Part VII WASHINGTON PROWLER Who Is Valerie Jarrett?

…Spiders weave intricate webs, that is exactly what we are dealing with, a web the likes of which we can not begin to imagine it’s scope, with hundreds of spiders all protecting the one in the middle…

By THE PROWLER on 8.26.08 @ 12:08AM

The shadowy adviser and friend the Obama campaign would rather you not know about.

 

 

One advantage of a big, media-focused convention is that so many shadowy campaign “insiders” seek the spotlight. In Denver, one of Sen. Barack Obama‘s closest advisers has been making the media rounds: Valerie Jarrett. Jarrett has been part of Obama’s inner circle since his days as an Illinois state senator. She identifies herself as a Chicago businesswoman, but according to Obama campaign advisers, she is much more than that.

She is Iranian-American, for one thing, and the Obama campaign has sought to keep her ties to Iran from press views, as it has also sought to keep her political background and deep and tangled business and personal relationship to the Obama family from sight. For example, while it’s true that Jarrett is a business executive, she also has been a well-known political operative for Chicago Democrats back to her days working in the background as an adviser to late Chicago mayor Harold Washington, as well as the Daley family.

“She knows where are all the bodies have been buried in the past 30 or so years of Chicago politics and she knows all the tricks,” says one longtime Democrat political consultant in Chicago. “If Obama had a political and financial godmother, it would be Valerie.”

 

Jarrett, according to friends, gave Michelle Obama professional advice before she married Obama, and helped her with jobs. But more important, say Chicago Democrats who know Jarrett and Obama’s history, and why the Obama campaign has desperately sought to keep Jarrett’s role in the campaign under wraps, Jarrett may be to Obama what James McDougal was to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

McDougall, a central figure in the Clinton’s Whitewater Scandal, gave the Clintons the financial wherewithal to raise their national political visibility. “Jarrett has done that for Barack and Michelle three or four times over,” says one insider, noting that Jarrett served as the CEO of a housing development company.

And Obama has returned the favor:

Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which developed and managed large housing projects in and around Chicago — and in Obama’s state legislative district — that were subsidized by federal and state housing dollars, and which were ultimately seized by federal authorities for what were unlivable conditions. While overseeing the company that managed these housing facilities, Jarrett also worked with long-time Obama friend and convicted felon Tony Rezko in raising money for Obama’s political career.

Obama campaign advisers have sought to have Jarrett fully vetted by the campaign to prepare for opposition research from the McCain campaign, fearing that she may have deeper and longstanding ties to financial entities associated with the subprime mortgage scandal.

“That and her ties to Chicago politicians and her Iranian background, and you have a potential nightmare,” says a Democrat media consultant who worked for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Say what you want about Hillary, but she didn’t have that kind of a triple threat on her team.”

Re: The Obama Timeline 

« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2009, 08:21:37 pm »

U.S. Senate Campaign

  With support for the Iraq War strong in mid-2004, Obama softens his stance and says, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” The statement is made almost two years after Obama’s 2002 ant-war speech in Chicago. <842, p. 255>             On July 28, 2004, Obama tells a crowd in Boston that the United States has an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. “The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he then says at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.” Over time, as the media pounds on President Bush and support for the war declines, Obama changes his tune to match the tone of the impatient voters. <346>             Obama’s Republican opponent in the fall campaign for the U.S. Senate is Jack Ryan, a handsome, articulate, and wealthy investment broker with three Ivy League degrees. The press (with the prodding of Axelrod and the Obama camp) works to get Ryan’s court-sealed divorce documents and child custody records unsealed (Ryan’s ex-wife is actress Jeri Lynn Ryan), and their titillating contents cause an embarrassed Ryan to withdraw from the race in June. In public Obama makes statements such as, “I don’t think it’s an appropriate topic for debate”—knowing that behind the scenes his team is working feverishly to smear the popular Ryan. The Republicans field a last-minute replacement, former United Nations Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes. Keyes is a black, anti-abortion, fiery speaker who is ridiculed by the press and thus never taken seriously. (The ultra-conservative Keyes does not help his case by saying things like “Jesus Christ himself would not vote for Barack Obama.&rdquo Obama wins easily. <102, 103, 359, 842 p. 243>             During the 2004 debates with Obama, Keyes charges in an off-the-air remark that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Obama responds not by saying he is a natural born citizen, but by saying it does not matter because he is not running for president. Attempts have been made to find a video recording of the incident, which purportedly had been on YouTube.com but was removed once its significance was understood. <1418>  **SEARCH Breitbart shirly sherrard***  

Shirley Sherrod’s Unconstitutional Attack on Andrew Breitbart

By Ben Shapiro

February 16, 2011

On Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011, Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, the impresario of the ACORN scandal and a growing investigative force in the conservative media, held a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference. At that press conference, he laid out evidence of a concerted effort by government officials, race-baiting lawyers and certain black non-farmers to defraud the federal government of millions of dollars by exploiting a legal settlement called Pigford. On Saturday, Feb. 12, 2011, Shirley Sherrod, the single largest recipient of cash from the Pigford settlement, filed a lawsuit against Breitbart for defamation.

 

 

Sherrod, you may remember, was a ranking Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Breitbart released a video of Sherrod speaking to the NAACP, where she told a story about discriminating against a white farmer before realizing that such discrimination was wrong. The purpose of releasing the video, as Breitbart clearly stated, was to demonstrate that the same NAACP that labeled the tea party racist tolerated racism within its own ranks. The video accomplished that purpose — members of the NAACP cheer and laugh as Sherrod describes her past racism in the video.

After the video broke, due to pressure from the Obama administration, Sherrod resigned; the NAACP also condemned her. Shortly thereafter, the NAACP released the full tape, which showed that Sherrod had in fact helped the white farmer at issue. In full attack mode, the leftist media went after Breitbart, accusing him of selectively editing the tape in order to target Sherrod. This despite the fact that Breitbart himself said he cared nothing about Sherrod and that his actual target was the NAACP; this despite the fact that Sherrod herself said the real problem was the Obama administration.

No matter what you think of the original Sherrod incident, Breitbart’s commentary falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. Freedom of political speech lies at the core of the Constitution; we attack our political officials all the time without fear of reprisal. Sherrod was an outspoken public figure, one that unapologetically stated that she saw the world through the framework of Marxism.

 

Sherrod had indeed made racist statements in the past. In June 2009, for example, she explained to a group of college students that school integration was one of the “worst things that happened to black people” because integration undermined black self-sufficiency. She was quoted in 1996 as explaining that the federal government’s role was “to be a force for keeping blacks on the land.” Even in the NAACP speech at issue, she explained, “it is about black and white, but it’s not.”

Whether Breitbart is wrong isn’t the issue here. It’s whether Shirley Sherrod and her group of well-funded thug lawyers should be able to silence political opposition. Let’s be frank: Sherrod’s lawsuit is probably being backed by someone larger than Sherrod. Her lawyers are the famed law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. They wrote a 40-page complaint to lead things off. If Kirkland & Ellis charge Sherrod their usual rates, such a complaint probably would cost a minimum of $40,000 to produce. A full-scale lawsuit would cost Sherrod hundreds of thousands of dollars — if she were paying.

In all likelihood, she isn’t. Kirkland & Ellis just happens to be the second largest donor, through its employees, to President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign committee and leadership political action committee. Its lawyers are committed liberals, and as a Chicago-based firm, it is heavily tied in to the Democratic Party. As Andrew Breitbart drew the left’s spotlight in 2009 and 2010 by defending the tea party, intensely pursuing Obama administration corruption and exposing liberal allies from unions to Hollywood, the left took notice. And they went to their favorite firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to deliver the knockout punch.

Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution stands in the way of such efforts. Sherrod’s lawsuit is frivolous in the extreme. She can demonstrate no malice, because no malice existed; she can demonstrate no libel, because Breitbart’s writings were fair comment on matters of public interest. Further, Sherrod has no damages — she has been offered a promotion and made a cottage industry out of playing the victim.

