Elevating a 9/11 Truther to “czar” – is there nothing Obama can’t do?
President Obama’s “green jobs” adviser could become a mounting liability for the Obama administration, as the latest revelation about Van Jones shows his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks could have been an inside job.
Jones joined the “9/11 truther” movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”
The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for “deeper inquiry.” It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.
The discovery comes after Jones had to apologize Wednesday night for “offensive words” he uttered in February when he called Republicans “assholes.” He said the remarks “do not reflect the views of this administration” and its bipartisan aims.
But such statements just scratch the surface of Jones’ past commentary.
He also has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at “white polluters and the white environmentalists” for “steering poison” to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy
A declared “communist” during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.
Related – Glenn Beck goes after Color of Change co-founder Van Jones
Incidentally, if you are interested in a Liberal’s take on “Why people vote Republican”, that I, as a Republican can agree with to a significant extent. Look for the article of that name in edge.org.
Thing is, you won’t be able to understand it for the very reasons laid out in the article. It took the author an incredible effort to overcome his own biases just to see conservatives somewhat clearly. It is too much to ask of you trolls, I know.
Watching you guys debate is like trying to watch someone batting who closes his eyes when the ball gets close. Lots of whiffs on your part.
The bleating one ALWAYS comments negatively about any conservative men in the public eye, very telling. And usually in a derogatory sexual manner, it’s like a sick obsession with it. Amusing to observe actually.
And to the idiot claiming YOU lost…blah blah blah.
Winning ONE election is never the end of it in Western countries, where are you from?
But more importantly, that’s why the big OWE needs to be voted down and out before he changes that as well.
2010 is going to be a very interesting year in the US, hope it doesn’t change too much before then…
ldd at September 4, 2009 10:41 AM
**2010 is going to be a very interesting year in the US, hope it doesn’t change too much before then…**
I don’t think it will wait for 2010….the DEMs are already panicking and doing dumb stuff….
In my view the USA is way overdue for a civil war—and there is nothing civil about civil war….
Perhaps they are overconfident that their military/paramilitary will obey them—-they won ya know…..
The 1860-65 civil war was a war between republicans and democrats basically with the army chosing sides piecemeal largely based on location.
This is not 1860….the army will purge itself of the “progressive elements” and Obozo and the BRG will stand alone.
…and then there’s Jeff Gannon, the male prostitute disguised as journalist who was given unprecedented access to the Bush White House (even overnight visits?) as he lobbed his softball questions at the president during the day…
idd:
I see bleet proved your point.
And iggy was schooled at the same school as Obama-Harvard.Ill doublecheck that but im pretty sure of it.
Mary Katherine Ham, Andrea Tantaros, S.E. Cupp.
Hey bleet, what’s your point? That anything Bush did is OK? That if Bush did it, it is fine if Obama does it? IF that is true, what exactly did Obama run on?
Oh, I get it, we are hypocrites for pointing it out, but you guys are not hypocrites for doing it, I keep forgetting.
A bit lengthy, but here’s an analysis of Obama’s embracing of Cold War rhetoric and how he’s joined the other side, as exemplified by his apology tour.
Although this is normally a satire site, all it with Beck’s analysis and what’s happening in the US today definitely is an attempted bloodless revolution.
How long will the Amercian people put up with it? I’ll be interested to see what will happen at the White House tea party next Saturday.
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3961
Jema54
BHO is more like PET.
PET came first.
Find a copy of “Canada- How the Communists Took Control” by Alan Stang.
It was written in 71 and had some interesting forecasts.
Remove PET and replace with BHO and it’s almost identical.
ulianov @ 4:15 p.m., September 3, fails to mention that the boycott in question, against the Glenn Beck Show, is an orchestrated campaign by Color of Change, “Changing the color of democracy”, a radical lobby group.
One of its founders? VAN JONES! Of course, useful idiots never let the facts interfere with their propaganda.
Tim @ 6:32 today writes, “Uli, Could you provide a couple of examples of unacknowledged misreporting from Beck? Everybody makes mistakes, I am talking about the kind of blatant lies that would put him in Obama’s league.”
Well said!
