"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt


One of Salem Oregon's Unofficial Top 1000 Conservative Political Bloggers!!!

Friday, September 4, 2009

Van Jones: "Truther" from 2002 and the Obama Admin. is "Delighted" to have "Recruited Him"

We all know about the Van Jones (Obama's "Green Jobs Czar") story-- the communist background, inflammatory statements (more here), his practice of hurling insults at Republicans, and the signature to the "9/11 Truth.org" petition.

Jones' response was a perfunctory apology in which he said "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration – some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

So at this point we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Jones is either a liar (if he did, in fact, sign the 9/11 truther petition out of a belief that the federal government caused or permitted the attacks to happen) or a fool (if we are to believe that he signed a petition while being unaware of its central message).

Either way, Jones seems wholly unqualified to advise anyone on anything of a legal or governmental matter-- let alone a president. Opportunistic liars are untrustworthy and fools are... well fools.

Yet now there is further evidence of Jones' ties to the truthers. Gateway Pundit has this little gem from Rense.com way back in 2002. A "San Francisco March to Demand Inquiry of 9/11" lists Van Jones as a member of the organizing committee.

In a document dated 1-11-2002, a march to Sen. Feinstein's SF office was declared and "[t]he delegation will demand that these questions (and others) be raised and answered publicly-"

An edited list of their copious questions that they demand answers to:

"What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?"

"Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures?"

"Who actually was in control of the 'hijacked planes'?"

"Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack?"

"Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?"

"Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil?" Oil in Afghanistan? Huh...

"Is the war against Afghanistan illegal?"

"What are Bush's, Cheney's and Rice's connections to the oil industry?"

"Why is the evidence being destroyed when an investigation of the World Trade Center collapse is needed?"

"What relationship did various U.S. agencies and their contractors have with the Taliban, either directly or through Pakistani or Saudi agencies or contractors?"

Van Jones is seventh on the list of members of the "Organizing Committee" for this march. This document indicates Jones was involved with the truther movement at the movement's beginnings.

Given that he was organizing truther marches in early 2002, I think it is safe to assume that Jones' signature on the 9/11 truth petition did reflect his true views. And that Jones is lying when he states, during an inauthentic apology, that the 9/11 truther petition he signed did not reflect his own beliefs and that he simply didn't read it carefully. So he is a liar. Whether he is a fool or not I leave to your own musing.

Currently, Republicans are calling for Jones to step down. Whether this actually happens or not is a coin toss. I would say it's a no-brainer, but Obama's "hope" (as in I hope they don't notice any of this) and "change" (as in I'll play this down and pray that they'll eventually change their minds) political strategy has proven depressingly effective-- especially with a press corp still largely smitten with Obama.

The significance of all this goes beyond the fringe-beliefs of one of Obama's advisers (let's ignore science czar John Holdren's fringe beliefs for now). Van Jones is not someone who flew in under the Obama Administration's radar. I'm sure there will be a distancing from him, whether they encourage his resignation or not, and the administration's spokespeople will suggest that this is not the Jones they know a la Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Yet, as Charles Krauthammer points out (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative) this patently false. From an editorial today in The Washington Post not about Van Jones Krauthammer notes "The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?"

As Michelle Malkin points out, Jones has been publicly lauded by Valerie Jarrett at a dKos blogger convention ("Obama's BFF" and "The Ultimate Insider" according to The New York Times Magazine's idolizing expose):

"JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]

"JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House [emphasis mine]."

Make no mistake, Jones was selected by the Obama Administration with full knowledge of his radical, divisive and fringe beliefs. I would argue he was selected, not in spite of his radical views, but because of them. After all, what area of expertise does he actually bring to the table? Is he a scientist who can demonstrate the need for "green jobs" (a term that no one, including Jones himself, has a definition for)? No. Is Jones an industry leader with a proven record of creating jobs, green or otherwise? No. He does, however, have a demonstrable history of organizing SF truther marches, likening supporters of murdered police officer Daniel Faulkner to the KKK, (h/t Michelle Making again), and other hard-Left and/or race baiting causes.

The Obama Administration have shackled themselves at the wrist to fringe-dwelling Van Jones. Although there is no doubt they will saw off Jones' arm rather than sink with him, if it comes to that, the confirmation of Obama's unreasonable, hard-Left position is inescapable.

I'm willing to bet money that Van Jones is simply the first of many ugly hard-Left exposes that will dog White House, irrespective of the issues of socialized medicine, Cap & Trade, and Obama's open hostility to countries such as Israel and Honduras. How Obama handles this current issue, and how much it hurts his credibility will give great insight into what the next 3 1/2 years will be like in America.

2 comments:

  1. Have you seen the thing from Naked Emprtor? Van Jones says that any little change can and should be a kernel for radical even complete change of the whole system. Makes me wonder if he isn't Obama's alter ego. It seems that this administration always wants and intends more than they will admit to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure about alter-ego, but certainly they're working from the same playbook. The Obama Admin. knows full well the radical nature of many of their czars and they downplay them to the MSM, bypass public Congressional confirmations, etc. for a reason.

    What this reason(s) could be is an interesting question. I mean why keep someone as an adviser that has easily recognizable backgrounds or views which will politically harm the admin.? In the case of Jones, surely it is not the skills, experience, and expertise he brings to his "field" of green jobs. So why is he there?

    I don't believe it's all part of some conspiracy or hidden agenda, but there is obviously some reason these specific people were given these positions. And I think a lot of has to do with their agreement, in both tactics and principles, with Obama and his insiders. Jones can tell us a lot about attitiudes that Obama really possesses.

    ReplyDelete