percent makes the tax burden on a family earning $25,000 a year the fourth highest in the country. From 1991, two years after Richard M. Daley first took office as mayor, to 2011, the year Emanuel took the reins, the average debt per Chicagoan grew from $600 to $2,600, an increase of 433 percent. As Dick Simpson, a former reform Chicago alderman who now teaches at the University of Illinois, put it: “There’s a significant downside to authoritarian rule. The city could do much better.”

Conservatives in Chicago, an embattled breed, say the Obama scandals now coming to light — the IRS, the intimidation of journalists, the green-energy boondoggles such as Solyndra — could have been anticipated. “The 2008 Obama campaign perpetrated a fraud that he was a reformer,” says Chris Robling, a former journalist who has served as a Republican election commissioner. “All of the complaints — from the lack of transparency to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s shaking down corporations to promote Obamacare — stem from the culture of the Daley Machine.” For decades, Robling says, Mayor Daley “encouraged” contributions to his favorite charities, with the implicit understanding that the “encourager” controlled the city’s inspectors and regulators. “That sounds an awful lot like what Sebelius was doing to prop up Obamacare,” Robling notes. “Obama’s ideology may come from Saul Alinsky’s acolytes, but his political tactics come straight from the Daley playbook.” Indeed, friends of Bill Daley, Mayor Daley’s brother, say that one reason Bill left his post as Obama’s White House chief of staff after only one year was that even he thought Team Obama was too much “all politics, all of the time” and not enough about governance.

Journalists used to know that presidents are in part a product of their past: where their careers were nurtured and where their politics were shaped. They understood this as a given when it came to Ronald Reagan and California; they basically grasped it about Bill Clinton’s Arkansas, and certainly nailed it on George W. Bush and Texas. But when it came to Barack Obama, all that went out the window. Speaking at the University of Southern California, at a post-2008 conference on the election, Mark Halperin, then of ABC News, said that the media’s treatment of Obama had been “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.” It was “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage,” he concluded.

That media failure continued throughout Obama’s first term. Perhaps now, as Obama’s “Chicago Way” is coming into focus, the media will want to redeem itself. With Obama, it’s become all too clear: You can take the politician away from the machine, but you can’t take the machine out of the politician.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Obama A Dithering Untrustworthy President Who Has Come Full Circle.

They just keep coming!









---
Bibi meets with a key Senator and supporter of Israel.

Bibi understands America's support for Israel and recognition of it as  a reliable and important ally is best gauged by sentiments expressed in Congress and not from this White House.

Obama is an unreliable partner despite all his words. Ask the Syrians, the Iranians and Republicans.

A president that screws his own people, a president who receives a Nobel Peace Prize before he has done anything to justify getting it and then deserts those being slaughtered and a president who lies is not one to be trusted.(See 1 below.)

Russia has now delivered their air missile defense and are planning on delivering a comparable sea defense to Syria.

This adds a new dimension to the Syrian military picture and will make it far more difficult to attack Syria.

Obama's dithering has lessened our options and made Assad;s overthrow more difficult and/or less likely.

Obama has come full circle from a President who received an undeserved  Nobel Peace Prize to an earned title as one of the most incompetent presidents in recent history.
---
Just as I have maintained. (See 2 below.)
---
Hanson and the old order. (See 3 below.)
---
Jude Wanitski wrote a book on economics years ago entitled: "The Way The World Works."  His thesis was, people eventually do what is less painful.  (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)PM Netanyahu Meets with US Senator Robert Menendez
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this evening (Wednesday, 29 May 2013),
met with US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez
(D-NJ), and made the following remarks at the start of the meeting:
"Senator, I would like to welcome you as a great friend of Israel. You did
it again. Your bill supporting Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat(see
below) was passed by an amazing majority, I think 99 to 0. Very few people
can accomplish something like that and it’s the second time you’ve done it,
because you’ve also had the important sanctions bill. And we know that you
stand with us, as do the American people and the American Government, the
American congress, against the greatest security threat of our time, which
is Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. I think it’s the greatest security
threat to the United States, to the free world and to international peace.
And these are our two goals: security and peace. On peace, we applaud
Secretary Kerry’s efforts. I stand ready to resume negotiations immediately,
and I think there’s an abiding interest to achieve a secure peace. And we’re
prepared to get on with it. The one thing that unites all Israelis: the
support and friendship of the United States. It’s very strong because of
people like you. Thank you."

