Posts Tagged ‘Podesta’

Van Jones: Obama Democrats Continue To Show What They Really Are

September 8, 2009

I laid out most of the evidence of Van Jones’ incredibly radicalism in a previous article.  He is – with the evidence abundantly clear – a communist, a Marxist-Leninist, a “truther” who claimed that the Bush Administration was actually behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as an ardent racist who accused white people of poisoning people of color.

The man who signed a document stating that the Bush administration actually brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 actually then argued that the United States actually DESERVED the attack – as Newsbusters was able to document:

The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City,” said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Newsbusters‘ Tom Blumer points out, “Keep in mind that Jones had to be referring to either the first Gulf War or no-fly-zone incidents, as the war to remove Saddam Hussein did not begin until 2003.”  This is a naked statement of “America deserved it!” from a lunatic.  And this anti-American lunatic was given a great deal of power by one Barack Obama.

It’s not as though the Obama administration didn’t know about Van Jones or his incredibly far-leftist radicalism.  White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett just recently said of Jones:

“We are so delighted about being able to recruit him [Van Jones] into the White House. We have been watching him – really – for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland.”

So they knew Van Jones was a self-admitted communist, knew he was a racist who accused white people (and even white environmentalists) of poisoning people of color, knew he was a supporter of cop-murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, etc. etc.  And they just didn’t care.  That was what they wanted.  That is who they are.

The Obama administration wanted to make clear that they were not behind Van Jones’ departure.

The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday

After all, he was who and what they wanted.  He’s like Obama.  He’s like the mainstream liberals who are running America now.

Liberal ideologue and Democrat in good standing John Podesta had this bit to say:

Van was working to build a common ground agenda for all Americans, and I am confident he will continue that work. Unfortunately, his critics on the right could find no common ground with him.

Clearly, Van was the subject of a right-wing smear campaign shrouded in hypocrisy.

I think that Van Jones calling Republicans “assholes” literally just for being Republicans kind of exposes the sheer insanity of Podesta’s rhetoric.  Or maybe he’s arguing that all Republicans should just quietly lie down and reflect upon their “assholishness.”  And that’s our “common ground agenda for all Americans.”

So the fact that I am opposed to Marxist-Leninist communism, the fact that I don’t believe Bush bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11, the fact that I don’t blame America for causing 9/11, the fact that I refuse to bear the label of “murderer” for my “environmental crimes” against people of color, the fact that I support Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner over and against the man who murdered him, puts me on the other side of the “common agenda” that liberals want to create.

And of course, if I oppose Van Jones, and John Podesta, and Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Obama on their agenda, why, I’m just “shrouded in hypocrisy.”

That must be some godawful “common ground agenda.”  Or, allow me to quote Obama’s preacher for 23 years, Jeremiah Wright, and call it a “God damned” agenda.

I just want you to realize the radical, communist, hateful, anti-American lengths Republicans are now expected to go to if they want to “build a common ground agenda for all Americans.”

Now that Van Jones is finally gone, I’ve heard that his role as “green jobs czar” was in reality a “fairly minor position.”  Which is actually a bizarre claim, given that Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs – and Van Jones was his point man for that endeavor.  Is it seriously the liberals’ argument that 5 million green jobs is “fairly minor”?

Van Jones is going to just quietly go away because the media is a biased and ideologically liberal group of propagandists, and they don’t want this story to fester (just imagine how the mainstream media would have gone after a rightwing “czar” who had had a tenth of Jones’ ideological baggage.)  But some questions demand to be asked:

Van Jones never created a job in his life.  What qualified him to be the green jobs czar?  What in the world is going on with this green jobs program if Van Jones is their guy?  What kind of ideology must Barack Obama have if he welcomed Van Jones aboard and was willing to stick by him in spite of Jones’ documented far leftist radicalism?  Why shouldn’t conservatives and Republicans oppose everything Obama stands for and tries to implement if he is a “Van Jones-type” of politician?  How dare a man who claimed that he transcended partisan politics appoint such a loathsome ideologue to any post in his administration?  And so on.

The fact of the matter is that the modern Democrat Party continues to be the party of Van Jones.  And that is truly frightening.

History Already Beginning to Positively Re-evaluate President Bush

August 21, 2008

President Bush – mired in low polls (unless you consider the Democrat-controlled Congress’ polls, which make his numbers look fabulous) is beginning to receive more favorable consideration, according to both polls and a survey of analyses.

President Bush’s favorability rating is at 30% according to Quinnipiac (8/12-8/17), with Gallup holding him at 33% (8/7-8/10). His ratings are definitely beginning to improve. And other reports are now speaking more favorably in both tone and substance of the Bush record. The success of the surge is cited as the largest contributing factor.

A Zogby survey shows that just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President. Why the media has spent so much time broadcasting President Bush’s low numbers, while basically ignoring the Democrats’ far lower numbers, would appear to reveal a clear bias and even an agenda.

Most telling of all may be how even left-leaning media is now evaluating the President more positively. Fareed Zakaria has a Newsweek article titled, “What Bush Got Right” that states that Bush learned from his failures and set a successful new course. A survey of the article reveals that President Bush positively transformed the U.S. relationships with China and India. Zakaria writes that:

“blanket criticism of Bush misses an important reality. For whatever reasons and through whichever path, the foreign policies in place now are more sensible, moderate and mainstream. In many cases the next president should follow rather than reverse them.”

Also this week the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank led by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, released its survey of national security experts, who say they are “more positive about the war in Iraq, U.S. efforts in fighting global terrorist networks, and the security of the United States and its people.” The survey reveals a decidedly upward trend in the confidence and approval of President Bush’s handling of a host of foreign policy issues.

I challenge any Democrat who opposes the war in Iraq to confront the positions of their own leadership both prior to and shortly after the beginning of the war. Freedom Agenda has a compilation of quotes from prominent Democrats on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, WMD, and the need to oust the regime. It is my contention that a reading of Democrats will reveal them as a treacherous and even traitorous band of rat bastards who betrayed not only the President in time of war, but their own expressed convictions, for cheap political gain.

I will always wonder what would have happened if Democrats had presented a united face, rather than divide the country over a war that 60% of the Democrats in the Senate voted for. I believe that had the country been united, there is a very real probability that more European countries would have supported the leadership of the United States, and that Saddam Hussein might have blinked and opened his regime to the inspections President Bush demanded.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers