You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for September 2010

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Twisting Holy Scripture

September 30, 2010 by 40 Comments

Is President Obama, who once demeaned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “radical,” actively trying to socialize Jesus and corrupt Christianity?

The answer is yes, according to conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh, who is claiming the commander in chief is not only trying to socialize America, but also the Christian religion by twisting Scripture.

Rush Limbaugh arms crossed SC Rush Limbaugh: Obama twisting Holy Scripture

The top-rated host made the allegation today during discussion of Obama’s profession of faith yesterday in Albuquerque, N.M.

Limbaugh focused in on Obama’s statement of “being my brother’s and sister’s keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

“The reason why this is important is there’s an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist,” said Limbaugh, “and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global-warming people. We are the stewards of the planet and so forth. There’s an ongoing effort here to corrupt Christianity.”

During yesterday’s backyard town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, Obama had explained:

Read More: By Joe Kovacs, WND

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With:

FBI Questioning Ex-SEIU President Andy Stern

September 30, 2010 by 6 Comments

The FBI and U.S. Labor Department are looking into two deals involving Andy Stern — over a six-figure book contract given to the former head of the Service Employees International Union and payments to a labor leader convicted on separate fraud charges, a source familiar with the case told Fox News on Tuesday.

Alejandro Stephens, who was sentenced early this month to four months in prison and three months of home confinement for defrauding a non-profit organization in “bogus consulting agreements,” is former president of SEIU local 660 in Los Angeles.

Questioning of Stern, who is a member of President Obama’s debt commission, revolve around whether he paid Stephens $150,000 to do nothing as the local union boss. Stephens and Stern met with federal agents this summer to answer questions about the relationship.

An SEIU spokesman told Fox News that no labor official has been contacted in any way nor has received any inquiry of any kind from federal law enforcement officials regarding any investigation of Stern, who had signed off on Stephens’ contract.

But the spokesman noted that when several unions merged to form SEIU local 660 in 2007, Stephens was dropped as president. He was offered a $75,000 per year consulting job.

Read More: Fox News

Filed Under: News From The Web

White House Science Czar Advocated Worldwide Redistribution Of Wealth, But Declines To Comment On It

September 30, 2010 by 7 Comments

John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said “have a nice day” and otherwise declined to comment on Tuesday when asked about a statement he made that worldwide redistribution of wealth is “absolutely essential” in order to provide all human beings with a decent life.

“Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich in the final chapter of Human Ecology, a book the three co-authored in 1973. Paul Ehrlich is also author of the famous 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb. Holdren, President Obama’s top science adviser, advises the administration on issues that include health care and climate change.

CNSNews.com approached Holdren to ask him about his statement on redistributing wealth after he gave a speech on “Science, Technology, and Sustainable Economic Growth” at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.

Read More: By Nicholas Ballasy, CNS News

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With:

House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal

September 30, 2010 by 21 Comments

Donkey 2 SC House Democrats shelve net neutrality proposal

House Democrats have shelved a last-ditch effort to broker a compromise between phone, cable and Internet companies on rules that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or degrading online traffic flowing over their networks.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed “network neutrality” rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic.

The battle over net neutrality has pitted public interest groups and Internet companies such as Google Inc. and Skype against the nation’s big phone and cable companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp.

Public interest groups and Internet companies say regulations are needed to prevent phone and cable operators from slowing or blocking Internet phone calls, online video and other Web services that compete with their core businesses.

They also want rules to ensure that broadband companies cannot favor their own online traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority access.

Read More: By JOELLE TESSLER, AP

Filed Under: News From The Web

Sarah Palin Has A Stalker

September 30, 2010 by 4 Comments

The father of an 18-year-old Pennsylvania man accused of stalking Sarah Palin said Wednesday that his son is home with him and hasn’t left the state.

“He is not in Alaska and he’s never been to Alaska,” Craig Christy said Wednesday of his son, Shawn R. Christy.

Sarah Palin has a stalker

Anchorage Magistrate Colleen Ray granted Palin, 46, and Palin’s friend, Kristan Cole, 48, 20-day protective orders against Shawn Christy, who allegedly sent the women receipts from a gun purchase, along with a letter saying “he tried to follow the bible but had evil and wickedness in him.” Palin and Cole have requested long-term protective orders. A hearing on their requests is scheduled for 10 a.m., Oct. 13, before Anchorage Master John E. Duggan. Craig Christy said they plan to participate in the hearing by phone and plan to contest the court orders.