Senator Menendez said: "And for twenty years, as a member of the House of
Representatives and the Senate and now as the Chairman of the Center Foreign
Relations Committee, I’ve always asked two questions in terms of the US
foreign policy abroad: What is in the national interest of the United
States? What is in the national security interest of the United States? And
the answer to those questions, for myself, I’ve always dictated my views, my
advocacy and my votes. And for 20 years I’ve answered that question as it
relates to the Middle East that it’s in the national interest and the
national security of the United States to have a strong, unwavering
relationship with the State of Israel – a true democracy in a very tough
part of the world; a major security ally of the United States; a major trade
partner of the United States; and a country most likely to be voting in
common cause with us in international parts. I haven’t changed those views
as the Chairman of the Center Foreign Relations Committee. I continue to
hold them, and I do agree with you that Iran is a major challenge. It’s why
I’ve led three different set of sanctions laws successfully, and the one
thing about the Congress we may have very significant differences but the
one thing that unites the American Congress is our relationship with Israel
and we look forward to continuing that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Attorney: Don't expect apology from Attorney General Holder - See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2013/05/29/attorney-dont-expect-apology-from-attorney-general#.UaZ0bEAWJM4

A former Justice Department attorney says Attorney General Eric Holder will not be forced out of office despite misleading Congress about the pursuit of reporters' records by the DOJ.

"

Eric Holder will come up with 15 reasons why he didn't lie under oath," says J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney who worked in the Voting Section at the federal agency.

Adams now serves as legal editor for PJ Media.

- 

Two weeks ago, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee and insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or even knew about.

But Fox News is reporting the Justice Department has acknowledged Holder was involved in the decision to go after Fox News reporter James Rosen's e-mails.

The DOJ filed an affidavit accusing Rosen of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea.

Rosen was never charged and never prosecuted.  

"

They had executed search warrants which named James Rosen as a potential conspirator in a crime," Adams tells OneNewsNow. "And it's just another instance of this Justice Department, this administration not being honest with the American people." 

B

ut Adams asserts that Holder will not resign or be forced to step down over this latest scandal.

"These are smooth-talking people with usually Ivy League law school degrees," explains Adams. "One of things they teach you in those schools is how to never admit you made a mistake and to always argue your way out of a problem."

Adams adds, "And that's just the culture now in Washington D.C." 

- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2013/05/29/attorney-dont-expect-apology-from-attorney-general#.UaZ0bEAWJM4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)

The Old Order is Dying

Victor Davis Hanson
Ideas of the 1960s have now grown reactionary in our world that is vastly different from a half-century ago.

Take well-meaning subsidies for those over age 62. Why are there still senior discounts, vast expansions in Social Security and Medicare, and generous public pensions?

Five decades ago all that made sense. There was no such thing as double-dipping. Seniors often were physically worn out from blue-collar jobs. They were usually poorer and frequently sicker than society in general. The aged usually died not long after they retired.

Not now. Seniors often live a quarter-century or longer after a mostly white-collar retirement, drawing subsidies from those least able to pay for them.

Seniors are not like today's strapped youth, scrimping for a down payment on a house. Most are not struggling to find even part-time work. None are paying off crushing student loans. In a calcified economy, why would an affluent couple in their early 60s earn a "senior discount" at a movie, while the struggling young couple with three children in the same line does not?

Affirmative action and enforced "diversity" were originally designed to give a boost to those who were victims of historical bias from the supposedly oppressive white-majority society. Is that still true, a half-century after these assumptions became institutionalized?

Through greater intermarriage and immigration, America has become a multiracial nation. Skin color, general appearance, accent or the sound of one's name cannot so easily identify either "oppressors" or "victims."

So who exactly should receive privileges in job-hiring or college admissions -- the newly arrived Pakistani immigrant, or the third-generation, upper-middle-class Mexican-American who does not speak Spanish? Both, or neither? What about someone of half-Jamaican ancestry? What about the children of Attorney General Eric Holder or self-proclaimed Native American Sen. Elizabeth Warren? What about the poor white grandson of the Oklahoma diaspora who is now a minority in California?

Even if the 21st-century state could define who is a minority, on what moral grounds does the targeted beneficiary deserve special consideration? Is his disadvantage defined by being poorer, by lingering trauma from his grandparents' long-ago ordeals, or by yesterday's experience with routine racial prejudice?

If Latinos are underrepresented at the University of California, Berkeley, is it because of the stubborn institutional prejudices that also somehow have been trumped by Asian-Americans enrolling at three times their numbers in the state's general population? Are women so oppressed by men that they graduate from college in higher numbers than their chauvinist male counterparts?

Consider also the calcified assumptions about college education. The expanding 1960s campus was touted as the future gateway to a smarter, fairer, richer and more ethical America. Is that dream still valid?

Today, the college-educated owe a collective $1 trillion in unpaid student loans. Millions of recent graduates cannot find jobs that offer much chance of paying off their crushing student debts.

College itself has become a sort of five- to six-year lifestyle choice. Debt, joblessness or occasional part-time employment and coursework eat up a youth's 20s -- in a way that military service or vocational training does not.

In reaction, private diploma mills are springing up everywhere. But there are no "diversity czars" at DeVry University. There is no time or money for the luxury of classes such as "Gender Oppression" at Phoenix University. Students do not have rock-climbing walls or have Michael Moore address them at Heald College.

