The White House ‘Not Alone’ Task Force

Posted on June 15, 2015June 15, 2015 by Denise Simon

There is not one thing that this White House touches, concocts or manages that there is not some devastating collateral damage.

Do you ever wonder why there is so much trouble on college campuses and why there is so much talk about sex and more sex? Enter the ‘Not Alone’ Task Force created in 2014. The implications of this mess stretches to an estimated 55 campuses.

The White House is pushing colleges to survey their students about sex assault and other “campus climate” issues, part of a rape-prevention campaign that will include a Web site to support survivors and track enforcement, a public service announcement from President Obama, and recommendations for how to handle reported assaults. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a finding that Tufts University in Massachusetts had violated federal anti-discrimination law in its handling of sexual assault and harassment complaints. Tufts said it was “surprised and disappointed” that the federal office found it to be out of compliance with the law known as Title IX. “Tufts University is deeply committed to the safety and well-being of our students, faculty and staff,” the school said.

The task force, formed in January, includes Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan and other government officials.

The 23 page report is found here. The Task Force is headed by Valerie Jarrett but Joe Biden has been the point person. There were 27 listening sessions of which 12 were webinars and 15 were face to face.

Among the report’s recommendations:

●Colleges should learn about what’s happening on campus through systematic surveys.

“When done right, these surveys can gauge the prevalence of sexual assault on campus, test students’ attitudes and awareness about the issue, and provide schools with an invaluable tool for crafting solutions,” the report said. The task force said the administration would consider requiring colleges to conduct such surveys in 2016.

●Colleges should promote “bystander intervention,” in others words, getting witnesses to step in when misconduct arises. “It’s up to all of us to put an end to sexual assault,” Obama said in a public service announcement. “And that starts with you.” The PSA also features Biden and actors Steve Carrell, Daniel Craig, Seth Meyers, Benicio Del Toro and Dulé Hill.

●Colleges should identify trained victim advocates who can provide emergency and ongoing support. The administration also released a sample reporting and confidentiality protocol, as well as a “checklist” for an effective sexual misconduct policy.

The report said the government would make enforcement data and other information about sex assault available through a Web site called NotAlone.gov. It said the site would collect in one easy-to-read place information that students have often struggled to find. The site will aim to “give students a clear explanation of their rights,” the report said, as well as “a simple description of how to file a complaint” with federal authorities. “It will help students wade through often complicated legal definitions and concepts, and point them toward people who can give them confidential advice — and those who can’t,” the report said.

Just in case you need to understand the collateral damage, there was an alleged rape case at Amherst.

The truth is a girl raped a drunk male student, who later hired a lawyer only to find the text messages proved the male student was not given any due process stemming from his 2013 expulsion. Amherst is refusing to this day…due process. Read the details here. Amherst feels fully protected by the White House Task Force and likely will get additional legal protection not only from the Eric Holder Justice Department but now the Loretta Lynch Justice Department.

Listen and Read How Wrong Obama is on Iran

Posted on June 15, 2015June 15, 2015 by Denise Simon

Even the Russians did not lie as badly as the Iranians have and Kerry at the behest of the White House is ignoring the historical lies.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has sent a blistering letter to President Obama denouncing reported Iran concessions. It reads:

Dear Mr. President:

It is breathtaking to see how far from your original goals and statements the P5+1 have come during negotiations with Iran. Under your leadership, six of the world’s most important nations have allowed an isolated country with roguish policies to move from having its nuclear program dismantled to having its nuclear proliferation managed. Negotiators have moved from a 20-year agreement to what is in essence a 10-year agreement that allows Iran to simultaneously continue development of an advanced ballistic missile program and research and development of advanced centrifuges. This also will allow Iran’s economy to be restored with billions of dollars returned to its coffers, a development that administration officials concede will be used at some level to export terrorism in the region.

I am alarmed by recent reports that your team may be considering allowing the deal to erode even further. Only you and those at the table know whether there is any truth to these allegations, and I hope reports indicating potential concessions on inspections and on the full disclosure of Iran’s possible military dimensions (PMDs) are inaccurate.

Regarding inspections, surely your administration and those involved in the negotiations will adhere to an “anytime, anywhere” standard. No bureaucratic committees. No moving the ball. No sites off limits.

You have publicly acknowledged Iran’s long history of covert nuclear activity. We all are aware of the importance of having a full understanding of Iran’s nuclear program, including PMDs of those activities as part of any agreement. Yet, recently I have heard of a potential cumbersome process where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with no confirmation from Iran, will make PMD determinations about Iran’s nuclear program in order to protect Iran’s national pride, meaning Iran will not have to publicly admit to these activities. Today, the IAEA cannot get access to information Iran agreed to share pursuant to a 2013 agreement. By not requiring Iran to explicitly disclose their previous weaponization efforts on the front end of any final agreement, we will likely never know, in a timely fashion, the full extent of Iranian capabilities.