“We’re going to ask that we can speak on his behalf,” Christy said.

Christy said the problem for their family has been ongoing since the beginning of 2009 and that events to date have involved the U.S. Capitol Police, the Secret Service and FBI in Anchorage and Allentown, Penn.

Read More: By TRACY KALYTIAK and HEATHER RESZ, Fronteirsman

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: ,

New UN Report Targets Arizona “Xenophobes And Racists”?

September 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment

United Nations flag SC New UN Report Targets Arizona “Xenophobes and Racists”?

A report issued today by a United Nations agency appears to be a thinly veiled critique of Arizona’s immigration law, one that equates its supporters with “xenophobes and racists.” The Global Migration Group adopted its statement on the “Human Rights of Migrants in Irregular Situation” — that is, illegal aliens — earlier today in Geneva. The two-page document criticized unnamed nations for viewing illegal immigrants “through the lens of sovereignty, border security or law enforcement, sometimes driven by hostile domestic constituencies,” and demanded governments instead grant illegals  “economic, social, and cultural rights,” including “reproductive healthcare.”

The report seems to be the fruition of Barack Obama’s decision to haul the state of Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council over its differences on domestic policy last month. The GMG is “an inter-agency group” of the United Nations consisting of 14 member agencies, including the World Bank, UNESCO, and the UN Population Fund. It is currently chaired by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, which supports “the work of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council,” the agency with which the Obama administration filed its complaint.

The GMG’s statement is simultaneously an over-the-top indictment of anyone opposed to the Open Borders Lobby and an endorsement of European-style social welfare programs as “fundamental” human rights. The report states “migrants” are “more likely to be targeted by xenophobes and racists” or “victimized by unscrupulous employers.”

The document uses the the time-honored bad faith argument of cobbling together opposition to socialism with the most outrageous abuses. Illegal aliens, the report warns, “are often denied the most basic labor protections, due process guarantees, personal security, and healthcare.” Female illegals face everything from “sexual exploitation” and “HIV transmission” to “challenges in access to employment, and health services, including reproductive healthcare.” In international human rights speak, access to reproductive healthcare means taxpayer-funded abortion.

The report takes Arizonans — I mean, human rights abusers — to task for their lack of gratitude to the illegal invaders. It states, “[C]hildren can be banned from classrooms or denied their fundamental rights, even as their parents work and contribute to the economies of host countries and thus contribute to raising the standards of living and human development for those societies.” Of course, and their parents’ main contributions to the U.S. “standard of living” have been tuberculosis, whooping cough, hospital closures, gang violence, crime, and expanded welfare use. The National Academy of Sciences found years ago that each “migrant” with less than a high school education costs the United States $90,000, and that immigrants only begin to contribute to the economy if once they have a post-secondary education.

The problem, the report states, is that: “Too often, States [that is, nations -- BJ] have addressed irregular migration solely through the lens of sovereignty, border security or law enforcement, sometimes driven by hostile domestic constituencies.” Although it acknowledges nations have “legitimate interests in securing their borders” these “concerns cannot, and indeed, as a matter of international law do not, trump the obligations of the State to respect the internationally guaranteed rights of all persons.” The GMG states the U.S. has the obligation “to fulfill the rights necessary for them to enjoy a life of dignity and security.” Such “fundamental rights of all persons, regardless of their migration status, include” the “right to be free from discrimination based on race, sex, language…or other status.” Thus, a nation that refused to provide bilingual (or, actually, multilingual) ballots or education in school, to illegal immigrants, would be considered a human rights abuser.

Another obligation is the “right to a fair trial and to legal redress.” However, the Obama administration has denied illegals their day in court, dismissing pending immigration cases against as many as 17,000 illegals already arrested.

America’s debt to its invaders are not yet exhausted. The nation owes illegals the “right to protection of economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to health, an adequate standard of living, social security, adequate housing, education, and just and favorable conditions of work.”