The private-sector campus makes other assumptions. One is that the hallowed liberal arts general-education requirement has been corrupted and no longer ensures an employer that his college-graduate hire is any more broadly educated or liberally minded than those who paid far less tuition for job-training courses at for-profit alternative campuses.

Scan the government grandees caught up in the current administration's ballooning IRS, Associated Press and Benghazi scandals. In each case, a blue-chip Ivy League degree was no guarantee that our best and brightest technocrats would prove transparent or act honorably. What difference did it make that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress?

The now-aging idealists of the 1960s long ago promised us that a uniformly degreed citizenry -- shepherded by Ivy League-branded technocrats -- would make America better by sorting us out by differences in age, gender, education and race.

It is now past time to end that ossified dream before it becomes our collective downfall.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

Report: Americans Are 'Voting With Their Feet'

By John Morgan

States that have the lowest level of government financial intrusion — e.g., taxes and regulatory obstructions — also tend to have the highest economic growth rates, a new "economic freedom index" shows.

According to data of America’s 51 largest metropolitan regions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top 10 areas in job growth included mostly cities in Sunbelt states, such as Houston, Dallas, Austin, Raleigh and Charlotte, while the bottom 10 featured mostly Rust Belt areas, such as St. Louis, Milwaukee and Buffalo, City Journal reported.

While employment numbers nationwide remain bleak when the underemployed or those outside the work force are factored in, some areas of America are thriving.


How to account for the disparity? According to City Journal, answer is contained in "Freedom in the 50 States," a new report from the George Washington University's Mercatus Center, which suggests geographic shifts in job growth are the result not only of policy, but also of "broader governing philosophies."

The Mercatus "economic freedom index" takes into account tax levels, government spending, tort laws, permits and licensing, labor rights and healthcare choices, among other factors.

"The results seem to imply that Americans value freedom and are willing to vote with their feet for it," said Jason Sorens, one of the authors of the Mercatus report.

"People definitely consider tax burden in their choice of a new home. Business regulation can dampen job opportunities, and people tend to move where the jobs are."

Sorens said taxes and regulations have made life unaffordable for some Americans, and forced them from states like California, which lost 1.5 million people last decade, to places like Texas, which gained 2 million, according to City Journal.

A separate Cato Institute study analyzing tax burdens by metro area found that the 10 lowest-taxed regions experienced three times the increase in the populations of the 10 highest-taxed metros from 1980 to 2007, City Journal reported.

Veronique de Rugy, a Mercatus researcher, testified before the Senate Budget Committee last week stating that government spending cuts can be a significant factor in economic growth.

In the United States, "public spending is about 43 percent of GDP [gross domestic product], a level common in Europe not long ago, and up from 34 percent in 2000," she explained.

A consensus among economists "seems to have emerged recently that spending-based fiscal adjustments are not only more likely to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio than tax-based ones but also less likely to trigger a recession."

"In fact, if accompanied by the right type of policies (especially changes to public employees' pay and public pension reforms), spending-based adjustments can actually be associated with economic growth," De Rugy testified

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Does Obama Deny The Fact That We Are At War?

This president has taken us from a nation ruled by laws which are designed to protect citizens from their government to a government that is not only corrupt but also chooses its enemies and then proceeds to attack them and deprive the of their Constitutional Rights.

This seems to be of little concern to anyone  nd one of the chief liars in the president's barrels of sour pickles has just been told by the president he continues to have full confidence in him.

One day, after it is too late,Americans will wake up to the fact that not only are the fruits of their labor being taxed to support a bloated and out of control government but the agency  in charge of making them cough up will also in charge of their entire physical being and the IRS will determine whether they get needed health care.

After 'Obamscare,' IRS will become the most powerful agency in the nation, if it is not already, and based on growing evidence happens also to be one of the most corrupt.

You wanted change well you are watching it happen before your very eyes so welcome to Obama's tea party. 

I believe it  is safe to say

our president is not guided by the  concept below:

What I do today is important, because I am paying a day
 of my life for it.

Therefore, what I accomplish must be worthwhile, because

 the price is high."
---
Incompetent and why I do not trust!

Competent and why I revere!

Competent and why I revere!






---

A lot of Americans, and now Britishers, have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America and England can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.

Pause a moment, reflect back.

These events are actual events from history.

They really happened!!!

Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed

by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were

kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

  

3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted

to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach and it was blown

up shortly after landing by Muslim males.

  

4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people

killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

  

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in
Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by

Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a

70 year old Jewish American passenger was murdered and thrown

overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens,and a US

Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered

by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time

by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were

bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles

to take down   

the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two,

one crashed into the US Pentagon  and the other was diverted and

crashed  by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed

by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan
against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, a Jewish reporter, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and

beheaded by---you guessed it---Muslim males.

  16.  And now, the Boston Marathon bombings?

                    You are right --- Muslim males.

17. AND LEST WE FORGET, AN AMERICAN MAJOR, WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE  A MALE MUSLIM, KILLED SOME OF HIS FELLOW WORKERS ON THE MILITARY BASE WHERE HE WORKED - FT. HOOD!

