A report in the Chicago Sun-Times seems to confirm Ed Klein’s assertions about Obama consigliere Valerie Jarrett. The story is about how Jarrett has not invited former WH Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to her daughter’s wedding, in yet another example of the petty, amateurish infighting in the Obama White House. In his #1 best-seller The Amateur, Klein details the power struggle and backstabbing that has been Jarrett’s calling card. In a recent op-ed for the Daily Caller, Klein wrote of Jarrett: “no other White House official in history has enjoyed such a unique relationship with both a president and a first lady, and yet the mainstream media have ignored Jarrett’s enormous influence over the shape and direction of the Obama administration.” He details her advising failures from the President’s botched Olympic pitch to the disastrous Solyndra loan to her infighting with big-time Chicago pols Bill Daley and Rahm Emanuel, who she squeezed from the inner circle, just like Rogers.
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed (writing in third person): “Sneed has also learned two of Jarrett’s former White House irritants have not been invited: Former White House chiefs of staff Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley.”
Ed Klein in the Daily Caller: “During the savage internecine warfare between Jarrett and Obama’s first two chiefs of staff — Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley — Obama sided most of the time with Jarrett, a classic limousine liberal who believes that Obama was elected president in order to engineer social change. Ultimately, Jarrett emasculated Emanuel and Daley and forced them from their jobs.”
Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse sits down to talk with John Dodson, Operation Fast and Furious whistleblower, to discuss the potential of an Attorney General Eric Holder contempt vote being postponed if the Department of Justice releases new documents. “To say this is all about games, O.K., not for me,” claims Dodson.
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will convene to consider a report holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to produce documents specified in the Committee’s October 12, 2011, subpoena. Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa issued the following statement on the scheduling of a Committee vote on contempt:
“For over a year and a half, the House Oversight Committee, with Senator Chuck Grassley, has conducted a joint investigation of reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious. With the support of House leadership, the Republican Conference, and even some Democratic Members who have expressed concern to the White House over the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate, this investigation has yielded significant results. The Attorney General has acknowledged that the operation was fundamentally flawed and he has committed to take steps to ensure that it does not occur again. Evidence found in applications for wiretaps shows that although senior officials were given information about reckless tactics, they still signed affirmations that they had reviewed the investigation and determined that electronic surveillance of phones was necessary.“Despite what the investigation has uncovered through whistleblowers and documents the Justice Department had tried to hide, the Committee’s work is not yet complete. Attorney General Holder has failed to meet his legal obligations pursuant to the October 12 subpoena. House leaders reiterated this failure in a May 18, 2012, letter. Specifically, the Justice Department has refused to turn over critical documents on the grounds that they show internal Department deliberations and were created after February 4, 2011 – the date Justice issued a false denial to Congress. Contempt will focus on the failure to provide these post February 4th documents.
“The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics. The Justice Department’s actions have obstructed the investigation. Congress has an obligation to investigate unanswered questions about attempts to smear whistleblowers, failures by Justice Department officials to be truthful and candid with the congressional investigation, and the reasons for the significant delay in acknowledging reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious.
“While the Justice Department can still stop the process of contempt, this will only occur through the delivery of the post February 4, 2011, documents related to Operation Fast and Furious and whistleblower accusations subpoenaed by the Committee. If the Attorney General decides to produce these subpoenaed documents, I am confident we can reach agreement on other materials and render the process of contempt unnecessary.”
Committee consideration of a contempt citation is a debatable and amendable measure. Committee approval requires a majority vote. Contempt is a process for enforcing compliance with a lawful subpoena and does not assign blame for the flawed and reckless conduct that took place in Operation Fast and Furious.
For more information, www.fastandfuriousinvestigation.com.
- Rep. Michele Bachman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus
- Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee
- Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
- Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee
- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee; and
- President Ronald Reagan refused to sign LOST due to objections that went beyond those concerning deep seabed mining – objections that were not addressed in a subsequent 1994 agreement
- LOST ratification would dangerously empower the United Nations
- LOST would submit all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities inherently rigged against the United States
- LOST would require the United States to make commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests
- The United States cannot be assured of its ability to exempt “military activities” from mandatory dispute resolution.
- Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General, U.S. Army Special Forces Command; Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
- Adm. Thomas B. Hayward, USN (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations
- Adm. G.E.R. Kinnear II, USN (Ret.), Former U.S. Member of the NATO Military Committee
- Gen. Richard L. Lawson, USAF (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander-in Chief, Headquarters U.S. European Command
- Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, Jr., USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
- Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.), Former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, USAF
- Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.), Former Director of Navy Research, Development Testing and Evaluation
- Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.), Former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps
- Adm. Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, USN (Ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Navy Forces Europe and NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
- President Ronald Reagan recognized that the terms and institutional arrangements inherent in the treaty—including, but not limited to, seabed mining—were adverse to this country insofar as they were intended and designed to establish and empower a supranational government. For these reasons, he refused to sign this accord. And, as his Counselor and Attorney General, Edwin Meese, has observed, those defects continue to afflict LOST—despite suggestions to the contrary, based on false claims that a separate agreement signed by some but not all LOST signatories satisfactorily addressed Mr. Reagan’s concerns.
- There is already ample reason for Americans—in and out of uniform—to be leery of entrusting more power and authority to the United Nations. Yet, our membership in LOST would dangerously empower that organization. After all, this treaty creates an executive, legislature and judiciary that are supposed to govern seventy-percent of the world’s surface. And LOST’s institutions are intertwined with the UN system and would be capable of raising revenues. Given the UN track record of corruption and hostility to America and its allies, it would be reckless to endorse such arrangements, let alone subject ourselves to them.