 

The incredible cynicism of this lawsuit is obvious. The real culprits here are the members of the Obama administration who forced Sherrod’s resignation — and Sherrod even acknowledges that inconvenient fact in her lawsuit. Yet nobody in the Obama administration is a named defendant.

Andrew Breitbart has vowed that he will not be silenced. Thank God for the Constitution, which will allow him to continue his work, despite the legal bills he will have to incur. And shame on Shirley Sherrod for allowing herself to be used as a pawn in a chess match designed to shut down conservative criticism of the Obama administration once and for all.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM.

          In 2004, the Code Pink anti-war group delivers $600,000 in cash and supplies to Iraq—not to American soldiers, but to the terrorists who are fighting them in Fallujah. Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, later donates $2,300 to the Obama presidential campaign. (Evans later says in a June 2008 interview that Osama bin Laden had a “valid argument” for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.)

<104, 355>   London resident but Iraqi born billionaire Nadhmi Auchi flies to Chicago in a private jet and meets at the Four Seasons Hotel with Tony Rezko, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and Obama. At this point, both Blagojevich and Obama are aware that Rezko is already under investigation for illegal activities involving kickbacks for political favors; they meet with Rezko and Auchi anyway. <249>      

  During his 2004 Senate campaign one of Obama’s advisors is Charles Ogletree, a professor who is one of the leading advocates of slavery reparations. (It is believed that Ogletree remains an advisor to Obama through the 2008 presidential campaign as well.) <842 p. 68; 936>    

        In a television interview with WBBM-TV in Chicago, Obama states, “I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge.” Obama does not define the “something” the Second Amendment means. He does not argue against confiscating guns, he merely states that someone would challenge the action in court. <2053, 2054>    

        Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown hosts a fundraiser for Obama at the Waterfront restaurant. Obama tells Brown he would appreciate it if he does not have to have his picture taken with the mayor, Gavin Newsom—presumably to avoid an association with Newsom’s support of gay marriages. Newsom is outraged by the insult and Obama’s cowardice. <842 p. 261; 851>

            In November of 2004—before he is even sworn in as a U.S. Senator—Obama has “toe in the water” conversations with close associates about running for president in 2008. Publicly, however, Obama says, “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois.” <210, 239, 351>    

        On another occasion, Obama tells reporters, “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years… I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. There may be some who are comfortable with doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”  (Obama’s statement is a lie; by the end of his campaign for the Senate, he already has workers visiting Iowa to develop contacts for its 2008 presidential caucus. <881, 1278>  

        On November 22, 2004, Obama is interviewed by Randi Rhodes. Discussing the federal budget process, Obama says, “When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read ‘em, it gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate then these kinds of things happen.” <2259>

            A Los Angeles paralegal, Joe Anthony, starts an unofficial fan page for Obama on MySpace.com. Anthony devotes thousands of hours maintaining the page, and by the time Obama announces his candidacy for president it has over 160,000 “friends.” <1317>  

          In 2004, Rashad Khalidi publishes a book called “Resurrecting Empire”. In the book’s acknowledgments Khalidi thanks William Ayers for his assistance, further establishing links between Khalidi, Ayers, and Obama. <983>  

          Obama signs a three-book deal with Crown Publishing Group covering The Audacity of Hope, a future non-fiction book, and a children’s book. The contract is for seven figures (probably $1.9 million), and is signed before Obama is sworn in as U. S. Senator—to keep him from falling under various disclosure and income reporting rules that apply to members of Congress. <1276>  

  Obama and his wife Michelle declare income of $207,647 for 2004. <1278>

Keep checking for the final three parts of “The Truth Is Out There,” and in the mean time, do your own research. Look up the names, follow the dots, and pass along this information to your friends and groups. The more people who become aware, connect the dots and demand answers, the harder it is to cover the tracks…. or bury them.