18.  LAST WEEK A BRITISH SOLDIER WAS ATTACKED, SLASHED AND KILLED BY

MUSLIM MALES.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

  

So, to ensure Americans never offend anyone, particularly

fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners

must not  be allowed to profile certain people.

  

Absolutely No Profiling!

WE MUST PROTECT THE SENSIBILITIES OF THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DESTROYING OUR FREEDOMS AND NO, WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ANYONE!

WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV.Com

Trifecta -- London Jihad Horror Shocks The World. Why Won't the Mainstream Media Report the Truth About It? A jihadist butcher beheaded a British serviceman on video, but the mainstream media remains silent as to the motive for this murder. Why is the press so afraid to report that a radical Islamist murdered someone in broad daylight on a London street? Stephen Green, Scott Ott and Bill Whittle weigh in. Join the conversation and share your thoughts in the comments section.

---
More White House abuse and the curtailment of our freedoms is brewing! (See 1 below.)

Meanwhile Newt believes The Obama Scandals may start a new day and bring about reform.

Nice thought but I maintain Obama will go unscathed. (See 1a below.)

So what's new? Just another witch hunting Republican seeking another Democrat scalp for their misdeeds and lying. (See 1b and 1c below.)
---
What one of my friends thinks.  (See 2 below.)
---
Will Israel attack Russia's arms upon delivery?  Not if Obama can restrain Bibi. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Obamacare "Navigators": Another Sebelius Snitch Brigade?

By Michelle Malkin

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius controls a $54 million slush fund to hire thousands of "navigators," "in-person assisters" and counselors who will propagandize and enroll Obamacare recipients in government-run health insurance exchanges. This nanny-state navigator corps is the Mother of all Community Organizing Boondoggles. It's also yet another Obama threat to Americans' privacy.

A reminder about Secretary Sebelius' sordid snooping history is in order here. In August 2009, HHS and the White House Office of Health Reform called on their ground troops to report on fellow citizens who dared to criticize their federal health care takeover. Team Obama issued an all-points bulletin on the taxpayer-funded White House website soliciting informant emails. Remember?

"If you get an email or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," the Obamacare overlords urged. The feds even singled out conservative Internet powerhouse Matt Drudge because he had featured a video compilation of Obama and other Democrats -- in their own words -- exposing the "public option" as a Trojan Horse for government-run health care and the elimination of private industry.

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn protested at the time that "these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program." The flagging operation was shut down, but a plethora of federal disclosure exemptions protect the Obama administration from revealing what was collected, who was targeted and what was done with the database information.

White House lapdogs dismissed the concerns of conservatives as paranoid delusions. Now, fast-forward three years. In light of the draconian IRS witch hunt against tea party groups and the Justice Department's plundering of journalists' phone records and email accounts, every tax-subsidized Obama "outreach" initiative warrants heightened scrutiny.

Obamacare navigators will have access to highly personal data from potential "customers" to assess their "needs." That means income levels, birthdates, addresses, eligibility for government assistance, Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information. They'll be targeting both individuals and small businesses. Anyone they can lay their grubby hands on. Who's getting the navigator grants and training? "Community groups" in 33 states that naturally include socialized medicine-supporting unions and Saul Alinsky-steeped activist outfits.

On Capitol Hill last week, a top Obamacare official told GOP lawmakers that navigators will not be required to undergo background checks. Criminal records are not automatically disqualifying -- and that includes identity theft. The federal rule-makers will require online training of a measly 20 hours. Health care regulations watchdog Betsy McCaughey adds that navigators "don't have to know math or insurance, but rules announced April 5 specify you have to match the race, ethnicity and language preferences of the neighborhood that will be targeted."

The Obamacare navigator corps smacks of ACORN redux, stocked with demographically tailored Democratic Party recruitment operatives, not objective, informed insurance experts.

Sebelius and her enforcers promise strict neutrality and clean conduct. The bureaucrats say there will be severe consequences for violating citizens' privacy or breaking any other laws. Pffft. The Office of Special Counsel determined that Secretary Sebelius herself violated the federal Hatch Act prohibition on exploiting her HHS leadership position for partisan activity last fall. She then tried to cover up her breach after the fact by classifying the event in which she electioneered for Obama as a "personal" appearance.

Consequences? What consequences?

Sebelius has zero credibility when it comes to reining in overzealous partisans. But she's darned good at unleashing them. During the White House pressure campaign for Obamacare, Sebelius goaded her "brothers and sisters" from the brass-knuckled SEIU. SEIU goon Dennis Rivera joined her on a White House conference call in which he lambasted tea party activists as the "radical fringe" of "right-wingers" whose protests amounted to "terrorist tactics."

Now, the SEIU is on the board of directors of Enroll America, the left-wing, Obamacare advocacy nonprofit for whom shakedown artist Sebelius has been soliciting funds.