I understand the dynamics that can develop when a group believes they are close to a deal and how your aides may view this as a major legacy accomplishment. However, as you know, the stakes here are incredibly high and the security implications of these negotiations are difficult to overstate. As your team continues their work, if Iran tries to cross these few remaining red lines, I would urge you to please pause and consider rethinking the entire approach. Walking away from a bad deal at this point would take courage, but it would be the best thing for the United States, the region and the world.

One hopes that Corker’s colleagues are paying attention and that they are ready to prevent a catastrophic deal.

ISIS New Mansion for Their Headquarters

Posted on June 15, 2015June 15, 2015 by Denise Simon

WASHINGTON — An internal State Department assessment paints a dismal picture of the efforts by the Obama administration and its foreign allies to combat the Islamic State’s message machine, portraying a fractured coalition that cannot get its own message straight.

The assessment comes months after the State Department signaled that it was planning to energize its social media campaign against the militant group. It concludes, however, that the Islamic State’s violent narrative — promulgated through thousands of messages each day — has effectively “trumped” the efforts of some of the world’s richest and most technologically advanced nations.

It also casts an unflattering light on internal discussions between American officials and some of their closest allies in the military campaign against the militants. A “messaging working group” of officials from the United States, Britain and the United Arab Emirates, the memo says, “has not really come together.” More here.

Islamic State leaders claim to be living in luxury in a vast mansion seized from a billionaire Arab sheikh.

The jihadi group’s social media sites posted photographs of the spectacular mansion, under the headline: ‘A castle for the tyrants of Qatar in Palmyra’.

The sprawling hilltop mansion is similar in style to the soon-to-be London home of the current emir, who was educated at Harrow and Sandhurst.

Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, 55, one of the three wives of Qatar’s former emir Sheikh Haman bin Khalifa Al Thani, bought three prime properties in London’s Regent’s Park for an estimated £120million in 2013.

Once completed, the 13-bedroom palace will be the London home of Sheikh Hamad’s son, the 35-year-old Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad.

It is expected to be the most valuable residential property in London in private hands, with estimates claiming it will be worth about £280million.

It will also be the first residential property in the UK to break the £200million mark.

The family also own the Shard – the tallest skyscraper in Europe, Harrods and the Olympic Village.

In recent years, Qataris are thought to have bought almost one in 30 homes in London worth more than £2million.

Photo essay of the mansion is here.

The Fourth Reich, the essay of 2015 on Islamic State.

In a hard-hitting essay on ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) for The Daily Mail, the 2001 Nobel Prize winning author, V.S. Naipaul, wrote: “ISIS could very credibly abandon the label of Caliphate and call itself the Fourth Reich.” Among the writings on Islam and Muslims in recent years, Naipaul’s, as in the books Among the Believers and Beyond Belief, have been perhaps the most incisive and penetrating in exploring the extremist politics of the global Islamist movement from inside of the Muslim world. And that ISIS on a rampage, as Naipaul observed, revived “religious dogmas and deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shi’as, Sunnis and Jews and Christians is a giant step into darkness.”

Ever since the relatively obscure Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stepped forth on the pulpit of the Great Mosque in Mosul, Iraq, on June 28, 2014 to announce the rebirth of the Caliphate (abolished in 1924 by the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk), with al-Baghdadi himself assuming the title of Caliph Ibrahim, the ruling head of the ummah, or worldwide community of Muslims, many might agree with Naipaul, despite the hyperbole — he has left out a potentially nuclear Iran — that “ISIS has to be seen as the most potent threat to the world since the Third Reich.”

It is baffling to read about or watch the sweep of terror spawned by ISIS in the name of Islam — a world religion with a following approaching two billion Muslims. It is insufficient merely to point out that the barbarism of ISIS reflects its origins in the fetid swamps of the Sunni Muslim insurgency of post-Saddam Iraq. But ISIS is neither a new presence in the Arab-Muslim history, nor is the response to it by Western powers, primarily Britain and the United States, given their relationship with the Middle East over the past century.

We have seen ISISes before, and not as al-Qaeda’s second coming.

