Editor’s Note – It amazes us here at SUA, the criminal aspect of the Obama administration and the fact no one is doing anything about it. Valerie Jarrett’s Communist ties and administration ties to the Muslim Brotherhood should be raising red flags everywhere.
For some reason no one wants to confront this situation head on. What is that telling us about our society? Do we stay silent and hope this bad period of time in American History just goes away? Or do we rise up and say enough!
In years gone by, we had the Committee on Un-American activity, which was shamed out of existence. Now if we stand up to defend America, it is we that they shame.
We, as a people need to move past worrying about what they say about us and come together to save this Great Nation. Take a Stand… Join Stand Up America today!
FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.
Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage.
Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.
According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities.
Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists.
JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.”
The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.
Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties.
For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”
It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.
JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.
Editor’s Note – As the Supreme Court gets set to hand down its ruling in the King v. Burwell case concerning subsidies for Obamacare in states without their own exchanges, much consternation has gripped Washington, D.C. The ruling could came any day now.
The case here isn’t about the law in general, it’s about the specific question of whether tax credits, or subsidies, offered on federally-established exchanges are legal under Obamacare. The law allowed states to establish their own insurance exchanges or to let the federal government do it for them using the HealthCare.gov exchange.
The plaintiffs argue that four words in the tax section of the law, “established by the state,” indicate that Congress intended for subsidies to be received only by enrollees on state exchanges, and that the law should be read as it is written.
The defendants argue that the law should be read in its entirety, in which case it is clear that subsidies are offered on all exchanges, and that was the authors’ intent all along. (Read more here at the National Journal.)
Obama and the left are already blaming the Republicans if the court rules against them and they do not have a back-up plan, nor do we think they want one so they can once again inflict heavy damage to families as they did when it was implemented.
The thought is that the blame will rest squarely on Congress and the “stupid American voter” will once again be relied upon to believe them.
Days before the Supreme Court could strip it of a central component, there is still no “plan B” for Obamacare. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell warned the Obama administration will be unable to cover the millions of Americans who could lose their medical insurance if the Supreme Court decides to unravel much of the Affordable Care Act.
“We don’t believe there is an administration solution that would undo all of that damage,” Burwell said about the looming Supreme Court ruling in an exclusive interview with CNN. (Read more here.)
But we must remind people – the law was shoved down our throats as Democrats alone voted it into law and signed by Obama. Now we are finding out that it is much worse than we knew – it appears our friend; Jonathan Gruber, he of the “stupid” statements and “smug filled rooms” was much more integral in the design of ObamaCare from the beginning.
Please remind all you speak with of this fact as the left blames the right for people losing their subsidies and not being able to afford what was supposed to be less expensive – remember the full name of the law; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – PPACA.
Controversial MIT economist Jonathan Gruber reportedly played key role in ObamaCare law
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the “stupidity of the American voter,” played a much bigger role in the law’s drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.
The Wall Street Journal, citing 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010, reported Sunday that Gruber was frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act.
Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.
The emails were released as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of federal health insurance exchange subsidies.
The Journal reports that the officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.
“His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, chairman of the House oversight committee, told the Journal. “There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce.”
“As has been previously reported, Mr. Gruber was a widely used economic modeler for administrations and state governments run by both parties—both before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed,” HHS spokeswoman Meaghan Smith told the Journal in a statement. “These emails only echo old news.”
Gruber became the center of a political storm in November 2014, when a video surfaced of him taking part in a 2013 panel discussion about ObamaCare. At one point, Gruber said the Obama administration wrote the bill “in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.
If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies … Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
At the time of the controversy, President Obama referred to Gruber as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” However, the Journal reports that Gruber’s emails appear to reference at least one meeting with Obama.
Furthermore, one email from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama health adviser, thanks Gruber for “being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment”, while another message from Lambrew refers to Gruber as “our hero.”
Fox News previously reported that HHS retained Gruber in March 2009 on a $95,000 contract to produce “a series of technical memoranda on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform.” A second contract with HHS three months later saw Gruber receive an additional $297,600.
Gruber later apologized for his comments in a December 2014 hearing before the House Oversight Committee, calling the remarks “mean and insulting.”