Sebelius' corruptocracy runs deep. While she was governor of Kansas, an independent inspector general reported that her appointed health policy board had "applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators," according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Team Sebelius was also embroiled in a ruthless vendetta and obstruction campaign against then-GOP Attorney General Phill Kline, who unearthed damning evidence that the Sebelius administration had shredded key documents related to felony charges against Sebelius' abortion racketeering friends at Planned Parenthood.

Sebelius notoriously threatened private companies and insurers who increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates. She bullied private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands. And she lashed out at newspapers that dared to report on the true costs of the Obamacare regulatory leviathan.

You can't trust sleazy Sebelius to navigate anything with her broken ethical compass. This is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse. She has unfettered authority and a bottomless budget to weaponize legions more foxes who will serve as Obamacare's eyes and ears on the ground. The snitch brigade lives.


1a)

Pivotal Moment or Passing Scandal? By Newt Gingrich There is a familiar pattern for scandals in American politics: they degenerate into gotchas and personalities and then disappear with nothing having been reformed. The breadth of the Big Government Scandals under President Obama is so great that House Republicans have an opportunity to break out of this pattern and make history. They could choose to turn these scandals into learning opportunities that teach people something profound about Big Government. Together with the American people, Republicans in Congress could draw on these lessons to insist on a scale of reform which, holds its bureaucrats accountable, and shrinks its size and reach, and brings Big Government under control. David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Obama, is the person who stated most clearly the case for a deep, reform-minded response to the various scandals. In trying to defend President Obama from responsibility in the IRS scandal, Axelrod clearly described the government as too big, out of control, unmanageable, and unaccountable.  Here is his comment on Morning Joe: “It’s an interesting case study, right, because if you look at the Inspector General's report, apparently some folks down in the bureaucracy, and you know we have a large government, took it upon themselves to shorthand these applications for tax exempt status in a way that was, as I said, idiotic, and also dangerous because of the political implications...Part of being president is there's so much underneath that you can’t know because the government is so vast.” We already know enough to suspect that the “folks down in the bureaucracy” almost certainly did not just “take it upon themselves” to mishandle conservative organizations’ files. But let me repeat his definitive indictment of the current scale and structure of Big Government: "Part of being president is there's so much underneath that you can’t know because the government is so vast." If House Republicans simply adopt as a goal a government small enough to be accountable, manageable, controllable, and responsible, they will have a goal around which to rally the American people. Chairman Darrell Issa, who heads the House Oversight Committee, began the learning approach with his investigations of Fast and Furious (the gun running scandal in which the U.S. government sent illegal guns into Mexico and then lost them) and the Solyndra and other crony-capitalist “green” energy scandals. Now the scandals Chairman Issa started to investigate are beginning to be dwarfed by the IRS, the Justice Department’s assault on the First Amendment, Benghazi, and the Sebelius scandal (in the Iran-Contra tradition) of shaking down private health care companies to pay for implementing Obamacare. More scandals are presumably just waiting to come, not least in the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Interior Department. Again and again environmental extremists have cast phony science and phony studies to push these agencies to slow down America's development of natural resources. Then there are the certain false payments and fraud scandals involving tens of billions of dollars from incompetent bureaucracies especially in healthcare, in Earned Income Tax Credit and in food stamps. A methodical strategy by House Republicans to expose and dig into every uncontrollable, destructive part of the federal bureaucracy would educate the country deeply on the flaws and failures of Big Government. Axelrod is right. The federal government is currently too big to manage and too big to hold accountable. A serious learning strategy seeking big enough solutions would rapidly arrive at the need to replace the current civil service system. When IRS official Lois Lerner is suspended from her job with full pay ($177,000 a year plus a total of $42,000 in bonuses over the last four years) most Americans see that as "vacation". Yet everyone understands she "can't" be fired. But of course she could be fired. It requires changing the law to require accountability. There can be no real changes without reforming the 142 year old civil service model that was designed to be rigid and unaccountable. Moreover, reforming and curtailing the federal government so it could be properly managed would save taxpayers huge amounts of money. A consortium of high tech companies estimated that simply applying modern management practices would save the federal government $125 billion a year (over a trillion dollars over the next decade). The even bolder analysis by Strong America Now, an organization of Lean Six Sigma consulting specialists, estimated the mismanagement of the federal bureaucracy wastes more than $500 billion a year (that’s $6 trillion in savings in a decade including lower interest payments on the debt). The positive impact on the private sector resulting from these types of reform might be even bigger than savings in the federal budget. No one who has tried to reform the government has thought boldly enough about the changes that are needed in a government “so vast,” as David Axelrod put it. He may have given House Republicans the right framework for holding hearings aimed at learning and reforming rather than the gotcha and posturing that has historically characterized Washington scandals. The Obama Big Government Scandals could be the beginning of a new era of reform.

1b)Rep. Peter King: Holder May Be Guilty of Perjury

By Jim Meyers

Rep. Peter King says Attorney General Eric Holder's initial denial of involvement in the targeting of Fox News reporter James Rosen "could be perjury."

