by AK - Jeff 42 Replies latest social current
those facts [his speeches, his comments, his viewpoints on tape and paper - well documented all over the place by now] could come back to haunt him.
That's my question Jeff, what exactly were those comments and viewpoints that came back to haunt him? Why are you happy to see him go? What is it about him that had you and others concerned?
Actually, beks, I had no personal opinions about the guy. I say had. I do now.
I know that all libs hate Glenn Beck. But please tell me if he has mislabeled this guy. I don't buy most of Becks views, he is too radical for me the other way. But I have not seen Van Jones, or anyone else, dispute these reports. They are his words, and his choices. I don't like Socialism. I don't like Communism. I know some people who died in a swamp to stop it once. Jones likes communism. That's reason enough to distrust him.
There's much more. That's enough for now.
I think Marc Ambinder sums it up:
It may not be fair to Jones, but this is not about Jones -- it's about Obama, and whether defending a guy who used to be a communist, who called George W. Bush a lot of really bad things, and who found himself in close company with people who believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy was worth whatever Jones was currently contributing to American policy as a member of the White House. And it wasn't.
Here is the deal - the sword of justice cuts both ways.
Nixon was by many accounts perhaps the smartest and toughest president to have served within our lifetimes. However, he had a fatal flaw - he was just as crooked as a snake.
Van Jones was an articulate speaker and a successful low-level politician. However, he had a fatal flaw - he was a neo-sixties racist & Marxist radical who could not have cared less about real environmentalism...he just wanted to affect change of American society into socialism.
Van Jones got the job over White House lawyers' objections:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/08/valerie-jarretts-show
According to several White House sources, Jones was hired for his “green jobs czar” positions over concerns raised by the White House Counsel’s Office, after Jones’s background materials came back with several of what were termed “inconsistencies” in the Standard Form 86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions.
When confronted with the 2004 9/11 truther petition by the White House communications staff, Jones, according to sources, initially blamed his staff at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The petition was spun by the White House as Jones simply not having read the material closely. Within an hour of the White House statement with Jones’s apology, another document came to light indicating that Jones had helped organize a 2002 truther protest march in San Francisco. Jones, according to White House sources, denied any involvement. “It’s clear we [the White House] don’t know enough about him,” said a White House source in the Counsel’s office, who spoke on Saturday morning before Jones resigned, and did so anonymously in the hopes that information about concerns raised by the counsel’s office about Jones might push him out of the Administration…
[Valerie] Jarrett did view Jones as a critical member of the administration for her outreach efforts, in part, because he was so well known and respected in the radical-left world the administration is counting on to help with issues like health care and cap and tax, and, more importantly, campaign efforts in 2010.
I don't understand the issue here, a person is entitiled to his/her opinion on any issue and in a controversial one like 9/11, you'd think that people would be more understanding about those that have a different view of what may have happened.
There is enough concerns about 9/11 that the offical findinga are NOT 100% controvery proof, so what is the issue here?
There is enough concerns about 9/11 that the offical findinga are NOT 100% controvery proof, so what is the issue here?
The issue is that the general public does not want a barking-mad conspiracy theorist at the control panel of the government. Did you know that he also stated that "white people and white environmentalists have created poisons and dumped them on the people of color?" That is tantamount to the fatal Rev. Wright comment that "AIDS was made by the government to kill black people".
Fine and dandy to hold these kind of lunatic fetish beliefs, but not if you are going to be a powerful beaurecrat in that very field of endeavor.
JWoods,
I agree, but his views are not new, he had them before.
I am sure his resignation was "forced" but if that is the case, that is not very democratic, I mean, you know that a person believes certain things, you hire him anyways and then when those things he believes are expressed, you force his resignation?
Doesn't make much sense to me...I mean...the administration KNEW about his views right?
I don't understand the issue here, a person is entitiled to his/her opinion on any issue and in a controversial one like 9/11, you'd think that people would be more understanding about those that have a different view of what may have happened.
There is enough concerns about 9/11 that the offical findinga are NOT 100% controvery proof, so what is the issue here?
Oh, the irony.
Why then can't Glenn Beck be entitled to his opinions? And Rush Limbaugh his?
*Their* salaries are being paid by corporations. Those corporations are not being supported by American taxpayers. The corporations are not influencing policy making in the USA.
They are not journalists. They are opinionators. (new word). They are paid to give opinions.
Van Jones was paid to make policy.
I think the more important issue here is not Jones but the whole idea of a "Green Jobs" program in the first place. Especially egregious is the description of the program to "promote 'Green Jobs' within the black community. First of all, what the hell is a Green Job? We all know what is. It is the latest bureaucratic money pit. This is just another way for the Socialists to solidify their voter base with our money. Does anybody believe it would be based in capitalism? Or that it would be a true job in the sense that it would help people get off the government dole and become taxpayers instead of tax consumers?
Even Jones frankly said it was a way to finance the "Black Movement". Sounds like just another Acorn scheme.
Frankly, I am leery of anything that is called "Green" or "Sustainable" or any of the buzz words for the Leftist strategy of total control.
This has zero to do with my principles and practices as a lover of nature and a hater of waste. How dare this movement try to hijack the good that people naturally want to do.
