Arrogant Servants! Dinner With Jolene! Huckabee and Forty Questions!

Obama's unhealthy arrogance seems to have been embraced by other public servants of various agencies. (See 1 below.)
===
I had dinner this evening with Jolene Byrne. Jolene ran and won the the seat to be President of The Chatham County School Board.

I told Jolene our conversation would remain between the two of us but I can say that the more I am with her the more I am proud to have supported her and the more I am convinced she will do fine in her position .

She has the right focus and our grade and high school kids are lucky to have her on their side.
===
I had breakfast this morning with a conservative friend from Atlanta and , of course. we discussed the present scene.

He volunteered, that in his opinion, Mike Huckabee would make the best candidate for 2016, to head the Republican ticket.

He gave these plausible reasons:

a) Being a public figure and former Governor and unsuccessful Presidential  candidate, anything bad by way of his past, would have already been revealed. Therefore, his personal life is not a bar.

b)  He is articulate and has been willing to speak his mind on a variety of topics. His views are conservative but his rationale should be appealing to a wide swath of voters.

c)  He has been outspoken regarding his support of Israel and that should prove attractive to Liberal Jews who have lost faith in Obama.

d)  His prior position as a Minister should give comfort to those who have a religious orientation.

e) His common sense approach to government should appeal to centrists.

My son Daniel thought Huckabee should have been the candidate in 2012. At the time,  I disagreed and told him Huckabee was too 'suthrin' and religious to attract a large vote

I now believe my son was right and my friend from Atlanta as well but I still do not believe Republicans have the insight to select  Huckabee and he does not seem willing to fight for the privilege again.

Times may evolve that make a candidate more attractive and I believe this has happened in Huckabee's case but I still do not believe he will be the candidate.
===
Wake up America: Video-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgFH33qY6is

and (See 2 below.)
===
Forty poignant and  simple questions for the media and news folks.  (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1   Public servants acting as public masters: Column

BY Glenn Harlan Reynolds

CIA responded to Obama's acquiescence when it spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee

"Nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn't do that." That was CIA Director John Brennan's answer in March when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., charged the CIA with breaking into computers used by Senate investigators looking into CIA misconduct.

It turns out that the CIA would do that — and, in fact, had done so. Brennan's reassurances were false, and CIA spooks had been hacking into the committee investigators' computers looking for documents they thought the investigators shouldn't have, violating a promise not to. So, first Brennan broke a promise. Then, he either lied, or showed that he doesn't control his own agency, which in many ways would be worse.

Brennan has apologized, but his apology won't be the end of things. We're already seeing bipartisan calls for his removal, from Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. The White House is hanging tough so far, but we're now hearing comparisons made to the speed with which Brennan's predecessor, Gen. David Petraeus, was cut loose over an extramarital affair. Does this mean that the White House views spying on, and lying to, members of Congress as less serious than an affair?

The answer to that, alas, is probably "yes." Contempt for Congress, and for separation of powers and historical understandings about the roles of the executive and legislative branches, has been a hallmark of the Obama administration. It's not surprising that in such an atmosphere, CIA operatives would feel comfortable snooping on the Senate, and that a CIA director would feel confident issuing blanket denials when questioned.

And what's the worst that's likely to happen to Brennan? Even if he does lose his job, he will — like former NSA director Keith Alexander — just step through the revolving door into a high-paid private-sector consultancy. But without consequences, why should we expect better behavior in the future?

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that people respond to incentives: If spying on, and lying to, Congress is dangerous, and the results of being caught unpleasant, then there will be less of it. If, on the other hand, the worst risk is a slap on the wrist and a seven-figure career in the private sector, then I suspect we'll see more of this kind of bad behavior.

Congress can, of course, charge Brennan with contempt of Congress, or refer him for prosecution under the False Statements Act. But in both cases, the decision to prosecute would be made by Attorney General Eric Holder, who seems to see his role not as administering justice, but as running interference for the Obama administration and protecting its officials from consequences. (Holder himself has already been held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling an investigation into ATF gun-running to Mexican drug gangs). Likewise, Sen. Udall's call for a criminal investigation of the CIA will go nowhere so long as Holder continues to play scandal-goalie.

Alas, as with the IRS' stonewalling of investigations into its targeting of Obama's political opponents, consequences for offenders seem hard to come by in the face of an administration that has no shame. Probably the best that Congress can do is to punish the entire CIA by using its budgetary power to make employees' lives worse: Cutting back on bonuses, raises, conferences, and other perks. Where the IRS is involved, there's some talk of abolishing most of it in favor of a national sales tax that would require much less bureaucracy and provide fewer opportunities for abuse, but that's unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.