In an wide-ranging interview Tuesday with Newsmax TV's "The Steve Malzberg Show,"  King also discussed:

• 
  
• President Barack Obama's "moralizing" speech on the closing of Guantanamo Bay, saying the terror threat is more dangerous now than on 9/11;
• 
  
• The Obama administration should exercise "extreme caution" in evaluating the possible sale of Sprint Nextel Corp. to a foreign company.

King, a Republican from New York, was highly critical of Holder, who previously said he would never be part of targeting a reporter and didn't think it was good policy, when he actually approved a search warrant on James Rosen. The House Judiciary Committee is reportedly looking into whether he perjured himself in steadfastly denying a role in the Rosen subpoena when he OK'd the seizure of the Fox reporter's phone records.

King comments: "To me, on its face, that certainly could be perjury. And the reason I'm saying 'could be' -- I know there's always precise standards to meet -- that certainly warrants a full investigation as to whether or not perjury was committed there. There've been other people over the years indicted for perjury or tried for perjury on a lot less evidence than that."

King also insists that the closing of Gitmo can fuel more terror acts against the United States.

"In many ways the terror threat is more dangerous now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and for the president to be saying what he did last Thursday -- somehow we can declare victory in this or we can phase it down -- in many ways it's more dangerous.

"What we saw in Boston we've seen in London, we've seen in Paris; that is the face of al-Qaida. That is the face of Islamic jihad. [We need to] face up to it and realize that's going to be here for a long time, until we stop it, until we make sure that we have the strongest possible defenses and we're going on offense. We have to go out on front, we have to be preemptive, we have to stop them before they get to us."

Obama in his speech also said the Muslim community is cooperative and wanting to help. King doesn't entirely agree.

"The overwhelming majority of Muslims are good Americans. The fact is we've had case after case where there are plots coming from within the Muslim community where we have not gotten the assistance from the Muslim community," he says.

"For instance, it's my understanding, and this is what I've been told by law enforcement people, that when the picture of the two jihadists in Boston was put up, not one person in the mosque in Boston came forward to identify them. It's impossible to believe with the whole world knowing about what happened, the whole world looking at those faces, that not one person in that mosque recognized either one of those brothers.

"It's the reason why police and law enforcement have to use so many undercovers, why they have to penetrate into the community, because we are not getting the level of cooperation that we should be getting."

Finally, King is skeptical that a foreign company should own the third-largest cellphone provider in America. The Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Corp. announced in October that it was seeking approval from the United States for a $20 billion purchase of a 70-percent stake in Sprint.

SoftBank's bid has raised concerns due to the firm's close financial ties to the Chinese telecom company Huawei. In October 2012, the House Intelligence Committee, after an 11-month investigation, concluded that Huawei posed a major cybersecurity threat to U.S. intellectual property.

Last month Dish Network, an Englewood, Colo.-based satellite TV company, challenged SoftBank's bid for Sprint, offering $25.5 billion for the entire company.

Asked if the administration should use "extreme caution" in this matter in light of the cyber-warfare threat, King responds: "Absolutely. There's no doubt at all.

"This is a new form of warfare. It's a warfare that we have to accept. We have to accept that it's there and then go after it.

"What's going to happen in this particular case I can't say, but I can say we cannot allow corporate profits to come first. We have to make sure our national security, our homeland security is there and we have to do all we can to make sure that we are protecting our people against this type of cyberinvasion."


1c) House Judiciary Chairman to Newsmax: Holder Should Resign

By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter

Rep. Bob Goodlatte is leading a Judiciary Committee probe of Attorney General Eric Holder's actions regarding the targeting of reporters. And he tells Newsmax he is "very concerned" about Justice Department efforts to "harass the news media."

The Virginia Republican also reiterates his call for Holder to step down, a demand he first made two years ago during the Fast and Furious controversy.

Elected in 1992, Goodlatte has been chairman of the House Judiciary Committee since January.

Holder recently testified before the committee that targeting journalists was "not something I've even been involved in." But it's now been reported that Holder personally sanctioned a search warrant labeling Fox News correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in leaking  national-security secrets.

In an exclusive interview Wednesday with Newsmax TV, Goodlatte discusses his probe of Holder.

"We are sending a letter today-- myself and the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee -- asking him to explain how his answers to the committee conflict with the actions that he appears to have taken with regard to Mr. Rosen, and we will withhold judgment on what the attorney general's actions constitute until we give an opportunity for him to explain himself.

"But it is quite concerning."

The Judiciary Committee also has been investigating disclosures that the Justice Department secretly obtained telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.

"Subpoenas were issued there which appear to have been overbroad both in terms of the number of reporters whose phone-call records were sought as well as the length of time, 60 days, that was involved in that," Goodlatte says.