(I do know that, on his blackboard, Glenn Beck left out the “c” in “oligarchy”. The lefties and faux conservatives are apoplectic!)
tim,
There’s hypocrites on both sides of the bench. The left is amused by it, the right is in denial. That’s what makes the right self-righteous.
BTW…I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if Rush ‘spoons’ Dick all weekend long. Their gay escapades are none of my business.
Again: Evidence, bleet/bloot/NSES?
Atlantic Jim (September 3, 4:23 pm): I can still view LGF (I just checked), but I haven’t had any reason to spend much time there lately. I noticed now that there seems to be a disconnect between items that show up as top links in the link viewer (anti Van Jones) and entries in the main part of the site (anti Glen Beck).
Sasquatch agree, either way it’s going to impact us as well as the rest of the world. I do feel that this can result in greater acts of human rights abuses, political instability, er lunacy, upheaval and civil war in smaller or more vulnerable countries, as more tyrannical countries feel more unencumbered to do as they damn well want to.
Somalia, Zimbabwe as examples, IMO.
set you free, yep.
Predictable, ever always.
jwkozak91,
I don’t think there would be evidence to my statements. Afterall I’m a moonbat troll that basis personal theories on feelings and vibrations rather than hard data.
Go ahead and guffaw all you want; I would bet money that my system is as accurate as yours.
Again: Mary Katharine Ham, Andrea Tantaros, S.E. Cupp.
Thanks for the clarification New.
I think where we disagree is you believe that people whether they are Muslim, Christian or anything else have the right to not be offended; and, these same people are often offended when someone simply disagrees with them. I don’t care if you’re Glenn Beck or Jack Layton, you shouldn’t need body guards simply because of your views. The laws are quite clear that you have the right to free speech so long as you’re not inciting violence. With respect to Muslim countries, I can only hope that they’ll aspire to the same goals. This is just my opinion, but I believe coercing people to be Muslim or Christian does not benefit people of those faiths as a whole. Think about sports, if a player doesn’t want to play in Edmonton, forcing them to do so hurts the team in the long run. It is wise to cut them loose and stick with those that want to be there. Chances are the person that leaves that team will regret it down the road.
It is my opinion that if we simply let people say what they mean, the people on the extreme left and right will be ignored by reasonable people who may disagree with each other. It is a much more dangerous world when we limit speech and push the extremists into the shadows where they are able to spew their nonsense without any repercussions.
Let me be clear though, just because someone disagrees with you or me, doesn’t make them an extremist!
“The left is amused by it, the right is in denial.”
Actually, you just think the right is in denial. We are highly amused by the fact that you think we are in denial. That’s right. The hypocrites you are talking about are mostly figments of your political imagination. You guys have a whole straw army, peopled, like the oompa lumpas in the latest Willy Wonka flick , over and over again by the same handful of examples. As I said, you can find any example you want among the 330 million or so people who live north of the Mexican border. Then the trick is to imagine everyone you meet is one of those whack jobs.
This is far easier to do when you insulate yourself from actual interaction with those with whom you disagree. Something the right does not do, but the left does. For instance I was at a party the other day and was talking to a liberal who used the term “redneck”. He had never considered the possibility that “redneck” is a racist term. I asked him to give me a workable definition of ‘racist’ that excluded terms like “redneck” and “white trash.” He had never even heard such a question before, much less considered it.
My point is that you should not believe everything you think about conservatives. Maybe you should go to edge.org and read that article. Despite what you think, conservatives are not stupid. Liberals only make up about 20% of the population. This is probably because the simplistic, coercive worldview of liberals is not that evolutionarily adaptive, leading to your lower numbers.
“BTW…I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if Rush ‘spoons’ Dick all weekend long. ”
Don’t talk to me, it is bleet that is obsessed with the subject.
“and Limbaugh’s viagra-fuelled all-male vacations in Dominican Republic…” – bleet
You got to wonder about a guy like bleet who thinks about other people’s sexuality all of the time, then projects.. err I mean speculates on their inadequacies.
Ah well then, IF woopi and baba walters said so well I’m convinced … and more so by your strong and unquestioning belief of the hollywood authority and newsprint media.
/
{unfrigin real….it’s like they have pablum for brains}
Beck MUST be good …….
