Van Jones- The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Well, it’s Saturday, Sept. 5, and the betting pool is underway on just when Van Jones, admitted Communist, twice arrested criminal “green jobs Czar”- personally appointed by the Marxist in Chief, will get the boot from his master.

My money is on Sunday, the 6th. That would bury the bad news that Vannie is out of a sweet gig in the Labor Day BBQ recipe section in most newspapers. This should have never happened- not that he was tossed, that is right, but that he was appointed at all.

You would think that this WH staff would be more familiar  with Google than they were, or perhaps, (and this is scary), the vetters did not think that his past was a factor. If the people doing the vetting were FBI, then this is inexcusable, and we need to thoroughly  clean the ranks of the “Feebs”, because they have lived down to their nickname- and that is a shame for an organization with such a stellar past.

Still, what can you expect, with so many people kissing the hem of  Hussein’s robe, the Mainstream Media being especially slobbery and craven. They have been so bad, that no mention of Van Jones and his increasingly radical past has been made on any MSM network.

Then came the “truther” statement, signed by Van Jones in 2004- and the man lies and says he did not know what the content of the document he was signing was- a lie- but that is par for the course. Did you expect a criminal to tell the truth? Hah!

On Friday a 2002 document emerged in which Jones was on the “organizing committee” of a newspaper called WAR TIMES — “A New, Biweekly, Tabloid Newspaper Opposing the ‘War on Terrorism.'”

The WAR TIMES document asserts that the “world’s most powerful nation has mercilessly bombed Afghanistan and is installing a neo-colonial government of its own choosing, although that country has never attacked the U.S. Millions of Afghans have been displaced and face starvation this winter. The administration has also green-lighted massive Israeli assaults on Palestine, and it threatens to attack Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and other countries. The agenda seems clear: to remake the world in the rightwing image with little regard for human consequences.”

WAR TIMES’s announcement appeared with the announcement of a protest march demanding a congressional inquiry into whether and how much the Bush administration may have played a role in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

blogs.abcnews.com

Gee whiz- isn’t that a kick in the pants, Vannie- you didn’t know what you were organizing in 2002 either, I’ll bet- you were in a coma,yeaaaaaaa, that’s the ticket, you were kidnapped, byyyyyyyyy, Karl Marx, yeaaaa that’s right-

Come on Van, Man Up, if you can– you should never have been appointed by the Ears in Chief, but you were, simply because all you “Elitist Progressives” believe that the rest of the world is too stupid to know or care. Not so- we will catch you in your lies, and you all spin a bunch of them. 

The tip off should be the company you keep- here’s a clue- if Janene Garofalo signs the petition, you should not. If Rosie O’Donnell puts her Jane Hancock on the paper, stay away. But nooooooooooo- you thought that surely this wouldn’t bite you in the butt. 

So wrong, so long.

Update: Now, the Czarships themselves are under fire, brought on by Jone’s radical past- but he is not the only one-

Republicans and a handful of Democrats have called on the White House to review and suspend its use of czars. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) on Friday asked for a Senate hearing on the Jones appointment.

“In the wake of these recent revelations, the president should suspend any further appointments of so-called czars until Congress has an opportunity to examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals and to determine the constitutionality of such appointments,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, who called on Jones to resign.

The czar-attacks have begun to catch fire far beyond the Beltway. In town hall meetings across the country this August, questioners slammed the administration’s advisers, claiming that they allowed the White House to wield unchecked power.

 It’s an argument that’s been fed by Republicans in Congress, who see an opening to attack the credibility of the popular administration. In an Arizona town hall meeting last week, Republican Sen. John McCain joked that Obama, “has more czars than the Romanovs” — a laugh line he frequently uses. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls the czars, “administrative chaos.”

 Conservatives argue that the czars are the administration’s way of pushing a big government agenda – without Congress getting in the way. And each whiff of controversy, they believe, helps them prove their point.

 Conservative pundits are on a czar hunt, combing records for politically dangerous statements made by the policy advisers.

politico.com

Savor the small victories, but press home the fight.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “Van Jones- The Gift That Keeps On Giving”

  1. Big Dog says:

    I wonder how Adam feels about Van being a truther considering how he looks at “birthers” with such disdain…

  2. Blake says:

    I am sure he feels his hero has been viciously maligned by the MSM who was so silent on this man and his past.