As a catchall, they are entitled to all rights “guaranteed by the international human rights instruments to which the State is party” — whether this is one of the many UN treaties to which the United States is a signatory or President Obama’s report to the UN Human Rights Council, which branded Arizona’s immigration law a violation of international law.

To this end, the GMG promises to “support [nations] in their efforts to ensure the effective implementation of appropriate legislation.” The GMG will also work for “the expansion of channels for regular migration” — that is, working for Open Borders.

Further, the GMG report calls for an all-out national crackdown on dissent against its program, including those who support the Arizona law. It “calls on States, civil society, the private sector, the media and host communities” to “work actively to combat xenophobia, racism and incitement to discrimination in national politics and in public discourse” and “to actively promote tolerant societies in which every person can enjoy his or her human rights, regardless of migration status.”

The world body’s new report echoes President Obama’s first-ever report to UN Human Rights Council, both in its excoriation of all opponents and in its role as a blueprint for socialism. In addition to listing Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as an example of discrimination — although it merely reiterates standing federal law — the missive expresses our nation’s commitment to such fundamental human rights as card-check union organizing, gays in the military, Affirmative Action, and equality of outcome.

After Arizona Governor Jan Brewer learned about Obama’s actions from this reporter’s work on this website, she expressed her “concern and indignation” in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking the reference to Arizona be struck. The Obama administration has refused. As it stands, the United States will be judged by genuine human rights abuser Cameroon on November 5. The troika will then draw up a plan for the United States to follow. In time, it may “decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

Today’s report makes clear the United Nations cannot wait even a month to berate the United States, its patriotic citizens, or its most common-sense governor — and that Barack Obama has found a way to attack his fellow citizens by proxy.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Obama Recess Appointees Too Radical To Be Confirmed By Democrat-Controlled Senate

September 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment

Memo to the Movement, FloydReports.com

The recess appointments by President Obama – without Senate confirmation – of three extremely liberal and controversial nominations:

 

Donkey 2 SC Obama Recess Appointees Too Radical to be Confirmed by Democrat Controlled Senate



Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board;
Donald Berwick to Administrator of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and
Mari Del Carmen Aponte as United States Ambassador to El Salvador

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution  permits a president to make “recess appointments” without Senate confirmation by filling an office when Congress is in recess. Though originally intended to put necessary officials in place during the once long Congressional recesses, in recent times recess appointments have been used primarily to circumvent Senate approval — usually because of ideological controversy surrounding the nominee. As outlined below these three Obama recess appointees represent some of the worst of this administration’s nominees and were unlikely to ever receive Senate approval—even in an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Senate.

Craig Becker—A former Associate General Counsel to both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, Becker supports the “Employee Free Choice Act” (card-check) and “envisions” legislation as a way “to increase government funding.” “We can envision a meeting of employers and unions in the industry in which they agree that they should act cooperatively to increase government funding and to avoid the waste of scarce resources on bitter election campaigns by permitting employees to decide whether to be represented by a union through a card check, knowing exactly what it will mean if they do, and without employer opposition.” (Jonathan Hiatt & Craig Becker, “At Age 70, Should The Wagner Act Be Retired? A Response To Professor Dannin,” Berkley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 2005).
Obama Used A Recess Appointment To Place Union Boss Lawyer Craig Becker On The National Labor Relations Board, Even Though He Was Rejected By The Senate. “Mr. Becker says he ‘worked with and provided advice’ to SEIU Local 880 in Chicago … one of two SEIU locals currently in the national spotlight for its deep ties with ACORN … ACORN co-founder Wade Rathke praised Mr. Becker by name … ‘For my money, Craig’s signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies and protections which have allowed the effective organization of informal workers …” (Editorial, “Acorn’s Ally At The NLRB,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/15/09).