The sad truth is that when you elect irresponsible people into positions of power, you get irresponsible government. President Obama oozes contempt for Congress, and for longstanding unwritten political accommodations among the branches, at every opportunity. It's unsurprising that his underlings feel — and act — consistently with that view.

If the American electorate votes more responsibly next time, things will get better. Until then, alas, elections have consequences, and this is one of them.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-  Will President Obama Continue Shielding the Barbarians at our Gates?

By Isi Leibler 

The US is Israel’s most important ally. It has provided us with arms and only last week Congress granted us additional funds to further develop the Iron Dome. It has also used its political clout to deflect hostile resolutions and sanctions at the international level.

But we should be under no illusions. The US- Israel relationship is under great strain. Notwithstanding cryptic statements by both the Israeli and US governments denying the veracity of extracts of a toxic telephone conversation between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barak Obama, Israeli TV Channel One’s highly respected Foreign News Editor, Oren Nahari, adamantly stands by his story, stressing that his source was a reliable senior US official and not the PM’s department.

The president is alleged to have harshly demanded that Netanyahu accept an immediate unilateral cease-fire and informed him that the US was committed to ending the blockade of Gaza. Netanyahu pointed out that the U.S. Administration was undermining the cease-fire by substituting Egyptian mediation with Qatar and Turkey, reminding Obama that the Moslem Brotherhood-aligned Qatar finances and provides arms to Hamas and other terrorist groups including ISIS. He could have also pointed out that Turkey’s demagogic Prime Minister has been stoking hysterical anti-Israeli sentiment and vile anti-Semitism, even demanding that his own Jewish community condemn Israel.

President Obama allegedly responded by telling Netanyahu that he was not in a position to advise America who should act as mediators. Lending credence to this exchange was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who, a few days later, told CNN that the US must cooperate with the Qataris “who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization”. It is mind-boggling that a Democratic congressional leader can describe as “humanitarian”, a genocidal organization with similar objectives to Al Qaeda, whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

There were also tense exchanges between the PM’s Department and Secretary of State John Kerry, now notorious for his inappropriate comments and contradictory statements.

There have been efforts by both parties to calm the waters. US officials have reiterated their commitment to Israel and re-endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself. President Obama has now, belatedly, followed the lead of the Europeans and includes the demilitarization of Gaza as an issue to be negotiated in conjunction with the lifting of the blockade after cessation of hostilities.

But there is no disputing that President Obama has consciously or otherwise shielded Hamas. This is not a conflict in which the US should act as a mediator or even hint at moral equivalency. This conflict was thrust upon us by a terrorist group promoting a culture of death and martyrdom reflected in the oft quoted Hamas slogan: “Jews wish for life and we wish for a martyr’s death”. We are not confronting an entity seeking independence.  It is a conflict between good and evil.

We would have expected our ally to allocate the blame for the casualties to the death merchants of Hamas who target Israeli civilians and propagate casualties amongst their own people who they employ as human shields and then gleefully present to the world as victims of Israeli tyranny.

Instead, President Obama has led the pack in hypocritically supporting our right to defend ourselves whilst blaming us for disproportionate response when we retaliate against the source of the rocket fire whose command posts and missile launching sites are deliberately embedded in UN buildings, schools, hospitals and mosques. The gory scenes of Palestinian casualties highlighted by the global media should have been presented in the context of Hamas responsibility for deliberately orchestrating this nightmare. Instead President Obama’s behavior has merely encouraged Hamas to continue their barbaric strategy in the belief that the US will rescue them from the jaws of defeat and reward them for their commitment to terrorism.

In this context, the clearly synchronized outbursts from the White House, State Department and even the Pentagon, just prior to the announcement of the stillborn 72 hour cease-fire, condemning Israel for civilian casualties, including the shelling of a UNRWA School in Gaza  as “indefensible” and “totally unacceptable”, was clearly designed to garner the support of Qatar and Turkey.

The US is aware of the extraordinary lengths, unmatched in any military conflict, which Israel employs to minimize civilian casualties. But innocent civilians die in a war– and obviously more so in a situation in which women and children are employed as human shields and who are deliberately housed in locations together with missiles launchers and command posts. When under fire from terrorists – even if they operate out of schools – Israeli soldiers must return fire or be killed. Beyond that, accidents are inevitable. Just recall the thousands of innocent French civilians who were killed by the allies during the invasion in 1944.