  3. Adam says:

    I can’t stand truthers any more than I can stand birthers and the sad fact is these two groups run in similar circles, which Big Dog seems to want to deny, wanting to pin the 9/11 truth movement on liberals.

    I don’t like that Jones would sign a petition because the truth movement is utter garbage. But does this change how I feel about this man as far as the green movement goes or his duties in the Obama Admin? No.

    Your obsession with Jones being an evil commie simply amplifies your hope that he will somehow lose his job on this and it’s blocking your ability to look at this in terms of reality which is that there’s not much here.

    1. You have a signature on a petition calling for an investigation into 9/11. Notice it lacks the most insane of the truther garbage such as explosives in WTC, missiles in DC, disappeared planes, etc.

    2. You have a lack of any other record of Van Jones being vocal on this issue. He’s a community organizer and a proponent of healthy communities through a greener economy.

    3. You have Van Jones’ statement questioning the petition and stating he does not agree with the sentiment of the document.

    So really, I’m not seeing how this affects his current post in the administration or how this somehow calls into question the skill of the FBI to vet this man.

    Jones has never been charged with any crimes, he’s never spent more than a few hours in jail, and he is not a communist. Calling Jones a communist now is like calling me an atheist because at one time I didn’t believe in God and I was very vocal on the subject of faith. You just don’t have evidence to back up your continued smears on this man.

    Furthermore, I would be very surprised if this somehow ended his work with Obama. Jones’ job deals with environmental policy and job creation related to a green economy, not national security or anything that his opinions of 9/11 have any relevance too.

    I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you. But then again having an illegal immigrant as a maid has been enough to sink appointments in the past…

  4. Blake says:

    True- but there is first his signature in 2002- then his signature in 2004 on the same petition with skank Garofalo, and O’Donnell, so for two years he didn’t change his mind, and noe that he is caught, he says a mea culpa?
    Sounds like Larry Craig to me- only when they are caught….

  5. Adam says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the 2002 document not a signature, but rather just the organizers of the event raising concerns about 9/11? That’s different than a petition.

    There are a few ideas in the document about the event that would become 9/11 truther movement ideas but it’s a stretch to say that Van Jones was signing on to any major piece of conspiracy about 9/11. This event was more about the response to 9/11 and the concerns in the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement.

    I’m sure you might find some of the views about the response to 9/11 equally as offensive as 9/11 conspiracy but I think the two things are distinct and separate.

    But again, I hate that Van Jones is associated with this kind of garbage but I’m not seeing how this affects the job he has to do for Obama. If this becomes a distraction then perhaps he needs to step aside but for that we’ll just have to wait and see.

    The problem is people like Beck have been hounding him for months and it hasn’t changed the administrations view of Jones. Jones being a “czar” is more of a label and not an indication of some big role he has. He’s still just an adviser and a policy architect working inside a cabinet post which he answers to.

  6. Adam says:

    Little Green Footballs has a little more to say about Van Jones’ denial that he intended to sign a document dealing with 9/11 conspiracy, for what it’s worth.

  7. Adam says:

    Or as the dude from LGF puts it today:

    When this “news” came out, I spent hours searching the web for any corroboration at all in Jones’ own words that he believes the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government. If I had found something, I was prepared to start yelling as loud as anyone about it, because I utterly despise Truthers.

    I found: nothing. Nothing at all.

    So I looked around those right wing blogs this morning because I was curious to see if any of them had found real proof for this accusation, apart from the word of Truthers and hate sites, and found: nothing. Nothing at all.

    The bottom line: there seems to be absolutely no evidence that Jones is a Truther, except his name on a Truther document. And in that case, we’ve shown that the Truthers lied to several of the “signatories” and told them they were signing a simple, legitimate call for further investigations, then added the conspiracy raving at a later date. In the case of author Rachel Ehrenfeld, they added her name to the document without her knowledge. Does that sound like a credible source of information to you?

  8. Blake says:

    No- truthers, like the birthers, are fringe- but there is his signature, not once, but twice.
    It would make me pause in thinking about him, and that’s if I liked him, which I do not.

  9. Adam says:

    The whole thing is a stretch. The 2002 event is hardly a “truther” event and Jones’ name is not a signature.

    The later petition is questionable as to what people were signing since Jones isn’t the only one to suggest he signed a different document than the one presented.

    The bottom line is that you really have to stretch the truth to call Jones a truther and in the end it’s as thin as the other attacks on Jones have been.