- Of particular concern is the obligation under LOST to submit any and all disputes to binding arbitration or judicial action by entities that are inherently rigged against us. The treaty’s expansive mandate is so broad—involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans—that it is an invitation to UN and other nations’ interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale.
- That prospect has particular implications for the national security were the United States to become a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. As such, we would be required to make myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests. These include agreeing to reserve the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Contentions that we need not worry about such formal commitments because we, as a maritime nation with a powerful navy, are not expected to be bound by them will surely prove unfounded.
- The same is certain to apply to assurances that the exemption of “military activities” will preclude LOST from having harmful effects on our armed forces and their necessary operations on, over, under and from the seas. Since the treaty does not include an agreed definition of what constitutes such activities, disputes are sure to arise—disputes we will be obliged to resolve through one LOST mechanism or another. [In the attachment, Judge Advocate General Captain Vince Averna (USN, Ret.) lays out a number of the treaty’s provisions that may invite such challenges.]
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence
NATO Allied Forces Southern Europe
Originally posted at Center for Security Policy By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient. They – and any who point them out – must be denied, ignored or suppressed.
The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_threat_from_shariah_law/page/2). He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280). Both caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.
Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as “not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings.” In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world. Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here. Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as “anti-Muslim bigots” who are “undermin[ing] our national security.”
Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts. It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) – a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more. ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights. Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.
Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah’s advent in America. As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), some are actually enabling the Brotherhood’s influence operations. This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access toother conservatives and promotion of their agendas.
Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior. They have engaged in purges from some of the Right’s conclaves. They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is “inside the wire” – including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.
The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined theranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus; Rep. Louie Gohmert,Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee; and Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.
In a joint press release (http://bachmann.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=299447) dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America. They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” inside the United States and to counter it.
To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy’s course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies. They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.
In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice toensure compliance with the FBI’s stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had “hundreds of meetings” with CAIR.
Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing. Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood? Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?
Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?
(Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.)
Appears She’s Completely Forgotten Her Multiple Votes for ObamaCare
(Las Vegas, NV) – Yesterday fourteen-year Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said she thinks “small businesses know that I’m with them.” It’s a bold claim considering she has repeatedly supported – and even attended the signing ceremony for – a law that threatens to force small businesses into endangered species status, ObamaCare.
“On Day One, Shelley Berkley stood where she usually stands right by President Obama and applauded as ObamaCare was signed into law. Considering small businesses have not been quiet about just how bad this law is for them, at what point is the fourteen-year Congresswoman ‘with them?’ Her ability to completely forget her support for ObamaCare, not to mention her vote for the trillion dollar stimulus and decision to pass a national energy tax on businesses, is simply astounding,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley attended the signing ceremony at the White House: “Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley will be among the many members of Congress planning to attend Tuesday’s signing of the historic health care reform bill at the White House.” (Lisa Mascaro, “Harry Reid, Shelley Berkley to attend health bill signing; Dina Titus won’t” Las Vegas Sun, March 22, 2010)
Congresswoman Berkley told KTVN, Channel 2 in Reno that, “I think small businesses know that I’m with them…” (Paul Nelson, “Shelley Berkley Visits Reno Small Businesses,” KTVN Channel 2, June 12, 2012)
Congresswoman Berkley voted multiple times to protect ObamaCare. According to the NFIB, 250,000 jobs could be destroyed by ObamaCare’s health insurance tax, 150,000 of them from small businesses. (“NFIB Research Foundation Study: Health Insurance Tax to Cost 125,000 to 249,000 Private-Sector Jobs,” NFIB, 11/9/2011)
Market-observers have grown fond of declaring that investors can count on one thing, that uncertainty is the only certainty.
That is, of course, not entirely true. Worth noting: Markets will open tomorrow, and investors will still be there. (Whether bids outnumber offers is a question best left until the Greeks finish voting.) It is, though, never good to go unprepared. Here are four stocks we are watching as the Greek drama goes from the soccer pitch to the polls—and two stocks Barron‘s sees as buys:
How do you say Big Mac in French? Or Spanish? Romanian? Sensible questions, given how important the continent is to McDonald’s. Europe was the largest source of growth for the world’s largest fast-food chain last year: Sales at locations open at least a year rose 5.9%, more than the 4.7% growth seen in the Asia-Pacific region. All told, Europe represents some 40% of all the company’s operating income. More
Discovery News -
-The relics found in a small marble sarcophagus two years ago on a Bulgarian island called Sveti Ivan
-Bulgarian archaeologists had found a small box made of hardened volcanic ash close to the sarcophagus.
-A research team from Oxford University dated the right-handed knuckle bone to the first century AD.
Scientists have found new evidence they say supports the theory that a knuckle bone and other human remains found under a church floor in Bulgaria may be of John the Baptist.
A group of UC Berkeley scientists has turned their research about battery life into a handy app that can extend yours.
The Association of American Publishers released a report today that shows that ebooks have beaten hardcover revenues for the first time. Ebook revenues topped out at $282.3 million YTD while hardcovers hit $229.6. Almost exactly a year ago the tables were turned with ebooks hitting $220 million and hardcovers brushing past $335 million.
The only growth in hardcovers is in the young adult/children’s category where hardcover revenue rose to $187.7 million and children’s ebooks rose to $64.3 million, up from $3.9 million in 2011.
In short, ebooks are winning. More