The first successful appearance of an ISIS in modern times was the whirlwind with which the Bedouin warriors of Abdulaziz ibn Saud (1876-1953) emerged from the interior of the Arabian Desert in 1902 to take hold of the main fortress in Riyadh, the local capital of the surrounding region known as Najd. Some twenty-four years later, this desert warrior-chief and his armies of Bedouin raiders defeated the ruling Sharifian house in the coastal province of Hejaz, where lie Islam’s two holy cities, Mecca and Medina. The full detailed summary and essay is here.

Peeling Back More Layers of Hillary’s Camp

Posted on June 15, 2015June 15, 2015 by Denise Simon

First, Hillary’s campaign operation is an approved list of journalists allowed access.

The Daily Mail’s David Martosko was reportedly denied access to the Hillary Clinton campaign as a pool reporter Monday morning, initiating yet another tussle between the Democratic candidate’s camp and the political press corps:

Martosko said a member of Clinton’s camp told him he had not been approved as a print pool reporter when he arrived to cover the campaign’s New Hampshire swing. He was then sent up various rungs until he got to Clinton press aide Nick Merrill, who issued several apparently contradictory explanations, including that the Daily Mail was a foreign publication, then that the campaign was taking a day off to discuss pool procedures, then that no pool reporter had been designated for the day.

Merrill later responded to Politico’s Dylan Byers, saying, “We want a happy press corps as much as the press corps does. And we work very hard to achieve that in tandem with them. It’s a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium and best accommodate interest from as many news outlets as possible, given the space limitations of our events.”

Second, the campaign is operating on thin dimes or no dimes.

Experienced, adult political operatives who want to do grassroots work for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign currently have no choice but to work as unpaid, full-time interns, raising new questions about how the White House frontrunner runs her own labor force as she prepares to double down on young people’s role in the American economy.

The Clinton campaign is currently in the midst of what multiple Democratic sources described as a “hiring freeze” for paid organizing positions in the early campaign states where the former Secretary of State is laying the foundations of a massive national staff, with few if any paying jobs available for field operations.

Clinton’s camp has made headlines about its frugality and a hard sell on its fellowship program, which allows aspiring politicos between the ages of 18 and 24 to spend this summer as full-time campaign volunteers. The result, however, is the human-resources reality of a campaign – one scheduled to hold at least 26 fundraisers this month alone – that isn’t just taking on college students with political science degrees but expecting political veterans to gamble their careers on her without pay.

Third, she said she has lots of old friends and she is using them. As Hillary goes rogue leftists, her camp is exploiting those connections.

Senior policy advisor, Maya Harris hails from a family of female overachievers. Her late mother, Shyamala Harris, immigrated from India in the 1950s to obtain her PhD in endocrinology from U.C. Berkeley, and went on to make breakthrough discoveries in breast cancer research. Her big sister, Kamala Harris, is California’s attorney general, and is now running for U.S. Senate. At age 29, Maya herself became one of the nation’s youngest-ever law school deans when she took the reins of the Lincoln Law School of San Jose, a night school that prepares students for the California bar.

Then—as if choosing a spouse specially equipped to keep up with all this hard-charging ambition—Harris married fellow Stanford Law student (and her best friend) Tony West. West would go on to become the third-highest ranking official in the Obama Justice Department. Their friendship blossomed when Harris’ 4-year-old daughter Meena engaged West in games of hide-and-seek while her then-single mom was registering for classes. Following family tradition, Meena is now a Harvard law grad.

“It’s all justice all the time,” Harris laughs when asked about family dinner talk.

Harris’ mother, who mostly raised her girls alone (Harris’ Jamaican-born father was a Stanford economist), was swept up in the civil rights movement in and around Berkeley, so Harris grew up imbued with a healthy dose of activism. But the girls’ trailblazing mother also modeled a life of mentorship—always supporting her graduate students while also demanding high standards. “She was tough on them,” Harris recalls. “Until her dying day she never lost sight of this notion that if you’ve been able to walk through doors, you don’t just leave the doors open. You bring others along.” Many more details here.

Obama Favoring Mullahs with Cash Infusions

Posted on June 15, 2015June 15, 2015 by Denise Simon

The Mullahs of Iran have a new standard of confidence on the West lifting financial sanctions after the final deal on the nuclear program is completed. That date is slated for June 30, yet there are signs that date could slide. Who has given the Mullahs this concept of lifted sanctions? The White House.

TEHRAN — With a little more than two weeks before the deadline for a nuclear deal, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said Saturday that he expected relief from economic sanctions within a “couple of months” after an agreement with six world powers was signed.

Mr. Rouhani echoed statements by other Iranian leaders hinting that the deadline might not be met. “We will not waste time, but we should also not restrict ourselves to a specific deadline,” he said.

