Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett Linked to Real Estate Scandals
Friday, November 14, 2008
By Tom Fitton
Judicial Watch President
Barack Obama's personnel decisions as President-Elect are crushing any
hopes that his administration will bring a new spirit of integrity and honesty
to Washington. First there was the selection of Clinton attack dog Rahm
Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Then there was the selection of another Clinton
crony, John Podesta, to co-chair Obama's transition team. And now Barack Obama
has tapped Valerie Jarrett to partner with Podesta in handling the
transition.
Who is Valerie Jarrett?
Characterized as "the other side of Barack Obama's brain" by CBS News,
Jarrett first met the Obamas seventeen years ago when she offered Michelle
Obama a job. Since that time Jarrett has served as a very close advisor to
both Obamas. While some have speculated that Jarrett is interested in taking
Obama's place in the U.S. Senate, the New York Times reported that it
is more likely she will become a senior White House adviser. And that is
terrible news.
Judicial Watch recently obtained
documents linking Valerie Jarrett to a series of real estate scandals,
including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and former
Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
According to the documents, which we obtained from the Illinois Secretary
of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations
that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by
real estate developers and Obama financial backers Antoin "Tony" Rezko and
Allison Davis. (You may recall that Davis is also Obama's former boss.)
Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn
Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko
associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and
Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis. Jarrett
wrote of her support for Davis/Rezko projects, and was also one of the
strongest supporters in revitalizing two struggling Chicago banks which later
provided loans and mortgages for the Davis/Rezko housing projects.
And what sort of housing projects were Davis and Rezko operating? According
to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been
substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago
Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled
with problems -- including squalid living conditions?lack of heat, squatters
and drug dealers." Davis, meanwhile, was nailed for a code violation when
sewage began to seep through electrical outlets in one of his low income
apartment buildings.
Of course, Jarrett would have no issues supporting these kinds of housing
projects. As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company, Jarrett managed a
controversial
housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called
Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe, the housing complex was
considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and
fire damage?In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an
11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition."
It is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord. Jarrett refused to comment on
the conditions of the complex.
Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine.
Washington already has plenty of corruption; we don't need to import more of
it from Chicago.
Ban or Not? Judicial Watch Ignites
Controversy over PC Efforts to Control Speech in the Courts
Judicial Watch's has been involved in a back-and-forth with the office of
the Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice over the last week. It all started on
November 6th when Judicial Watch posted an entry on its "Corruption
Chronicles blog" regarding an attempt by the Arizona Supreme Court to
advise all judges in Arizona to refrain from using "derogatory" terms such as
"illegal alien" and "immigration crisis" in court documents and proceedings
after the Hispanic Bar Association lobbied the court to take action to
eliminate the use of these terms.
Here's our original blog story:
Arizona's Supreme Court chief justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic
Bar Association's demands of banning the terms "illegal" and "aliens" in all
of the state's courtrooms. Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the
president of Arizona's Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has
asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at
trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.
In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados' president
says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of
contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and
tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly
resolved.
It further points out that no human being is illegal and that a national
Hispanic journalism association has roundly criticized the reference for
dehumanizing a segment of the population. The letter goes on to criticize
the state's High Court for using the term "illegals" in at least two
opinions and the term "illegal aliens" in dozens of others.
It concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to
illegal immigration. Among those the group wants banned are; immigration
crisis, immigration epidemic, open borders advocates, anchor babies and
invaders. Among the acceptable terms are foreign nationals, unauthorized
workers and human rights advocates. Click
here to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor's promise
to enforce the requests.
Cari Gerchick, spokesman for the Arizona Supreme Court, was none too
pleased with this blog entry, which created a firestorm of negative press for
the court. She called Judicial Watch to register her objection to the story,
which she labeled "slanderous." (Just as an FYI, when the word "slanderous" is
thrown around, it is often interpreted as a threat because "slander" is a
legally actionable offense. And we took it as such.)
As we stated in our
letter, dated November 7, 2008:
We are surprised and disappointed that your spokesperson would
describe Judicial Watch's blog entry as "slanderous," thereby implicitly
threatening some form of legal action by the Court against Judicial Watch on
account of this blog entry?We believe our blog entry more than fairly
represents the correspondence between you and the bar association and does
nothing more than inform the public of an extraordinary request by members
of the bar to censor the word choice of the Arizona courts - a request to
which you appear to have acceded.
Ms. Gerchick is emphatic that the Chief Justice banned no words. We stand
by our original story.
We ran a few searches on the court decisions in the past 10 years. In US
Courts of Appeal, the courts have used the phrase "illegal alien" in 1,833
times. In US District Courts, the term was used in 1,091 cases. In Arizona,
combining both federal and state court usage, the term illegal alien was used
792 times. It also appears that the term "alien" is used in 645 statutes.
Big Brother, if he wants these terms banned, has a lot of suppressing to
do.
The illegal immigration lobby wants to control the illegal immigration
debate by controlling language. And they want to undermine the rule of law by
restricting the ability of the courts to talk straight about violations of our
nation's immigration laws. It is shocking that any court would be complicit in
this.
I'll be sure to keep you posted as this story further develops...
Judicial Watch Sues Health and Human
Services over Planned Parenthood Records
President Bush instituted polices that may have saved the lives of many
unborn babies. One of his first official acts as President in 2001 was to
reinstitute a policy denying federal funding to international groups that
provide abortions. He opposed taxpayer funding for most stem cell research.
And he signed a bill which outlawed the barbaric practice of partial birth
abortion.
So would you be surprised if I told you that the Bush administration, under
the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, has provided
billions of dollars to the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood?
That's why we decided to find out everything we could about the Bush
administration's funding of Planned Parenthood, including what restrictions,
if any, have been placed on how this money is spent. On August 14, 2008,
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department
of Health and Human Services. When HHS stonewalled, we filed a lawsuit. (Check
it out here.)
Here's what we're after:
- All records concerning the allocation and distribution of public funds
to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (henceforth referred
to as Planned Parenthood).
- All records detailing the policies, procedures, and operational
practices of Planned Parenthood, including but not limited to records
concerning the use of public funds to provide health care or educational
services.
- Any and all records pertaining to the Department of Health and Human
Service's decision to provide funding to Planned Parenthood, including but
not limited to records detailing the use of government money, and/or any
conditions or stipulations regarding the use of said money.
Incredibly, the Bush administration provides approximately $300 million in
annual taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood through Title X (Ten), a
program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Now, pro-abortion advocates and defenders of the Title X policy say that
the funds are not to be used directly for abortion-related services, that
there is a "strict wall of separation" between funds for "family planning" and
funds for "abortion." There is some doubt as to whether or not this is true,
which is one reason we filed our FOIA request. Even if you accept this
argument at face value, this is a distinction without a difference. Certainly
every dollar allocated by the federal government to Planned Parenthood for
so-called "family planning" services frees up another dollar to be used by
Planned Parenthood to provide abortions.
As President Elect Obama is a fanatic supporter of abortion rights and,
among other acts, pledges to reverse the prohibition on taxpayer money for
organizations that promote abortion abroad, the issue of taxpayer funding of
abortion could reach fever pitch over the next year.
I will continue to keep you posted on this lawsuit and on whatever
information we uncover related to our government's support of Planned
Parenthood.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to
fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics
and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible
contribution in support of our efforts, click
here.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