"[And we have] some questions about the attorney general's involvement in that, where he said that he recused himself and turned over that responsibility to Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

"We have already sent a letter to Mr. Cole asking him a series of questions regarding how that matter took place. Now we are pursuing it further with regard to the Fox News matter with Mr. Rosen, and we have sent a letter to the attorney general asking him to explain how the information that we have regarding the search warrant with Mr. Rosen conflicts with his sworn testimony before the committee.

"We are very concerned about the Justice Department targeting reporters and using what could be overbroad investigative tools to harass the news media, and we want to make sure they are following the rules. But we are also concerned that Mr. Holder has again contradicted himself and we want to know why that is. We'll wait for an answer to that before we decide what our next step is in terms of committee hearings."

Sen. Lindsay Graham has called for an independent special counsel to investigate the IRS and Justice Department scandals.

But Goodlatte believes a select committee or independent special counsel would "sidetrack" the ongoing investigation.

"The fact of the matter is, if we find sufficient information to justify getting this off on the separate track and delaying the investigation while a special select committee or a special counsel is appointed, we will do that," he says.

"But at this point in time it's important that the committees involved — and it's not just the Judiciary Committee, but with regard to the IRS, it's also the Ways and Means Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee — that we continue to pursue this investigation aggressively and look into the matter, and if we were to sidetrack to get to a select committee, that will slow down this process.

"There will be a decision made later on about whether or not we need to take a different course with regard to these investigations."

Asked if Holder should resign, Goodlatte responds: "Last year in the last Congress I co-sponsored a resolution calling for him to step down, and he has still not complied with the subpoena that was given to him with regard to the investigation of Fast and Furious.

"The result of that is that his noncompliance, his having been held in contempt of the House of Representatives, all indicate to me his unwillingness to take responsibility for the actions in this Justice Department, his inability to provide leadership.

"Therefore it is very concerning to me, and I see nothing that would change my opinion from two years ago that he should step down."

Goodlatte also is working on immigration-reform legislation in the House. 

He tells Newsmax: "We are taking a step-by-step approach. We appreciate the effort that is ongoing in the Senate. We have a broken immigration system and it needs to be fixed, both in the sense of enforcing our immigration laws and in finding the appropriate legal status for those who are not lawfully present in the United States today.

"We also want to make sure that we're doing everything possible to improve our legal immigration system because we think it could work much better from the standpoint of the national interest of the United States and American citizens in creating jobs and growing our economy.

"We are hard at work. We have introduced three bills in the House Judiciary Committee dealing with various aspects of immigration reform. The Homeland Security Committee has introduced and passed out of the committee a fourth bill dealing with border security.

"Next week we will introduce in the Judiciary Committee a fifth bill dealing with interior security, because the problem is not just at the border:  35 to 40 percent of the people who are not lawfully present in the United States entered the country legally on visitor visas, business visas, student visas, visa waivers, etc., and simply overstayed their visa.

"So fixing the issues on the border does not by any means completely solve the problem. In fact, some would argue that the biggest problem we have right now is the lack of enforcement in the interior of the country.

"We are also continuing to work on the issue of what the legal status of people not lawfully present in the United States should be. I do not support a special pathway to citizenship. That would give people who entered the country unlawfully an advantage over people who have been attempting — in some cases for many, many years, — to lawfully immigrate.

"Figuring out what the way forward is in terms of enforcing our immigration laws; adding new enforcement measures; making sure that no president of the United States, not just President Obama, but no president can flip a switch and determine not to enforce the immigration laws as they pertain to millions of people who are not here lawfully; and making sure we do not undertake something that will cost the taxpayers of this country huge sums of money, are all matters that we are working our way through, one step at a time."

Regarding the immigration-reform bill in the Senate, Goodlatte says: "The biggest concern I have is that long before they ever give anybody a pathway to citizenship, they almost immediately give a legal status to people before they have in place the measures that would assure that we don’t have a repeat of what happened in 1986, when 3 million people were given an easy pathway to citizenship and the enforcement measures never were seriously implemented — employer sanctions and other things.

"Now we have new measures like E-Verify, which is a voluntary system we want to make mandatory for every employer. That would be implemented under the Senate rule after they've given legal status to millions of people.

"We've got to make sure that if we are going to change the legal status of millions of people, we don’t have another tidal wave of people coming into the country after them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)As our Congress returns from their Memorial Day break, presumably the inquests into the multiple scandals besetting our current administration will resume. The scandal involving the IRS is probably the most constitutionally significant. However, the inquest around the Benghazi incident offers a distinct possibility of abject dereliction of duty by our current Commander-in-Chief.

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority (CBA)."  Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens   of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany.  Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: that is, cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the President can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama  bin Laden mission, our current President granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, our current President said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it “Case closed.”

Another possibility is that the   president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them. but no military intervention from outside of Libya ." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left  "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority"  standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders.  Or perhaps he was the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.

We should, and the Congressional committees must ask those questions.

But this is 100 percent sure:  Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. Military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy.  Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA?  Only the national security team at the White House.