The pace of sanctions relief is a sticking point. The Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on any nuclear deal, has demanded that all sanctions be lifted on the day the agreement is signed. Mr. Rouhani’s timetable would allow the United States, the European Union and the United Nations to wait to lift their sanctions until the day the deal takes effect. The United States and its negotiating partners want the sanctions lifted piecemeal, as Iran meets its obligations under the deal.

Mr. Rouhani also said Iran wanted the deal to be approved by the United Nations Security Council, as a hedge against a nullification move by a future leader of a negotiating country.

Mullahs see Obama’s favors for their benefit:

The U.S. makes more concessions to Iran in a prelude to a nuclear deal.

The Obama Administration has long insisted that any nuclear deal will have no effect on U.S. determination to stop Iran’s regional ambitions or support for terrorism. As the political desire for a deal grows more urgent, however, this claim is proving to be hollow. Consider Hayya Bina, or “Let’s Go,” a Lebanese civil-society initiative founded in 2005 by publisher and producer Lokman Slim. Hayya Bina works largely with Lebanon’s Shiites on a variety of health, environmental and citizenship issues, largely as a way to offer a moderate alternative to Hezbollah’s efforts to dominate that community.

The group has received modest funding from the State Department and groups like the International Republican Institute. But as the Journal’s Jay Solomon reported last week, the State Department sent Hayya Bina a letter, dated April 10, which “requests that all activities intended [to] foster an independent moderate Shiite voice be ceased immediately and indefinitely.” To underscore the point, the letter added that Hayya Bina “must eliminate funding for any of the above referenced activity.” Why cut funding? The State Department said the programs weren’t meeting expectations. But it hardly went unnoticed in Lebanon that the cuts came barely a week after the U.S. and Iran struck their framework nuclear agreement in Switzerland April 2. Hezbollah is Iran’s Lebanese subsidiary and has made a practice of going after its domestic opponents, including Mr. Slim.

The withdrawal of U.S. funding “is another desperate PR attempt by the Obama Administration to appease the Iranian regime in order to reach a nuclear deal,” says Ahmad El Assaad, a prominent Lebanese Shiite opponent of Hezbollah. Then there is the curious case of Buhary Seyed Abu Tahir, a Dubai-based Sri Lankan businessman who in 2004 was cited personally by President George W. Bush as the “chief financial officer and money launderer” for the nuclear-proliferation network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. According to a 2004 investigation by Malaysian authorities, in 1994 or 1995 Mr. Khan asked Mr. Tahir to ship uranium centrifuges to Iran. “BSA Tahir organized the transshipment of the two containers from DUBAI to IRAN using a merchant ship owned by a company in Iran,” according to a Malaysian report. “BSA Tahir said the payment for the two containers of centrifuge units, amounting to about USD $3 million was paid in UAE Dirham currency by the Iranian. The cash was brought in two briefcases.” The Bush Administration put Mr. Tahir on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of sanctioned persons. But the Treasury Department removed his name from that list on April 3, exactly one day after the framework agreement was announced. We asked a Treasury spokesperson why Mr. Tahir’s name was removed and if there was any connection to the Iran deal, and she said the “delisting was based on a determinaton by OFAC that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of Tahir pursuant to Executive Order 13382.” That order, signed by President Bush in 2005, is “aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.” Mr. Tahir’s delisting strikes us as the equivalent of a backdated check intended to whitewash Iran’s illicit acquisition of centrifuges as having anything to do with a nuclear-weapons program. If the Administration wants to deny this, we suggest it explain the timing publicly. Then there is Iran’s ballistic missile program. Ballistic missiles have long been considered an integral part of Iran’s nuclear program as the most effective way to deliver a weapon, and the Administration pushed for U.N. sanctions on Iran’s missiles in 2010.

When it came time to negotiate, however, the Administration gave in to Tehran’s insistence that it would accept no missile limitations, thus separating the missile and nuclear programs. But now that a deal is near, the Administration is reversing itself again, claiming that for the purposes of sanctions Iran’s missile program is “nuclear-related,” meaning the U.S. is prepared to lift the missile sanctions. And there’s more. “Of the 24 Iranian banks currently under U.S. sanctions,” noted the Associated Press in a story last week, “only one—Bank Saderat, cited for terrorism links—is subject to clear non-nuclear sanctions.” In other words, once the “nuclear-related” sanctions go, so go all the rest, notwithstanding Administration promises. It may be too late to prevent President Obama from striking this deal. But as its contours become clearer, it looks increasingly like a betrayal of our friends, a whitewash of history—and a gift to a dictatorship.