Donald Berwick—“I am a romantic about the (British) National Health System. I love it.”—July 2008.
Dr. Donald Berwick should be rejected by the Senate because he is a vocal supporter of single-payer health care system and its bureaucratic rationing of medical care, and because of conflicts of interest.
Berwick was initially nominated to the position in April 2010, after Obama left the position unfilled for 455 days. Eighty days later, with no hearing or debate in the Senate, Obama installed Berwick directly by means of recess appointment, circumventing the constitutional confirmation process, in order to avoid a political fight, and in order to conceal the true nature of Dr. Berwick’s controversial background from the American people. An outcry arose because of the recess appointment, leading Obama to again change course and re-nominate Berwick. Dr. Berwick is the wrong person to be the administrator of CMS for the following reasons:

  1. Dr. Berwick believes in expanding government control over personal medical decisions, and has repeatedly stated that he believes in rationing health care. “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” he said.
  2. Dr. Berwick believes that the American health care system should not be part of the U.S. market economy. He said, “Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can.” Instead, he believes that health care should be used to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. He said “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane, must redistribute wealth,” and further that “A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply.”
  3. Dr. Berwick comes to CMS laden with conflicts of interest. He previously served as CEO of the nonprofit Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI), where he was paid $2.36 million per year in salary. IHI received, during his tenure as CEO, about $40 million per year in grants, fees and contracts from major managed care companies over which he will have jurisdiction and which will receive large sums from CMS, and which will seek to influence boards and panels established by ObamaCare.
  4. Dr. Berwick’s term will expire at the end of 2011, and either he or somebody else will need to be re-nominated to run CMS. In the meantime, he will exercise immense power presiding over a budget of $800 billion per year – larger than the Pentagon and larger than the GDP of all but 15 countries – will have coverage responsibility for over 100 million people, and a primary role in implementing the president’s vision of health care in America.

Mari Del Carmen Aponte—Aponte withdrew her name as a Clinton nominee to be ambassador to the Dominican Republic in 1994 and Obama apparently did not want to allow full Senate to vote on her in 2010.
On August 19, 2010, Barack Obama made a recess appointment of Maria Del Carmen Aponte to be the U.S. Ambassador to Salvador. This prevented opponents in the Senate, including Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Jim Risch (R-ID), from blocking her nomination after an April 27, 2010, 10-8 party-line vote sent her nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the Senate floor.
Of course, Senators DeMint and Risch might have delayed her nomination purely because she is known to hold leftist as opposed to merely liberal foreign policy views. If so, her recess appointment would simply be one of the pack. It is not. Sens. DeMint and Risch held up her nomination because the Obama administration refused to provide frequently requested information such as the FBI reports on her long-term, live-in relationship with Cuban-American Roberto Tamayo who had ongoing ties to the Cuban diplomatic mission to Washington – a mission managed by Cuban intelligence. Further questions surround her refusal to take an FBI lie detector test, a loan she apparently received from Tamayo but never repaid, the statements of a defector from Cuban intelligence that she was a target for recruitment by Cuban intelligence, and her reasons for withdrawing her name as President Clinton’s nominee to be Ambassador to the Dominican Republic.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Cartoon Of The Day: Why So Glum?

September 30, 2010 by Leave a Comment

83801 600 Cartoon of the Day: Why So Glum?

Filed Under: Cartoons

Video: Barack Obama’s Manipulative Sermonette

September 29, 2010 by Leave a Comment

www.yahoo Video: Barack Obama’s Manipulative Sermonette5037884010 1ddf1313f0 o Video: Barack Obama’s Manipulative Sermonette

The nation’s most seethingly secular president is having his day in the religious sun. “Obama increasingly talking publicly about his Christian faith,” reads a headline in The Seattle Times. Candidate Obama told Pastor Rick Warren being a Christian entails “a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds, the expectations I think that God has for us.” How do the deeds of President Obama match up with his professed faith? And was his sudden display of religiosity all it seemed — or was it intended to secure political rather than heavenly grace and forgiveness?

Like a Question Planted by the Waters….

PBS recently ran a special on the importance of John F. Kennedy’s distancing himself from his Roman Catholic faith during the 1960 presidential election. At one pivotal moment in the West Virginia primary, his campaign planted a question with an audience member, who obediently asked if President Kennedy’s decisions would all be made from the Vatican. JFK forcefully — in carefully rehearsed lines — made a denial that catapulted him to victory.

In this respect, it seems likely Barack Obama was following in JFK’s shoes. Nearly one-in-four Americans believe Obama is a Muslim — based largely on his record in office. His preference for Muslims over Christians can be seen everywhere from hosting an Iftar dinner while avoiding the National Prayer Breakfast, to supporting the Ground Zero Mosque while St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church remains in ruins. What could more quickly counteract this than a “spontaneous” discussion of “Christ dying for my sins” in response to question at a town hall meeting? No one can judge the truth of falsehood of another’s faith. But astute observers can notice when unusually religious behavior may work to a candidate’s advantage.