To appreciate the double standards and hypocrisy employed against us, the US should take note of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by allied forces in the course of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the carnage in Serbia incurred by NATO’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Belgrade to force Milosevic to step down.

The tragic casualties among Palestinian innocents sadden us all. But it is revolting when the US President expresses more outrage over the deaths of 1500 Palestinians, a large proportion of whom are bloody terrorists, than the butchered 180,000 Syrians in the ongoing civil war.

It is utterly unacceptable to condemn a long standing ally. How can the US justify their focus on the loss of innocent lives without regard to the context and avoid directing the blame to Hamas who exult in both killing Israelis and the killing of their own people whose suffering they openly exploit to discredit Israel and divert attention from their terrorist activities? It brings to mind Golda Meir’s oft quoted quip that peace will only be achieved when our adversaries love their children more than they hate us.

Israel must stand firm. The public shock over the discovery of the myriad of terror tunnels and the extent of the missile range capability – which now covers the entire country – has united the people in a manner reminiscent of the Six Day War. Close to 90% are adamant that Israel must not stop until Gaza is demilitarized or Hamas completely smashed, despite the terrible toll in casualties. Even the dovish Labor Party opposition is demanding this of Netanyahu.

Although it is not reflected in the extraordinary tsunami of global anti-Semitism and the double standards formally adopted by Western countries, there is a clear consensus that this war was imposed on us and there is a greater appreciation of the terrorist nature of Hamas and its contempt for human life.

There is also the radical reversal in the approach of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and most of the Arab League who endorsed the Egyptian ceasefire proposal and whose fear and loathing of the Islamic fundamentalist extremists far exceeds their traditional hatred of Israel. The Egyptians and other moderate Arab states maintain that since his initial Cairo speech in 2009, President Obama has emerged as a supporter of the Moslem Brotherhood – the creator of Hamas – and which they regard, justifiably, as an Islamic fundamentalist terror organization.

They consider the undermining of the Egyptian ceasefire proposals and turning towards Qatar and Turkey – supporters of the Moslem Brotherhood and Hamas – as another example of the US betraying its allies and engaging with its enemies. This was reflected in Kerry’s initial Qatar/Turkey sponsored ceasefire proposal, unanimously rejected by the Israeli Cabinet, which could have been written by Hamas.

As of now, Israel has largely achieved its principal objectives of destroying the tunnels and substantially neutralizing the missile capability. But Hamas remains intact and unless demilitarization is imposed we face inveterate Jihadists who will not relent from their openly expressed objective of destroying us or at least eroding our morale by ongoing terror attacks.

The prime responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens. This is a time for Israel to stand firm and take whatever steps are necessary to defang Hamas and demilitarize Gaza. The responsibility for the fallout on innocent Palestinians rests exclusively on Hamas.

The brazen Hamas breach of the 72-hour ceasefire has led to a temporary global backlash against Hamas. Having neutralized those tunnels which the IDF was able to detect, the ground forces are being redeployed. However PM Netanyahu has made it clear that the operation is not over.

The cabinet must speedily decide on one of two options. It can expand the ground campaign and conquer Gaza, which the majority of the nation would probably initially endorse but which would likely entail massive casualties and provoke concerted international pressure that would probably force us to withdraw unilaterally or face sanctions. It would appear that without ruling out this option, Prime Minister Netanyahu – at least in the short-term -  intends to continue degrading the rocket launchers and attacking Hamas from the air, thereby limiting Israeli casualties and providing greater leverage to achieve demilitarization.

The outcome rests largely with the US. If it rewards Hamas for its aggression by seeking to “lift the blockade” or provide them with funds without demilitarization, it will be betraying us. The US will thus have destroyed whatever little global credibility they retain and will be seen as abandoning its long standing ally and groveling to those who support fanatical Islamic terrorism.

Will the US support Israel’s just cause against genocidal terrorism or act as a shield to protect the barbarians at our gates, effectively paving the way for a far more brutal war in the near future?

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

3)

Forty questions for the international media in Gaza

By David Bernstein

Reprinted with the permission of the author from the (excellent) British “Harry’s place” blog.

