September 07, 2009


Count me in as relieved and thrilled that Van Jones was forced into resignation.  He was a big part of the reason I wrote that I was unsettled.  The fact that a man like that was anywhere near the White House is chilling.

Stanley Kurtz:

In light of all we now know, this gauzy January 12 profile of Jones in The New Yorker is well worth a read. What do you see? I see the too-rapid rise of an inexperienced and poorly vetted man (poorly vetted by the entire liberal establishment, not just the White House) adept at getting and wasting vast sums of money for virtually non-existent plans, all based on seductive political rhetoric rather than substance.

Jonah Goldberg:

I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.

Andy McCarthy:

The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn't one of those things that just happen. This is Barack "Transparency" Obama gaming the system. 

And similarly, from VDH:

When Van Jones talks of the aims of the civil rights movement and its initial minimalist agenda, he references the ultimate desire of 'redistributing all wealth.' When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed "spread the wealth" comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,” we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others.

I am glad that man is gone.  But the fact he was ever there in the first place still alarms me.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:32 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 4 kb.


I agree - it's great that one radical Communist revolutionary is gone, but at the same time, I don't believe FOR A MINUTE that he *wasn't* "vetted" (such as the process is... ethics waivers and all...).  I mean, seriously, that'd be a rather incompetent bunch of security around POTUS.

What I'm afraid of is that POTUS is now trying to cover his tracks by dropping ballast. I hope he doesn't manage to do that.

Posted by: Krista at September 07, 2009 09:30 AM (sUTgZ)

2 What is extremely disturbing is the failure of many if not most news organizations to report *anything* about the Van Jones controversy *until he resigned*. Which makes it clear that they are putting their obligations to their viewers/readers...and also (in the case of public corporations and subsidiaries thereof) to their shareholders BEHIND the promotion of the personal political opinions of their employees/executives.

Posted by: david foster at September 07, 2009 05:01 PM (uWlpq)

3 What should also be troubling is that this is only one of many. You can bet there are more people in this administration with exactly the same views, just not ones that are as easily demonstrably radical.

Posted by: John at September 07, 2009 10:16 PM (crTpS)

4 I don't trust this administration one iota. I don't think there is ANYTHING they can do to change that position...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 07, 2009 10:40 PM (paOhf)

5 they are putting their obligations to their viewers/readers...and also (in the case of public corporations and subsidiaries thereof) to their shareholders BEHIND the promotion of the personal political opinions of their employees/executives.

david, you assume that "obligations" and "personal political opinions" are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is in the public's best interest to shield them from the truth about herOes like Van Jones (Barack bless him) until they are ready. It is still too early to expect the victims of the Bush regime to accept someone who knows the truth about 9/11.

Andy McCarthy (ugh, that name - 50s flashbacks!) and Krista are right. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo. Only Europpressors are blind. Great Leaders can recognize herOism when they see it. Van Jones was vetted. He passed with flying red colors.

John is also right. The forces of eeeevil may have struck down one herO of the peOple, but other nObles are still on their thrones to serve the greater gOOd.

We Great Leaders must be careful. You guys are starting to look under the red curtain. Why can't you close your eyes and dream of unicOrns?

Posted by: kevin at September 08, 2009 12:31 AM (h9KHg)

6 Kevin, that last paragraph is just... PRICELESS. ;-)

Posted by: Krista at September 08, 2009 10:23 AM (sUTgZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0331, elapsed 0.1401 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1185 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.