The Church of Midterm Desperation

Call me jaded, but the president’s sudden, unprecedented exegesis in the midst of a crushing midterm election seems to stem more from a desire to curry political favor than personal religious fervor. In addition to going on the record with basic Christian doctrine out of the small catechism, thus proving to the yahoos he is not a Muslim, the subtext of his remarks cry politics. Obama replied:

[U]nderstanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. And so that’s what I strive to do. That’s what I pray to do every day. (Emphases added.)

What is the political import of these remarks? The Democratic Party is facing an electoral blowout in 40-some days’ time based on public backlash against Barack Obama. Thus, in the oldest ploy in the con man’s book, he found Jesus — and he used the event to emphasize  the fact that “we all make mistakes,” that we must have “humility” in judging others’ errors and “help them.” The remarks were further sanctified by the question, which invoked Mother Teresa.

Translation: c’mon, give me another chance.

If I have born false witness, I’ll gladly repent. But it sure dubious to me — especially given what we know of the content of Barack Obama’s faith.

This Is Christianity?

Leaving aside questions of Obama’s early history with Islam, his church history consists of attending Trinity United Church of Christ, shepherded by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright’s politically oriented sermons about the evils of capitalism and “white greed” are famous. Less well-known is its racist promotion of “African values,” including rituals based on tribal customs. PBS’s Religion & Ethics News Weekly reported in 2005, “Wright himself was installed as a chief in Ghana in August 2003.” On another African jaunt, he and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan (a neighbor) met with Muammar Qaddafi. Obama may emphasize his “doubts” about the fundamental doctrines of the faith, but no one can question his Messianic commitment to implementing black liberation theology through politics. Examining his record makes clear, his presidency bears little resemblance to historic Christianity.

Liberalism or Christianity?

Our president’s public positions are not only incompatible with historic Christianity but run directly contrary to the faith. Obama once justified abortion on the grounds that, if his daughters “made a mistake” and got pregnant, “I wouldn’t want them punished with a baby.” The Bible says, “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward…Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” (Psalm 127:3-5). Both Scripture and the universal testimony of the early church clearly oppose abortion. The earliest writing after the Bible, known as the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, states, “You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a newborn child.” The second century writer Tertullian wrote in A Treatise on the Soul, “Now we allow that life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception.” When Pastor Warren asked Obama such a question, Obama volunteered, “That is above my pay grade.” (Since the “pay grade” phrase stems from military pay scales, this was a tacit admission he is unfit to be commander-in-chief.) He threatened to strike down all state prohibitions on abortion, has pushed federal abortion funding at home and abroad, appointed two Supreme Court justices who undoubtedly support abortion-on-demand, and sought to overturn legal prohibitions on stem cell research. Despite Obama and the Religious Left’s alleged commitment to “thinking about the least of these,” they have no concern for the least and most helpless of all American citizens, the unborn.

What of other Christian doctrines? In March 20008, Obama told a pastor in Nelsonville, Ohio, he favored civil unions, state-approval of homosexuality that equates with marriage in all-but-name-only — and so did Jesus. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” Obama said. “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.” The Romans passages are hardly obscure or difficult to understand — and they do not stand alone. The Apostle Paul wrote in I Corinthians, “Be note deceived,” neither “effeminate” nor “homosexuals” — whom the passage equates with thieves and extortioners — “shall inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9-10).

Still, Obama says Christianity “means acting justly, loving mercy, walking humbly.”

Enacting justice is perhaps the Obama administration’s most outrageous failure. The Scriptures say “God is not a respecter of persons” (Deut. 1:17, 16:19; II Chron. 19:7; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1-9; I Pet. 1:17), and that “One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you” (Num. 15:16; see also Ex. 12:49, Lev. 24:22, Num. 9:14, among others). Yet last Friday, a second Justice Department lawyer reflected the ongoing “travesty of justice” that is our Justice Department. Christopher Coates testified that the appointees selected by the president to run the department most clearly charged with “doing justly” are consumed with “anger” and “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” Leaving aside questions of perjury and obstruction of justice, the mere perversion of justice by reverse racial discrimination so offended Andrew McCarthy that he wrote on NRO that an investigation must follow. Many believe this is  an impeachable offense. It is certainly not a Christian virtue.