I went through one of your links. The one regarding Beck’s claim that Obama’s technology advisor has proposed forced sterilizations. Well, in his book co-authored with noted nutcake Paul Erlich, he said this
I guess if you redefine “proposed” to mean something other than its dictionary definition.
You presented this as your best one. I don’t think you read the link. The case that Beck is a liar in this one comes down to “seems to interpret the book differently than I do.”
“screamed like an effete banshee at a woman on his radio show”
I saw a clip of that. The woman accused Beck of supporting the corporate bailouts, which he never has. She obviously never watched his show and was reading from a script.
Tim in vermont:
I merely thought it relevant that rightwingers like Larry Craig and Limbaugh lead necessarily secret private lives – while castigating others who engage in the very same behavior as they do.
Thought that might explain their paranoiac, hateful mindset – and just why such a mindset is so appealing to y’all.
“I merely thought”
When did that start bleet?
Again: Hyperlinks, bleet/bloot?
Again: Mary Katharine Ham, Andrea Tantaros, S.E. Cupp.
bleet burbled: “Howcum you guys like those guys like Beck and Limbaugh, overweight”,unattractive dudes with substance abuse problems…”
as opposed to the thin mulatto smoker with the big ears? (and I don’t mean his plan to monitor his subjects’ private conversations)
See, two can play at that liberal game of focusing on a person’s looks as though politics is another episode of American Idol.
Conservatives vote for good ideas and integrity and don’t care whether the person espousing them is black, white, polka dotted, male, female, gay, young or old etc.
bleet…”I merely thought”
C’mon,who’s the liar now,it’s fairly clear that thinking is not your forte.
bleet,
I listen to Rush’s show pretty regularly. I think he is leagues ahead of Beck, btw, whose show I don’t even like. I don’t believe I have ever heard him bash homosexuals. I have heard him bash feminists, many of whom are lesbian, but not homosexuals in particular. I have heard him make fun of Barney Frank, but you know that Barney Frank had a brothel running out of his apartment. It is kind of funny. I never heard of Larry Craig before, so I can’t really comment on him. As for Rush, I have never once heard him “castigate” homosexuals.
Uli,
Google Bush and Hitler. Does that prove Bush is Hitler? Weren’t we supposed to be living under his unelected regime right now?
Tim In Vermont
Just recently Limabaugh cracked, in response to Barney Frank’s riposte to the woman condemning Obama’s ‘Nazi-like’ policies (“What planet do you spend most of your time on?”): “We know what planet Barney Franks spends most of his time on – Uranus” (Your anus – ho! ho) This is in addition to Limbaugh’s playing of the parody about Barney Frank, “The Banking Queen”.
Of course, he and Larry Craig both supported a president who sought to enshrine homophobia into the Constitution. They – and Bush – knew the amendment wouldn’t get in, of course. It was merely brought forth before the 2004 election to make sure all the homophobes would vote for Bush – in the same way Hitler exploited anti-semitism for his rise to power.
As you might be aware such homophobia is one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism, as
Dr. Lawrence Britt found when he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. I had pointed it out as an indicator as to why you and others here are so deeply attracted to Limbaugh et al. Beyond your comfort level with denial and dishonesty, perhaps there’s something else here that calls out to you.
For your edification here’s the defining characteristics in full:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Sounds like communism under another name.
A couple of good natured pokes at Frank is “castigation” bleet?
Sure, whatever.
You want to talk about fascism, I suggest you compare this economic definition of fascism to Obama’s policies.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Obama has declared that GM will build a new car for the people, the Chevy Volk, err, I mean Volt.
If you want to find parallels with fascism, the Obama administration is the motherload.
Let’s see, great orator, wrote an autobiography in his thirties after obtaining the lofty rank of corporal, uh.. I mean state senator. You can find hagiographic images of him posted on walls throughout many major cities. Think of a certain image of Barry with the word “HOPE” at the bottom.
Uses his own personal symbol after attaining the presidency, rather than the traditional national symbols, as was done by every president before him.
“enshrine homophobia into the Constitution.” Really? How was that going to be done exactly?
The bloom is off the rose.
CBC is stuck with their boy.