Van Obama? Tells Us It Ain't So Mr. President

By now you’ve all heard of Van Jones, either from Glenn Beck or a conservative blog (or in Lawhawk’s excellent article of a week ago), but not on the networks. When I wrote this article yesterday, Van Jones was still Obama's green czar. At the end of the article, I said that it was likely Jones would resign quietly on Monday. I was wrong. He resigned this morning. . . hence, a re-write.

For those of you who don’t know Van Jones, he is a former criminal, a former community organizer, and a self-avowed Communist. He is also a racist or race hustler, a 9/11 Truther and either a fool or a liar. . . and Obama appointed him as a green Czar (should have been a red czar).

And that's the real story here, not who Jones is -- because the world is full of crackpots, but that Obama would appoint this man. As you read Jones' own words below, ask yourself, does Obama share any of these beliefs?:


On Polluters and Environmentalists of the Honkus Maximus Persuasion

Van Jones: “We're really entering a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities.”

Jones also describes the current regulatory system as “echo apartheid,” and states that “we gonna change the whole system” because just replacing bad energy with good (specifically solar energy) means we’ll have “biodiesel powered bombers” and “we’ll be going to war over lithium” for the batteries.

Summing up, Jones believes that white environmentalists are murderous racists who want to poison minorities and go to war over lithium batteries. Ed Begley Jr., you dirty thug!

Oh, and in case you’re thinking of supporting McCain friend and California something-or-other candidate Meg Whitman (R, e-Bay), she described Jones in May as doing “a marvelous job… I’m a huge fan of his. He is very bright, very articulate, very passionate. I think he is exactly right.”


On Race And School Shootings

Van Jones: “You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school.”

So white kids are killers? Then why have there only been seven such multiple-victim shooting sprees in the past ten years (most by college students)? And how does that compare to the number of black kids gunned down by other black kids every day? And if blacks don’t kill each other in large numbers explain gang wars in our major cities, not to mention Rwanda, Liberia, and Congo (among many others).

Finally, why does Jones seem to think its ok or not a big deal that black kids are killing each other?


On Republicans

Van Jones: “They’re assholes.”

He then continues: “Barack Obama is not an asshole. Now, I will say this, I can be an asshole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are gonna have to start getting a little bit uppity.”

Forgive me if I am a bit naive, but isn’t the use of the term “uppity” considered “racist”? I seem to recall that somewhere. Indeed, now that I mention it, the use of the word “uppity” by Republican Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia is being called racist by the left:

“I bring up the N-word because that is the debased level of rhetoric that the word ‘uppity’ belongs to, especially when a white Southerner is directing it at Blacks. This is overt racist thuggery. . .

Lynn Westmoreland’s slur was a conscious evocation of the racist sentiment that Blacks who refuse to be subservient to whites should be put in their place through violence—beatings, bombings, murder. Westmoreland’s slur is also a call to arms to extremists who would still carry out Klan-style violence. Westmoreland is not fit to govern. I hope his colleagues in Congress are fervently asking for his resignation.”

On Bush, Iraq and Race

Van Jones: “When somebody had taken the American flag and turned it into a war flag and used it to beat and whip and lynch anybody who didn't agree that we should be bombing people and torturing people . . .”

Note first the ridiculousness of the statement: the only person “lynched” during the Bush years was Bush, and no one was beaten or whipped because of their opposition to Iraq. Moreover, note that once again, Jones employs a word that is considered racist: lynch.


On Bush, Environmental Policy and Ebonics

Van Jones on Bush’s proposal to open more land for drilling: “I hope I don’t offend anybody, but the President of the United States sounded like a crackhead.”

He then pretended to take a hit from a crack pipe, and kept saying: “Jus’ a lill’ bit mo’.” Finally, he concluded, “[Bush is] like a crackhead trying to lick the pipe for a fix.”

Not only did the entire presentation take place in Ebonics, but he even used the word “Ebonics” to describe it himself. Try doing that Representative Westmoreland and see what the whinies say then!


On the San Francisco Police

Van Jones: “Willie Brown's Police Commission is killing black people.”

I guess the SF PD must be a bunch of white environmentalists.


Van Jones the Marxist Revolutionary:

Jones also claims to have become a Marxist revolutionary after spending some time in jail around the time of the Rodney King verdict:

“In jail I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And I was, like, ‘this is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. . . I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28 and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a Communist.”

Too bad he didn’t meet transsexual hookers. “On April 28, I had a pe. . .” (Oh, you get the picture.)

Having become a communist, Jones helped form a group called STORM, which put together a manifesto titled “Reclaiming Revolution: Standing Together to Form a Revolutionary Movement.” This manifesto states:

“We are a revolutionary cadre organization that understands that revolutionary Marxist politics would be central to the development of a successful liberation movement in this country. We are committed to Marxist-Leninist politics.”

and

“We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance from the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

He apparently named his child after Cabral (seen on the stamp to the right).

But his days of being an open revolutionary are over. He now claims that he will hide his roots to achieve his goals: “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radial ends.”


Van Jones the 9/11 Truther

In 2004, Jones signed a petition for the 9/11 Truther movement. That petition called on the New York Attorney General to investigate: “evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.” It also provided: “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

When this became public the other day, Jones tried to deny knowing what he signed. Said Jones, “the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

Shortly thereafter two other signatories came forward to claim that they too were misled into signing that petition. Said Howard Zinn, “I did not sign a statement suggesting that 'Bush had prior knowledge.' I signed a statement calling for an investigation.” But Zinn also endorsed Trutherism on the 911truth.org website in May 2004, three months before signing the petition he now disavows.

So is Jones telling the truth? According to Mike Berge, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list. I think in most cases, they spoke to them personally. No one’s name was put on that list without them knowing it.” That would include Jones.

Moreover, bloggers (not MSM) have turned up evidence that Jones was listed as a member of the “organizing committee” for a Truther march.


Republicans On Van Jones

In response to all of this, the No. 3 Republican in the House has started calling for Van Jones to resign:

“Given recent revelations concerning the associations and statements of the president's green jobs czar, Van Jones should resign his position and if he is unwilling to do so, the president should demand his resignation. His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this Administration or the public debate.”

He also criticized the Czar process (something that I and West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd have been saying for some time):

“The Constitution of the United States vests Congress with the responsibility to advise and consent in the appointment of high ranking officials by the president. To date, President Obama has appointed more than thirty individuals to ‘czar’ positions within his Administration without permitting the Congress or the American people to properly examine their backgrounds or public records.”

And how is Team Obama responding? Not with much.

If Obama didn't share these reprehensible views, shouldn't he have expressed shock or outrage -- or even feigned shock or outrage? Even now that Jones has joined the Assheap of History with the likes of Tom Daschle and other disgraced Obama appointees, shouldn't Obama comfort us that he doesn't think white environmentalists are trying to kill blacks, that white cops aren't trying to kill blacks, that white kids aren't killers, that he doesn't think it's ok for black kids to shoot each other, and that he doesn't believe all of his talk of alternative energies isn't just a pretext to go to war over lithium?

The resignation is fine. But I want more.