    • Blake says:

      While the 2002 event was not a petition, it was an organizational table listing the organizers, and Van Jones was listed, as the Ella Baker head dude, AND the new head of STORM, jones’ old org., so this wasn’t a case of an accidental event, and everyone apparently, wanted on this boat.
      When you couple this with the petition, it is not nearly as thin as you would like it to be.

  10. Adam says:

    More from LGF:

    I’m defending the apparently out-of-fashion concept that accusations like this should be based on credible sources, and not Truther sites and hate sites.

    • Big Dog says:

      Well he resigned so there must be a reason. Perhaps Barry threw him under the bus because of all his racist statements about the evil white guys.

      Then again, that would not bother Obamadinejad. In any event, chalk one up for the good guys.

  11. Rosemary says:

    The emperor has no close…

  12. Adam says:

    Yeah, sure enough. Jones is toast, Blake was right.

    It disappoints me because I like his environmental work but I guess it’s for the best if it’s going to keep distracting. I’m sure we’ll know more as time passes about what exactly it was that was the breaking point.

    Just goes to show you again that if you lie and smear a guy enough you can have the guy’s head even without presenting any real evidence.

    You lied every time you called him a communist, a felon, a criminal or even a truther, and you all know it. The environmental movement lost a very strong, well placed proponent today because of those lies. I hope you’re proud of yourselves for sinking to such levels. It will only get worse from here and will only get more divisive.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yeah, those lies about Karl Rove outing Valerie Plame were so rampant that he was put out of a job. Now wait, he was not because it was not rue. The victim was Libby who was convicted of something and it was not outing Plame.

      There are lots of lies that get stated over and over from both sides but I think it is dishonest to claim that these were lies spread about Jones. He admitted he was a Communist, he was arrested and he signed the 9/11 truther paper with other wierdos. His comments about white people and his comments about Bush being a crack addict were beyond the pale.

      The real issue is that Obama would appoint this guy knowing of his radical past and his current radical views. That is an issue that is not addressed. You seem to hold that because you liked his environmental views, the rest can be ignored.

      That is like saying you can ignore a mass murderer’s crimes because he is a vegan…

      • Adam says:

        Somebody in the Bush administration blew Plame’s cover by telling Novak. In the investigation of that incident Libby lied under oath and obstructed justice, all serious crimes as I’m sure you’ll agree when it comes to Clinton, but apparently not Libby.

        I don’t ignore his past, but I don’t dwell on it because he has proven he has moved past his radical years and he’s spent the better part of this decade working on solid environmental movements and furthering the debate through speeches and organizations and writing.

        I guess for you a guy can’t move beyond his radical younger days and on to smarter, saner things like Jones has done. No, you’d like to compare me not dwelling on Jones’ past to ignoring a mass murderer. Right, that’s a real fair comparison.

        It’s funny that the truther stuff and the inflammatory comments have been the most substantial after months of smearing him on false grounds about being a communist (he’s not), a felon or a criminal (he’s not), been in prison (never), a radical (not), or racist (he’s not).

        • Big Dog says:

          Did Libby lie under oath or was how he recalled it different from how Russert recalled it. The only evidence was that his story differed from Russert’s. If he truly lied under oath then yes but there is a difference between lying and simply recounting an event differently than someone else.

          Libby was the scape goat. No one in the administration blew Plame’s cover because she was not under cover (and if she was her picture in Vanity Fair blew it) but, Fitz knew who it was that mentioned her name on the third day of the investigation so it was a witch hunt and Libby became a scape goat.

          Now, we know Clinton lied under oath but he did not get a jail term and he was not removed through impeachment. Liberals were upset he was impeached for a silly thing like lying but blew a cork when Libbey did not have to serve jail time because of Bush. Remember, a new precedent was set. Without evidence that he lied, Libbey was convicted because hsi story was different than Russert’s.

          I certainly believe that a person can move on from radical youth but since some of the things Jones has said he said in the past year I doubt you can make the case for youthful indiscretion.

          He said he was a Communist and now says he is not. Which time did he lie and how do we know he changed? He was in prison when he was arrested. He is a radical who said that black kids don’t shoot up schools only white kids. He is a racist who believes the white man has done blacks wrong and that whites owe for that. To him it is time for payback. You can say he is not a racist but his statements are certainly racist.

          Funny how you throw that word racist around every time someone disagrees with Obama but ignore a man who makes racist comments just because you like his thoughts on the environment.