Perhaps Obama and liberal Democrats eager to milk religion for votes should remember the words of Jesus: “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

PTImbz1jMzgwNTAyNWI4MjE*MjkxYTI1YjEzNWE2YjQyNGM5NSZvZj*w Video: Barack Obama’s Manipulative Sermonette

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , , , ,

The Washington Post Discovers Valerie Jarrett

September 29, 2010 by 11 Comments

Valerie Jarrett SC The Washington Post Discovers Valerie Jarrett

Dana Milbank has written an article for today’s edition of The Washington Post entitled, “Valerie Jarrett: The real center of Obama’s inner circle.” In it, Milbank properly writes no matter who replaces Rahm Emanuel as Barack Obama’s chief of staff, “the real power” resides “upstairs from the Oval Office, in the second-floor quarters of Valerie Jarrett.” However, Milbank omits the fact that Jarrett is a left-wing extremist who has served as the chief conduit of the far-Left into the Obama administration — and that she is, unfortunately, the perfect reflection of the president’s and the first lady’s shared values and beliefs.

The brief article states — as if it were news, because it is to those who rely on the mainstream media — that Valerie Jarrett is the most influential person in the White House next to Michelle Obama. It also notes several wisely anonymous officials “raised questions about Jarrett’s effectiveness and judgment.” It then recounts a few of Jarrett’s most recent, misguided actions. She convinced Obama to keep Eric Holder in place as Attorney General, to appoint left-wing ideologue Elizabeth Warren as founding head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (a source told Milbank, “Elizabeth Warren is in the administration because of Valerie”), and to hire their mutual Chicago pal Desiree Rogers as social secretary. Rogers’ lax security policies and diva pretensions resulted in the Salahis crashing a state dinner last year.

But it is leaving out many other areas Jarrett has exercised her unparalleled influence.

During the 2008 campaign, black campaign staff told the New York Times without Jarrett’s intervention, “the often-legitimate concerns voiced by black leaders like [Al] Sharpton would have been thoroughly disregarded by the white-dominated senior staff.”

It was Jarrett who recruited “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, the Marxist, 9/11 Truther, and conspiracy hound. She told a left-wing crowd she had been “watching him…for as long as he’s been active with Oakland” — presumably including his stint as head of the Maoist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) — and was “delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House.”

She also brought in Mark Lloyd, the first-ever “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission. At the Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice, Lloyd said:

[W]e have really, truly good white people in important positions [in the media]. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.

Lloyd now has influence in the granting of FCC charters to compel non-minority stations to “step down.”
She and the staff at the Orwellian-sounding Office of Public Engagement held a “cultural policy summit” in D.C. last spring that included several of Van Jones’ associates, a host of radicals who accuse the CIA of selling crack in black neighborhoods, the “former International Spokeswoman for the Universal Zulu Nation” (a woman who goes by the name “Rha Goddess”), and a self-described “Jewish lesbian” who admitted, “I have a little crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad.”

She and her office — including former member Buffy Wicks, herself a far-left-winger — famously pressured federal grant recipients to produce pro-Obama propaganda at taxpayer expense.

This association with anti-American radicals would be disturbing enough in a low-level staffer. Jarrett is anything but. She is, in many ways, the touchstone that makes both Obamas who they are. The president admitted he runs every decision by her. Jarrett described their relationship thus: “We have kind of a mind meld.” She told Vogue magazine, “I kind of know what makes them who they are.” That kind of power cannot be bought or elected. It also shows how deep a mess our nation is in. The problem is not Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Elizabeth Warren, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, or any other low-level leftist creeping around the executive office building. It is the president himself, whose values are best encapsulated by Jarrett.

This author wrote three weeks ago today, “No matter who holds the [chief of staff] position, Jarrett holds the reins of power.” It is gratifying to have my words parroted in the mainstream media, but it would be more beneficial if the unsettling ideologies and associations my reporting has unearthed were more widely shared, as well.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,