Editor’s Note – Hillary’s Campaign is using the old tactic – keep telling the same lie and eventually people will believe it. There is proof from many major polls that show Hillary is not believed to be honest, and tells lies to the public – so does her campaign manager, Robby Mook.
We need to use the same tactics to demonstrate again and again her dishonesty and deviousness to those who do not know or are blind to it.
She has been caught lying about Benghazi, then she lied about her emails to cover her tracks on Benghazi, and “Clintonian” ethics continue unabated. They rely on America remaining as clueless as possible – why, because it has always worked for them.
When, if ever, will we hear any truth from Hillary? No we can just call the lies by a new name – “Mooks!”
Clinton Campaign Manager Makes Doozy of a Statement When Asked If Voters Perceive Her as Dishonest
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, and was asked by host John Dickerson to comment on the perception among voters that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Dickerson pointed out to Mook that “polls have shown that voters do not trust her.”
What happened next was unbelievable. No, I mean literally unbelievable.
Editor’s Note – Democrats are accusing Rep. Gowdy, Chairmen of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, of using the investigation for fundraising. Elijah Cummings and his troops are once again trying to take the focus off of Hillary.
Once again, they are doing a great disservice to those they represent; all for political ends in their now famous protection racket tactics.
The Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture Gowdy’s image. Guilt transference to keep America in the dark and confused. Shameful…
Democrats Try to Erode Gowdy’s Standing on Benghazi
For Republicans probing Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s private email use, Rep. Trey Gowdy’s just-the-facts-ma’am approach has been a shield against charges that it’s a nakedly political investigation.
But Democrats are doing their best to find something—anything—to puncture that image.
So now they’re pointing to the Select Committee on Benghazi chairman’s comments about the probe at a GOP event over the weekend. Gowdy spoke to the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs, an organization of local GOP clubs that held a convention in Chattanooga.
Gowdy lauded Tennessee Republican Rep. Chuck Fleischmann for the Appropriations Committee push to withhold some State Department funding until the agency is more responsive to document demands from Gowdy’s panel.
“We have tried public shame, it didn’t work. We have tried threats and subpoenas and letters, that hasn’t worked.
What has worked is when we partnered with our friends on Appropriations and let the State Department and other agencies know: Your money will be cut if you do not provide us with documents,” Gowdy said to applause near the beginning of his remarks at the event.
Correct The Record, which is a pro-Clinton super PAC, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, pounced on the comments, which were reported by theChattanooga Times Free Press.
“Trey Gowdy has politicized his investigation to benefit Republicans, proving that his Benghazi investigation is a political hit job against Hillary Clinton—nothing more, nothing less,” said Correct the Record President Brad Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic strategist and operative, on Monday.
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has sought to distance himself from Republican efforts to politically wound Clinton over Benghazi and her use of a private email server while secretary of State.
In March, Gowdy backed out of a planned GOP fundraiser in Richmond, Virginia, after finding out that the event would feature a discussion about Benghazi.
Later that month, The New York Times reported that Gowdy (among some congressional Republicans) was frustrated by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus citing the email controversy to attack the Democratic frontrunner.
But Cummings and Correct The Record alleged that Gowdy’s comments represented fundraising on behalf of Republicans, noting that the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs describes itself as an “allied” organization of the Republican National Committee. Registration for their convention was $150-$200.
“Republicans continue to use the deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi as a political rallying cry and fundraising tool, which is offensive, reprehensible, and contrary to the promises we made to the loved ones of those who were killed during the 2012 attacks,” Cummings said.
The GOP group and Gowdy’s aides dismissed the criticism, flatly disputing the allegation that it represented GOP fundraising.
“Associations and groups regularly charge fees to attend conventions to help offset expenses. Our convention included eight meals and many speakers.
Chairman Gowdy was not paid for his appearance, nor did we raise money at the luncheon at which he spoke. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings and the Democrats are flat-out wrong,” said Holly M. Lintner, the executive director of the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs.
She and Gowdy’s committee office noted that Benghazi came up only briefly in Gowdy’s remarks to the convention.
Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Republicans on the Benghazi panel, defended his comments about efforts to force the State Department’s hand with the appropriations bill.
“Many news outlets have reported on a recent appropriations bill that withholds non-security related funds to incentivize the State Department to ensure the American people and Congress gain access to what should be public records,” Ware said.
“Chairman Gowdy noted this fact in his speech. If some do not see the importance of government transparency for the people and don’t think it should be mentioned, then that is their own issue, but Chairman Gowdy believes in it.”
Editor’s Note – As we here at SUA have witnessed, with more and more evidence coming to light, this administration is working “against” our American values. He has made our allies enemies and our enemies friends. They are not our friends. They hope to take our Nation over.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to take over the world, under the “Caliphate.” It is looking more and more like Obama is helping them, and it clear that he has aligned America with his Islamic friends.
Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties
WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.
A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”
The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.
Critics blasted that notion.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”
The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.
“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.
Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”
“The recent discovery of an Obama administration document evidencing support for the Muslim Brotherhood is unsurprising,” she said. “It merely confirms the consistent position of the White House’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood since Obama’s election.”
Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and president of the Center for Security Policy, said PSD-11 was part of a series of mistakes that “were the consequences of embracing, legitimating, funding and even arming the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“They will prove to be among President Obama’s worst security policy legacies — and that’s saying something!”
Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went a step further than saying there are no moderate Islamists; he stated there is not even a moderate Islam.
A tweet from a supporter quoted Farrakhan as saying, “What is moderate Islam? There is no such thing,” during a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., on June 1.
McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.
In his 2010 bestseller, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” McCarthy described an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that revealed the groups’ grand plan to destroy the West from within by having its component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and how it had found the ideal partner in Obama.
McCarthy told WND, “The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate — not in its theoretical orientation and, as we’ve seen in Egypt, not in practice when it has a chance to govern.
“And it is simply a fact that many of the world’s most violent and influential jihadists got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a gateway to violent jihadism — not in all cases, but in many.”
McCarthy has described non-violent jihad as just as great a threat as violent jihad, because they are both means to overthrow Western governments and install strict Islamic law, or Shariah.
He drolly observed: “Obviously, we prefer non-violent Islamists to violent Islamists. We’d also rather have pneumonia than cancer … that doesn’t make pneumonia desirable.”
In a recent article in which he described the government’s “cognitive dissonance in seeking out ‘moderate Islamists,’” McCarthy stressed, “If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate.”
McCarthy explained in greater detail to WND how “non-violent” does not mean “moderate” when it comes to Islamists.
“‘Islamist’ is the term we apply to those who believe in Islamic supremacism, which is essentially the imposition of classical Shariah (which recognizes no separation between spiritual and political life).”
He called it “a system that rejects individual liberty and is deeply discriminatory against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals.”
“Consequently, it is not ‘moderate.’ A person with extreme, anti-Western views is not a moderate, regardless of whether he is willing to commit acts of terrorism to impose his views on society.”
Lopez, who honed her analytical acumen during 20 years of service as a CIA field operative, and who served as an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students, described the difference between violent and non-violent Islamic extremism as merely a difference in timing and tactics.
“ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram for example, tend to stage violent attacks in an effort to destroy the will to resist among the enemy and also to punish the enemy, or infidel, for refusing to accept or implement or follow Islam faithfully.”
“On the other hand, ” she said, “the Muslim Brotherhood tends to take a longer-term approach that works patiently to infiltrate and subvert a target government, whether infidel or ‘unfaithful Muslim,’ from within.”
Lopez insisted it doesn’t make sense to work with any Islamist groups, “when all are jihadis and all want to destroy our civilization & subjugate us to Shariah.”
Bachmann referred to the Muslim Brotherhood document seized in an FBI raid on suspected terrorists “delineating their plan to destroy the ‘miserable house of the U.S. from within civilization through jihad.’”
McCarthy told WND the Obama administration did not originate the problem of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. government, but it has greatly exacerbated that problem.
“Obama officials have intentionally sought to ally with Islamic supremacists, even those connected to terrorist organizations, on the harebrained theory that these Islamists will promote stability — i.e., they will work with us against jihadist organizations like al-Qaida, even though they share al-Qaida’s Shariah ideology and hostility toward the West.”