And that means our current President.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to the current President.  More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

A “bump in the road” with our brave warriors dead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Divide and conquer

By Boaz Bismuth 

While in Paris on Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attacked the European Union's decision to lift the embargo on the sale of weapons to the Syrian rebels, saying it contradicted international law. Lavrov's deputy Sergei Ryabkov accused European leaders of “fanning the flames” of the conflict in Syria, while at the same time confirming that his country would supply the Syrian government with advanced anti-aircraft missiles. As if this was not enough, Russia also insisted that Iran take full part in the Geneva peace conference scheduled for late summer, at which the world will search for a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. The bottom line is that Russia is standing very firm.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Lavrov on Monday. Kerry is cooperating with him on organizing the Geneva conference. During the meeting, Kerry said it is the Syrian people who need to determine their fate. Kerry's boss in the White House, Barack Obama, has said that the U.S. wants to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power, but the U.S. is helping to organize a conference in which representatives of the rebels and the Assad regime participate. The bottom line is that the U.S. is very confused.

Influenced by Britain and France, the EU on Monday lifted the arms embargo on the Syrian rebels. Yet, the 27 EU foreign ministers failed to agree on actually selling any weapons to the rebels. The EU believed, with a certain naivete, that its decision to lift the embargo would produce pressure on Assad. But to not torpedo the diplomatic process, EU countries will not supply the rebels with any weapons. The bottom line is that the EU is not very convincing.

The Syrian story is complicated, both militarily and diplomatically. Assad has understood this for a long time now and has skillfully used the divisions within the international community to survive. But we are stuck with Assad not only because of Russia, but also the rebels themselves. Fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army are jihadists and al-Qaida operatives. The West knows that while it would be easy to arm the rebel militias, it would be hard to disarm them later. America's goal right now is not to topple Assad, but rather to prevent the accumulation of power by jihadist militias affiliated with al-Qaida. Given the current reality, a sudden fall of Assad could be threatening to the West.

The U.S. is not enthusiastic about arming the rebels either. It remembers how the Stinger missiles it gave to the mujahideen in Afghanistan were turned against American forces a decade later. Not to mention the weapons provided to the rebels in Libya, which ended up in the hands of jihadists in Africa's Sahel region. Paradoxically, Assad's enemies are helping him survive.

3a)Israel says will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational

Netanyahu tells European foreign ministers that if the Russian missile systems get into Syria, Israel's 'entire airspace will become a no-fly zone' and therefore it 'cannot stand idly by.'

By Barak Ravid 

Israel's National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror sketched out what Jerusalem's "red line" is vis-à-vis the S-300 missile systems Russia intends to send to Syria before the 27 European Union ambassadors in Israel.

Two diplomats who were in the room during the briefing last Thursday, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was a closed event, said that Amidror stressed Israel will act "to prevent the S-300 missiles from becoming operational" on Syrian soil. This message was also conveyed by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon when he said on Tuesday that if the missiles reach Syria "Israel will know what to do."

Amidror's briefing, the diplomats said, made it clear that Israel estimates that sooner or later Russia will provide Syria with the missile systems and for reasons unrelated to Israel - namely Russian rivalry with the U.S., Britain and France on the Syrian issue. "We understood from Amidror that the Israeli government thinks the missile transfer cannot be prevented, therefore it will act against them after the transfer but before they become operational," one of the diplomats said.

The S-300 system is considered one of the world's most advanced aerial defense systems. Apart for the system's advanced radar, which can identify and track long-range targets, the missile themselves have a range of 200 kilometers.

Because of the system's advanced technology, the time required to make it operational can range between three to six months. Syrian operators and technicians also need to undergo training, possibly in Russia, but in order to fully calibrate the system and make it operational some of the process will have to take place in Syria.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked government ministers not to comment publicly about the S-300 systems, but in talks behind closed doors with diplomats and foreign ministers he relayed his concerns on the matter, in an attempt to exert last-minute pressure on Syria. The British Guardian newspaper reported on Wednesday that a delegation of Israeli intelligence officials arrived in Syria on Tuesday for more talks with senior Russian government officials.

A senior Israeli official and a European diplomat who are involved in the talks said that even though Netanyahu has not said so explicitly, he signaled in the past two weeks in talks with several European foreign ministers that his efforts to convince President Vladimir Putin not to provide Syria with the systems did not bear fruit.

"If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel's entire airspace will become a no-fly zone," Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers. "The missile transfer is a significant security challenge to Israel and we will not be able to stand idly by."

In the briefing to the European ambassadors Amidror tried to clarify Israel's policies on other issues concerning the Syrian civil war, and denied international media reports that Israel prefers President Bashar Assad remains in power.

"We are not interested in intervening or influencing the situation inside Syria," Amidror told the ambassadors. "We will only act when needed to protect our security, and thus we will prevent in the future the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah."

According to one of the diplomats present at the briefing, Amidror concluded by saying that for Israel, the strategic issue is weakening Hezbollah and Iran, and its policies are determined accordingly.

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------