A link roundup.
But here’s what I find interesting. If you read through Scheiber’s piece, there’s a word that doesn’t appear in it: Iran. That is, her place of birth (she reportedly grew up speaking Persian as a child). Does no one really think this influence is one of the reasons he seems so eager to do business with the mullahs?
Perhaps we now know who writes the scripts that Obama reads from the Teleprompters. He’s essentially useless on his own.
What exactly is Valerie Jarrett’s job title or job description? Officially, that is; the reason used to justify the use of American taxpayer money to pay her wage.
I don’t know, but it’s easy to create a position called “Special Adviser to the President” or something. It’s within the purview of the Executive Branch.
Of course the personal views and philosophies of advisers will effect the people they advise. This is why the administration and the media are so hostile to anyone that would examine the backgrounds of people working in the Obama administration. Van Jones wasn’t an aberration. Socialist 9/11 truthers are a cornerstone of the Democrat party. Jay Carney fit right in.
It also explains Obama’s positions on the MB in Egypt. His advisers have close ties to the MB and portrayed the group as a secular peace and justice activist group. Obama ate that stuff up like popcorn, it was like being back on campus. It led to Obama ushering in a MB theocratic dictatorship in Egypt but didn’t lead to any tough questions from the American media after the fact.
Back during the Bush years, the ideological underpinnings of personnel choices were highly scrutinized but under Obama there is zero examination despite the administration being made up of the most radical, extremist, and militant factions of the Democrat party.
She grew up speaking Farsi (Persian) and French…according to her wikipedia entry.
And while the President can appoint any special advisor he wants, why is the US Taxpayer funding her salary, benefits and office?
Congress gives the White House a budget, which they can basically spend however they want.
And that is something that the new Congress should stop.
Starve the beast in the White House and ESPECIALLY the so-called office of the first lady.
I’m generally in agreement with you regarding starving the beast.
However I wonder if the First Lady is regarded as the hostess of the White House during events like State dinners. If so, she probably needs a small staff and some cash for the napkins, music, frippery and whatnot.
J. Capehart’s piece in the Washington Post, about the stories about Jarrett, is very interesting. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/10/the-problem-with-valerie-jarrett/
Capehart writes: “To be the president’s spine, to be his connection to the real him requires one to know him at his core before he catapulted to the top of the political order.” Wow! Who could have imagined that Mr. Obama is a spineless man, and a man who needs someone to remind him what his core beliefs are. I am shocked to learn that. /sarc/
If Capehart is correct, that explains a whole lot about both Obama and Jarrett.
BlueMoon
Does no one really think this influence is one of the reasons he seems so eager to do business with the mullahs?
Given her age it was probably when the Shah was still in power. Back then Iran was the biggest US ally in the region. Both her parents were US citizens. The US had considerable interest in the region not only because of the oil reserves but because of the strategic position it was in. During WWII when doing Lend-Lease Iran was the major corridor to supply the Soviet Union for example. That region has produced rulers that dominated the Middle East several times in history including the Parthians and the Sassanids.
As for the current, uh, thawing of relations with Iran it is a matter of convenience since neither are interested in ISIS controlling Iraq. ISIS is being funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are major destabilizing influences in the whole region by trying to promote radical Islam everywhere especially those of the Wahabist sect.
Unfortunately just like I thought would happen ousting Saddam, destabilizing Syria, removing the military from power in Egypt, and Gaddafi from Libya only brought disaster, less cultural tolerance, and strife in all of those countries. Pretty much the only place which is more or less unscathed in North Africa, which I am particularly concerned with being an EU citizen, is Morocco because the monarchy is relatively popular there. In Algeria attempts to remove the generals from power have only led to destabilization of rule in the south of the country which is now mostly controlled by people loyal to Al-Qaeda which eventually poured into Libya and are festering in there just to spread to the neighboring countries. Given that Algeria and Nigeria are Muslim countries and the only major alternative supplier of natural gas to the European Union other than Russia that leaves me most concerned about the future.
Off topic, Rand, but do you have anything to say about Obama’s agreement with China. There’s apparently multiple aspects (trade, travel/work visas, etc), but in particular the agreement stipulates that the US will drop CO2 emissions by just over a quarter while China merely needs to stop rising in CO2 emissions while committing itself to 20% renewable energy by 2030. It seems one of those diplomatic handouts of the US’s future that Obama is so fond of. And of course, he does it right after the election (the meeting with the Chinese Chairman apparently took only two days though there might have been a lot of earlier negotiation).
It’s stupid and meaningless. It’s like Wimpy from Popeye: “I’ll gladly cut my emissions next Tuesday if you’ll wreck your economy today.” An “agreement” has no legal force, it’s not a treaty.
There are many countries that want to see the US taken down. One thing is becoming certain and that is that the leaders of those countries would never do anything to harm Obama. He is doing more damage to the US than most of those countries could do in their wildest dreams. Hell, Putin would likey have one of his own bodyguards take a bullet to protect Obama.
It’s like the arms-reduction treaties certain people were so eager to sign with the Soviets: they’re not only going to cheat, they never had any intention at all of abiding by any of the treaty terms. That doesn’t matter though, because the entire purpose of the treaty is to effect a change in the way WE do things rather than a change in the way THEY do things. This is Obama’s handout to the greens and simultaneously a handout to the Chinese. The only people who’ll suffer are Americans, and since when have Barry and his supporters cared about them?