          If this guy were an isolated thing it might be different but given all the radicals that are a close part of Obama’s life it is hard to believe that this guy is not one of them. He is in line with Wright, Ayers and all the others…

          He is toast. Maybe we will be lucky and they will ship him to another country. He is a racist schmuck and I feel no sympathy for him. Glad he is gone.

        • Big Dog says:

          And I am all for equal treatment regardless of who broke the law. No clear evidence Libby did. Plenty of evidence that Clinton did. You are the one who does not like equal treatment as to you Clinton was harassed and Libby should have gotten life in prison.

    • Blake says:

      Adam, All I ever did was use HIS OWN WORDS- the man hung himself, and that is the truth.
      The lesson here should be to not leave a video trail of incendiary soundbites, or whacky petitions, don’t you think?

  13. Adam says:

    I was hoping that once Jones was out you’d stop lying because there’s no reason to smear him anymore. Not true, I guess.

    First of all Jones does not hide that he was a communist or a marxist depending on the conversation you want to quote. That was years ago though and he’s been advocating capitalist methods for a green economy for a decade now, much longer than he considered himself a communist or a marxist. So is it communist for life is communist for any length of time or are people allowed to grow up and change their views over a period of 20 years?

    Second, admit that there is a difference between being arrested and spending a few hours in a holding cell in an SF county jail and spending time in prison.

    You’re kidding yourself when you suggest that conversation by Jones is racist. You wouldn’t know racism if it burned a cross on your yard so I’m not surprised at all that you would think Jones saying that white suburban kids need as much love and help and support as inner city minority children do is racist. Sure, when you simply say “Jones said only white kids shoot up schools” then that can sound racist. Let’s stop lying though and view what he was saying in actual context of the conversation.

    Also, I do not throw the word racist around simply for people who disagree with Obama and you know it, so top making stuff up.

    Finally, I have never said Libby should have gotten life in prison so stop projecting your made up garbage on me. Plame was covert and you are telling a lie when you say she wasn’t. That lie may have worked back during the investigation when we debated the fresh events but it is well established now and a matter of public record that she was covert and her cover was blown. Stop lying.

  14. Blake says:

    No, what Jones was saying, was that white kids are different than black kids- Is that racist? I think it could well be construed as such, and was.
    Plame was not covert at the time, and had not been so for a number of years- I am not in favor of outing her, but when she was so instrumental in putting her husband where he was, that calls for some explanation, and, unfortunately for her, some background.
    She should know that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

  15. Adam says:

    Saying white kids are different than black kids…is racist? Are you joking? His statement is only racist to those who either don’t understand racism or hate Van Jones enough that they’ll distort anything he says. In your case it’s both.

    Plame was covert at the time and her CIA cover was blown. This is a matter of public record. Stop lying.

    • Big Dog says:

      But if I said that black people are different than white people you would call me a racist. Plame was not undercover, that is a matter of record. Novak called the CIA and aksed for her and they connected him to her voice mail. She was working as an analyst in Langley and not overseas, he covert status had expired. She and her husband did a photo shoot for Vanity Fair. She was far from undercover.

  16. Blake says:

    It is a matter of record that she was a desk jockey, and NOT covert at the time, so am not lying-And yes, Jones made a racist statement, one that if a white guy had made it, you would be calling for his head.
    Try not to be disingenuous.

  17. marik says:

    A criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime, not someone who has been simply arrested.

    [Although, in Texas, at least, an innocent person can also be a convicted criminal.]

    There is a legitimate legal distinction between arrested and convicted. Only “convicted” makes one a criminal.

    Stop writing. Read more. Then write again.

  18. marik says:

    Signing petitions is protected by the Constitution. So is expressing political beliefs.

    If you want to amend the Bill of Rights, just say so.

    • Blake says:

      The vetting done was non existent- this was a man who was going to embarrass the pres. no matter if he had kept his mouth shut.
      Yes, in the US you are free to believe whatever whackjob theory you care to, but some whackjob theories may ensure that you are unemployable.
      Just because you have the freedom to say things, does in no way mean there are no consequences for saying those things, a lesson perhaps he learned now.

    • Big Dog says:

      Certainly signing petitions is protected. However, actions have consequences and the consequences are on the person engaging in the act.

      You have a right to burn a Flag but if a company refuses to hire you because you did then that is the consequence of the action.
      No one denies his right to sign the petition. But he is responsible for that act and if people view it as wrong or bizarre then it is on him. Of course, about one thrid of Democrats agree with his position so that might be why they saw no problem.