Gaffney told WND that “such a policy shift was the predictable consequence of having individuals associated with the Brotherhood holding positions of influence in the Obama administration and/or serving as advisers to several of its senior members, including the President, himself.”
He said examples of such individuals could be found in a course on his center’s website, along with a detailed treatment of the policy repercussions of such penetration.
The problem of increasing Islamist influence in America has been compounded, critics say, by the Obama administration’s policy of admitting tens of thousands of poorly vetted Muslims from countries where Islamism is prevalent.
“All the while,” said Bachmann, “knowing many of the Muslims would prefer living in Muslim societies dominated by Islamic Shariah law, a governance system known for its incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution.”
Making the problem even worse, she said, was how former secretary of state “Hillary Clinton embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood by issuing visas to enter the U.S. to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and to other terrorist organizations, even though the U.S. Government listed them with terrorist affiliations.”
Bachmann was one of five Republican Congress members who stirred bipartisan controversy in 2012 by raising concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital.
She also publicly questioned the role of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, because of her and her family’s extensive documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
McCarthy told WND that Abdedin’s role in State Department policy still should be explored in light of her considerable Islamist connections.
“Her role should not be overstated — Hillary Clinton, like President Obama, has a record of sympathizing with Islamists, and Ms. Abedin’s influence on U.S. policy is more an effect than a cause of her boss’s predilections.”
“Still,” he added, “the State Department has aggressively pushed Obama’s policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be foolish to assume that the implementation of that policy was unconnected to the installation of pro-Islamists in high-ranking policy positions.”
Gaffney told WND: “It is deeply regrettable that the sorts of serious and legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of key agencies posed by Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in June of 2012 were never the subject of investigations — either before or subsequently — by the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“Had they been,” he speculated, “we might have averted myriad disasters, including, but not limited to: the debacle in Libya (inter alia the murderous attack on our facilities in Benghazi); the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt; our arming al Qaida and Islamic State forces in Syria; turning a blind eye to the increasing Islamic supremacism of a putative NATO ally, Turkey; undermining our ally, Israel; abandoning Iraq; releasing five top Taliban commanders in exchange for a deserter, etc.”
How should the U.S. deal with Islamism?
McCarthy told WND the better approach would be “to accept that the challenge we face is Islamic supremacist ideology, which fuels both the terrorist threat and the broader Shariah-based challenge to our liberties, particularly free speech.”
“Our foreign policy should be based strictly on American interests. Foreign policy often involves having to sort out bad actors from worse actors, and any involvement with bad actors ought to be limited to what the protection of our interests requires — it is not our job to remake Islamic societies.”
He suggested, “We should resist alliances with Islamists, deal with them only to the extent our interests require it, ditch the notion that they are an asset rather than a liability in confronting violent jihadists, and — where we can do so usefully — promote pro-Western Muslims who reject Shariah supremacism.”
Lopez indirectly referred to the Obama administration’s refusal to use the words “Islamic extremists” by counseling that the U.S. should “name the enemy” as “all who fight or support jihad to impose Shariah.”
“Declare war against that enemy. Study the enemy. Know the enemy. Then deploy a whole-of-government approach to defeating that enemy utterly.”
Lopez also pointed out the existence of the presidential directive effectively making it the policy of the administration to support “moderate Islamists” was actually made public a year ago by Gulf News, a publication not widely known in the U.S.
The story detailed a wide range of Obama administration contacts and meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members, including the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi under the murkiest of circumstances.
Gulf News had reported attempts were under way to obtain State Department records documenting its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood using a Freedom of Information, or FOIA, request.
The Washington Times reported, “Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.”
Jill Farrell, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND the presidential directive can not be obtained by FOIA.
“The White House itself is not subject to FOIA,” she said, “however, we have been actively making FOIA requests to the State Department and others in the federal alphabet soup that might possibly uncover communications with the White House, as we did with our Benghazi inquiry that blew the lid off with the (Deputy National Security Adviser) Ben Rhodes ‘not a failure of policy’ email.”
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.