1. Have you or any of your colleagues been intimidated by Hamas?

2. Do you feel restricted in your ability to ‘say what you see’ in Gaza?

3. How do you feel about the Spanish journalist who said Hamas would kill any journalist if they filmed rocket fire?

4. Has Hamas pressured you to delete anything you have published?

5. Has Hamas ever threatened to take your phone, laptop or camera?

6. Has Hamas ever taken the phone, laptop or camera of a colleague in Gaza?

7. Have you seen Hamas fighters in Gaza?

8. If yes, why have you not directly reported Hamas fighting activity when you are eye-witnesses in Gaza, but rather indirectly reported about what the IDF says they Hamas has done?

9. Are you scared to publish photos of Hamas operatives on your Twitter page, or broadcast images of Hamas fighting and aggression on your news channel?

10. Have you published any photos of terrorists launching rockets in Gaza? If so, are these images being turned down by your newspaper or broadcaster?

11. Have you thought of interviewing the traumatised residents of southern Israel?

12. When Israeli authorities say that most of the dead in Gaza are terrorists, and Hamas says most of the dead in Gaza are civilians, how do you differentiate?

13. When Hamas Health Ministry statistics contradict Hamas’ own propaganda and reveal that mostly men of fighting age have died so far in Gaza, does it give you pause for thought?

14. Is an underage armed terrorist still counted as a terrorist or a child when killed? Or both? Do you explain to your readers how this is possible?

15. Have you put to Hamas spokespersons that firing rockets from civilian areas in a war situation will draw return fire and lead to the death of civilians?

16. Nick Casey of the Wall Street Journal tweeted: “you have to wonder with the shelling, how patients at Shifa hospital feel as Hamas uses it as a safe place to see media.” Never mind wondering; did you ask any patients how they feel?

17. And how do you feel about the fact that Casey subsequently deleted his tweet?

18. Russia Today journalist Harry Fear mentioned rocket-launching sites near his hotel. Have you noticed any terrorists or terror bases near your hotel?

19. How do you feel about Fear’s expulsion from Gaza, for tweeting about the rocket launches from civilian areas? Are you worried that you might also be expelled from Gaza?

20. Did you see any Hamas terror personnel inside Al-Shifa hospital?

21. Have you interviewed a Hamas spokesperson inside Al-Shifa?

22. Have you seen any rocket-launching sites in or around the vicinity of a hospital?

23. Have you interviewed hospital staff or patients as to how they feel about their buildings being used for terror activity?

24. Hamas’ command and control bunker is underneath Al Shifa hospital. Is this worth reporting? Have you asked to gain access to it, so you can interview Hamas commanders?

25. French newspaper Liberation reported that Hamas’ Al Qassam offices are next to the emergency room at Shifa hospital, before deleting the article. Was the reporter right to delete the article, and will the information appear in the media at some point still?

26. When the missile hit Al-Shati hospital where children were killed, did you see Hamas operatives collecting the debris of the fallen Palestinian rocket, as Gabriel Barbati reported? Did Barbati pick up on something you missed?

27. Barbati prefaced his tweet by writing “Out of Gaza, far from Hamas retaliation.” Will you also report differently about Gaza when you are out of Gaza, far from Hamas retaliation?

28. Can live journalism by reporters who are scared of retaliation from the authorities they are reporting about really count as pure journalism, or is journalism in that context fundamentally compromised?

29. Have you seen or heard evidence of Hamas using civilians as human shields, by forcing or “encouraging” them to stay inside or enter into a building that has received a knock on the roof?

30. Have you seen or heard evidence of Hamas storing weapons inside schools, houses, flats, mosques or hospitals?

31. Have you interviewed Gazan residents to find out if they have – or know someone who has – a tunnel dug underneath their house? How do they feel about this?

32. Have you tried to interview any of the parents of the 160 Palestinian children who died building the terror tunnels?

33. Have you asked Hamas spokespersons why they are setting out to murder children by firing rockets towards civilian populations?

34. Have you interviewed any UNRWA officials about why Hamas are storing weapons in their schools, and how the weapons got there?

35. Are you currently investigating how Hamas rockets ended up in UNRWA schools?

36. Are you currently investigating why UNRWA returned rockets to Hamas and their police force?

37. When Hamas breaks a ceasefire with Israel – as it has done 6 times – how easy is it to report on this from Gaza?

38. Is there any anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza, and how is it expressed?

39. Were you aware that Hamas chose to execute dozens of anti-war protesters in Gaza, and did you not consider this to be worth
reporting?

40. Is international media reporting from Gaza free from pressure and intimidation, or is there a real problem – and if so, how will you address it?

David Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA.

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